113bC4l

siddhas, literature, and language ⁄ 273
The author or authors, though intending to write Sanskrit, had a very
meagre knowledge of the grammar of that language; they were evidently
influenced by, and have freely employed works, phrases, and constructions
of, their vernacular. . . . The rules of saMdhi have been persistently neglected.
. . . As regards the treatment of nouns in general, case-terminations
have often been altogether omitted; sometimes wrong cases have been
employed, masculine words treated as if they were neuter, and masculine
or neuter forms of adjectives and pronouns used with reference to feminine
nouns, etc. . . . Moreover, the first part of the inscription contains a
considerable number of words which either do not occur in Sanskrit literature
at all, or for which the dictionary furnishes no appropriate meaning;
and some of which undoubtedly were taken from the vernacular. 101
Similar statements have been made by philologists examining both Buddhist
and Hindu tantras, and it is not surprising to find a dramatic change in scriptural
and exegetical language with a change in the sociopolitical system. 102
Thus, instead of “barbaric Sanskrit,” we are dealing with a glossia that extends
to political decrees and sectarian compositions and represents a clear statement
of linguistic distance from the prior centers of power and socialization.
The linguistic situation is analogous to that represented by speakers of
Asian languages, especially immigrants, encountering the new transcultural
language of English. They must use English, for no other language will assist
them in the accomplishment of their goals. But they come from a wide variety
of backgrounds and cannot be homogenized. Those who have passed
through the great language-refining institutions of the colleges or universities
will speak standard English rather well and may have exceeded their primarylanguage
ability in the expression of sophisticated ideas. Others will not have
had the opportunity to become so well normalized in their language application,
so that the syntax, grammar, and use of such items as articles and subject/verb
agreement in number will be evident. Although individual idiosyncrasies
are legion, generally speakers with a similar background will render
English with similar forms of expressions: native Chinese speakers might find
that their English is derided by elites as “Chinglish.” At the same time, English
is developing indigenous forms in India and elsewhere, with an emerging
standard grammar and vocabulary in those locales, resulting in the development
of regional Englishes. If speakers have learned some form of English as
an adult, then their grasp of the primary language, even at sophisticated levels,
will probably remain superior to that of English, although they will frequent