Madhuvidya

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

Page 660

230
A. M. MEHENDALE
Even in the latter type of comparison, occasionally the suggested etymologies do turn out to be identical with one of the compared items, as with IE esli >Sk. asti, Gk esti. In essence Dr. Bhat's suggestion comes very close to that of Hockett who, while pointing out the reflexive nature of genetic relationship observes : "Consider the limiting case in which we compare a language with itself, Recurring correspondences are then indentities, every form is cognate with itself and from the beginning there is no unexplained residue." ( 1965 : p. 189).
But there is a contradiction involved in Dr. Bhat's exposition. He looks upon the comparison of two dialects on the basis of genetic hypothesis as an internal criterion for observing sound change, and even though he considers comparison of two diachronic records of a language as a case of genetic hypothesis, he looks upon it as external evidence for language change (p. 20). A few other comments may be offered :
(1) On p. 31 Dr. Bhat gives three English words knight, knob, and knowledge as examples where childern must have failed to internalize the distinction between k and its absence in the initial pre-nasal environment. But whereas in the case of knight there is a comparable word night where one can imagine a child to have failed to note the distinction between the initial kn- and n-, there is no such comparable item for knowledge. As for knob, although a word nob exists in English it is hardly likely to come a child's way.
(2) The fact (and not "the assumption") that a lost phonological contrast cannot be recovered through following sound changes is a limtation and not the main basis of comparative method (pp. 35-6 ).
(3) The diagram (p. 61) showing the split of k'to k and c is so drawn as to indicate that the velar part of l' has developed into k and the labial part of it has developed into c. But this is not correct. It would have been better for the author to indicate the split of a simple velar k and not that of a labiovelar ko
(4) The Sanskrit stem is not suhrt (p. 64 ) but suhrd.
(5) The alternation - and jų in Sanskrit cannot be called non-automatic. It is automatic, but non-unique. .
(6) The appearence of u in wives is not in the intervocalic position (although it appears intervocal in spelling) (wives was once wi:vəz.--ARK.)
(7) A few comments regarding examples or glosses: (i) p.53: Pāli mottia is incorrect; (ii) p. 69: Hindi parni 'bride' is doubtful; (iii) p.87: German Bund'pocket' is incorrect; (iv) p.57: palatalization of a velar before a palatal vowel e as in *kedi > cedu is not a good example of partial assimilation. A better example would be Skt.* ud-matta > un-matta.
A word of caution may be given to the reader, Dr. Bhat seems to be specially fond of the phrase a number of.' He has used it no less than five times in a single page of preface. It is likely that he does not mean it literally every time he uses it. REFERENCE Hockett, Charles F. 1965. Sound change. Lg. 41. (Received 30 March 1973]
Madhu Vidyā/635