________________
MEHENDALB : Mayrhofer's New Etymological Dictionary
131
which may be called . Vedic' in the widest sense of the term, and also words which appear for the first time in the works of old gammarians like Pāṇini and Patañjall. Such words which do not appear before the epics and the law books18 have been assigned place in the second division. Mayrbofer points out that such a chronological division is, in a way, justified since almost one hundred percent of the OIA words of the first division (older language ) have le or Indoiranian explanations. Words of foreigo origin or even those which reveal the stamp of MIA phonology are an exception in the first divison. On the other hand, suggestions to derive words of the second division from IE roots are recognized as possibilities only in a few cases. 11 Those, however, who do not subscribe to such chronological divisions and still cling to the slogan Old Indian is Old Indian' adduce in support the evidence of the word pard- which, though it belongs to the later language, is of le origin. They are, however, now faced with the fact that the word pard, is, in fact, attested in a Vedic text (TS. 7.5.1.2) and hence can claim to belong to the older language, 15
One last question of principle dealt with by Mayrhofer is : how much should the author of an etymological dictionary cite from the secondary literature, how many earlier etymological explanations does he have to refer to? Since such explanations are too many, quite obviously one has to make a choice. Aleksander Brückaer makes this painful task quite simple for him. self. He says that in his Polish dictionary he cites only that explanation which in his opinion is correct, probable, or possible, and passes over the rest in silence. He neither mentions them nor argues against them. Mayrhofer strongly objects to this attitude, not so much because it smacks of self-righteousness and arrogance, but because he is convinced that our linguistic
13 In his Überlegungen (2. 2. 3, p. 150) Mayrhofer had thought of including words
which are first attested in older law:books like those of Manu and Yājõavalkya in the first division. He has since:changed his mind and decided to place all law books in
later language' By arranging the lemmata chronologically, which arrrangement incidentally throws light on the two types of the origin of the words, Mayrhofer comes a step closer to satisfying the demand that the lemmata be arranged origin-wise. Mayrhofer's view that it is absolutely necessary to divido OIA lexicon into two chrono. logical parts of an etymological dictionary has some justification no doubt. But in comparing the view of those who wish to combine tho two divisions - old and late
into one dictionary with an hypothetical etymological dictionary of Old Greck mixing up in one book also middle and new Greek is going too far. The comparison would be apt only if those who wish to give the etymological dictionary of OIA as one book had also thought of combining with it the etymological dictionaries of MIA and NIA.
Madhu Vidyā/402
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
