Aiyo sir, already mentioned that Kane has not written anything about their periods of composition, nor have i mentioned Kane in such context."The word ' brahma ' generally means in the Rgveda ' prayer ' or"* hymn ". Vide 62 Rg IV. 6.11, VI. 52.2, X. 105.8, X. 141.5 ('Oh Agni, make our prayer and sacrifice prosper by your flames'). Rg. III. 53.12 is 'this brahma ( prayer or spiritual power ) of Visvamitra protects the Bharata people'. In the Atharvaveda II. 15.4 (as brahma and ksatra entertain no fear, nor are they harmed ) brahma seems to mean ' the class of brahmanas '. The transition of meaning from 'brahma' (prayer) to 'brahma' meaning the class of those who composed or recited prayers is natural and easy. In the Rgveda I. 157.2 both brahma and ksatra occur 63 in the same verse where they probably mean ' prayer ' and ' valour ' respectively. In the Atharvaveda III. 19. 1 both words occur and probably mean the same thing as in Rg. I. 157.2. In some Vedic works brahma and ksatra stand collectively for brahmanas 64 and ksatriyas (e. g. Tai. Br. II. 7.18, Br. Up. I. 4.11, Kathopanisad I.2.24)."
Out of the above portion from Dr. Kane's book, you have deemed it fit to quote the last sentence and since Dr. Kane has not said that brahma and kshatra stand collectively for brahmanas and kshatriyas, you conclude that such a meaning is not to be found in TS. I will hesitate to venture into a conclusion like that unless I am 100% sure that it is so, or some other authority, like Dr. Kane, has expressly said so.
In this case therefore, first of all, there is no ground to warrant the conclusion "for portion in Tai.Br not found in Tai.S". Secondly, even granting that such a conclusion is valid, what relevance has it got in arriving at a decision on whether T.S. and T. Br. were composed in the same period?
In footnote 64 on the same page 30, Dr. Kane has given —
ब्रह्मवै ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रं राजन्यः । तै. ब्रा. III. 9.14. (brahmavai brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatraṃ rājanyaḥ | tai. brā. III. 9.14).
So, in the same T.Br. the contrary position exists and suppose I say, therefore, T.S. and T. Br. talk the language of the same period, how far will it be correct from a scholastic pov? That is why I had to remark that lifting remarks in this matter - without much care - and trying to prove or buttress a point is not creditable.
Will all this mean that at a later period, brahmanas and kshatriyas used to be bracketed together either as brahma or kshatra? If so, do we have any authoritative statement to this effect?
I have taken only one instance out of the several you have furnished. But, for the reasons given above I will not be convinced that such instances prove that T. Br. and T.S. belong to different periods, though I am prepared to change my views in the light of convincing evidence.
This paper by Keith http://ia700300.us.archive.org/20/items/vedablackyajuss02keitgoog/vedablackyajuss02keitgoog.pdf has sufficiently answered the query whether or not the texts were composed at the same time. The Taittariya Samhita and Taittiriya Brahmana are perhaps a unique case.
Keith says there is not much difference in the position of the two texts wrt language. However based on contents they do correspond to different time periods. Already mentioned some part in post # 70.
Keith basically goes composition by composition within the text wrt assigning periods of composition. He says all Aranyakas are composed later than the Samhitas as regards the Brahmana passages, and while some are new mantras, there are also old mantras in new settings. Portions like Purushamedha, etc are late additions.
Infact, he also brings out portions of Samhitas that are supplementary to the Brahmana texts. Overall the Taittriya Samhita (as i had suspected) turns out to be a relatively new text, and composed over some period of time (instead of one stroke). I think reading up the paper for the evidences he has provided will be self-explanatory.
I read until page 102. Please do read page 93 for the seperation part (and of rituals taking over the samhita mantras).
Regards.