Eng translation of Kacc 1:1

Following below is a new English translation for the whole of the
first chapter of Kaccayana --including the introductory verses and
copious notes on the controvertial 10th and 11th verses.

This puts us "back on track" for the list-serv's discussion of Kacc
1:1 --that left off in 2004!

It will be evident that I have come to agree with 99.9% of Ole Pind's
thesis on verses 10 and 11 --or, in other words, that I have come to
reject the theories of Vidyabhusana, Senart, and Mason on the same
verse (briefly reviewed in the notes below).

And and all comments on the translation are welcome.  The only patch
that I really have trouble with is the Vutti to 1:1:10 --the vutti is
certainly inconsistent with the verse, and, frankly, seems
inconsistent with itself.

Please note that I *DO NOT* consider this work to be in the public
domain, but jealously reserve the rights to it, as it seems that I
will be including a full translation with my "Khmer edition" of
Kaccayana.

E.M.
---------------
Kaccāyanavyākaraṇa: English Translation

[Proem]

I salute [that most] fortunate, noble, and perfectly awakened [of men].
To the Buddha, best of all beings in the three worlds, to his Truth
[taught] without imperfection, and to the glorious multitude [of his
followers], the highest acclaim has been offered, and now, so that the
most excellent meaning of his words may be properly understood, I
shall recite a discourse on the grammar of correct euphony [viz., the
subject of the first chapter following].
For their own betterment, [many would] follow the ethic of the
all-conquering [Buddha], but the proper understanding of that ethic is
known [only] by means of the meanings of words, and the latter by
means of syllables, [whereof we can] not be ignorant.  Thus, those
seeking their own betterment must learn the manifold syllables and
words [of the Pali language].

The Book of Euphony

1‧1‧1
The meaning is made known by syllables.
All utterances [can] become meaningless in the way the syllables are
construed [or misconstrued].
Proficiency in letters is thus exceedingly useful for the study of the
[Buddha's] discourses, for an error in the the letters [entails] a
misguided meaning.

1‧1‧2
The letters are forty-one.
Thus the letters in the mode of the discourses [amount to] forty-one,
starting with "a".  They are:

a  ā  i  ī  u  ū  e  o
k kh g gh ɲ
c ch j jh ñ
ṭ ṭh ḍ ḍh ṇ
t th d dh n
p ph b bh m
y  r  l  v  s  h  ḷ  ŋ

These are termed "letters".
For what reason is this taught?  [Quoting 1‧1‧1:] The meaning is made
known by syllables.

1‧1‧3
The vowels are eight, delimited by "o".
Thus, among the letters, the [first] eight, [starting] from "a" and
delimited by "o", are termed "vowels".  They are:

a  ā  i  ī  u  ū  e  o

These are termed "vowels".
For what reason is this taught? [Quote: 1‧2‧1]

1‧1‧4
The short three are quick-in-measure.
Of the eight vowels the three that are quick-in-measure are termed
"short" vowels.  They are:

a  i  u

These are termed "short".
For what reason is this taught?  [Quote: 1‧3‧4]

1‧1‧5
The rest are long.
Thus, of the eight vowels, there are five called long, apart from the
short ones.  They are:

ā  ī  ū  e  o

These are termed "long".
For what reason is this taught? [Quote: 1‧2‧4]

1‧1‧6
The remainder are consonants.
Having established [the first] eight [as vowels], the remaining
letters from "ka", ending with "aŋ", are termed "consonants".  Namely:

ka kha ga gha ɲa
ca cha ja jha ña
ṭa ṭha ḍa ḍha ṇa
ta tha da dha na
pa pha ba bha ma
ya ra la va sa ha ḷa aŋ

These are termed "consonants".
For what reason is this taught? [Quote: 1‧3‧1]

1‧1‧7
Five by five the formula [is recited].
The consonants have been grouped [in rows of] letters, five by five,
termed "divisions" from "ka", ending with "ma".  They are:

k kh g gh ɲ
c ch j jh ñ
ṭ ṭh ḍ ḍh ṇ
t th d dh n
p ph b bh m

These are termed "divisions".
For what reason is this taught? [Quote: 1‧4‧2]

