top
When a language is spoken in the vast area, there are bound to be variations in the language. These variations in a language take place due to the speaker’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds and also the Regional constraints.
According to Hartmann and Stork on the variety of language it is said that, "No language is a Uniform entity and all languages vary according to the place, time and context in which they are used. There are many ways in which language varieties can be distinguished, but basically three criteria are important: (1) the geographical and the social background of the speakers and the actual situation in which the speech act takes place: (a)→ dialect → register or (b) → manner of discourse (2) the medium or ‘mode’ through which language is expressed: → written language → spoken language, extra linguistic → features (3) the subject – matter under discussion: → special language. The language of an individual speaker, which is influenced by any of these factors at a given time, is usually called → idiolect. A dialect is the regional, temporal or social variant used by a particular community. The term 'register' may refer to the varieties of language associated with different uses in particular situations, whereas 'style' refers to the speech or literary form selected by an individual for a particular occasion. There has been disagreement among linguists about a 'common core' in the language at large, but most linguists confirm that all language varieties are subject to constant → change by the mobility of their speakers’ → standard language."
Sanskrit being an ancient language once spoken throughout the country and even outside has naturally varieties in it. The ancient language is preserved in the Ṛgvēda and other Vedas such as Yajurvēda, Sāmaveda and Atharvana Vēda. However, the word Sanskrit was not used earlier. From the time of Ṛgvēda (1500 B.C) down to Pāṇini (400 B.C), the name Sanskrit does not occur. They simply use the term 'Chandasi'. The word 'Sanskrit' first appears in the 'Sundar kānḍa' of Rāmāyaṇa. It occurs for the first time as a type of language suitable for Brahmins. The context is when Hanuman goes to lanka in search of sita and finding sita there, he thinks as to which language he should speak to her. If he speaks in Sanskrit as spoken by a Brahmin, sita may mistake him as Ravaṇa and get scared, the sloka is as follows:
यदिवाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम्। रावणं मन्यमानामां सीता भीता भविष्यति।।
Yaska and Pāṇini in their works have used the term 'भाषा' and not Sanskrit as in "भाषायाम न्वध्यांच" (यास्क - निरुक्त) and "भाषायाम् सदवसश्रुवः" (पाणिनी - अष्टाध्यामी)
The reference to Sanskrit is found in the works of kālidāsa (Ist century to 4th century A.D). Kālidāsa considers Sanskrit as a distant type of language existed side by side with Prakrit. He calls Sanskrit as 'purified or refined speech' (संस्कारपूतावाक्). Dandi in his 'काव्यादश' says that Sanskrit is a divine speech (संस्कृतं नाम दैवीवागन्वाख्याता महर्षिभिः)
Types of Sanskrit: There are two types of Sanskrit viz: (1) Vedic Sanskrit and (2) Classical Sanskrit. Vedas and Brāhmaṇas are composed in Vedic Sanskrit. Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata etc are written in classical Sanskrit. Acharya Baladeva Upādhyāya in his work "History of Sanskrit literature" mentions the following points to show the difference or variation between Vedic and classical Sanskrit.
(1) The first person plural forms of 'a' ending masculine nouns are formed by the addition of two suffixes viz: असस् (asas) and अस् (as), For example: ब्राह्मणासः in Vedic Sanskrit and ब्राहमणाः in classical Sanskrit.
(2) Instrumental (तृतीया) plural forms of ‘a’ ending words have two forms viz: देवेभिः and देवैः, the first form is used in Vedic Sanskrit and the second form in the classical Sanskrit.
(3) The form of locative singular is lost in several places. Ex.: परव्योमन् in Vedic Sanskrit व्योन्मि or व्योमनि in classical Sanskrit.
(4) Neuter plural forms of 'अ' ending words are formed by the addition of suffixes 'आ' and 'आनि' Examples: विश्वानि अद्भुता in Vedic Sanskrit and अद्भुतानि in classical Sanskrit.
(5) In Verbs उत्तमपुरुष बहुवचन (वर्तमान काल) is obtained by the addition of the suffix 'मसि' as in मिनीमसि, द्यविद्यवि in Vedic Sanskrit and मिनीमः in classical Sanskrit.
(6) In classical Sanskrit, verbs indicating verbal meanings are always used with 'तुमन्त' suffixes. For Ex.: गंतुम्, कर्तु, etc. But in vedic Sanskrit there are 8 or 10 suffixes used for 'तुमन्त' Ex.: से, असे, कसे, वधै, शधै etc.
