Dear Ole, Richard, Jim and George,
In regard to Ole's message, I'd like to add that some of the
translators I know here, with a good understanding of Pali, English as
well as their own languages of Burmese and Bengali, say without
hesitation when asked to translate akkhara into English, that akkhara
refers to a letter of the alphabet. I think some of the resistance to
use of the word "letter" as opposed to "sound" may come from a
mis-interpretation of the meaning of eva in the vutti to the first
sutta.
With regard to the use of the word "syllable", I feel that as we
consider how to translate Kaccāyana into English, we need to
understand how this text can be a relevant teaching tool for English
speakers wanting to learn to read Pali. This means taking into
consideration the way letters are defined within the romanized Pali
alphabet and using vocabulary that speakers of English can understand.
Our alphabet is not based on syllables the way Burmese and other
alphabets of this region are. We need to understand as much as
possible what is written in Kaccaayana, but we also need to develop an
English translation that is meaningful and practical.
best wishes,
Ma Vajira
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Ole Holten Pind
<ohpind@...> wrote:
> George,
>
> (Speech) sound is excellent. I prefer "phoneme" as an idealized abstraction,
> embrazing any realization. But I admit that it may be too technical. A
> Critical Pali Dictionary suggests s.v. akkhara, 1. a sound, syllable, letter
> of the alphabet.
>
> Ole
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Bedell" <gdbedell@...>
> To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:59 AM
> 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
>
>
>
> New Email names for you!
> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and
> @rocketmail.
> Hurry before someone else does!
> http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>