TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu
TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu
TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
'tics', and mannerisms, introduced many unusal forms into the text. 205 The<br />
outcome is as unpredictable as the development of the spelling/pronunciation<br />
of an English word.<br />
Note, howewer, that there are a few "innocent" cases, in which (Ṛgvedic)<br />
reminiscences have not played a role: uv eva TS, TB, BŚS, ŚBK or nu vāva<br />
ŚBK (nvāva JB), but: nvai TS (!), BŚS, VādhB, KB, and ŚBK(!). 206 It is<br />
interesting to note that the Taittirīyas did not introduce this phenomenon<br />
(Cuv) into a text that they borrowed from the neighbouring Kaṭha school; the<br />
so-called aṣṭau kāṭhakāni (TB 3.10-12, TĀ 1-2) do not have Taitt. súvar but<br />
the Kaṭha form svàr. The occurrence of -u- in súvar, suvargáu, and tanuvám<br />
therefore serves as a shibboleth for typical Taittirīya texts.<br />
******<br />
The cases mentioned so far must be distinguished from the independent<br />
development, as shown by Kuiper, of the Post-Ṛgvedic forms tvám and tvm<br />
< *tuHám and *tuáHam. In Middle Vedic, the RV form [tuvám, tvm]<br />
became tvám and tvm, apparently an innovation of the Kuru(-Pañcāla)<br />
Brahmins as the forms are found in KS, MS, and TS. Note that TS does not<br />
retain the older [tuvám] here! The Prākṛts do retain the older forms,<br />
however; F.B.J Kuiper has shown that both Old Pāli and Old Śaurasenī have<br />
tuvaṃ (> tumaṃ); 207 similarly, old Pāli has retained kuvam (next to kvaḥ,<br />
kva-ci); the other old Pkt., Paiśācī, also has [kub/‚a-], written kupa-, in kupaci<br />
(Kuiper, IIJ 30, 5).<br />
This is one of the clear cases of opposition between the dialectal development<br />
of Middle Vedic and Prākṛt, cf. below § 9 for otherwise far-reaching<br />
similarities. It must be noted, of course, that the "occupational" caste<br />
language of the Brahmins could not be influenced in all its forms by the local<br />
Pkt.s. Their influence is sporadic and unpredictable; some of the major traits<br />
of the underlying local Pkt.s are taken over, but other areas of the grammar<br />
resist the "popular" forms out of necessity; there is always a need to<br />
205 See Oldenberg, Prolegomena.<br />
206 uv eva TS 2.3.7.4, uv eva TB 1.2.25; uv eva in BŚS, see Caland, Über...BŚS, p.51; u(v) eva<br />
in ŚBK, Cal. p.35 sq.; but JB §186 sa u eva; nu vāva ŚBK : nvāva JB 2.11, see L.Chandra,<br />
ed. JB II, p.23 ann.8; cf. nu vāva ŚBK : nv eva ŚBM, see Caland ŚBK, p. 82, § 39(n);<br />
further: nvāvai ŚBK 1.4.2.5, 1.43.2 : nv eva ŚBM. -- On the other hand: nvai<br />
TS,VādhB,BŚS (Caland, Über BŚS, p.50), ŚBK, KB, KS 23.6; nvai AB 1-5 :: vai 6-8; u nvai<br />
ŚBK 1.4.3.2, 4.9.3.15, 7.5.3.3, explained by Caland ed. p.80 (wrongly printed as anvai!);<br />
further, ha tvai TS 7.2.10.2, tvāvā TS, etc. Again, even in Taitt. texts, the anaptyxis did not<br />
work in all such inconspicious cases; apparently, these forms, are mannerisms,too.<br />
207 See O.v. Hinüber, Überblick, §371, §208.<br />
73