Re: Eng translation of Kacc 1:1

Eisel,

As usual, I am impressed by the speed with which you respond to postings to this
group.  I am less impressed by your tendency to interpret disagreements as a kind of
assault on your manhood.  I said that a few of your translations were bad.  I did not say,
nor do I think, that you are therefore an inexperienced, careless, ignorant or otherwise bad
translator.

(i)  `The Book of Euphony' as a translation of sandhikappa.  I fear I fail to see why the
use of `book' in the Christian Bible is at all relevant to this point.  And I heaped no scorn
on the word `euphony'.  I did mention that it is of Greek origin, surely not controversial,
and I did say that it is not as good a translation of the Pali word sandhi as the English word
`sandhi'.  I plead guilty to regarding this last point as obvious enough not to need
elaboration.  Since you insist, `euphony' in other contexts refers to a putative motivation
for phonological change, and has an esthetic sense ("sounds good").  Neither of these
holds for `sandhi', either in Pali or English.  The parentheses on (Part I:) mean that we
might choose not to include it, for the reasons you cite among others.

But these matters are not the core of my objection to `the Book of Euphony'.  That
phrase feels to me like it belongs in Edmund Spenser, or perhaps J. R. R. Tolkien, and not
in a scholarly translation of a Pali grammar.  I imagine you do not feel this way, and I agree
that "cultural" differences are involved.  I also imagine that a far larger proportion of the
potential users of your translation share my "culture" than share yours.

(ii)  `Letter' as a translation of akkhara.  I do not really see how someone who often
stresses that KV is `primarily a vocal and memoriter work, in which the alphabet is
memorized and read aloud (not written out)' can translate akkhara as `letter'.  Note the
word `vocal'.  You are also well aware that Pali is written with different letters in Colombo,
Yangon, Phnom Penh and London.  Since you don't accept romanization as a fully
legitimate way to write it, perhaps London might be excised; no matter.  Translating
akkhara as `letter' invites the absurd inference that the akkhara are different in those four
(or three) places.

(iii)  `Syllable' as a translation of akkhara.  How many akkhara are there in the Pali
word namo (as in namo bhagavato ...)?  I would say four: n - a - m - o, but none of them
constitutes a syllable in this word.  Translating akkhara as `syllable' invites the absurd
inference that there is only one (of the two syllables, only one (na) appears in KV's
enumeration of akkhara).  You say `sound' is too general to serve as a translation of
akkhara; I say `letter' and `syllable' are too specific, and lead to the above mentioned
absurdities.  /"nkha.m/ is indeed a sound, but it is also a sequence of sounds.  I doubt it
can be regarded as a syllable in Pali.  When such a sequence occurs, the velar nasal /"n/ is
the final consonant of the preceding syllable.  You confuse the orthography with syllable
structure.  I will address the issues raised by Pind in a separate posting.

Cheers,

George Bedell