Re: Eng translation of Kacc 1:1

Hi George,

I haven't heard from you in a long time.

Some of your comments are useful; however, I find it rather startling
that (like Jim) you presuppose that I am absolutely jejune, and that I
am somehow accidently stumbling into translations, rather than having
prior awareness of the various issues you now raise, and then having
made deliberative decisions as to what word to select, or what kind of
construction to opt for, etc.

I rather sigh at the thought of going through the minutiae of
justifying my choice of such words as "book", and "Euphony" --but, as
always, some of these reflect "cultural" differences between us (viz.,
between George, as a pure linguist, and myself as an impure
philosophaster, merely straying into the applied science of
languages).

In the English language "Book" is commonly used to refer to a
subdivision of a single, printed volume in English (Don't believe me?
Check the Christian Bible, a work of some minor linguistic influence),
and I feel that this is an appropriate usage for many other reasons as
well --including, e.g., the fact that MS copies of Kaccayana are often
bound as a series of separate books (volumes) by Kando. The
sandhikappa is very much encountered as "a book" unto itself in the
context of a monastic library.

George has stated that "Euphony" is inappropriate, but has not given a
single reason; he has simply stated it, then repeated it, and heaped
scorn on the word in passing for being Greek in origin.  Well, so
what?  Some of my best friends are Greek.

George, one of the reasons why I do not simply say "(Part I:)" as you
suggest, is because the numbering of the chapters and "books" of
Kaccayana is quite a complicated matter, that I have to provide
several pages explaining (with tables) in the introduction to the
book.  The numbering is problematic, and is rather a modern
preoccupation; traditional monks know the sections by their names, not
their numbers, precisely because it is a memoriter work.

Although I will re-examine 1:1:2 to consider Bedell's statement that
it would be difficult for the Pali illiterati to interpret because of
the "equivocal" use of the word "syllable", I am generally rather
froward that this line of complaint has presupposed that I made the
translation decisions at random, or out of pure ignorance.  Kacc. is
primarily a vocal and memoriter work, in which the alphabet is being
memorized and read aloud (not written out); in this context, I might
well use "syllable" when referring to the letters of the alphabet,
wherein the implicit "a" is indeed attached to every segment of the
alphabet being recited. I would not use "sound" because this is too
general a unit of languge; the sequence /'ngkha.m/ is one sound, and
one syllable (orthographically, it forms a single unit in the ancient
scripts, too), but the level of analysis of language present in
Kaccayana does not let us treat it as a single akkhara, nor is it
found in the alphabet. The student is learning a more basic unit that
comprises /'ngkha.m/; and, of course, an akkhara such as a vowel can
sometimes be a sound or syllable unto itself, and sometimes be
subordinated to other --letters.

Obversely, as the discussion of the tenth verse has now made
redundantly clear, Kacc is not a pre-literate work; however, the dawn
of writing in India seems to me significantly earlier than some
romantic sources would have us believe.

George is correct that the use of quotations should be consistent; I
will revise accordingly.

I think that the complaints about 10-11 are valid, but do not really
concern the work of the translator; complaints should be sent to the
original author, through methods unavailable to us at present.

In any case, I can hardly be responsible for the fact that the content
of these verses does not suit the supposed title of the chapter.

E.M.