जीवेसे in Vedic Sanskrit > जीवितुम् in classical Sanskrit. दातवै in Vedic Sanskrit > दातुम् in classical Sanskrit कर्तवै in Vedic Sanskrit > कर्तुम् in classical Sanskrit
(7) In Vedic Sanskrit,आज्ञा and संभावनार्था are expressed by the use of तारिषत् whereas it becomes तारय in classical Sanskrit.
The language of the Brāhmanas represents an intermediate stage of Vedic and classical Sanskrit. The language of Nirukta also belongs to this period.
Sanskrit language was the language of communication during the Vedic period. Later when Prakrit forms developed; it took the medium of mass communication. However, Sanskrit remained the language of communication throughout the country among the learned Brahmins called 'शिष्ट'.
Yaskka (7th or 8th century B.C) in his Nirukta clearly says that Sanskrit was used for communication purposes in the learned society as quoted below:
"भाषिकेभ्यो धातुभ्यो नैगमाकृतो भाष्यंत" निरुत्क 2-2
Yaska calls upon Sanskrit as 'भाषा' - He explains how different words give different meanings in different regions. The quotation is as follows.
शवति गतिकर्मा कांनोजेष्वेव भाष्यते | विकारमस्यार्येषु भाषंते शव इति| दातिर्लवनार्थे प्राच्येषु दात्रमुदीच्येषु । निरुत्क 2-2
The verb 'शवति' in Kāmboj (North-western of present Punjab) was used to mean 'going' but its nominal form 'शव' was used by the Aryans in different meanings. In Eastern part of the country the word 'दाति' meant 'cutting' but the people of north use 'दात्र' in ironical sense.
A.B.Keith in his book "History of classical Sanskrit literature" (P 11) says, Apart from the question of language, there is now abundant evidence to show that the epics existed in some form in Sanskrit before Pāṇini, and that the idea of translation about the Christian era is wholly untenable. Apart from the absolute silence of history on so portentous an undertaking, it is plain that there existed no conceivable ground for such action at the period in question, which was one of the comparative eclipses of Brahmanism and of the domination of foreign influences. But, if the epics were composed in Sanskrit, the originality of the classical literature is assured for from the epic. a direct development leads to the kāvya, which is the highest form of the classical literature apart from the drama.
How wide was the circle to which the epic could appeal in Pāṇini’s time we do not know, but we have a couple of centuries later the evidence of patañjali (150 AD) as to the speech of his day. From him we learn that the norms of speech in his day were the śiṣṭās, the learned Brāhmins of Āryāvarta, who whether they studied grammar or not, had a hereditary skill in the correct use of the tongue and from whose employment of it others could acquire it. Others, however, were less precise in speech, thus they mispronounced sounds making ṣaṣa of śaśa, palāṣa of palāśa, and mañjaka for mañcaka. Again they used incorrect terms (apaśabda), mainly nouns often in prākrit forms adopted slightly to seem Sanskrit, more rarely in verbal forms, a greater deviation. We have in the Rāmāyaṇa a similar distinction drawn between the correct speech of the Brāhmin and the less precise language of an ordinary man who uses Sanskrit.
As said by Mr. A.B.Keith that Sanskrit was used even by the ordinary men who did not study grammar formally, Patañjali in his mahābhāsya gives an interesting conversation between the पूर्वपक्षिन an objector and the सिध्धांतिन or the principal teacher. The dialogue is quoted in English as follows: Here Pūrva refers to an objector or पूर्वपक्षिन्. SID refers to सिध्धांतिन् the teacher. The conversation is as follows.
Purva: अस्त्यप्रयुत्कः! There exist (some) words which are not used; for instance, ऊष, तेर, चक्र, पेच (These are forms of the second person plural of the perfect).
The Siddhāntin or the principal teacher - who advocates the doctrine that is finally laid down, asks:
SID: What if they are not used?
PŪRV: You determine the grammatical correctness of words from their being used. Those then that are not now used are not grammatically correct.
SID: What you say is, in the first place, inconsistent, viz: that words exist which are not used. If they exist they cannot be used; if not used, they cannot exist. To say that they exist and are not used is inconsistent. You yourself use them (utter them) and say (in the very breath) there are words which are not used. What other worthy like yourself would you have to use them in order that they might be considered correct? (Lit. what other person like yourself is correct or is an authority in the use of words)?
PŪRV: This is not inconsistent. I say they exist since those who know the śāstra teach their formation by (Laying down) rules, and I say they are not used, because they are not used by the people. Now with regard to (your remark) "what other worthy & co" (when I say they are not used) I do not mean that they are not used by me.
SID: What then?
PŪRV: Not used by people.
SID: Verily, you also are one amongst the people.
