Book Review – Syntactic Studies of Indo‑Aryan Languages

Summary

Satya Ranjan Banerjee reviews the reprint of Sukumar Sen’s trilogy on Indo‑Aryan syntax, published in 1995 by the Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. The volume combines Historical Syntax of Middle Indo‑Aryan, The Use of the Cases in Vedic Prose and Syntactic Studies of Buddhist Sanskrit, making available works that had long been out of print. Banerjee introduces readers to the history of Indo‑Aryan syntax research. Early nineteenth‑century studies by Eugène Burnouf on the Sanskrit infinitive and Berthold Delbrück’s comparative syntax of Indo‑European languages laid foundational terminology. Later works by German scholars such as Alfred Ludwig, August Hoefer, Eugen Wilhelm, Emil Herzog and Julius Jolly further explored Sanskrit infinitives and sentence structure. In the twentieth century, linguists like W.D. Whitney, Jacob Wackernagel and Hanns Oertel expanded the field with studies on Vedic prose and the narrative use of the imperfect and perfect in the Brāhmaṇas. Banerjee notes that Middle Indo‑Aryan syntax had remained almost barren until Dr. Sen’s pioneering studies. Sen began publishing in the 1930s and continued through the 1950s, producing a corpus of syntactic research that Banerjee regards as indispensable. The review summarises the contents of the three reprinted works: the Historical Syntax examines the evolution of Middle Indo‑Aryan constructions; The Use of the Cases in Vedic Prose analyses the functions of nominal cases; and Syntactic Studies of Buddhist Sanskrit compares structures across Prakrit and Hybrid Sanskrit literature. Banerjee contextualises Sen’s contributions by mentioning other Indian scholars—A.N. Upadhye’s Syntactic Position of the Preposition and A.M. Ghatage’s studies on instrumental and locative cases in Ardhamāgadhī and Prakrit repetitions—but stresses that none have matched Sen’s breadth or depth. He lists further articles on conditional sentences and preterite tenses to demonstrate the scarcity of comparable work. Banerjee’s review emphasises the timeliness of the Tokyo reprint. Many younger scholars lacked access to Sen’s original publications, and the combined volume rescues valuable data from obscurity. He praises the quality of the printing and binding and commends the Tokyo institution for its service to scholarship. The reviewer would have preferred the inclusion of Sen’s 1925 article on the use of the cases in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, but he acknowledges that the core trilogical works represent the bulk of Sen’s research. In conclusion, Banerjee urges Indologists and linguists to acquire the reprint. He predicts that the availability of these classic studies will reinvigorate comparative syntax research and provide a dependable foundation for future scholarship on Indo‑Aryan languages.