1‧1‧8
The "aŋ" is snuffed-out.
The "aŋ" is termed a "snuffed-out" [nasal sound].
For what reason is this taught? [Quote: 1‧4‧1]

1‧1‧9
In this undertaking [viz., the study of grammar] the designations of
outsiders [may be used].
Thus the designations "voiced" and "unvoiced" from renowned works
shall be put to use here.  These are termed "voiced":

ga gha ɲa ja jha ña ḍa ḍha ṇa
da dha na ba bha ma ya ra la va ha ḷa

These are termed "voiced".  The unvoiced:

ka kha ca cha ṭa ṭha ta tha pa pha sa

These are termed "unvoiced".
For what reason is this taught? [Quote: 1‧3‧7]

1‧1‧10
[A word] having been before, the vowel may be separated and set below.
[Note: OPS §21 glosses this verse as instructing the reader in "how to
isolate words within continuously written text, [presupposing] the
graphic practice of writing the final consonant in a conjunct below
the line." The translation above only differs from Dr. Pind in the
rendering of the word "vowel"; this orthographic interpretation is
inconsistent with the commentarial layer and example following
immediately below. For further discussion of the verse, see the notes
to the Pali text, above {*in this e-mail, the longer note is provided
at the end, below*}.]
Thus the euphony is undertaken with the next available consonant at
the bottom of the other word, having made the other vowel on top
separate. [???]
[Example:] "Tatrāyamādi"

1‧1‧11
[With the separated vowel then] joined to the leading [letter] of the
other [word].
[Note: As with verse 10 above, the commentarial layer is at odds with
the meaning of the verse:]
The consonant at the bottom of the other word is joined to the leading
letter opposite, [for example:] "Tatrābhiratimiccheyya".
Why is this joined? [Example:] "Akkocchi maŋ avadhi maŋ ajini maŋ
ahāsi me." Even in this example, joining is not necessary.

[LONGER NOTE TO VERSE 10:]
* KSE interprets adhoṭhitaŋ as indicating the letter "in the final
position" (literally, "in the bottom position") of a given word, but
OPS proposes that it indicates "the graphic practice of writing the
final consonant in a conjunct below the line" (§23, thus "adhoṭhitaŋ"
would mean "set below" in the sense of being written as a subscript).
In private correspondence, Dr. Pind reiterated that this can be
supported by the comparative reading of parallel rules in Vararuci's
Prakrit grammar, and that the orthographic significance of verses 10 &
11 has been misunderstood by the later layers of text (and commentary)
because this method of writing conjuncts was not used in South-East
Asia in the era of the later authors.  KSE obviates the question by
interpreting verse 10 as a guide to pronunciation, rather than
spelling or orthography.  KVT does not follow Senart's lead, instead
interpreting the verse as (primarily) describing the inconsistent
practice of keeping the anuswara distinct from the initial vowel of
the following word.  In other words, KVT would regard the purpose of
verse 10 as a mere caveat to verse 11, reminding us that we do not
always subjoin final consonants to the initial vowel of the next word
following (and this seems to be consistent with the sole example
provided: tatrāyamādi).  However, Dr. Pind is doubtless correct that
the original purpose of these verses pertained to the orthographic
practice mentioned (whereby compounds are marked as distinct by
setting a syllable below) and he has indicated to me in correspondence
that this can be verified by the use of naye in the verse following,
viz., the terminology used in these verses can be consistently
interpreted as indicating orthography, but not in terms of phonetics
(as per the opinion of KSE) nor in terms of mere nigghahīta sandhi (as
per the opinion of KVT).  GM p. iv-v provides a wildly creative
interpretation of this verse's adhoṭhitaŋ, reporting it as it was then
applied in teaching sandhi in monastic schools of 19th century Burma,
as a written exercise in subsitition involving "writing below".