PŪRV: Yes, I am one, but I am not the people.
SID: (Vārt. अस्त्यप्रयुत्क इति चेन्नार्थे शब्दप्रयोगात्). If you object that they are not used, it will not do (the objection is not valid).
PŪRV: Why not?
SID: Because words are used to designate things. The things do exist which these words are used to designate. (Therefore, the words must be used by somebody. If the things exist, the words that denote them must exist).
PŪRV: (Vārt: अप्रयोगः प्रयोगान्यत्वात्) (It does not follow). Their non-use is what one can reasonably infer.
SID: Why?
PŪRV: Because they (people) use other words to designate the things expressed by these words; for instance, क्व यूयमुषिताः in the sense of ऊष, क्व यूयं तीर्णाः in the sense of तेर, क्व यूयं कृतवंतः sense of चक्रः क्वयूयं चक्रवंतः in the sense of पेच (We here see the participles had come to be used for verbs of perfect tense).
SID: (Vārt: अप्रयुत्के दीर्घसत्रवत्) Even if these words are not used, they should be essentially taught by rules as long as sacrificial sessions are. It is in this way long sacrifice sessions are such as last for a hundred years and for a thousand years. In modern times, none whatever holds them, but the writers on sacrifices teach them by rules simply because (we learn) what has been handed down by tradition from Ṛsis religiously meritorious and moreover (Vārt. सर्वे देशान्तर) as these words are used in other places.
PŪRV: In other places, they are not found used.
SID: An endeavour should be made to find them, which indeed is the range over which words are used. The earth with its seven continents, the three worlds, the four Vedas with the Vēdāngas or dependent treatises and the mystic portions in the various recessions, the one hundred branches of the Adhvaryu (yajur-veda), the sāma – veda with its thousand modes, the Bāhvrcya with its twenty one varieties and the Atharva Vēda with nine, Vākōvākya, the epics, the purāṇas and medicine. This is the extent over which words are used. Without searching this extent of the use of words, to say that words not used is simple rashness. In this wide extent of the use of words, certain words appear restricted to certain senses and certain places. Thus, शवति issued in the sense of motion among the Kambojas, the Āryas use it in the derived form of शव, हम्मति is used among the sur-āstrās, रंहति among the eastern and central people but the Āryas use only गम्, दाति, which are used in the sense of ‘cutting’ among the easterners, दात् among the northerners and those words which you think are not used at all are also seen used.
PŪRV: Where?
SID: In the Veda. Thus, सत्पास्ये रेवति रेवदूंष। यत्दो रेवती रेवत्यां तमूषयन्मे नरः श्रुत्पं ब्रहमं चक्र। यत्रा नष्चक्रा जरसं तन्नाम्।
The above noted conversation between an objector and a teacher given by Patañjali in his Mahābhāsya is an important piece of conversation showing that Sanskrit language underwent many changes from one period to another period either by non-use of certain words or changes made in the pronunciation of certain words.
It may also be noted that Pāṇini’s Sanskrit was more ancient than kātyāyana’s, Pāṇini’s Sanskrit may be identified with the Sanskrit prevailing in the periods between the Brahmaṇas and the yaska.
The Sanskrit of the period of Pāṇini differs from that of the period of katyāyana. Some of the examples show this as follows:
According to Pāṇini’s rules the vocative singular of neuter nouns ending in अन् as ब्रहमन् and नामन् is ब्रह्मन् and नामन् but kātyāyana in a Vārtika on VII. 2.8 tells us it is ब्रह्मन् or ब्रह्म and नामन्or नाम.
Pāṇini teaches that the forms of dative, ablative, genitive and locative singular of the feminine of द्वितीय and तृतीय are optionally like those of the corresponding pronouns i.e. we have either द्वितीयायै or द्वितीयस्यै, द्वितीयायाः or द्वितीयस्याः, but Kātyāyana in a Vārtika 1.1.36 extends this option to the masculine also, and according to him we have द्वितीयाय or द्वितीयस्मै, द्वितीयात् or द्वितीयस्मात् while Pāṇinigives only the first.
Pāṇini’s rule IV. 1.49 allows of मातुलानी only as the feminine of मातुल, but Kātyāyana gives मातुली also, उपाध्यायानी is not noticed by Pāṇini while Kātyāyana lays down that as well as उपाध्यायी in the sense of ‘wife of उपाध्याय ; so also आर्या and क्षत्रिया are according to Pāṇini 'a female Ārya' and 'a female क्षत्रिया' but Kātyāyana gives आर्याणी and क्षत्रियाणी as well as आर्या and क्षत्रिया |
This shows that Sanskrit was the spoken language in the Ancient India. This is mainly because only spoken language is subject to change.
