TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu

RV ḷ- for older -ḍ-; MS,RV -ch-, KS -śch- ), and these, again, have to be
distinguished from later medieval developments which affected the
form of texts, like MS ñch for correct Vedic cch < t+ś or Vāj. viṣṇṇu for
viṣṇu, ppra for pra, etc.
Certain other medieval peculiarities of recitation and writing, which at first
sight may appear Vedic, as the many variations of Sandhi of Anunāsika
(written in this study) + y,r,l,v,ś,ṣ,s,h, again have to be disregarded; they
are, at least in part, local medieval habits. Cf. also cases like avarundhe
avarunddhe; yaṃ na/yan na, (i.e., either yam o r yad in both cases); or -ḥ sC /
-s sC, partly > -s C, etc. and medieval Prātiśākhya influence. 18
There remain the real Vedic peculiarities, like the changes in the occurrence
and distribution in the texts of r/l or a confusion of s/ś, etc., which are very
difficult to trace without a computer data base. 19
Another useful criterion may be that of accent, if the conclusions of P.
Kiparsky are to be accepted. 20
* Declension and conjugation provide numerous examples of local
variations, often innovations, like the new ending of the nom./acc. ntr. pl. in -
āni. Such peculiarities have to be distinguished from general developments
like the diasppearance of whole categories (injunctive, subjunctive) in Middle
viz. post-Vedic; the state of these losses may differ as per text. 21
Other examples of this type are the loss of the modi of the aorist in middle
Vedic, the loss of the Ṛgvedic case ending in -ebhiḥ, etc. Some other materials
are, again, inaccessible for the time being, like the exact distribution and
18 Cf. author in WZKS 23/24; StII 1; 8/9; VI. Suppl.Bd. ZDMG, 1985.
19 Cf. Ved.Var I, p.134 -154, where only Mantra texts are dealt with.
20 For a further discussion, see author, forthc.; note the higher tones of the Kurus at ŚB vs.
ŚBM 3.2.3.15 tasmād atrottarāhi vāg vadati Kuru-Pañcālatra; ŚBK 4.2.3.15 tasmād
atrauttarāhai vāg vadatīty āhuḥ Kuru-Pañcāleṣu ca Kuru-Mahāvarṣeṣv iti. Note that the
Kāṇvas do not mention the Pañcālas, probably because their territory partly overlaps that
of the Pañcālas (see §4.1). - Note that pathyā svasti in ŚB and KB = North, but = East in
MS; in KS, KpS, TS, AB = all directions? This is important in the context of the eastward
movement of the IA tribes. JB, s.v., has no comparable sentences; cf. ann. 4 and 6.
21 See note Renou, Monographies skts.I: for example, the subjunctive is rarer in KB; or
subj. is found in ŚBK where ŚBM has the future in ŚBM, see Caland ŚBK, p.73. This
indicates that subj. was on the way out in t h i s function, but cf., on the other hand, the
large increase of the number of hypercharacterised subj. in ŚB; see below, §9.6.
10