Re: [tied] Centum in Vedic?

From: Dean_Anderson
Message: 12548
Date: 2002-02-28

> --- In cybalist@..., "Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> wrote:

> > agree with Witzel that the Vedic chanting is an accurate
> > representation of what prevailed 3000 years ago. Witzel calls it
> > a "tape recording."

--- In cybalist@..., "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> I didn't think that it was just an opinion. Sound
> recordings have been made of the traditional recitation
> of the Vedas and are widely available for confirmation.
> Although I'm not exactly sure what it is that's being
> contended.

In "Autochthonous Aryans", Witzel says: "For India, we have the
Vedas, a large collection of texts, orally composed and orally
transmitted well into this millennium. Tradition has taken care to
ensure, with various techniques, that the wording and even tone
accents, long lost from popular speech, have been preserved
perfectly, almost like a tape recording. This includes several
special ways of recitation, the padapATha (word-for-word recitation)
and several complicated extensions and modifications (vikRti)."

> "All three syllabic liquids, r, r: and l, vanished long ago
> from popular speech, and the memory of how to pronounce
> them correctly has faded. Syllabic l occurs only in some forms
> of the verb klp and may be ignored...

Note that Coulson is saying you can ignore klp because it is Vedic.

> In "A Sanskrit Grammar" by Manfred Mayrhofer, he writes
> "h is a voiced aspirate, -h (visarga) a voiceless aspirate.
> In the pronunciation of today's Brahmans

Both Coulson and Mayrhofer are talking about "today's Brahmans" and
specifically referring to Classical Sanskrit not Vedic Sanskrit. This
is the central difference that I am trying to highlight (based on my
understanding of Witzel quoted above.)

> I may be wrong, and I've never read Deshpande's article (is it
> available online?),

Sadly no. This is a very real problem I've found in academia. They
are still tied to the totally archaic system of publishing in obscure
journals that only a few libraries carry. Witzel has taken a very
great step with his Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies which is on
the internet -- and free! It amazes me that some of these internet
journals charge for access. Physics and Biology journals are much
more progressive.

>but I doubt that Prof. Witzel would insist
> that the modern recitation of the Vedas isn't affected by the
> chanter's own language's sound system, especially at the level
> of phonetic detail.

Well, yes and no. Errors may creep in but rigorous steps have been
made to prevent this. I'm not sure what the mainstream opinion is on
how successful this has been apart from Witzel's quote.

> This is true, but nevertheless few adults are able to acquire a
> perfect pronunciation of sounds outside of their native language.
> Neither Vedic nor Sanskrit has been anyone's 'first' or 'natural'
> language for thousands of years.

Actually, there are a few villages in South India that speak Sanskrit
as their first language and I've heard of some ashrams in the
Himalayas also. Depending on how you define "natural" there are very
many Brahmans in India who still speak Sanksrit in the home. Banaras
Sanskrit University teaches all of its classes in Sanksrit. A few
years ago, a pandit used to join me for lunch once a week and we
would chat in Sanksrit while we ate. Needless to say, he was much
more fluent than me!