Thus, we come across three distinct periods of development in Sanskrit viz: (1) Vedic period of which Ṛgvēda saṁhita, Yajurvēda saṁhita and Atharva saṁhita and sāmaveda belonged (2) Brāhmaṇa period: the language period in which yaska and Pāṇini lived which was called 'Bhāṣha'. This is called Middle Sanskrit stage. (3) Classical period in which epics were written.
In this way Sanskrit language had regional variation across the region and period. Another passage of Patañjali is also very important from the point of view of variation as quoted below:
"Yadi tarhi śiṣta:ḥ śabdeṣu pramāṇam kim Aṣṭa:dhya:yya: Kriyate? śiṣṭajña:na:rtha: + aṣṭa:dhya:yi:. Katham puvar aṣṭa:dhya:yya: śiṣṭa:ḥ ṣakya: vijña:tum?" aṣṭa:dhya:yi:m adhi:ya:nónyam paṣyatyanadhi: ya:nam yótra vihita:ḥ śabda:s ta:n prayuñja:nam. Sa paśyati "nu:nam asya daiva:nugarahaḥ svabha:va va: yó yam na ca:ṣṭa:dhya:yi:m adhi:te ye ca:tra vihita:ḥ śabda:s ta:nś ca prayuńkte. Ayam nu:nam anya:n api ja:na:ti". evam eṣa : śiṣṭajña:na:rtha: + asṭa:- dhya:yi:, "If then the ṣisṭas are the authority. What is the use of Aṣṭadhya:yi:? Aṣṭa:dhya:yi: is for identifying the ṣiṣṭās. How is it possible to identify the ṣiṣṭas by means of the Aṣṭadhya:yi:? One who studies the Aṣṭa:dhya:yi: finds another one who does not study it (but still) uses the words accounted for there. He understands that is (due to) God’s grace or his nature that the other man does not study the Aṣṭā:dhya:yi: but uses the words accounted for in it. (He understands that). The other man certainly knows others (i.e. those words not accounted for) also. In this way, the Aṣṭa:dhya:yi: helps in identifying the śiṣṭas".
One thing we learn from this is that the grammar is not a prescriptive one but that is firmly based on the usage of people. This is evident also from patañjali’s exposition in other places like the following: (in the paspaśa:hnika under 'Siddhe śabda:rthasaṁbandhe' (Kielhorn 1:7-8): ghaṭena ka:ryam kariṣyam kariṣyan kumbha-ka:rakulam gatva:ta:ha "kuru ghaṭam ka:ryam anena kariṣya:mi" + iti. Na tadvac chabda:n prayokṣyama:ṇo vaiya:karaṇakulam galva: + a:ha "kuru śabda:n prayokṣya" iti. ta:vaty eva + artham artham upa:da:ya śabda:n prayuñjate. Yadi tarhi lokaeṣu prama:ṇam kimṣa:stre: ṇa kriyate? "One who wants to do something with a pot goes to a potter’s house" and says, "Make a pot! With that I will do something". One who wants to use words will not similarly go to a grammarian’s house and say, "Make words! I will use (them)". (people) use words taking meanings (to be expressed). If, then, the world is the authority in the matter of words, what does the science (of grammar) do?
More importantly, the passage quoted above enables us to conclude that even by the time of patañjali Sanskrit was a living language and that there were still people for whom it was the mother tongue but not one acquired from grammar books and literature. Most probably such people belonged to the upper crust of the society and were also less in number since as evidenced by the Maha:bha:ṣya itself, a variety of the pra:kṛit language called Apabhraṁsa in that work has already come into vogue and was spoken chiefly by the uneducated masses (see paspaśa:hnika) (Kielhorn 1.2)
"bhu:ya:ṁsópaśbda:ḥ. alpi:ya:ṁsaḥ śabda:h. ekaikasya śabdasya bahavópabhraṁśa:ḥ gaur ityasya ga:vi:, goṇi: gota:, gopotalika: ity evam a:dayópabhraṁśa:ḥ" . "Corrupt words are many. (Correct) words are less in number. For each word there are many corrupt words. For gauḥ 'cow' there are corrupt words like ga:vi:, goṇi:, gota: and gopotahika:"). The yarva:ṇa – Tarva:ṇa story told by patañjali (paspaśa:hnika), under va:rtika (Kielhorn 1.11) makes the following points clear: (i) The situation with Sanskrit being spoken by the upper class people and the pra:kṛit dialects by the masses had come into existence long before the time of patañjali. (ii) The upper class people knew, as they had to, the pra:kṛit variety also in addition to their mother tongue Sanskrit, which occasionally betrayed the tendencies of the common variety (iii) The upper class people made special efforts to avoid the pra:kṛit forms at the time of conducting the sacrifice. The following is the story:
"evam hi śru:yate. Yarva:ṇas tarva:ṇo na:ma + ṛṣayo babhu:vuh pratyakṣadharma:ṇah para:-parajña: Viditaveditavya: adhigataya:tha: ta:thya:ḥte tatra bhavanto yad va:nas tad va:naḥ + iti prayoktavye yarva:ṇas tarva:ṇa iti prayuñjate. Ya:jñe punaḥ karmaṇi na:pabha:ṣante"
"The following is heard, there were sages by name yarva:ṇa and Tarva:ṇa, who knew what is right, what is to be known and what is true. Those honourable ones used yarva:ṇah tarva:naḥ instead of the correct yadva: naḥ tad va: naḥ "What is ours is ours". They however did not use the corrupt forms at the time of performing a sacrifice". word accent, which is a peculiarity of the Vedic language and which has been lost altogether in later times, was there certainly in the language at the time of Pāṇini and perhaps even at the time of patañjali although we cannot be certain when exactly it was lost. (P.S.Subramanyam: "Pāṇiniyan Linguistics").
