9 Sociolinguistic Parameters of Panini’s Sanskrit! Madhev M. Desipande 1. Introduction ‘The nature of the language described by Panini has long been debated by Scholars. Looking at these debates allows us to clarify our own conceptions, and advance our understanding of the istes in some new irections. Consider the following characterizations of Panini's grammar and the language described by his grammar, (Cardona (1988: 648) OF course, Panini was from the northwest of the subcontinent, not from the north-central area. Neverthelest, its reasonable to Consider that he too described a language current within a certain social stratum, the language ofan élite.” Cardona (1988: 645.6) “This grammar accounts for usage which is accepted as the speech of model speakers. There can be no doubt whatever that, Panini had native control of this language. Nor can. one reasonably doubt that Katytyana and Pata also had a native ‘command ofthe language described,” Cardona's characterization of Panini’s language seems on the whole reasonable. However, what does the word “native” mean, and how docsne Macho M, Dahpande “nativeness” coexist with a language being the “language of an élite"? Several recent works carry their enthusiams for the “nativeness” of Panin's Sanskrit in a direction away from “the language of the élite", Such is the ‘ease with the works of Laddu (1974), Sarangi (1985), and Bhandare (1986). Laddu begins his work on the Evolution of the Sanskrit Language ‘rom Papin to Paafjali wth a “presupposition” that “Sanskrit was a means ‘of communication inthe ordinary usage during the period” (Laddu 1974 2), Sarangi (1985; 8) echoes the same opinion: “That Sanskrit was the means of social and houschold communication in those times is now a widely accepted face based on clear and unambiguous evidence of statements scatered throughout the works of P, Kiy Pi.” Bhandare (1986: 4) says: “Thus the expression bhasé used by Panini unmistakably refers 10 the spoken language of his times. Even if 18 taken for granted, for he sake of argument, that this language was the speech of the educated, there is no conclusive evidence to prove thatthe language of the commoner was altogether diferent from this bias.” Bhandare approvingly refers to VIN. ‘Misra (1966: 19): “Phere is no conclusive evidence regarding the speech of the common people being different from Sanskrit of Panini, in Panini’s own geographical area (ie. the North Western India) priar to the date of [AGoka’s inscriptions". The other extreme of the spectrum of opinion is represented by the opinions of Whitney, Benfey ete. who considered Panini’s grammar to be a grammar without a language, that there was a “grammarians’ Sanskre™. As Cardona 1976: 259) points out, this extreme view is not tenable Recently, .D. Joshi (1989:258) has discussed Panini’ Sanskrit in relation to Patanjal's Sanskrit, He says (p. 268): “In Pata days Sanskrit had become a Sigabhasd “language spoken by the Sista? and twas not in common use any more. "Thus in Patadjal’s days Sanskrit was ‘second language preserved and acquired through a iteraty tradition. The vernaculars became the mother tongue and gradually became less and less like Sanskrit (p. 272)". Now, referring to Sanskit in Papini's days, Joshi (p. £273) says "in Paninis days Sanskrit was probably spoken as the language of religion and scholarship, Prakrit vernaculars being preferred in private inuimate talk 2s well as in market." This would suggest thatthe situation af Sanskrit was the same during the time of Panini and Patafjal, Joshi (p. 267) clearly disigrees with Laddu's view that Sanskrit was the means of ‘communication in ordinary usage during Katyyana’s and Pataijl's times In general, joshi (1989) discusses in detail the situation of Sanskrit as seen in Katyayana and Patani, bt extends that discussion to the situation as seen in Panini, without 2 discussion of evidence from Pani Saciingwis 2. Lingui In thie have bee neces done by ‘works si: tisge as consider between Aeseript like Mar theoretic Manu's 1 social gs facis anc “proper" desript people proper. actually about“) Coming points 0: biyama” tas whieh to be actually are base Manw's behaved actually proper, people. 