Re: Kaccaayana: introductory verses (2)

On Dec 29, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Jim Anderson wrote:

> '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.

When discussing the Sanskrit term akṣara, I usually translate it as a syllable. In the Sanskrit tradition, it is definitely a unit of spoken speech. It is the smallest unit of speech that can be spoken, namely a vowel, which may be preceded by a consonant. So 'a' is a single akṣara, but so is 'ka' and so is 'ki'. The problem with translating akṣara as 'letter', I think, is that letters tend to be visible symbols of audible units rather than audible units themselves. Moreover, whereas something like 'krī' is a single akṣara, it is (in roman script at least) three letters.

> I believe most English-speaking people think of letters rather than sounds
> for the items of an alphabet.

That is true. In India, however, sounds are always the primary symbols, and written letters are symbols of symbols. The spoken syllable remains constant, but it can be written in many different scripts. It is the spoken syllable that is considered durable; this is why Sanskrit grammarians called the spoken syllable a-kṣara (not-perishing). You note that the vutti you have makes the same observation.

> 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".

Among syllables and words might be just what you are looking for.

--
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes
rhayes@...