The above quotation of patañjali makes it clear that there were regional variations in Sanskrit even during the Vedic period, and Brāhmana period also.
Language variation can be found either at the regional level or at the social level. Variation in the regional level is referred as Dialectal variation; variation in the social level is referred as Socio-linguistic variation. Socio-linguistic variation can be seen on different factors such as education, caste, gender, position etc. The language of an educated man shall be different from an uneducated one. In the same way caste and gender variations are also possible.
Regarding the social variations in Sanskrit, it can be said that it has been already mentioned in the example of yarvāṇah tarvāṇah for yadvānaḥ tadvānaḥ which could be considered at the social level also. The reason is that they knew the correct form still they used to say corrupt form other than sacrificial situations. During sacrifice, they used to utter the standard forms. There must be same social factor for such variation.
Another episode is available in patañjali’s 'Mahabhāsya'. This pertains to the conversation between an upper cast grammarian and lower cast 'सूत' i.e. charioteer. The conversation is as follows:
एवम् हि कष्चिद् वैयाकरणि आह - कौ।़स्य रथस्य प्रवेता इति। सूत आह - अहमायुष्मान् अस्य रथस्य प्राजिता इति। वैयाकरणि आह - अपशब्द इति। सूतआह - प्राप्तिज्ञो देवानां प्रियः न इश्टिज्ञः। इष्यत् एतद्रूपमिति। वैयाकरणि आह - अहो खलु एतेन दुरुतेन बाध्यामहे इति। सूतः आह - न खलु वेङ् सूतः सुवते रेत सूतः। यदि सुवतेः कुत्साः प्रयोत्कव्या दुःसूतेनेति वत्कव्यंम्। महाभाष्यं 2-4-26.
This conversation implies that 'सूत' corrected certain words of वैयाकरणि such as प्रवेता to प्राजिता and refers the वैयाकरणि as प्रात्पिज्ञ (having only शब्दज्ञान (knowledge of words) and not इष्टिज्ञ (प्रयोगकर्ता) i.e. not a user of words. This quotation gives us the information that Sanskrit was spoken by not only the upper caste people but by the lower caste people also. Here Sūta represents the lower caste and grammarian the higher caste.
Another aspect of social variation can be noticed in the classical Sanskrit, particularly the dramas written by Kālidāsa. In the Drāmas of Kālidāsa such as "Abhijñāna śākuntala", 'Mālavikāgnimitram' and 'Vikramosvaśīyam'. We notice that woman and low caste characters do not speak Sanskrit and speak only in prākrit. This clearly indicates that during the period of Kālidāsa, there were social factors which made women and lower caste people not to speak Sanskrit. That is why while writing dramas Kālidāsa makes the woman and lower caste characters to speak in Prakrit only. Perhaps, this was the prevailing situation in society during that period.
Coming to the modern period, Sanskrit is spoken even by many Sanskrit scholars if not as mother-tongue but as second language. They mix up other language words in Sanskrit, particularly during conversation.
