Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 659

reviews and notices
SHANKARA BHAT, D. N. Sound Change, Poona, Bhasha Prakashan, 1972. 98 pp. Rs. 12; $3
Reviewed by M. A. MEHENDALE,
Deccan College, Poona
Ever since the beginning of modern linguistic studies, sound change has, quite understandably, engaged the attention of scholars. More than any other aspect of linguistic change, studies in sound change have produced some very important and interesting results. Owing to a general decline in the interest in historical linguistics in the past few decades the theory of sound change did not receive the attention it did in the 19th and the early years of the 20th century. However, in recent years there have been some refreshingly new approaches to the study of sound change, Dr. Bhat's being one of them.
The author, in the small compass of less than a hundred pages, tries to examine the bases of language change, the characteristics of sound change, the effects produced by sound change on language structure, and the methods employed to recover the sound changes. He has critically examined the well known hypotheses regarding the gradualness and regularity of sound change in the light of the evidence collected by him in his dialect studies in South India. He has offered some good material for a reassessment of these basic notions regarding sound change. But it may be doubted whether it would be good to throw away completely a hypothesis like that of gradualness and regularity which has proved its worth over a long period.
The most important contribution made by Dr. Bhat in this book is to draw attention to the fact that in the history of a given language no novel contrasts are brought about. What was until recently believed to be a new contrast, Dr. Bhat points out, is in effect only a shift of contrast (4-29). Thus, when in Indo-Iranian velar k and palatal c come to be contrasted, this is really a shift of an earlier contrast between vowels a and e. But it does not seem correct to state this as: "Sound changes are incapable of introducing new sets of contrasts into a language" (p. 82). It would be more pertinent to say: Sound changes are incapable of adding to the number of contrasts already existing in a language.
Equally interesting is Dr. Bhat's remark that "the basis for connecting together various written records of a language belonging to different periods of time is nothing but genetic hypothesis itself..." (p. 20). Dr. Bhat has not elaborated on this point, but he seems to see a similarity of approach in comparing two synchronic stages of related languages and two diachronic stages of suppo sedly the same language. Both approaches lead us to the establishment of historical relationship. Comparison of OIA karna and MIA kanna would be on par with the comparison of Skt. soma and Avestan haoma if the two sets of corres. pondences are considered as cognates in the sense that they are etymologically related. That in one case the established etymology, karna, happens to be identical with one of the two items compared makes it no different from the other where the suggested etyinology *saonta is different from both the compared items.
Madhu Vidya/634