Re: Kaccaayana: introductory verses (2)

Hello All,

>The problem is that 'letter' refers to something written and not to
anything spoken (on the >authority of Webster at least). Insofar as it
refers to something imagined or remembered, >that something is written
and not spoken.

I am inclined to agree with George in this discussion; however, referring to the standard reference work on English (the multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary)  we have, under the first definition of letter:


     I. An alphabetic character.
     1. a. A character or mark designed to represent one of the elementary sounds
used in speech; one of the symbols that compose the alphabet. these letters = this inscription. For capital, double, Roman, etc. letter, see the adjs.

Note: "... represent one of the elementary sounds used in speech..."

I do think when people hear the word "letter" they think of something written, not sounded. One simple solution would be to translate akkhara as "letter-sound" which captures both senses of the word.   "Sound", not "letter" is definitely the "original" meaning of akkhara, coming from the root a-kSara (indestructible) which the ancient Aryans believed sound to be,

Best wishes,

Bryan






________________________________
From: George Bedell <gdbedell@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 5:13:40 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Kaccaayana: introductory verses (2)

   
Jim, Ole, Richard and Ma Vajira,

In my first post on this topic, I said:

> 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.

It is true that 'most English-speaking people think of letters rather than sounds for the items of an alphabet.' Note that the word 'alphabet', like 'letter', refers to something written. Everyday English has no word which refers to the collection of sounds used in a language. All this is just the 'misunderstanding' pointed out above. It is not surprising that eminent Pali scholars like Warder, Sanskrit scholars like Abhyankar or ashins as reported by Ma Vajira indulge in this usage. Most speakers pay no attention to the details of what they say (and write) unless it is relevant in the context. In the context of translating technical language, it behooves us to pay attention.

Anyone who thinks that confusion between sounds and letters does no practical damage should remember that the development of phonology in Europe was stunted for some two millennia by just this confusion.  In was only in the 19th century (with the help of the example of India) that phonetics (at first in the form of the International Phonetic Alphabet) began to be distinguished from orthography.  Modern linguistics has closed the gap (some might even say seized the high ground), but the use of 'letter' for what should be 'sound' shows that everyday English has some catching up to do.


Jim says:
> I see no problem in taking "a letter, phoneme" as referring to something
> that can be spoken, written, imagined, or remembered.

The problem is that 'letter' refers to something written and not to anything spoken (on the authority of Webster at least).  Insofar as it refers to something imagined or remembered, that something is written and not spoken.

He further says:
> Phoneme should best be reserved for translating "vaṇṇa" which is a synonym
> of "akkhara".

If akkhara and vaṇṇa are synonyms, why identify them with 'letter' and 'phoneme', which are certainly not synonyms? I doubt that akkhara/akṣara and vaṇṇa/varṇa are in fact synonyms, but that cannot be seriously discussed without close attention to the Sanskrit literature (not Pāṇini so much as the prātiśakhyas and śikṣas).

He further says:
> The etymological meaning is that the letters do not decay or perish. Akkhara
> could literally be translated as indestructible or imperishable.

We should be careful not to impose the Western idea that sounds are ephemeral but letters permanent. For Indians, at least some sounds (e. g. the Vedas; not written books, but bodies of memorized ritual) are unchangeable and eternal.  In fact it was the need to ensure precise repetition of these rituals which stimulated linguistic study in India.

Ma Vajira says:
> I think some of the resistance to use of the word "letter" as opposed to "sound"
> may come from a misinterpretation of the meaning of eva in the vutti to the first sutta.

My 'resistance' to 'letter' as a translation of akkhara is for the reasons I have stated, and has nothing to do with the interpretation of eva.  But I would like to know how the interpretation of eva might favor 'letter' over 'sound'.  The translation 'only' given by U Nandisena seems to me neutral.

In our correspondence to date, a lot has been said in defense of 'letter', but very little has been said to account for the resistance to 'sound' (as a possible translation of akkhara in the Sandhikappa of Kaccaayana).

Jim says:
> 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!).


Excuse me, but words are not (repeat: not) sounds, too.  They do have a pronunciation, sometimes more than one, but they also have meaning which sounds per se do not.  Sounds and words constitute distinct levels in every language and should not be confused.  What this seems to me to boil down to is that Jim is comfortable with 'letter', but not comfortable with 'sound'.  It is difficult to argue with this, and I don't for a second doubt his sincerity. I can only say (as will come at no surprise) that my feelings are precisely the opposite. Sometimes progress in these matters comes at the expense of comfort.

I am grateful to Ole for pointing out that 'sound' is used in the relevant entry in CPD if not in Cone, and for calling attention to the fact that 'phoneme', unlike 'letter', does not restrict its reference in terms of medium. I think we agree that 'phoneme' is not appropriate in a translation but really should appear in dictionary entries. Kaccaayana 1 reminds me very much of the central notion in phonemic theory that the function of phonemes is to distinguish between words, which raises the question of how similar the akkhara/akṣara concept in traditional Indian linguistics is to the phoneme concept. If there is literature bearing on this question, I am unaware of it.

I am grateful to Richard for pointing out:
> 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.

I take this to reinforce my claim that 'letter' to translate akkhara is incompatible with Indian ideas. But I cannot subscribe to his suggestion that 'syllable' solves the problem of translating akkhara into English.  'Sounds' and 'syllables' represent different levels just as 'sounds' and 'words' do, though syllables remain phonological. This in spite of the syllabification with a of all non-syllabic akkharas when they are enumerated as in Kaccaayana 2. In Asian orthographies, this a is not written after consonants, but is with niggahīta. Thus as the first syllable in the word 'akkhara' as well as in the enumeration, 'a' is both a syllable and an akkhara; 'ra' in the enumeration is both a syllable and an akkhara, but 'ra' as the last syllable in 'akkhara' is two akkharas; the first k in 'akkhara' is an akkhara but not a syllable. To define akkhara as syllable will produce a serious muddle.

A happy and prosperous New Year to all,

*     *     *     *     *
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]





       __________________________________________________________________
The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier.  Optimized for Yahoo!  Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

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