Update: 2016-02-02 06:31 AM -0500

TIL

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary

i06Skt-vs-BHS.htm

by Franklin Edgerton (1885–1963), Sterling Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, Yale University, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd., Delhi, 1st ed. New Haven, 1953. ISBN: 81 208-0998-x (Vol. 1), ISBN: 81 208-0997. (Set of 2 books).

Digitized by Daw Khin Wutyi from the original book. This TIL edition is edited, with additions from other sources, by U Kyaw Tun (UKT) (M.S., I.P.S.T., USA) and staff of Tun Institute of Learning (TIL) . Not for sale. No copyright. Free for everyone. Prepared for students and staff of TIL Research Station, Yangon, MYANMAR :  http://www.tuninst.net , www.romabama.blogspot.com

index.htm | Top
BHS-indx

Contents of this page 

1. INTRODUCTION
Sanskrit vs Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

 

Edgerton notes
Edgerton's footnotes are continuously numbered without any reference to pages. However for this TIL edition, I have given the page numbers as well. Thus fn001-02 means, it is footnote #02 found on p001, and fn003-07 is footnote #07 found on p003.

 

UKT notes 

 

Contents of this page

1. INTRODUCTION
Sanskrit vs Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

(p011c1begin)
1.76. Many scholars, even down to the present day, refer to BHS simply as 'Sanskrit'. Louis Renou, in his excellent Grammaire Sanscrite, includes (e.g. on p.350) references to some, tho relatively very few, forms of BHS; on p. i he notes that 'on a été à la frontière du sanscrit en signalant les faits de langue mixte représentés par le Mahāvastu et le Lalitavistara'. Of course all have recognized that, if this language is 'Sanskrit', it is a peculiar usually called 'Sanskrit'. The language of the Mahābhārata, for instance, contains Middle-Indicisms; yet few would hesitate to describe it as fundamentally a kind of 'Sanskrit' (tho it does not follow Pāṇini very closely).

1.77. The great lexicographer Boehtlingk included in BR and pw many BHS words (especially from LV, Kv, Mvy, Vaj, Divy, and Jm). But in the preface to the last volume of pw, Boehtlingk refers to such BHS words as 'hardly to be called Sanskrit'. The publication date of this volume was 1889; that of the first volume of Senart's Mahāvastu was 1882. Yet Boehtlingk never mentions Mv, and does not cite a single word from it. Had he not seen Senart's publication before finishing his work on the pw? If he had seen it, and deliberately ignored it, I should have expected him to state his reasons for doing so. He could, in my opinion, have given very good reasons. If the rest of BHS literature were like Mv, in presenting prose as well as verses in Middle Indic or hybrid forms, I can hardly believe it would ever have been called Sanskrit, or that its vocabulary would have been included in Sanskrit dictionaries. One might as well include Pali and Prakrit words in a Sanskrit dictionary. I believe it is a fact, and if so it is significant, that nearly all BHS words included in BR and pw are taken from the prose, not the verses, of such works as LV. The form of this prose is such that it is easy to mistake it for Sanskrit. In my opinion, however, it all belongs to a different linguistic tradition, and should be excluded from works professing to deal with Sanskrit.
(p011c1cont)

Contents of this page

Edgerton Footnote

- UKT: No Edgerton footnote in this file.

Contents of this page

UKT notes

 

 

Contents of this page

End of TIL file