From: Bryan Levman
Message: 14366
Date: 2010-01-29
--- In Pali@... com, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for your excellent explanation. The current thinking that I am aware of is that Paali was derived from Vedic (von Hinueber. 2001.. Das Aeltere Mittelindisch im Ueberblick. Section 7- page 39- following).
>
> I am not familiar with Stefan Karpik's article. Could you please tell me where I can find it?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Metta!
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: James Whelan <james..whelan5@ ...>
> To: Pali@... com
> Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 5:30:13 PM
> Subject: RE: compounding - Re: [Pali] dhammavicaya
>
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> Perhaps I could help a little bit.
>
> Pali does indeed predate classical Sanskrit, but is probably roughly
> contemporaneous, or at least for a time ran a parallel course, with Vedic,
> which is an earlier and far less regularised form of what later became
> Sanskrit. Both Pali and Vedic almost certainly come from an earlier - now
> lost - common stock. The extreme value of making comparisons between Pali
> and Sanskrit is that Sanskit has preserved many of the forms that have been
> lost in Pali. The most important for the purposes of the present discussion
> is compound consonants.
>
> In Sanskrit: dharati = hold, from which is derived dharma.
>
> In Pali: dharati = hold, identical to Sanskrit. But with the addition of
> -ma, the compound consonant /rm/ becomes /mm/, whence dhamma.
>
> Where there is a compound consonant at the beginning of a word, Pali almost
> always reduces it to a single consonant:
>
> Sanskrit: smriti
>
> Pali: sati.
>
> Although Pali reduces the initial compound consonant to a single consonant,
> the language retained the 'shadow' of the missing element. So, although the
> speakers could not start a word with a double consonant, the doubling crept
> back in when it could, i.e. when it was supported by a vowel at the end of
> the preceding word in the compound. Thus: sati becomes anapana-ssati.
>
> Another example is:
>
> Sanskrit: pravartana (turning, as in turning the wheel of the law).
>
> Pali: pavattana. Here, the /pr/ reduces (as an initial) to /p/, and the
> intervocalic /rt/ reduces to /tt/.
>
> Now, when pavattana follows a preceding vowel in a compound, the doubled
> /pp/ takes the opportunity to come back: whence
> dhamma-cakka- ppavattana- sutta.
>
> So, the phenomenon of a double consonant at the beginning of word when it is
> the second or later element in a compound is simply the reappearance of
> another consonant that was there in an earlier form of the language. By the
> way if you look in the vocabularies in Warder's Introduction to Pali, you
> will see many words beginning with an initial letter in brackets, e.g.
> (p)pa-yaa. This simply means that on its own the own it begins with a
> single /p/, but it will double when it 'gets the chance'.
>
> If we trace Pali back to an earlier form, now lost but reconstructible with
> a reasonable degree of certainty for the present purposes, we will almost
> certainly find the unreduced forms of the compound consonants.
>
> Although it is not strictly historically accurate to say that Pali actually
> derives from Sanskrit, nevertheless it is very often perfectly accurate to
> say that Sanskrit preserves many forms that Pali has lost, and the Pali
> derives from those exact same forms that still exist in Sanskrit. So, from
> that point of view, when we say for example that dhamma 'comes from' or is
> derived from the Sanskrit dharma, this is just a convenient shorthand way of
> saying that dhamma comes from an older form of the word that has been
> preserved unaltered in Sanskrit as dharma.
>
> It is a moot point whether the Buddha actually spoke the same language that
> is preserved in the Pali Canon. This is a big subject, for which I can do
> no better at present than to refer you to Stefan Karpik's excellent article
> on the subject. He concludes, with very cogent reasons, that it was the
> same. Anyway, even if it wasn't exactly the same as the spoken language of
> Magadha at the time, then it must have been near enough to have made no real
> difference. However, the point is that at that time the language was not
> written, and when in due course it did come to be written is was written in
> scripts originally devised for other languages. These scripts had their
> own conventions. In one of them, the Devanagari script, used for Sanskrit,
> the convention was to run compounded words together into one long string.
> Scripts deriving from Devanagari (or from a common stock) tended to do the
> same. The string could be made even longer when separate words were written
> together under the rules of sandhi, i.e. when the last sound of the
> preceding word merged with the first sound of the following one. A simple
> example is the opening words of the Story of Nala: aasiit raajaa 'there was
> a king'. By sandhi, the final /t/ of aasiit becomes /d/. So it is aasiid
> raajaa. Now, by a convention of the Devanagari script, the syllables are
> divided thus: aa-sii-draa- jaa. We thus get the written syllable /draa/
> which is the last consonant of the preceding word, with the first syllable
> of the following one. ( /dr/ is written as a compound ligature in
> Devanagari.) For that reason, with a combination of compounding and sandhi,
> sometimes entire sentences are written without a break between the words.
