Re: Kaccaayana: introductory verses (2)

Akkhara: 'letter' or 'sound'?

Both U Nandisena and Ma Vajiranani gloss the Pali word akkhara as 'letter'.  Though the issue has been previously aired on this list without anyone being converted, I would like to suggest once again that the proper gloss is 'sound'.  If Jim Anderson is right that at least the suttas of Kaccaayana date back to the time of the Buddha, then akkhara there could not have referred to letters because there were none to refer to.  Even if we think (as I do) that Kaccaayana is of much more recent origin and arose in a literate environment, this hardly provides a reason to equate akkhara with letters.  If akkhara primarily referred to written symbols and only secondarily to sounds, then their categorization according to phonetic properties such as 'short' (4), 'long' (5) or 'voiced/voiceless' (9) would make no sense, even though Pali grammarians in general are far less interested in phonetics than Sanskrit grammarians.

To regard written language as basic and spoken language as derived from it is a characteristic Western misunderstanding of the nature of human language.  It is inappropriate to impose it on the Indian tradition to which Kaccaayana and other traditional Pali grammars belong.  As we go through Kaccaayana's discussion of sandhi, I hope we can pay proper attention to this issue and look for evidence which will make clear how the author or authors of the suttas and vutti understood akkhara.  Beginning with (1), soon to come up.

George Bedell *     *     *     *     *
George Bedell
230/5 Suan Lanna Village, Huay Kaew Road,
t. Chang Phuak, a. Muang
Chiang Mai 50300, Thailand
+66-53-414100



       Get your preferred Email name!
Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com.
http://mail.promotions..yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]