Latin, Sanskrit, Arabic

Rick Mc Callister rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu
Thu Sep 16 18:31:22 UTC 1999


	And I imagine that Medieval Latin, which included terminology
appropriate to Medieval society and technology] was easier to understand
for Romance speakers than Classical Latin and that Modern Standard Arabic
is easier for "dialect" speakers than Koranic Arabic.
	This seems to tell us that although these languages may be hooked
to "life support" that they're still continued living [or surviving or
subsisting, if you wish] in a certain sense.
	Someone with more knowledge of Arabic can answer whether or not the
situation of Arabic vis-a-vis its dialects is analogous to that of Latin
and Romance in Medieval times [As well as whether the notion that Saudi
Arabic is very close to the international  standard --and fairly close to
Koranic Arabic- is gross exageration or not]

><JoatSimeon at aol.com> wrote:

>> As far as I know -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there was no large
>> group in ancient South Asia who used Sanskrit as their household
>> language after the divergence of the Prakrits.

>But the Sanskrit people wrote in during 3rd c. was quite understandable to
>the Prakrit speakers, while the change in syntax would have made it quite
>confusing to 4ht c. BCE Sanskrit spkears. Is the Sanskrit of dramas a
>register of MIA (due to the nearness of syntax) or a dialect of Panini's
>language (with which it shared phonology, and, varying with author's
>milieu, morphology)?

Rick Mc Callister
W-1634
Mississippi University for Women
Columbus MS 39701



More information about the Indo-european mailing list