> Awfully difficult for beginners.
>
> The bottom line is that we write dhammavicayabojjhan ga because it was
> written all as one word a long time ago under the conventions of one or more
> scripts that were never designed for Pali in the first place. There is no
> reason we have to maintain those conventions, and I entirely support those
> who would hyphenate for clarity. Since Pali, like Vedic, is primarily an
> oral tradition (by total contrast to e.g. Chinese, which is primarily a
> written tradition), there is nothing 'unPali' or fake about writing it in
> any way we choose. (By the way, contemporary websites in Sanskrit written
> in Devanagari mostly ignore sandhi and write the words separately. That
> tends to show that even traditionally minded Hindus blogging in Sanskrit
> regard themselves as being free to accommodate the script to modern tastes
> and requirements, rather than vice versa.)
>
> Regrettably, however, whether we hyphenate or not, or just leave gaps
> between the words, we cannot avoid having to accommodate, for the sake of
> linguistic accuracy, the reappearance of the doubled consonant at the
> beginning of a word in compound, or the merging or vowels. If we ignore
> these phenomena, we lose something of the carefully preserved oral
> tradition. Alas, the Ven. Pandita is absolutely right when he says: 'If
> you choose to write "anapana-sati" instead, it won't be real Pali'.
>
> Having seen your post on the subject, I might have to ask you for help in
> getting the DPR to work. I find Sanskrit more manageable than computers!
>
> With metta,
>
> James Whelan
>
> From: Pali@... com [mailto:Pali@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank
> Sent: 25 January 2010 20:22
> To: Pali@... com
> Subject: Re: compounding - Re: [Pali] dhammavicaya
>
> Hello Ven. Pandita,
> Thank you for the explanation, however it confuses me more than it
> clarifies. I thought pali predated sanskrit, and that the written pali
> language was predated by a spoken Maggada(?). So in the Buddha's time,
> there was no "real pali". AnapanaSSati did not exist as a written word.
> Only phonetic sounds and syllables sounding something like,
> "uh-nuh-punnuh- sa-tee" existed in the language, transmitted by speaking
> from monk to monk, village to village. I'm not trying to say there are
> no legitimate grammatical reasons for what you explained, I'm just
> trying to understand why compounding has to be represented in writing
> the way it is today.
> If I were to represent sounds of compound dhamma words in written
> form like this:
> anapana-sati,
> dhamma-vicaya- sambojjanga,
> samadhi-indriya,
> sadda-indriya,
> panna-indriya,
> etc., is there any ambiguity or grammatical reason where the receiver of
> my written communication could misinterpret what I wrote?
> Whereas I see "pannindriya" in the romanized pali text it looks like a
> complete and new stranger to me even though I'm completely familiar with
> panna and indriya.
> I don't really see hyphens as an eye sore either, if that's the only
> objection of why compounding is not represented with hyphens. I was just
> reading a dual pali/english line by line sutta where the author
> translated ekayano as "one-way-path" . Is that "real" english? I don't
> know the answer to that, but I do know as a native English speaker that
> the hyphens did not introduce any ambiguity or alter the intended
> meaning from the sender. In fact, it improved the clarity.
> Ultimately the Buddha was most interested in teaching about dukkha
> and its cessation, using whatever the most popular language and simple
> words that could communicate meaning the most clearly to as many people
> of as many cultures and backgrounds, for as long as possible. If he
> thought that hyphens in written transmissions of suttas would reduce
> the steep pali learning curve for buddhists from the future, I bet he
> would approve.
>
> -Frank
>
> On 1/25/2010 9:48 AM, ashinpan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Frank,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > Since the pali suttas were an oral tradition originally, not written,
> > > and the fact that it exists now in thai script, roman script, and
> > > whatever other localized script, I wonder if there is some reason
> > why we
> > > can not adopt a convention of compounding that allows the exploitation
> > > and ease in digital processing/searchin g. For example, if compound
> > words
> > > were written as anapana-sati instead of anapanaSSati,
> > > dhamma-vicaya- sambojjhanga, etc, wouldn't that lend clarity, structure,
> > > ease in understanding and communicating as well as instant dictionary
> > > lookup capability? Am I missing something? Is there a good reason for
> > > "anapanaSSati" instead of "anapana-sati" ?
> >
> > In the example that you give, i.e., "anapanaSSati" , the cons. "s" is
> > doubled because "sati" is derived from the Skt. form "sm.rti" and the
> > conjunct "sm" of the original "sm.rti" is assimilated into "ss" when
> > "sati" is a non-initial compound member.
> >
> > If you choose to write "anapana-sati" instead, it won't be real Pali.
> > Rather it will only be your interpretation of that particular compound.
> >
> > with metta
> >
> > Ven. Pandita
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr com/gift/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
__________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]