According to David Crystal, "Diglossia is a term used in Socio-linguistics to refer to a situation where two very different varieties of a language co-occur throughout speech community, each with a distinct range of social function. Both varieties are standardized to some degree, are felt to be alternatives by native speakers and usually have special names. Sociolinguistics usually talk in terms of a high (H) variety and a low (L) variety, corresponding broadly to a difference in formality: the high variety is learnt in school, tends to be used in church, on radio programmes, in serious literature, etc, and as a consequence has greater social prestige; the low variety in family conversations, and other relatively informal settings. Diglossic situations may be found in Greek (High: Katharevonsa; Low: Dhimotiki), Arabic (High: Classical, Low: Colloquial) and some varieties of German (H: Hochdeutsch: L: Schweizerdeutsch, in Switzerland)."
In Indian languages, Diglossia exists in Tamil and Bengali. In other languages like Kannada and Telugu some scholars say there is diglossia some say there is no diglossia.
When we come to Sanskrit about diglossic situation it is difficult to say whether Sanskrit had Diglossia. During the Vedic period also, we do not find two varieties of the same language using for different social roles. However, we notice that two different languages were used for different purposes. Viz: Sanskrit for religious purposes and prākrit for communication prupose. A.B.Keith in his book "History of classical Sanskrit literature" (P.7) says that "It is characteristic of the paucity of our information of the early history of Sanskrit literature that a serious controversy has arisen as to the language in which secular literature was first composed. It has been suggested, with more or less clearness, that for profane as opposed to sacred literature, Sanskrit was originally not employed. It was essentially in the form in which it was regulated by the grammar of Pāṇini, in the fourth century B.C - A form of speech reserved for those who conducted sacrifices and engaged in theological speculation, in effect for the Brahmins. Other persons used a true vernacular, which may be described as primary prākrit, in order to distinguish it from the prākrits which have been preserved in the grammarians and in literature, and which represent a chronologically later stage of speech. It was in some primary prākrit that secular literature was first composed, and it was only late that the sacred language was extended to the meaner use, perhaps as professor Lévi has suggested through the initiative of the śaka satraps of western India in the course of the second century A.D, one of whom, Rudradāman, is responsible for the first official inscription in Sanskrit throughout, and whose official nomenclature seems to be reflected in the rules for the use of titles in the Sanskrit drama laid down in the Bhāratīya Nāṭyaśastra. The epics themselves, it has been suggested were long current in prākritbefore they were rendered, perhaps shortly after the Christian era, into Sanskrit. The motives for such translations and the impetus to compare in Sanskrit in lieu of prākrit can easily be imagined; the culture of the Brāhmins was becoming more and more the chief common possession of India, and the sacred language presented the only possibility of a speech which could claim comprehension readily throughout the vast area subject to Brāhminical influence. Further, during the period before and after the Christian era, India was subject to invasion from the North-west and west and to considerable movements of population, which must have existed. Rapid changes of speech forms in the areas affected, and have driven poets and others, desirous of producing work to endure, to seek a medium more satisfactory than a vernacular in process of rapid alteration."
Thus, Sanskrit and prākrit were in use together for many centuries. Another situation is also to be noted that Brāhmins, and Kshatriyas (i.e kings) used to speak in Sanskrit-a high variety and women and low caste people used to speak in prākrit, as could be seen in the dramas written by Ashwaghosha and Kālidasa.
This situation also cannot be considered as Diglossic because two varieties of the same language (here Sanskrit) were not used for different social roles but two different languages viz: Sanskrit and Prakrit.
A third situation is also worth noting. In this situation, learned scholars (i.e. Brāhmins) used to speak two varieties of the same language at two different domains: one at the time of formal sacrifice; another at the informal level other than the sacrificial situations. The famous quotation which patañjali quotes in Māhabhāsya i.e. Yadvvnaḥ tadvānaḥ for Yarvāṇah tarvāṇaḥ could be considered at the social level, with a meaning “what is ours is ours”. Priests knew the standard form of Yarnāṇah tarvāṇaḥ and used this expression in formal sacrificial situation whereas in informal situation, they used Yadvānaḥ tadvānaḥ. Can Sanskrit be considered Diglossic only on one such example? We do not find many instances of this type to say that Sanskrit was Diglossic.
Hence, we can conclude that Sanskrit was not the language having diglossia. However, social and regional variations could be noticed in Sanskrit.
Argot is a Jargon peculiar to a local, social or occupational group, particular of the lower social strata.
In Sanskrit, we do not find Argot of the above type. This is mainly due to the fact that Sanskrit was primarily used by the learned high caste Brahmins. Slangs were not found in Sanskrit. Such expressions are found in regional languages including Prakrit.
In buying and selling situations also we do not notice any argotic expressions.