3. Pagie For € vpakaray, the nort vwakara, to go tc there weMadhav M Deipande language of an élite" nativeness" of Panini’s WF the élite”. Such is the (1985), and Bhandare W the Sanskrit Language at "Sanskrit was a means ve period” (Laddu 1974: “That Sanskrit was the in those times is now a imbiguous evidence of ty Pij" Bhandare (1986: ¥ unmistakably refers to sen for granted, for the of the educated, there ‘2 of the commoner was 'provingly refers wo V.N, ‘regarding the speech of of Panini, in Panini's fia) prior to the date of spectrum of opinion is yee. who considered age, that there was & voints out, this extreme Y has discussed Pann's (p. 268): “In Pacajal’s ‘oken by the sigas" and Ajall’s days Sanskrit was a literary tradion, The ly became less and less Panini’ days, Joshi (p, vken asthe language of & preferred in private sstthat the situation of ind Patafjali. Joshi p, rit was the means of sand Patanjali's times, jon of Sanstrit as seen jon to the situation as Panini, Senge Param of Pin Sam ns 2, Linguistic Fats vermste Opinion In this whole discussion, terms such as “native, and ordinary usage” have been unreal sed without necesary qualfiatons Ts abso necessary to make adineion between a factual record of language we a done by a moder linguist, doing his field work, and the geammaticl works sich a at of Papin These works are not recordings of tings tisge as such, bot represent an élite aluaon of which usage. was Considered to be proper. I think itis ume to make.a tear disincion beaveen the usage of Sanslrt in Paninis or Patatal’s time, and thei description of Sansiit. Historians and anthropologis dealing with texts like Manusmrd, for example, have righty made the diincion beween theoretical descriptions in these works andthe acnal fas of history. Man's tex gives us 3 piceire of how the élite Bethmanas expected the social sistem to function Manu's description isa necesary combination ef faces and opinions. Cenain Kinds of socal ways were consdered to be "proper" or condscive to Dharma, while others were not Thusy Mans desertion of social values isnot a descripdon ofthe whole range of how people actually behaved, bit of those ways which were eonsired to be Broper. Thus ooking at Mang, i dict to figare out how people Actually bohaved in hs inex Thus, we know more about Manatees about “proper behavour® , than about how people actly behaved {Coming to Panini, we need vo del with the same sue. As Pata igh) poins out, grammar does noe erate nguisi uses, bat makes «dharma hijama “reset on the (religious) mer of usages” The grammar tele "us which ofthe ll possible usages found among the people are considered to be meritorious proper, and élite. tlle us lite about how people cull speak This not sy that Pains grammar or Manus Law book are based on totaly favicated languages ot social codes. However, jus Man's Lawebook isnot valeftee desertion of how people sewally bchaved, Panin's grammar is not a vauettee descripson how people actully spoke. Pann's grammar tells ws about which usages he considered rope, ad litle about what ele was going on inthe aetual wage ofthe people. 5. Paipini describes a subset of actual usage For example, Panini derives a word like Vaiyakarana from the word ‘yakarana through irregular insertion of a before y° If oné were to follow ‘he normal Vrddhi forthe first vowel in secondary derivation, we would get vyakarana asa secondary derivative from wakarana, Thus, Panini is forced {o go to a prescription of an irregular insertion of ai. Now we know that there were dialects of Sanskrit where the sand of vieaskarana resulted inry ‘Mdhav M. Dkpende siyakarana rather than in wakarana. Such were the dialects ascribed Vyadi and Galava, If the word viydkarana is our starting point for SSeondary derivation, the # would normally change to its Vrddhi in ai and Ne would get viydkarana asa normal formation, However, Panini did not Sccopr sf form wyatarana, but accepted the secondary derivative vaijdkarana a proper Sanskrit, and hus the irregular derivation. This Shows that Panini, was not describing the total usage of spoken Sansttit, ‘but only what he thought was proper Sanskrit. Different grammarians did phot agree upon what was proper Sanskrit. LF we did not have other sources for Sanskrit besides Panini, we would not know that a form such as viydikarapa was part of Sanskrit usage, though it was not acceptable to Panini, Panini does not give us the forms which were not acceptable 10 him, One can tegiimately sy that Panini’ descipon of the sage of contemporary Sse based on his oervason ofthat usage, However, sein oBeauetree description of al Sanskrit usage, From his descripon, enol! hac he would approve as proper unge. He provides ws only & TSA picture of me ara ue, bu a much clearer pctare ofthe ete pinion about tat usage 4. teal Language vert Doman of Use ite at oe eo end are ee So oe fr an a ang aan on goals of en oder rma Oca pans tae ‘No model speaker ever spoke