Gujarati Bhashani Utkrantio Dastaweji Alekh - Book Summary

This is a summary of the provided Gujarati text, which reviews Jayant Kothari's analysis of the evolution of the Gujarati language.

Book Title: Gujarati Bhashani Utkrantio Dastaweji Alekh (Documentary Record of the Evolution of the Gujarati Language) Author: Jayant Kothari Based on: Lectures by Pandit Bechardas Doshi in 1938-39 at Mumbai University, published as a book in 1943. Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_2_Pundit_Bechardas_Doshi_012016.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/230079/1

Summary:

Jayant Kothari reviews Pandit Bechardas Doshi's seminal work, "The Evolution of the Gujarati Language," which is based on lectures delivered in 1938-39 and published in 1943. Kothari highlights the book's significance for its methodology and some of its key propositions, while also pointing out its limitations.

Structure and Content:

The book comprises five lectures.
The first lecture (218 pages): Serves as an introduction, providing a detailed overview of the historical lineage of the Gujarati language. It begins with a traditional exposition of word forms, sounds, language structure, and dialects. Kothari notes that while this section is useful for understanding the ancient tradition, its neglect of modern linguistic advancements makes it appear one-sided and somewhat limited in its linguistic analysis.
The remaining four lectures (446 pages): Analyze the form of the Gujarati language across the 12th-13th, 14th-15th, 16th-17th, and 18th centuries.

Pandit Doshi's Key Propositions and Kothari's Critique:

Relationship between Sanskrit and Prakrit: Pandit Doshi traces the evolution from Vedic Sanskrit, Classical Sanskrit, Prakrit, its variations, and Apabhramsha. A significant assertion by Doshi is the close relationship between Vedic and Prakrit. He considers Classical Sanskrit as the "younger sister" and Prakrit as the "elder sister," describing the influence of Prakrit on Sanskrit. Consequently, he questions the appropriateness of terms like "Tadbhav" (evolved from) and "Sanskrit-nija" (born from Sanskrit). While he opposes Rajshekhar's view that Sanskrit originated from Prakrit, Doshi's perspective of seeing Sanskrit and Prakrit as sisters is presented as clear and forcefully articulated, yet Kothari suggests it risks becoming one-sided. Kothari finds Doshi's emphasis on the study of Prakrit appropriate, given its crucial role in the development of Indian-Aryan languages.
Apabhramsha and its Connection to Gujarati: Doshi links Apabhramsha to ancient Prakrit and considers it the "third sister" alongside Sanskrit and Prakrit. Kothari questions the extent to which the roots of Apabhramsha can be traced back to antiquity, but acknowledges that this approach preserves the continuity of spoken languages. Doshi distinguishes between the general and specific meanings of "Apabhramsha" and accepts the existence of regional Apabhramshas, noting only minor differences between them.
- Doshi posits a familial relationship for Gujarati: Apabhramsha as the mother, broader Prakrit as the maternal aunt, Classical Sanskrit as the paternal aunt, and ancient Prakrit of the Vedic era as the maternal grandmother. He claims to find traces of this maternal grandmother's legacy in Gujarati, though Kothari suggests that some of these connections might be based on coincidences.
The Origin of Gujarati: Doshi makes a highly distinctive and controversial assertion about the beginning of the Gujarati language. He doesn't stop at Hemachandra's Apabhramsha where the emergence of Gujarati can be observed, but goes as far as calling Hemachandra the "Panini of Gujarati" and the "Valmiki" or "Adi Kavi" (first poet) of literary Gujarati. He then includes works by Abhayadev, Vadidev Suri, and Hemachandra in his study of 12th-century Gujarati. Kothari, citing Dr. Harivallabh Bhayani, points out that Doshi overlooks the crucial distinguishing feature of consonant clusters in the works of Abhayadev and others, thereby classifying these Apabhramsha works as Gujarati. Furthermore, Kothari argues that Doshi lacks a consistent and stable theoretical framework. For instance, regarding Abhayadev Suri's stotra (hymn), Doshi states, "The composer is Gujarati, and the place of composition is a village in Gujarat, therefore the language of the stotra can also be called Gujarati in relation." This implies that linguistic characteristics are irrelevant. Kothari notes that the grammatical features Doshi extracts from these works are largely those of Apabhramsha, and Doshi himself sees no significant difference from Hemachandra's grammar of emerging Gujarati, apart from ordinary pronunciation variations.
"Ambapuriyacharita" and "Kumar Gujarati": Doshi considers the language of the 13th-century work "Ambapuriyacharita" as "Emerging Gujarati," arguing it should be called "Kumar Gujarati" (young Gujarati). This is because the language exhibits features of the post-Apabhramsha era. Kothari quotes Doshi's concluding remarks: "The word-form of the 12th-century Gujarati language is like Prakrit." and "In the language of the 13th century, Prakrit characteristics are seen less." Kothari questions if Doshi had maintained consistency with these statements throughout his lectures.

