Re: Eng translation of Kacc 1:1

Comments on Eisel Mazard's English translation of Kacc 1.1, distributed 11/10 and
amended 11/12.

Most of the comments generated to date concern the meaning of the text.  My
comments concern rather how best to convey the meaning (that we for the most part
understand) in English.  Some if not all of these matters may have come up for discussion
before I joined the group.  If so I apologize for the irrelevance.

(i)   'The Book of Euphony'  I take this to be a translation of sandhikappa.  Regardless
of when in the course of development of the text these headings appeared, this seems to
me a bad translation.  Kappa does not mean 'book' and sandhi does not mean 'euphony'.  I
think the best way to translate kappa (if it needs to be translated at all) in this context is
the very vague 'part' or 'section'.  'Sandhi' is a perfectly good English word, found in as
many dictionaries as 'euphony'.  Of course it is a borrowing (so is 'euphony', though of
Greek rather than Indic origin) and a technical term (so is 'euphony').  My suggestion to
replace 'the Book of Euphony': '(Part I:) Sandhi'

(ii)  'Syllables' and 'letters'  In 1:1:1 the Pali word akkhara is translated in these two
ways.  To be sure, they are the two English equivalents given in (say) Buddhadatta's
dictionary.  But syllables and letters are not the same thing.  It might be appropriate to
translate the same word in different ways if the author is equivocating, or if the vutti
misunderstands the sutta.  But that is not the case here.  We need to decide whether KV is
talking about syllables or letters.  Notice finally that in this translation, the vutti on 1:1:2 is
rendered senseless to any one who does not realize that 'letter' and 'syllable' are
translations of the same Pali word:
These are termed "letters".?
For what reason is this taught?  The meaning is made known by syllables.
Since 'letter' takes over in the following suttas, it may be the choice.
But I think both 'syllable' and 'letter' are bad, and akkhara should be uniformly
translated here as 'sound'.  In English, 'syllable' does not refer to a primitive: syllables are
composed of sounds, vowels and consonants.  Similarly, 'letter' refers to something
intended to represent a sound.  So unless we have reason to think that KV is distiguishing
akkhara from its components or from what it represents (and we do not), then 'sound' is a
better translation.  Also we should remember that in India, as opposed to Europe, the
analysis of language preceded the introduction of writing.  Thus at the earliest level terms
like akkhara could not have referred to letters because there weren't any.  This is quite a
different matter from whether or not in particular works reference may be found to
orthographic practice (as Ole Pind maintains is the case of KV 1:1:10-11).?

(iii)  The use of quotes in the translation is inconsistent.  Why, for example, do we see
"short" in 1:1:4, but not "long" in 1:1:5?

(iv)  The romanization is also inconsistent.  For example, we find ca cha ja jha ña in
1:1:6, but c ch j jh ñ in 1:1:7.  Presumably 1:1:7 was intended to look like 1:1:6 (i. e.
syllables), but I think one could argue that the reverse is a better translation.

(v)  I do not have much constructive to say about 1:1:10-11, since I am not privy to
the considerations which prompted the revised translation.  But I find the translation
unsatisfactory for two reasons.  First, it makes little sense in its context.  If these suttas
are concerned with mechanical details of sandhi, why do they appear among the
preliminary phonetic definitions?  Second, to reach the translation, contamination has to
be assumed.  If in the transmission, suttas can have their order reversed, why has no one
suggested, for example, that the word adho.thita.m is an interpolation from a later date?

George Bedell