this eternal timeless total language, To get to a description of the norms of usage of a particular domain, we need to Combine the common rules with the domainspecific rules. Thus, all Common rules combined with rules relating specificaly to the Vedic ‘Gomain provide us with Panini’ description of the Vedic usage. The same ‘ray, che common rales combined with rules specific for the domain of the “current spoken language (bhasl) provide us Papini's description of the total eurrenc spoken usige which he considered to be proper use. Seiinguitie Vedic + sube Sch a Sch ialates pone Sg Pome f Pit Sat = lakes ascribed to “THELD OF USAGE” ing pot fr 3 fer'Panin dia nox | Yedie Usage Cotloquit Fann id not | ndomas ve fr derraion, This ‘tsuhdomains Stspoten Sensi, “grammars di beer wares panchronic common nce aceepable 10 — et accepable to of all known 1 of the usage of Sansbrit usage. However, dm his description, usige provides us only lere of the élite Scholastic Regional dialects dialects ‘+ subdomains + subdomains ‘The language he 4 “current spoken” Colloguial ‘2. His unqualified sige deen terms, o the + subdomains ansisit al language, To get lamin, we need to Tova ic rules. Thus, all ly to the Vedic Vedic fe usage. The same ‘the domain of the usge description of the ‘oper usage. in Panini Scholastic Regional dialects dialects + subdomains “subdomainsne Madhav Deshpande Vedic Usage ++ subdomains 7 — dente » vi aoe ee + subdomains Leesasieare! 5, Patajli's Sunslerit: First or Second Language? Considering the situation of Sanshrt usage as described by Paranal, it seems unlikely that Sanskrit was a first language in his time.” The sory of Yarvanastarvana proves the point. Pacajali tells us* that dhese great sages spoke the proper Sanskrit words yad va.nah and tad va nab during ritual, Dut spoke yarvana and varvana on other occasions. Patajali says that this was proper behavior, because the correct Sanskrit usage was required only ‘during the performance of ritual, while it was nat required elsewhere (Gajae Larmani sa niyamab, anyaura aniyamab). Patanjali’s great sages obviously chose to speak Prakrits on non-itual occadons, and hence acquired the tag yarvanastarvana, Patanjali says that the demons used incorrect usage (« Prakri) even during ritual, Thus the picture presented in Patanjal would suggest chat the lite speakers of Sanskrit were generally Brahmana males who used this language during ritual (and related teaching), but switched to Prakrits in other contexts. Women and non- [Brahmanas generally spoke Prakrit (or Dravidian?) languages One could pethaps argue that Patanjali depicts a Sita “bard, chariot driver" speaking Sansbrit to 2 grammarian, and that this may indicate that Siting non Brahn a somevts X11) say called acer ‘Theravade Kaiya such 2 chi acceptane Titerauare Saas is © against th assumptio all non Br 6, Panini What ¢ ssritly co prove tha village na the sense ‘whieh is Panini we he spoke roper n reparai found in Panini’s colloquia dealing 1. Sansko Is Pa would i entire different the Bra of the ruMadhav M, Deipande Regional dialees ++ subdomains ved by Pataajal, it me? The story of these great sages ‘nah during ritual, ‘jal says that cis was required only ‘quired elsewhere Yal's great sages Sions, and hence hhe demons used picture presented sritwere generally ual (and related ‘Nomen and non ges ta "bard, ch ‘may indicate that Seige Prema o Pins Snshit 7 ‘pon-Brahmanas may also be included among speakers of Sanskrit? ‘This is ‘a somewhat debatable inference because of the ambiguous status of the ‘community of Sats. Were they a Brahmanical community? At least Man (%.11) says: "From a Ksatriya bythe daughter ofa Brthmana is born a som called according to his caste a Sata." The Buddhist canonifal tex of the ‘Theravada school present an argument that Kyatriyas do not accept such & Ksauriyetrahmapa hybrid child as 2 Ksatrya, but that Brahmanas do accept such a child to be a Brahmana.