At 01:09 27.03.2005 +0600, Ven. Pandita wrote:

>Dear Gunnar
>
>You wrote:
>
> > As a former student of musicology, I would prefer to leave "vina"
> > untranslated - it is a musical instrument with no other name in any
> > western language, as far as
> > i known. It is often translated as "lute", which is closer (I think it
> > belongs to the lute types of chordophones, not to the harp, lyre, or
> > cither type), but still not quite good.
> >
> > The translation of the names of musical instruments is an eternal
> > problem, and an eternal point of disagreement between musicologists
> > and others. When ancient Greek texts in English translation speak of
> > "flutes", it is more often than not a translation of
> > _aulos_, which was actually a shawm, more like an oboe than a flute.
> >
> > This is not of essential importance to the Dhamma, of course, but
> > sometimes I like to take a look about details as well - at least when
> > it is easily done.
>
>Thanks a lot. Music is, understandably, a distant field for me. In fact,
>I don't understand many terms you have used such as "chordophone, lute,
>lyre, oboe", etc. --- I would need to see big pictures of these
>instruments!
>
>My translation is based on the Burmese tradition, which translates
>vii.naa as "saung", a Burmese word meaning a harp. I have no evidence
>otherwise.

I have seen old Indian reliefs of an instrument looking very much like a
Burmese saung. The saung is not a European harp. It is not a triangular
harp with a pillar. It is a pillarless "bow harp", but it is nevertheless a
member of the larger harp family. Now, if the relief I refer to, shows a
viina, then I think you are prefectly right in calling it a harp after all.

Best regards,

Kåre A. Lie
http://www.lienet.no/