George,
'Letter' seems to be a widely accepted translation of akkhara and Skt.
akṣara judging from the following:
1) "The Indian script was a phonetic one based on an approximately phonemic
analysis of the language, one letter (akkhara) being assigned to each
significantly distinct sound (va.n.na)." ---Warder (1963), p. 2.
and
2) "a letter of the alphabet, . . ." --- R.V. Abhyankar's A Dictionary of
Sanskrit Grammar (1986), p. 5.
I believe most English-speaking people think of letters rather than sounds
for the items of an alphabet. I would find it strange to come across
"akkharapadesu" in the second introductory verse being translated as "among
sounds and words" instead of "among letters and words". Sounds and words
seem to clash as a pair (words are sounds too!). Most would also understand
that letters are visual representations of sounds. Phoneme should best be
reserved for translating "vaṇṇa" which is a synonym of "akkhara".
I found the following comment on 'akkhara' in the Niruttisāramañjusāṭikā, p.
82, on "akkharapadesu" in our verse:
nakkharantīiti akkharā || ekacattālīsappamāṇā vaṇṇā piṭakattayampi patvā na
khīyantītyattho ||
It isn't much but there may be more further ahead in the commentary. Sadd
III 604-5 has a fairly good vutti on 'akkhara'. The etymological meaning is
that the letters do not decay or perish. akkhara could literally be
transalted as indestructible or imperishable. Akkhara is also used as a
synonym for nibbāna. I find this interesting because the verse sets out a
path that starts with letters or imperishables and culminates in the
realization of nibbāna or the imperishable.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Bedell" <gdbedell@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Kaccaayana: introductory verses (2)
Jim,
It seems to me that your citation from Webster confirms what I said about
the meaning of the word 'letter' in English. And I have no problem with
Cone's definition: 'a vowel; a letter, phoneme (a, ā, etc.)' except that I
would not use 'letter' here but '(speech) sound' for precisely the same
reasons as in the translation case.
'Phoneme' might be a better translation of akkhara than 'sound';
unfortunately it is not ordinary English but a technical term whose meaning
will be familiar only to those who have studied linguistics.
> I think "letters" in the translation is fine as long as we take it in the
> meaning of
> Cone's defn. 2. We might also substitute "letters or sounds" for "letters"
> to make
> that meaning clearer.
I find it difficult to see the point of translating akkhara as 'letter' if
in order to correctly understand the translation, the user must consult
Cone, and sort through the various meanings of akkhara she gives.. I
thought the purpose of a translation was to avoid this (as far as possible).
Translating akkhara as 'letter' is actually worse than 'phoneme' because in
the latter case a user of the translation will immediately realize that he
or she must seek out the meaning of the definiens (up-to-date English
dictionaries will include 'phoneme'), while in the former case, because the
problem is an unfamiliar meaning rather than an unfamiliar word,
misunderstanding and confusion are more likely.
Cheers,
* * * * *
George Bedell
230/5 Suan Lanna Village, Huay Kaew Road,
t. Chang Phuak, a. Muang
Chiang Mai 50300, Thailand
+66-53-414100