® While there is no confirmation of such acceptance in the Brahmanical Dharmagisras, the fact that the epic liverature such as the Mahabharata was largely created and transmitted by Satas is openly admitted in the Brahmanical tradition, and is not held ‘against the sanctity of his literature. This would allow us to make an assumption that the Sutas were closely allied with the Brahmanicat ‘community. Thus their ability to speak Sanskrit need not be generalized to all nondirahmanas 6. Paints Sansist: Fast oF Second Language? What do we find in Panini? ts Panini describing a language which is ssricly confined to ritual and high learning? There is sufficient evidence to prove that this is not the case. His numerous references to formation of Village names, wibenames, names of wells, and numerous formations in the sense of "blame", “accusation”, et. show that he is referring to a usage which is not resticted to ritual performance." Kiparsky (1979.7) say = Panini was describing not some fixed corpus of texts but all of Sansket as he spoke it. large amount of vocabulary from various domains, especially proper names and words from practical life (commerce, agriculture, Food preparation, plans and animals, warfare, weights and measures) cannot be found in the older literature simply because it does mot deal much with ‘concrete technical topics. Yet this lexical material is throughly covered in Papini's wordormation rules” It is clear that Panini is dealing with a colloquial spoken form of Sanskrit, But whose usage of Sanskrit is Panini sealing with? 7. Sansivit A Second Language for Brahmapa Males 1s Panini eruly describing a house-hold language, a language used in common dealings by the whole spectrum of society, including children, women, Ksatriyas, Vaiyas, and Sadras? V.N, Misra, Bhandare and others ‘would like us to believe that the language described by Panini covers this entire spectrum of usage. Panini's rules, however, depict a somewhat diferent picture. The target audience for Panini’ grammar is quite cleirly the Brafimana males, and no one else, Ths is cleat from the very wording of the rules. Consider the following rule:ne Madhes M Deshpande 8.2.88 (prayabhivade ‘sodre): "In responding toa salutation of a non Sadra person, the final sable of the usterance becomes extra-long and. highpitehed” ‘careful analysis ofthis rue shows us that che rule is writen fora male lrahmana speaker or wer of Sanur eis intended to describe how Brahmana speaker uses 2 certain mode of language if he is speaking co 4 non Sada. I tll us nothing about how the Sadras addresed each oer ‘or the upper-case people Panini clearly was interested not in desing how the Sudras spoke 10 anybody, but in describing how a Brahmans speaker spoke to Sadras and nom Sudras Kayeyana’s Varukas on this rule show a sight diferent and perhaps « deteriorating, social interaction, but point clearly 10 who the audience for Papinis rule was intended tobe ‘Kayayana adds women and calumnious persons (asiyaka) tothe exclusion ofthe Sadras This would soggest shar the rule i intended for a speaker who is neither 2 Sadra, a woman, nor a calumaious person. Katyyana Torther says thac th rule of prolaion and highitch vowel 4p ‘optionally when one is addresing Ksavias and Vaiss This would also suggest that the target speaker asumed by the Tule did. not ince Keatriyas and Vaifyas. The rule sys nothing about how the Kastzyas, Vaisas, Sidr, women, and calumnious persons speak, but how one should speak to them. Thus, itis clear thatthe rule is intended for the Brahmana male speaker. The best interpretation ofthe rule ken along with Rayayana’s Varetikasis that Brahmapa male uses prolaion et. when Tesponding to the sluation of another Brahman male, Responding to Keatriyas and Vaisjas, he may or may not use this respect form. Fnaly, hhe doesnot use this respecil frm for women, Sodas, and caumnious persons. The situation in Panini, a compared with that in Katya, was “rguably beter, in that the respcifl form was prescribed in responding to non Sadras without disineton. However, is sila description ofthe male Brahmana wage 8, Papini and the Dharmasistras: 2 Common Pattern If the above analysis is correct, then it would seem that there isa great deal of common approach shared by the texts on Dharmatistra and the grammar of Panini. The Dharmatastras decare that the customs of the various regions, castes, families etc. are to0 diverse, and that they will, mainly describe what is commonly shared." The Dharmatisra texts, thus {eseribe an abstracted common factor, and then they describe the regional peculiarities as deviations from this absvatcted common facior, Similarly, the notion of Dharma is eternal, without history, and yet the peculiarities of the domain of de Kali age are described as exclusions specifically Secon Par applicable in ¢ audience of i Brahmana mal ‘with others, eh focus of their ¢ find the stem like a Meecha, if they ace like reason is that ¢ fibers, but ms spent on dese their social ai follows the san thas the same ¢ Beahmana ma srammarian, 0 male Brahman of the élite usa convey this res 98, Who spoke ‘What ate th by Panini? Th Sanskrit tno} ‘upon who th peculiarities. 