________________ 346 A. WEZLER cance for the "Ideology and Status of Sanskrit in South and Southeast Asia. >> 73 Ceterum censeo terram Tibetanam in veterem dignitatem ac libertatem esse vindicandam. "As for the designation, I should like to note that P. Thieme very recently (19946:323) has expressed his sad feeling about M. Mayrhofer's "throwing aside the name 'Sanskrit'"; indeed, one could very well consider using 'Sanskrit' as the designation for Vedic as well as all the various forms of standard and non-standard 'classical' Sanskrit. Though scholars of Indo-European studies will, I am afraid, hesitate to follow Thieme or me, Indologists, especially those among them who attended this Seminar, or now read the present Volume, will accept this proposal much more readily because the Indian grammarians, and not only they, did not after all regard Vedic Sanskrit' and Classical Sanskrit' as two different languages, but distinguished only between Vedic' and laukika words. Hence the notion of a linguistic continuum to which Ashok Aklujkar rightly draws our attention (see his contribution to this volume) also covers these two varieties of 'correct speech', and not only Sanskrit' and the apabhramsas. Finally, regarding the question where samskra is first attested as designation of a language - and the verse from the Ramayana (Ramayana 5.28.17-18) quoted by Sheldon Pollock in the discussion of Aklujkar's paper , I should like to add that this whole issue including this passage has already been discussed by E. W. Hopkins 1902:83ff. (cf. Hinuber 1986:19), who in his turn refers to Jacobi 1893:112-119.
