FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4328017860> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4328017860 endingPage "17" @default.
• W4328017860 startingPage "10" @default.
• W4328017860 abstract "A puzzle in the sociolinguistic history of Sanskrit is that texts with authenticated dates first appear in the 2nd century CE, after five centuries of exclusively Prakrit inscriptions. Various hypotheses have tried to account for this fact. Senart (1886) proposed that Sanskrit gained wider currency through Buddhists and Jains. Franke (1902) claimed that Sanskrit died out in India and was artificially reintroduced. Lévi (1902) argued for usurpation of Sanskrit by the Kshatrapas, foreign rulers who employed brahmins in administrative positions. Pisani (1955) instead viewed the “Sanskrit Renaissance” as the brahmins’ attempt to combat these foreign invaders. Ostler (2005) attributed the victory of Sanskrit to its ‘cultivated, self-conscious charm’; his acknowledgment of prior Sanskrit use by brahmins and kshatriyas suggests that he did not consider the victory a sudden event. The hypothesis that the early-CE public appearance of Sanskrit was a sudden event is revived by Pollock (1996, 2006). He argues that Sanskrit was originally confined to ‘sacerdotal’ contexts; that it never was a natural spoken language, as shown by its inability to communicate childhood experiences; and that ‘the epigraphic record (thin though admittedly it is) suggests … that [tribal chiefs] help[ed] create’ a new political civilization, the “Sanskrit Cosmopolis,” ‘by employing Sanskrit in a hitherto unprecedented way’. Crucial in his argument is the claim that kāvya literature was a foundational characteristic of this new civilization and that kāvya has no significant antecedents. I show that Pollock’s arguments are problematic. He ignores evidence for a continuous non-sacerdotal use of Sanskrit, as in the epics and fables. The employment of nursery words like tāta ‘daddy’/tata ‘sonny’ (also used as general terms of endearment), or ambā/ambikā ‘mommy; mother’ attest to Sanskrit’s ability to communicate childhood experiences. Kāvya, the foundation of Pollock’s “Sanskrit Cosmopolis”, has antecedents in earlier Sanskrit (and Pali). Most important, Pollock fails to show how his powerful political-poetic kāvya tradition could have arisen ex nihilo. To produce their poetry, the poets would have had to draw on a living, spoken language with all its different uses, and that language must have been current in a larger linguistic community beyond the poets, whether that community was restricted to brahmins (as commonly assumed) or also included kshatriyas (as suggested by Ostler). I conclude by considering implications for the “Sanskritization” of Southeast Asia and the possible parallel of modern “Indian English” literature." @default.
• W4328017860 created "2023-03-22" @default.
• W4328017860 creator A5005003120 @default.
• W4328017860 date "2019-04-01" @default.
• W4328017860 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W4328017860 title "Foreigners, Brahmins, Poets, or What? The Sociolinguistics of the Sanskrit Renaissance" @default.
• W4328017860 cites W4212910840 @default.
• W4328017860 cites W623537650 @default.
• W4328017860 doi "https://doi.org/10.47298/jala.v1-i2-a2" @default.
• W4328017860 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W4328017860 type Work @default.
• W4328017860 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4328017860 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4328017860 hasAuthorship W4328017860A5005003120 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C121766906 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C122302079 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C2779220109 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C29912816 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C121766906 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C122302079 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C124952713 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C138885662 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C142362112 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C166957645 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C17744445 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C199539241 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C2779220109 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C29912816 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C41895202 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C94625758 @default.
• W4328017860 hasConceptScore W4328017860C95457728 @default.
• W4328017860 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4328017860 hasLocation W43280178601 @default.
• W4328017860 hasOpenAccess W4328017860 @default.
• W4328017860 hasPrimaryLocation W43280178601 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W1482343988 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W2065063351 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W2354232151 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W2539228472 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W3049298623 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W615875019 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W616710593 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W632312914 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W637584530 @default.
• W4328017860 hasRelatedWork W654920130 @default.
• W4328017860 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W4328017860 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4328017860 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4328017860 workType "article" @default.