1 out various accusing othe Titerary and re ‘agree with Jos was probably tvidence in Pe less than what Was Sanske evidence in P: that the Sansb ‘women did n cannot argue However, Whi Prakeit in no: Sansiit whileMadhav M.Dakponde salutation of a non- comes extradong and = is wriuen for a male id to describe how a if he is speaking to a addressed each other ted not in describing ag how a Brahman Varcuikas on this rule {socal interaction, vas intended to be, ala) to the exclusion tended for a speaker 2s person, Katyayana ‘pitch vowel applies jas This would also ale did not include hhow the Keatriya, ‘peak, but how one is intended for the he rule, taken along sprolation ete, when zale, Responding to Deel form. Finally, ras, and calumnious rat in Karyayana, was Ded in responding 0 scription of the male that there is a great varmasisira and the the customs of the and that they will maSastra texts, hs lescribe the regional on factor, Similary, yet the peculiarities lusions specifically Steinguic Parmar of Pon's Seat 9 applicable in the Kali age. This method is shared by Panini, Again, the audience of the Dharmaasra liverature is also primarily resticied. to Brahmana males. There are more rules about how Bréhmanas should deal ‘with others, than about how those others dea! with each other. Thus, the focus of their concern isthe behaviour of the Brahmana males. Thus, we find the statement: na brahmano mlecchet “a Brahmana should not act. like a Mleccha.” How about a Kgatrya, ora Vaisya, or a Sadra? Is it proper if they act like a Mleccha? The texts are silent on this point. The simple reason is thatthe texts were not primarily concerned with the behaviour of ‘others, but mainly with that of the Brahmanas. The amount of energy spent on describing the rules for other groupe respectively goes dovn a3 their social distance from the Brahmanas increases. Panini’s grammar follows the same general patern, and hence Panini’ linguistic description hhas the same orientation. Ics a description of the élite language used by Brahmana males. Papini’s grammar is a description by a Brahman srammarian, of the male brahmana second language, forthe benefit of the ‘male Brahmane learners. One could say that the Astddbyayrisa description ‘of the élite usage, but the word ‘tein English alone does not suiciencly convey this restricted domain, 9. Who spoke Sanskrit to whom? What are the features ofthis male Brahmapa usage of Sanskrit described by Panini? The rules would have us believe that the Brahmanas spoke Sansirit to non-rahmanas, including the Sadras and women, Depending ‘upon who they were speaking to, the usige had certain linguistic pecullarides. The Brahmanas used Sanskrit in non-ritual contexts, ualking about various villages etc, and in contexts which involved blaming. and accusing others. Numerous rules refer to sarcasm, While the Sanskrit literary and religious txts have a good deal of sarcasm etc, one cannot agree with Joshi’sresrcive view (1989: 278) that “in Panini’s days Sanskrit ‘was probably spoken as the language of religion and scholarship." The ‘evidence in Panini shows that twas much more than that. But it was much Tess than what the other side claims Was Sansivit as described by Panini a first language? There is no evidence in Papini, and certainly not in Kaeyayana and Patahjali, o show that the Sanskrit described by these grammarians was a first language, It ‘women did not speak Sanskrit, and there is no evidence they did, we cannot argue that Brahmana children learned Sanskrit as a first language. However, While Patanjali's Yarvanastravina sages would rather switch to Praksit in non-iual contexts, Panini expected Brahmana males to use Sanskrit while speaking co non-Brahmapas and women, Thus, as compared.120 Madhav Datpande to Patafijali, Sanskrit was probably used more extensively bythe Brahmans nates in Papini’s day. Thus, Panini's Sanskrit comes across as 2 second Tanguage, which was more widely used dhan inthe days of Pataja 10, Sanskit-Prakeit Bilingual /bidialectal conversation? oes i seem absurd that Papini's Brahmana males would speak Sanskrit to others including women? There is no evidence to show that they spoke ‘Only Sanskrit speaking to these other folks. The best interpretation of Parini’s rules would seem to be a conditional interpretation: “if @ Brahmans uses Sanskrit to speak (o so-and-so, then ..." Even in the high Sanskrit of Panini, there is evidence that a whole loc of seemingly Prakrit tisages were simply accepted as Sanskrit A good example of such Gecepuance is the range of shortforms for a compassionword Ii lipendradattaka “that poor Upendradatta™. The accepted. shortforms include upiva, upika, upad ete.” Assuming upika to be a high Sanskrit form, one can easily derive upiya Unrough normal rules of Prakrit. Thus, Panini’s Sanskrit is not totally distodated from Prakrit. It incorporates some of it! Secondly, in the northwestern Praksits, more Sanskritc Consonants and consonant clisters are preserved, as compared to Prakrts Coewhere, Thus, the dglossc gap bewseen Prakrit and Sanskrit is smaller fh the northwes, making mutual comprehension between speakers of Sanskrit and Praksi easier." 