Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c12.9.2

c12.9.2

And if the creation of a sacred language was the conscious and deliberate aim of the Brahmans, and Pânini resuscitated old or obsolete words, why did they or he not include in the new language all the innumerable old obsolete Vedic words and grammatical forms, which would have, from the very reverence that was paid to the Vedas, rendered their invention more sacred; and why should they, instead of doing so, have distinguished between a Chhândasa or Vedic, and Bhâshâ or popular, speech? And, if the inventors seized all the salient features of the popular dialects, would they have left a few but striking Vedic peculiarities in the popular speech, such as the absolutive in त्वान् or तून, unrepresented in their new language? And how could they from the popular dialects, in which the conjugations and declensions were reduced to fewer types, construct the innumerable forms of the Sanskrit noun or verb, the Perfects, the Aorists and the lost tenses or moods? And what must have been the basis of the incalculable Taddhita or nominal, and Krit or verbal derivatives, which have left but few traces in the Prâkrits? Even the Vedic dialect is not calculated to afford much help. For if the grammar of the later Sanskrit had been framed by the conscious inventors upon the model of the Vedic, the declensions, conjugations, and the derivatives would have been like the Vedic; whereas, as a matter of fact, the differences are great, and some of these I pointed out in the first lecture.