Register refers to a variety in language used for a specific purpose as opposed to a social or regional → dialect (which varies by speakers). Registers may be more narrowly defined by reference to subject matter (field of discourse e.g. the jargons of fishing, gambling etc.), to medium (mode of Discourse e.g. printed material, written letter, message on tape, etc) or to level of formality (manner of Discourse, e.g. formal, casual, intimate etc.)
In Sanskrit, Registers are found in every branch of knowledge. Vedic Sanskrit, classical Sanskrit etc has their own registers in the areas of Judicial, medicine, education, administration, religion and literary and scientific creations.
1. Judiciary: Sanskrit was used in Judiciary during the Vedic period and later period. During Vedic period Judiciary was in the form of injunctions, which means rules have to be followed according to the principles of religion. Kings used to punish the people if they violate norms of the society. Kings used to give judgements for different crimes such as stealing, cheating, murder etc.
2. Medical: Registers under the area of 'Medicine' can be found in Āyurvēda and chemistry.
From the mention of the 'three humours' (wind, bile, phlegm i.e Vāta, pitta and kafa) in a Vārttika to Pāṇini, some kind of humoral pathology seems, however, to have been prevalent among Indian physicians several centuries before the Christian era. The oldest existing medical work is thought to be 'Caraka-saṁhita', a bulky encyclopaedia in ślokās mixed with prose sections. It consists of eight parts of equal authority, but somewhat later is the Suśrata- saṁhita (mainly on surgery), which suśrata is said to have received from Dhanvantari. There have been supplementary treatises as well to these saṁhitās. Other treatises of lesser importance are those attributed to Vābhaṭa. All later treatises were chiefly based on these works.
Apart from some chemical preparations prescribed by charaka and suśruta, chemistry texts properly so called begin with Rasa-Ratnakara, attributed to Nāgarjuna, when several traditions describe as an alchemist. Lot of special terms is found in these works on medicine which function as Registers of the area under medicine.
3. Educational: In India, Education was imparted through oral tradition in the beginning during Vedic period. In classical period, both oral and writing were used for teaching. Hence, many terms of education were coined during teaching. Such registers can be seen in the works of Taraka, Nyāya, Vedānta, Vyākarṇa, etc.
4. Administrative: Special words were used for administration purposes. The chanukya’s 'Arthashastra' is an ancient work which deals about the politics and administration. It stipulates the duties of a king, citizen and the officials of the kingdom of that period. Even in the modern language context also influence of Sanskrit in the area of standardization of administrative terminology is great. Many scientific, technical, administrative terms have their base in Sanskrit in almost all Indian languages. In Tamil, due to language movement and purification movement, use of Sanskrit words is very much reduced, but classical literature has lot of Sanskrit words.
5. Religious: Sanskrit is the soul of religion. Many words are used from Sanskrit in this area. Entire philosophy, logic, grammar, medicine, poetry, prose, etc are in Sanskrit. If we make a list of words used in this area it will be a huge volume containing thousands of words. Vedas, Brāhmanas, Upanishads and Puranas, great epics are all in Sanskrit. Famous epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata are in Sanskrit.
6. Literary and Scientific: As told above, many literary works have been written in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is very rich in literature both in Vedic and classical. In Vedic literature, we have Vedas, Brāhmanas, Upanishads, Puraṇas, etc. In classical literature, we have great epics of Ashwaghosha, Kalidasa, Bhasa, Bāṇa, Bhavabhụti, Bhārvi, Ānanda Vardhana etc. In the area of grammar, Pāṇini’s Asṭadhyāyī, patañjali’s Mahabhasya, etc.
In the scientific area we have lot of literature on medicine, Āyurveda, charaka saṁhita etc.
In the area of Astronomy, Mathematics and Astrology, Ganga Ram Garg says, "Early Indian astronomical knowledge is summed up in Lagadha’s Jyotisha-Vedāṅga or Vedāṅga-jyotisha which is available in two recensions. A more scientific approach is marked by the appearance of the five original Siddāntas, which are partly extant in revised redactions and in quotations. These five are Vāsishṭha, paitāmaha, Romaka (i.e.Roman), Pauliśa and sūrya or saura. Of these siddhāntās, two: Romaka and Pauliśa bear non-India names and suggest western influence. Based on these are the works of the most distinguished astronomers: Ārya-Bhaṭa (b.A.D. 476), Varāhamihira (probably 505-587 A.D.), Brahmagupta, who complied his "Brāhma-sputa-Siddhānta" in 628A.D, Bhaṭṭopala (10th century A.D.), distinguished as the commentator of Varāhamihira, and Bhāskaracharya (1114A.D.) who finished his course of astronomy, the Siddhānta-śiromaṇi in 1150 A.D. Some scholars are of the view that between vēdāṅga-jyotisha (900 B.C.) and the works of Āryabhaṭa (5th century A.D.), the development in mathematical astronomy is found in Jaina canonical texts like, Sūrya-prajñapti, Chandra-prajñapti (4th century B.C. 1) etc.