11, Papin’ Sanskrit: High but not supranormal “Thus, we can narrow down the confusion regarding Panini's Sanskrit considerably. Panini, 10 the extent he refers to bhasa with its regional peculiarities, is describing a current spoken form of Sanskrit which the Brshmapa males acquired as a second language, but used very widely in ‘tual as well as nonttual contexts. They also used this form of Sanskrit, besides Prakrts to speak to non Brahmanas and women, However, the grammar says nothing about the linguisic usige of these other classes Gere is no evidence in Panini that these other social groups spoke ‘Sanalait This eurrent spoken form of Sanskrit described by Panini was sill 2 uly spoken form with living accent features” However, the fact that these aceents of spoken Sanskrit died very soon afterwards probably implies tat ehis spoken form of Sansbrit in Papini’s days was in dhe very last phase bof being 2 genuinely spoken language. It also seems that Sanskrit had not fsyet emerged asa language of super normal status, but it was simply at the hhigh end ofa normal range of inguistic usage, This is indicated by Pant tse of the humble unassuming word bhst “speech” for it. In centuries to ome, this was no longer the case. Sanskrit was later elevated to 2 super ‘normal 830s Seige 12, Chrone To place say thata F of the Rew fas far ba relationshi ‘hot go ine the questic the Vedie vermaculae the postec Timited to prose of ot mono! ‘The evides the rest rahmana, ritual pert the ritual, aafjal, Panini wo sociolingy nota frst 13, Pani M, Wite sequel, Ty that this * (Punjab) various fe spoken in testimony linked to local Nort of the M. Koing? W constandMadhav M Deshpande say bythe Renan Soke we cecal sot aatat 2 ‘would speak Sanskrit show that they spoke vest imerpretaion of interpretation: “IF a su” Even i the high ‘of seemingly Prakrit @ example of such fompasslon-word_ lke accepted. shorcforms be 2 high Sanskritic ules of Prats. Thus, akrit. It incorporates writs, more Sansiitic compared to Prakits fad Sanskrit is smaller Derween speakers of ling Panini’s Sanskrit sd with is regional Df Sanskrit whieh the 1 used very widely in {his form of Sanskrit, somen. However, the F these other classes. social groups spoke bed by Panini was til Towever, the fact that ‘ards probably implies in the very last phase that Sanskrit had not dutit was simply a the sindicated by Panini’ for it in centuries 0 + elevated to a super: “Seti Paramcte fPain Sant 121 12, Chronological Considerations To place this discussion in a broad chronological perspective, one can say that a form of Sanskrit mos likely was close to being the firs language of the Rgvedic Aryan wibes. However, the presence of Prakrtisms in Vedic as far back as the Reveda complicates our understanding of the relationship between these ancient Prakrits and Vedic Sanskric We shall ‘not go into these complex issues in this paper." We will simply note that the question if and when any form of Sanskrit was a first language ofits users is an as yet unresolved question. With the increasing convergence of the Vedic Aryans with the indigenous peoples, Indo-Aryan and non-Aryan Yyernaculars gradually began to take over the role of the firs language for the post-convergence populations, while Sanskrit became more and more limited to the priest clas. The early phase of this process is seen in the prose of the Brahmanas and Panin'’s grammar. Here, the Brahmanas are ot monolingual speakers of Sansiit, but they do use Sanskrit extensively ‘The evidence suggests that there were social pressures on the Brahmanas {to maintain a capacity to use Sanskrit. However, there is litle evidence that the rest of the society used Sanskrit By the time of Patafjali, the Jirahmapas seem to have given up on the Use of Sanskrit outside of the ritual performances, and they fel it was proper to use Prakrits outside of the ritual. Thus, while Sanskrit was a seconctlanguage for both Panini and Patanjal, the extent of the use of