Tagged: Historical linguistics
Pages with this tag
Karpik - A Reply to Bryan Levman’s The Language the Buddha Spoke (2019)
1In a comprehensive rebuttal to Bryan Levman's theory, Stefan Karpik rejects the proposition of an early "pre-Pali" *lingua franca* that evolved into a later, mutually unintelligible Pali. Karpik argues that Levman's reconstructions are undateable, do not prove a *lingua franca* over other possibilities like bilingualism, and fail to explain why an original transmission would be discarded. The core of Karpik's critique focuses on Levman's flawed linguistic methodology, particularly the incorrect assumption of directionality in sound changes, which leads to proposing numerous implausible and unattested "fortitions" (sound strengthening) where lenition, orthographic errors, or dialectical variations are more likely explanations. Karpik further dismisses the claim of rapid linguistic change and mutual unintelligibility due to a lack of syntactical evidence, accusing Levman of circular reasoning and misrepresenting other scholars, ultimately advocating for a simpler model of steady linguistic development where Pali itself is the pre-Aśokan language of the Buddha.
Karpik - Light on Epigraphic Pali - More on the Buddha Teaching in Pali (2023)
2Stefan Karpik argues that the 20th-century scholarly consensus that the Buddha spoke Māgadhī, as reflected in Eastern Aśokan inscriptions, is a myth. He contends, based on computer searches and a re-examination of Pali commentaries, that the term 'Māgadhī' was deliberately avoided and that the Buddha, a Kosalan, most likely spoke Pali. Karpik introduces the concept of 'Epigraphic Pali' to reclassify what others have called 'central-western epigraphic Prakrit', demonstrating through analysis of nine inscriptions from various contexts that this widespread inscriptional language is a later, naturally evolved form of canonical Pali. This evidence suggests Pali was not an artificial, ecclesiastical language but a standard, non-sectarian vernacular used across India for centuries. Consequently, he proposes that all early Buddhist canons were originally composed in Pali, the language of the Buddha, before being transmitted and adapted into other dialects and languages, a hypothesis that resolves questions of linguistic authenticity without privileging any single canon.
Levman - The language the Buddha spoke (2019)
3Bryan Levman argues that the Buddha spoke not Pāli as we know it, but an earlier, related vernacular or *koine* that differed in word form, morphology, and sometimes meaning. Evidence for this earlier linguistic layer is uncovered by applying comparative historical linguistics to the various Pāli recensions and parallel transmissions in other Prakrits, such as Gāndhārī. This method reveals that many variant readings and semantic ambiguities in the canon can be traced back to a common ancestral form in the *koine* which had undergone significant phonetic simplification, such as the weakening of intervocalic consonants into glides or the reduction of various aspirated stops to a simple aspirate. Later redactors, transmitting the teachings into their own dialects, reinterpreted these simplified sounds, resulting in the multiple cognate forms found today, a process further complicated by influences from prestigious northwestern dialects and the assimilation of non-Aryan words. Levman concludes that this linguistic evolution is consistent with the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence and supports the Buddha's historicity.