Methodology of the Later Lectures:

Kothari finds Doshi's approach in lectures two through five, which depict the development of Gujarati from the 12th to the 18th century, very noteworthy from a methodological standpoint.
Doshi selected representative works or portions from each century and extracted linguistic material to present his analysis. This included building vocabulary, introducing grammatical forms, and discussing etymology.
Kothari praises this kind of empirical study of language development as rare and valuable in their context.

Etymological Analysis and Criticisms:

Throughout the lectures, Doshi traces the origins of numerous words and word formations.
Despite Doshi's own warning against being misled by mere similarity of letters (on page 251), Kothari suggests he was not entirely successful in avoiding this pitfall.
Doshi appears to have generally not benefited from established principles of phonology or previous etymological work on the Gujarati language. Consequently, his etymological discussions often amount to merely noting parallels between words.
In many instances, Doshi admits to speculation, which is evident in his suggested alternative etymologies. When he provides a specific etymology or shows a preference for one, it is rarely based on accepted phonetic rules or grammatical facts.
Examples of questionable etymologies:
- Doshi suggests the etymology of "karavānu" based on "tavyatīya" and "tanna," considering the former consistent. However, he overlooks that "karavānu" is an expansion of "karavu" with the addition of the "-nu" suffix.
- Doshi proposes that the Gujarati abstract suffix "-ā'ī" originates from the Vedic "-tāti" and the Gujarati measure suffix "-n" (as in "rupīyāne pagār" - salary in rupees) from the Vedic "-in." Kothari finds little basis for accepting these derivations. He believes that if Doshi had considered the pervasiveness of the "-n" suffix in Gujarati, he would not have considered deriving it from "-in." Kothari suggests that Doshi's enthusiasm to show the Vedic heritage in Gujarati led him to these etymologies.
- Regarding the word "nātāruṅ" (relationship), Doshi suggests its etymology from "jñāti" (caste/kin) and in a footnote, notes its similarity to "jñātyantaram" (belonging to another caste/kin), even suggesting the possibility of "jñāti-itar" (other than one's caste/kin). Kothari states that if Doshi had a framework of universal phonetic rules, he could have easily settled on "jñātyantaram" directly.
- After suggesting that the word "gamār" (ignorant, rustic) appears to be a transformation of the Persian "gumrāh" (astray, misguided), Doshi also suggests its etymology from the root "gum" and "grāmyācār" (village custom) as noted by Hemachandra. Kothari argues that this recurring indecisiveness hardly illuminates the main pathways of language development. However, he acknowledges that these etymological discussions bring together linguistic material from different stages, which can be useful for language researchers as raw material.

Overall Contribution:

Kothari concludes by acknowledging that Pandit Doshi prepared these lectures with considerable study and applied all his knowledge.
His presentation is characterized by considerable detail and lucidity. He employed abundant linguistic material from Vedic to Gujarati and adopted a scientific, empirical approach to study.
Despite these strengths, Kothari identifies reasons why the subject might not be fully illuminated. As Dr. Bhayani notes, Doshi's work is largely independent of modern original research. He did not attempt to verify the material from his sources (like Thakkura, Nirukta, Hemachandra, etc.) but focused on recording information and pointing out parallels, rather than deriving rules or trends.
Consequently, beyond some broad conclusions in the epilogue, Doshi couldn't offer anything concrete.
Nevertheless, Kothari believes that Pandit Doshi opened a new direction in the study of the development of the Gujarati language, a path that has not been explored much. He considers Pandit Doshi's contribution significant.