The beginnings of Mathematics are unknown, but the sacrificial formulas of the yajurvēda bear witness to the use of high numbers among special names (upto Arbuda 100,000,000).
Mathematics, other than ritual geometry, was mostly linked with astronomy. (However, the manuals of Mahāvīrāchārya, 9th century A.D and of others were for calculations only. The Bakhshali manuscript from Kashmir (12th century A.D) is a collection of arithmetical problems and solutions). Bhāskaracharyā’s Siddhānta-śiromaṇi has two chapters: Līlāvatī and Bījagaṇita on mathematics.
The astronomical treatises also contain astrology, though Bhṛigu- saṁhitā is exclusively on astrology.
In the Scientific Registers, the area of Music (Saṅgīta) also plays an important role. The art of Music has been practiced in India from very early times. The extant theoretic treatises on music are, however, quite modern productions. The most highly esteemed works are: Saṅgīta - ratnākara (Jewel Mine of Music) by śārangadeva, Saṅgīta - makaranda, Saṅgīta - darpaṇa by Damodaradeva, Saṅgīta-pārijāta and Saṅgīta-rāja.
Apart from the works on technical and scientific subjects mentioned above, there are works on polity and statecraft (Arthaśāstra), on erotics (kāma-sūtras by Vātsyāyana), Rati-rahasya by kukkoka, Kāmasamūha by Anantha etc on pornography, Kuṭṭanimata, etc on Botany ,(Upavana-Vinoda, Vṛikshāyurvēda by Sureshvara)on architecture, (Mānasāra,Vāstu-Vidya etc) on sculpture ,(śilpa-ratna, silpa-śāstra, pratimā-lakshaṇa) on hunting (śyainika-śāstra by Rudradēva), on encyclopaedias , Manasollāsa, paṇḍava-digvijaya by Rāmakavi, Bhuvana-pradīpikā by Rāmakrishna śastri, Toḍarānanda etc and even on the art of thieving (Shaṇamukha kalpa) etc (Gangaprasad Garg).
Sanskrit has Registers in many areas.
Style: Style is referred to the personal use an individual makes in speech or writing of the language at his disposal. The choices a speaker or writer makes from among the phonological, grammatical and lexical resources of his language have been the subject of many different approaches in → stylistics, and many definitions of style have been proposed. Traditional stylistic analysis (particularly by literary scholars) has emphasized style as the deliberate use of written language for a particular effect. Language use which 'deviates' from the literary → standard and the conventions set up by writers in this sense described as 'bad style'. Contemporary linguists take a wider view of style, recognizing the less conscious personality traits in the language of an individual speaker (idiolect) in relation to time, place, social environment and subject matter (→ variety in language such as 'dialect', 'manner of discourse' and 'Register'). Sometimes the notion of style is extended to cover the characterization of groups of writers and their literary output, and statistical techniques may be used to compare 'texts' or 'genres' (Hartmann and stork).
Sanskrit, particularly classical Sanskrit has its own styles, viz: Vaidarbhi and Gaudi. Kālidāsa was a master of Vaidarbhi style. Vaidarbhi style in the dramas of kālidāsa is easy flowing, chaste and elegant. It is absolutely free from elaborate and laboured constructions. Words are chosen in large numbers from common usage but more words that are absolutely necessary are never used. The style is concise and highly suggestive. the verses are free from long compounds.
Other poet used Gaudi style is Dandin.
Code: It refers to a prearranged set of rules for converting messages from one sign system into another. Sign systems such as alphabetic writing are already derived arbitrary representations of items of a natural language and so codes based on alphabetic writing are 'twice removed' from natural languages. Examples of codes are the Morse code used in telegraphy and many binary systems of computer programming. In the so-called 'Communication model' of Information theory, the message is said to be converted into signals by the sender or source (Encoding) and reassembled into meaningful sequences by the 'receiver' or the addressee (Decoding). (Hartmann and Stork)
Code in linguistics or in more particular socio linguistics refers to the shifting of one language to another during a conversation.
In Sanskrit, we do not have direct evidence on code switching, even though Sanskrit was the spoken language of India. However, Sanskrit and prākrit were used side by side in those days. Upper caste people used to speak Sanskrit while women and lower caste people used to speak prākrit. Whether upper caste people used to switchover to prākrit while speaking in Sanskrit is not clear.
Copyright CIIL-India Mysore