a_rya va_cas, mleccha va_cas: linguistic area of ancient Bharat

[Guest guest]

I suggest that the linguistic area of circa 5000 years Before Present

on Saptasindhu region (cf. Rigveda: sarasvati_ saptathi_ sindhu

ma_ta_), had two va_k, dialects: a_rya va_k representing literary

dialect and mleccha va_k representing vyavaha_ra dialect.

 

This was the linguistic area of ancient Bharat which explains the

meanings of Sarasvati hieroglyphs.

http://hinducivilization.blogspot.com/

 

I also suggest that Samskr.tam was a codification from vyavaha_ra

dialect to unify both vyavaha_ra and literary versions of dialects.

The precise chronologies related to evolution of Nagari from Nahali

are issues for further researches. The presence of samsk.tam

inscriptions from the beginning of the common era in hindumahasagar

regions (hinduised states of southeast asia -- cf. George Coedes) has

also to be explained through further researches and study of these

epigraphs mentioned by Coedes.

 

Dhanyavaadah.

 

Kalyanaraman

 

IndianCivilization/message/68829

 

Let us take a look at what the ancient writers in Bharat had to say

about the language situation in various parts of the country. Manu

notes (10.45):

 

mukhaba_hu_rupajja_na_m ya_ loke ja_tayo bahih

mlecchava_cas' ca_ryava_cas te sarve dasyuvah smr.ta_h

 

This shows a two-fold division of dialects: arya speech and mleccha

speech. The language spoken was an indicator of social identity.

Hence, Manu says that everyone is a barbarian dasyu, whether he spoke

arya or mleccha tongues. Maha_bha_s.ya (Vol. i, p.2) of Patanjali

however, notes that learning Sanskrit grammar was necessary for one

not to become a mleccha: tasma_d bra_hman.ena na mlecchitavai..

mleccha_ ma_ bhu_mety adhyeyam vya_karan.am.

 

Hence, it is natural for Vidura to convey a message to Yudhishthira

in mleccha tongue while describing the technicalities involved in the

la_ks.a_gr.ha (the palace of lac): kincic ca viduren.okto

mlechava_ca_si pa_n.d.ava (0011350061, electronic text of Muneo

Tokunaga based on BORI critical edition).

 

Thus, we have two language groups mentioned: a_rya and mleccha, the

former is grammatically correct Sanskrit, the other is the des'i or

lingua franca (not unlike the words glossed in Hemacandra's

Des'i_na_mama_la_)...

 

There is explicit permission to use Prakrit, as a non-ariya language,

that is non-use of grammatically correct Samskr.tam, to communicate

to all people: This is categorically stated in Kundakunda's

Samayasa_ra, verse 8:

 

yatha n.a vi sakkam an.ajjo an.ajjabha_sam vin.a_ du ga_hedum

taha vavaha_ren.a vin.a_ paramatthuvadesan.am asakkam

 

This is a crucial phrase, vyavaha_ra or vavaha_ra, the spoken tongue

in vogue, or the lingua franca, or what french linguists call,

parole. The use of vyava_hara bha_sa, that is mleccha tongue, was

crucial for effectively communicating Mahavira's message on ariya

dhamma.

 

The clarity with which two dialect streams are identified in the

region traversed by Mahavira, is also explicit in the statement

contained in S'atapatha Bra_hman.a (3.2.1.23).

 

he 'lavo he 'lavah

 

is said to be the expression of exclamation by asura. Paul Thieme

takes this to be ma_gadhi_ equivalent:

 

he 'layo he 'layah (so cited by grammarian Patanjali)

 

which in turn, corresponds to Samskr.tam: he 'rayo he 'rayah 'hail

friends!' (Paul Thieme, 1938, Der Fremdling im R.gveda, Eine Studie

uber die Bedeutung der Worte ari, arya, aryaman und a_rya. Leipzig:

Brockhaus. Reprint in: Paul Thieme, Opera Maiora, Band I. Ed. Werner

Knobl and Nobuhiko Kobayashi, Kyoto: Hozokan Publishing Co. 1995, pp.

1-184, p. 4 (10).

 

This passage and other evidence leads David Carpenter to

conclude: '(vedic society) as a hybrid culture forged out of Indo-

Aryan and indigenous ...elements under the aegis of the cultural norm

represented by the sacrifice and its language.' (Carpenter, David,

1994, The mastery of speech: canonicity and control in the Vedas, in:

Authority, anciety and canon. Essays in Vedic interpretations, ed.

Laurie L. Patton, Albany, State University of New York Press, pp. 10-

34, p. 30).