Sanskrit diminished from the time of Panini to that of Patafja. Thus, there is indeed a change in the sociolinguistic parameters for Sanskrit from Panini to Patafjali but one ‘must note that throughout this period, Sanskrit was a second language, and not a first language ofits uses, 13, Papinian Bhass: A Koiné? M, Witzel (1989: 109) proposes an important new idea. He says “In the Sequel, I wil try to show that there was something like a Vedie Koiné, but {hat this “educated Sanskrit’ of the Brahmin community which they used, as it is atested for Uddalaka Aruni, in their disputations, from Madea (Punjab) to Videha (Bihar), existed in many local varieties based on the various forms of Old Indo-Anan and of the underlying Prakrit dialects spoken in the particular area, Unfortunately, we have access to only one testimony that does not form part of the Vedic cannon and yet is closely linked to it, namely Panini's grammar which records many instances of his local North-Western educated speech, the bhast, the probable predecessor Of the Middle Indian Gandhari” Gan one look at Panini's bhast a a Koiné? Witz (1989: 251) argues that the late Vedic brihmanas were constantly discussing among each other the details of rival. practices,ise Madhav Dept ‘These discussions were carried on by the Brahmanas belonging tothe same branch of Vedic learning as well as across different Vedic branches. “The constantly ongoing discussion of the ritual was supported by the habitual travelling ofthe Brahmins to the various parts of N. India in order o seek employment or to strive for victory in ritual discussion (brahmodya)." Wivel states: “we therefore witness, as the outcome of this consant traveling, a Koiné wpe of spread of dialect features, often Hmited to one Looking at Panin’s description of Sanskrit, one can make the following observations. Panini’s hast “colloquial language", in terms. of its description in the Astadhyayt, has two major layers, One is the layer which 's the abstracted common factor to which Panini's unqualified rules apply. Forms derived with such rules are not fel vo be explicitly dialectal. Within this nonedialecal core, we have several features. We have non-dialectal ‘options 38 well as historical deposits rom several dialects of Sanskrit Tc has deposits from the easter as well as north-western Indo-Aryan dialects and sentially represents a dialect mixture However, it is important 10 ‘ote that Panini did not feel that these elements in the core were dialect. ‘While these elements may have come about historically through dialect- ‘mixture, they had spread far and wide, and were no longer deemed to be ialeeualy restricted. On the other hand there were other linguistic features which Panini felt were clearly dialectal and he labeled them as such. Thus, itis possible to argue thatthe élite colloquial speech described by Panini vas in pare a result of longstanding dialeecmixtures, but was in part regionally divergent. This would fit a description of Koinés given by Samarin (1971: 188): ‘what characterizes them linguistically’ is. the Incorporation of feauares from several regional varieties of single language. This kind of amalgamation (or dialecemixing) can lead to @ certain amount of heterogeneity. That is, a koiné, caught at an early sage Of its history, might consist of many kinds of speech that are not ealy correlated with nomtinguisic factors ike region, function, soil status, ete In time, however, the mix might jel, not without varieties of speech like those characteristic of any normal speech community... Another feature that distinguishes koinés from pidgins, a feature hat is implied in what has Just been said, is that they are never detached from the languages they iste from” To a cersin extent, one may go along with the characterization of Panini’s bhast as a koiné. Certain features of Pann's bhast discussed above do make it appealing to think of asa koiné, However, i seems that besides some of these koinétike features, there must have been foundation of some disincuive Indo-Aryan dialect for Panin’s Sanskrit, and Sain, shat iti Keine 1 iota ‘Asolan only 2 real Sanskrit educate dialect sich ts bass Veda wih ver ints explaine dialect 6 those in throughe dialect process ¢ regional homogen Paranal Lan Several the tradi notion th somewhat distinction as desert One c ‘as he spe >ravisakhy clusive © ‘edas, noMathes M.Datponde belonging tothe same Vedie branches. “The ported bythe habitual Tdi inorder to sek susion (rahmodya)." fome of this constant Soften tied wo one aan make the following fe, in terms of its (One is the tayer which ngualified rules apply. Tic dialeeal. Within ‘Ne have nondialectal Tects of Sansbrit. It has doAryan dialects and ver, itis important 10 he core were dialectal ‘cally through dialect longer deemed to be were other linguistic The labelled them 2s [ual speech described temixtures, but was in om of Koings given by linguistically isthe varieties of 'a single ‘ixing) ean lead to @ ‘ught at an early stage 2h that are not easly ‘ion, social sats, etc uretes of speech like yo Another feature isimplied in what has = languages they issue characterization of ini's bhast discussed Towever, it seems that ‘must have been 2 Panini's Sansksit, and ‘Sickie Poms of Pins Sanit es that i isnot entirely bul by the proceses which go into the making of a Soiné. For instance, we know that Vedic has numerous different tees of infinitves, and many, though not all of them, do seem to comtinee ioe ‘Asokan Prakrits from various regions. However, Panini’ bisa has reainneg ‘only the infinitive in tum. 1 would be impossible to explain this femre se a result of dialectmixture, or leveling. ‘The best way to explaie i i fuggest that at the basis of Panini's bhdst, there is'4 unique dalees of Sanskrit, Witzel (1989: 128) comments “Regarding this (P's bhas) loc ‘educated form of Sansiit, one can expect, prima facie,a Nocti Woon, dlalet which i he same or simi tothe language ofthe North praised by such texts as K(austaki) B(rahmana) 7.6. A closer study reveal thar he, hast is a highly archaic, isolated language which is sill very close to Vedic.” Archaic in some respects, Panini's bhas also sigaificantiycontrase ‘Mth Vesic. Consider the fact that while Vedic had numerous types of infinitive forms, Panini's bhast retained only one of them, Le. the ingtg in tum. At the same time, as T have myself demonstrated elsewhere, Panini's bhi, is in some respects remarkably different from the lag 122 BerlinNew York Amsterdam; Mouton de Gruyter — Uionhcominga). “Lota; he Linguistic World of Pata.” In Seaskre and Prakrit:SocialinguiticIsuen "Delhi; Motilal Banaras — ortncoming). “Ditransve Consens in Paatal’s Mahabhaga.* In Profesor SS. Janaki Felictation Volume, Ruppuseal, Sati Research Insite, Madras, Ina. lizarenkova, LY, 1980 “About waces ofa Prakst akectal bassin the language of the Rye.” In Diskecs dans les Litératures Indovkryennes, eed by (Colewe Cait, pp. 1-17 Paris Instat de Cilisation indienne, inde, Oskar von, 1986. Ds Sere Miteladich im Uerblick Ostrrechisehe Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil-bist Kl, Situngiber. 457. Ba, “Ver, Kom. Sprachen und Kulturen Sidasiens, Hel $0, Vienna Hock, Hans H, and Rajeshwari Pandharipande. 1976, “The Sociolinguisic Posion ‘of Sanskrit in PreMusim South Asia" In Studies in Language Learning, Vol 1,No.2, pp. 105188 Joshi, SD. 1980 Pata’ Views on Apatabdas” In Dialects dans les Litracures Indosyennes, edited by Colete Calla, pp. 267974. Pai; Instat de Ciyisauon indienne. Joshi, SD. and JAY. Roodbergen, 1986, Paunjl's Vjakarane-Mahsbhaya, Paspasthiita, Introduction, Text, Tansation and Notes Publications of the Centre of Advanced Sudy'in Sansbit, Clase C, No. 15. Pune: Universiy of Poona, Kiparsly, Paul. 1979, Panini as 2 Varitonit. Pune: Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Unieriy of Poona (in collaboration with the MIT Pres (Cambridge, MA. Laddu, SD. 1974 Evolution of che Sunshet Language from Pini co Pataja. Pune: Centre of Advanced Study in Sans, Unversity of Poona. Mahabhaya wy Patanjal. Eaiued by F. Kiethorn, Revised edition by KV. Abhyankar vl. 1, 196% vol 2 1963; vol. 8, 1972, Pane: Bhandatkar Oriental Research inate Manwsmrii ascribed. wo Manu. Edited by V.L. Panshikar, 1902. Sed edition. Bombay: Nimaya Sagara Pres,180 Madhav M Deshpande Misra, Vidya Ninas, 1965, The Deseriptive Technique of Papin The Hague Paris: ‘Mouton Salomon, Richard 1989, “Linguistic Variability in Post Vedic Sanskrit. In Diatces dans les Litératures Indosryennes, edited by Colette Caillat, pp. 275 ‘20, ParksInstiut de Chadon Indenne, Samaria, Wilam, 1971 Sallent and substantive pidginztion.” In Pidginization ‘and Greotization of Languages, edited by Del Hymes, pp. 11740. London: Cambridge University Press, Sarangi, A.C. 1985, The Development of Sanskrit from Pinini to Patan, Delhi: ‘Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, ‘Wage, Narendra. 1966, Sociey at the Time of the Budaba. Bombay: Popular rake, ‘Wise, M, 1989, “Tracing the Vedic dalecs®, In Dialeews dant les Liuératures Indoryennes, edited by Colete Cailat, pp. 97.265. Paris: Instat de Cisration indienne,