Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx (in sci.lang):

On Sep 16, 6:35 pm, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 6:21 pm, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Proto-Indic is what the West calls PIE (or at least the Indian dialect
of it).  Sanskrit used proto-Prakrit or Proto-Indic as a source of
vocabulary but any sound changes were deliberate, designed for euphony
and stability of the language.
That 'eika' changes to 'eka' at any stage is pure spreculation with no
evidence for it.

What do you mean by 'ei' in these forms?  I've never seen it cited thus.
If it is just some notation to distinguish it from the long diphthong,
then internal evidence for it includes vowel gradation and sandhi showing
that Sanskrit /e/ mostly behaves as one would expect /ai/ to behave.

I vaguely remember sandhi rules from a hudered years back. If you
have this material handy, please post it.


Are you saying that the sandhi rules were different in early forms of
Sanskrit? What do you mean by "a hu(n)d(e)red years back"?

The sandhi rules Richard mentiones are just plain Sanskrit 101 standard, so
I don't quite get what you want to say here.

Joachim
.

Loading