Talk:Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

Pali as BHS
Moving both conflicting views to talk:

"Pali could also be considered a form of BHS. Edgerton states that Pali is in essence a Prakrit."

Mitsube (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put them both back in the article, right next to each other. In accordance with WP policy, it's not for us to decide who's right. Peter jackson (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BHS as early middle indo-aryan
S.S Misra has argued that buddhist hybrid sanskrit is a misnomer and the language actually is the early form of middle indo aryan or prakrit and not a hybridization of panini's standardized sanskrit into prakrit and also appears in mitanni inscriptions. The Indo-Aryan numerals are found in the treatise on horse training composed by Kikkulis of Mitanni (Section 6.9). They are aikawartanna ( Skt ekavartana) ‘one turn of the course’, terawartanna ( Skt tre-vartana) ‘three turns of the course’, sattawartanna ( Skt sapta-vartana) ‘seven turns of the course’, nawartana with haplology for nawawartana ( Skt nava-vartana) ‘nine turns of the course’. The forms of numerals in these words are clearly Indo-Aryan. The form aika- is especially confirmatory. The form satta for Skt sapta- is a clearly Middle Indo-Aryan form. The following linguistic features reveal that the language belongs to an early Middle Indo-Aryan stage or to a transitional stage between Old Indo-Aryan and Middle Indo-Aryan. (i) Dissimilar plosives have been assimilated, for example, sapta satta. Gray quotes the MIA form for comparison, but he is silent about the fact that the borrowing in Anatolian is from MIA (1950: 309). (ii) Semi-vowels and liquids were not assimilated in conjuncts with plosives, semi-vowels or liquids as in 1st MIA, for example, vartana wartana, rathya aratiya-, virya  Birya-, Vrdhamva  Bardamva. (iii) Nasals were also not assimilated to plosives/nasals, unlike in 1st MIA and like in OIA. This characteristic places the language of these documents earlier than 1st MIA, for example, rukma urukmannu, rtanma artamna. (iv) Anaptyxis was quite frequent, for example, Indra Indara smara mumara. (v) v b initially, for example, virya  birya, vrdhasva  bardamva. (vi) r ar, for example, rta  arta, vrdh  bard-.

Thus, a linguistic study of the borrowed Indo-Aryan forms in the Anatolian records shows that they are definitely Indo-Aryan and not Iranian nor Indo- Iranian. This also shows that this language belongs to a transitional stage between OIA and MIA. Further, this language is comparable to the language of the Indus seals as deciphered by S. R. Rao. And this language is the base for Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, which was wrongly named Hybrid because of a misconception that it was a mixed language. Thus, the language of Middle Indo-Aryan is much before the Afokan Prakrit. And on the basis of the borrowed words in Anatolian records and the language of the Indus seals as deciphered by S. R. Rao the date of MIA may go beyond 2000 BC. The transitional stage between OIA and MIA might have started in 2500 BC.

Panini Nothing mentioned about Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit
Panini Nothing mentioned about Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. But below content mentioned only about Sanskrit. So this is irrelevant to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. So I removed them. //Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit writings emerged after the codification, supposedly in the 5-6th century BCE, of Classical Sanskrit by the scholar Pāṇini. His standardization of the language that had evolved from the ancient Vedic came to be known as "Sanskrit", meaning "refined", "completely formed", "put together", or "constructed". // --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)