TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu

However, even against this background, the post-Mantra evidence is
confusing. After all, cases of Cuv viz. Ciy were changed, according to the
later pronunciation, quite generally to Cv viz. Cy. It is here that we must take
into account the redaction of all Vedic texts which laid a deceptive phonetical
veil over the texts, making them appear more uniform than they were. The
introduction of many of the "classical " Sandhi forms, like the abhinihita of -
e/o a- > classical -e/o '- (see below) is another of the several witnesses to this.
The redaction of all Vedic texts took place at a time when this development
and other changes, like the loss of intervocalic -i-, had already taken place (
cf.* craiHistHa - > * śraiiṣṭha > śreṣṭha, and the Ṛgvedic títaü).
Against this background, the retention of súvar, suvargá-, etc. in the
Taittirīya school is surprising. The words are actually written like this, with
inserted -u-, in the manuscripts (which are based on medieval recitation by
Vaidik Brahmins), and the retention of -u- is indeed prominent in the
recitation of the Taitt. texts even today. The writing Cuv -, however, is not
attested to anywhere but in Taitt. texts. 203
Usually this has been regarded as the survival of the older pronunciation.
However, the occurrence of -uv- is limited even in Taitt. texts to a few, mostly
semantically loaded, examples: e.g., suvar-, suvarga-, but also tanuvam <
*tanuHám, and even uv eva < u eva. It is not found, however, in other
traditionally protected, in everyday words like tvám < *tuHám, svastí, and
even in the part of a traditional list, tvác-. The retention of súvar-, suvargá-,
tanúvam, etc., is therefore a typical teacher's mannerism, a phenomenon
particular to the Taittirīya school. 204 Probably they wanted to stress the
'ancient' character of their school in using this pronunciation in exposed
words like súvar. (Note the formula bhūr bhuvaḥ svar.) Note also that
Pāṇini, 4.3.102, knows only of the Taittirīya mantras (*Tittiriṇā proktam) but
apparently does not yet know or does not want to recognise the prose texts of
this school. From scanning Vedic verses, the Taitt. reciters knew, of course,
that some words like svàr, tanvám were to be spoken as [súvar, tanúvam].
The exact reasons for the introduction of these words and the exclusion of
others, like kvà [kúva], from the canon of the Taitt. is unclear. The history of
the RV text, with its long process of orthoepic diaskeuasis, however, teaches
that the decision of one or more particular teachers, with all of their whims,
203 With the exception of a few times in the JB/JUB: JUB suvar 3.14.3-4 (next to svar!);
suvarga 3.14.4. without v.l.; cf. also tanuve 4.32 in a verse; this belongs to the Gāyatrasya
Up. of Śāṭy., i.e to the sister school of the Jaim. (JUB indeed has two Vaṃśas)
204 Kuiper therefore justly regards it as a "school mannerism.... A historical justification
for this distinction cannot be found," IIJ 30, 2; cf. also Ved. Var. II § 773.
72