Dear Dmytro,
Here is a quote from Stenzler’s Primer of the Sanskrit Language which makes it simple(r):
“ansuvāra, when
preceding sibilants or h is
pronounced like -ng- [velar nasal] in
“singer” (with nasalization of the preceding vowel); at the end of a word and
at the end of the first member of a compound, preceding stops, it is [written
and] pronounced like the corresponding class nasal; likewise if, as often
happens, the anusvāra is written or
printed instead of the class nasal preceding a stop.” (section §9). So
before a velar stop it is pronounced as a velar ṅ (phonetic ŋ, sounds like -ng), although it may be written as -ṃ-
or -ṅ- (saṃgha or saṅgha)
before a palatal stop it is pronounced as a palatal ñ (phonetic ɲ, sounds like -ny), although it can be written either
way (saṃyuñjati or sañyuñjati).
before a retroflex stop it is pronounces as retroflex ṇ (ɳ like saṇṭṭhitaṃ or saṃṭṭhitaṃ in my previous email)
before a dental stop it is
pronouned as a dental n (n, our “normal” nasal), although it can
be written as either dvaṃdva or dvandva.
before a bilabial stop it is
pronounced as a bilabial dental m (our
“normal” m); in this case it is not written as an anusvāra, but simply as a bilabial nasal (e.g. sammukkha, sampadā), I assume because of assimilation.
Before a palatal glide (y) it is also pronounced as a palatal
nasal ñ (as
in P. saṃyuñjati = sañyuñjati)
because of assimilation.
Historically there are two ways of
writing the anusvāra: either as an
underdot or overdot -ṃ- or -ṁ-
which is generic and basically means to “pronounce according to the rules above”
or as the homorganic nasal, which gives the pronunciation in the letter. Pāli
uses both ways as noted.
According to Stenzler I was wrong
about my pronunciation of buddhaṃ saranaṃ
… - the -ṃ in buddhaṃ should also be pronounced as a
velar nasal (buddaṅ) because of the
following s-, which indeed is how it
is usually done I believe.
The Wikipedia article seems
incomplete. It only alludes to the homorganic nasal before a plosive (i. e. stop, which is
the usual situation) and suggests that there should be a nasal fricative
homorganic before the sibilants and -h- which
is not my understanding (per Stenzler).
Hope this helps. Historically (as
Whitney points out) it gets very complicated because of dialects and
orthographic problems, and different grammarians' opinions. In Gāndhārī for example, the anusvāra is often left out and expected to be supplied by the
speaker. so, looking at the Gāndhārī Dharmapada, for example saṃskāra is written as saghara
(see Brough §46). Other dialects show other peculiarities, and Pāli is just
another dialect (or, as I argue in my thesis, a combination of dialects) influenced by all the others. The same occurs in the dialects
of the Aśokan edicts where denasalization occurs in various situations. The
passage you quote from my thesis suggests that there was a right and a wrong
way of pronouncing the aspirates, nasals, etc., however I’m not so sure that it
was ever so standardized historically,
Mettā,
Bryan
From: "Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] 'Saṁyutta' niggahīta pronunciation
Dear Bryan,
You give there a quotation from Sp (Samantapāsādikā) 7, 1400 12-17:
iti sithile kattabbe dhanitaṃ , dhanite kattabbe sithilaṃ , vimutte kattabbe niggahitaṃ , niggahite kattabbe vimuttan ti imāni cattāri byañjanāni antokammavācāya kamma ṃ dūsenti. eva ṃ vadanto hi aññasmi ṃ akkhare vattabbe añña ṃ vadati durutta ṃ karotīti vuccati.
Where instead of an unaspirate an aspirate sound, instead of an aspirate an unaspirate one, instead of an oral one a nasalised one, instead of a nasalised on an oral one is produced, these four [kinds of] sounds in the formula pronounced in legal procedures damage the proceedings. For anyone speaking in this way, and pronouncing a sound different from the one required, is said to have a bad pronounciation.
Yet in a Ukrainian or Russian transcription I have to make a choice between "m" and "n", especially since transcription isn't a proceeding.
So I'd like to chose the option which is more probable as an ancient pronuciation.
Whitney hardly writes anything certain in this regard.
Have I understood it correctly, on the basis of Wikipedia article, that in Vedic language anusvara was pronounced like 'n' only before fricative sounds /ś/, /ṣ/, /s/ or /h/? And not before 'y'?
Perhaps there are some cases of niggahīta transference that would shed at least some light on this issue?
Mettā, Dmytro
______________________________________________________________
> Od: "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
> Komu: "palistudy@yahoogroups.com" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
> Datum: 28.11.2015 04:58
> Předmět: Re: [palistudy] 'Saṁyutta' niggahīta pronunciation
>
Dear Dmytro,
The anusvārais complex and there is not necessarily a simple answer to the question asthere have been different interpretations over the ages amongst Indian andwestern scholars. For a discussion see Whitney’s grammar, §70-73.
In internal sandhi:
My understanding is that the -ṃ sound is a “generic” form of the anusvāra/niggahīta and indicates the vowel is to be nasalized in assimilationto the following consonant (what is called a homorganic nasal).
So, with the example Jim gives, saṃgha is actually to be sounded saṅgha, that is as a velar nasal or ŋ, because it comes before a velarstop, athough it can be written either way.
The palatal nasal ɲ can also be written two ways, eitheras saṃjānāti or sañjānati; again the pronunciation is as palatal , because it comes before a palatal -j-. One also sees this often with anasal before the palatal ca as in nāmañca. Although these are two separatewords, the ca is an enclitic and acts like an appendage of nāmaṃ.
A dental nasal, occurs before a dental stop, e.g. a quoteending in damman ti, where theanusvāra/niggahīta is replaced by the dental -n.Again, although this is “external sandhi” (dhammaṃiti), the ti is such anomnipresent particle, that is acts almost like a case ending.
Nasals before retroflex consonants are rare, but theywould also be assimilated as in saṇṭṭhitaṃ(“established”), which could also be written saṃṭṭhitaṃ and sound the same.
I always assumed that none of these nasals were fullyformed, i. e. that they were “lacking that closure of the organs which is requiredto make a nasal mute or contact-sound (Whitney, §70), but I imagine practicewas different, depending on what part of India one was from.
Between words
Pāli seems to have both forms of orthography; probablymore common is the anusvāra/niggahīta,retained as -ṃ, which seems often tobe the case between words, as in buddho dhammaṃ deseti, not buddho dhamman deseti. This follows the Skt.practice. But although written as dhammaṃdeseti, before the dental d- of deseti, the anusvāra would be pronounced as a dental –n. Whether fully closed or not, I don’t know, but my guess is thatit would be, in order to clearly retain the accusative case inflection.
The above is the Sanskrit practice as I understand it. So
buddhaṃ saraṇaṃgacchāmi, following the homorganic nasal law would actually bepronounced buddhan saraṇaṅ gacchāmi,etc., with the anusvāra/niggahīta assimilatedto the place of articulation of the following consonant (the -ṃ of buddhaṃ assimilated to the dental fricative of saraṇaṃ and the -ṃ of saraṇaṃ assimilated to the velar stop of gacchāmi). But whether it was actually pronounced this way inancient times is impossible to tell and I have certainly heard modernrenditions which are different. But the above would be the most “natural way”
;phonologically, that is following the shape and place of articulation of the mouth
Mettā, Bryan
From: "Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 7:35 AM
Subject: [palistudy] 'Saṁyutta' niggahīta pronunciation
Dear Pali friends,
To ascertain how to transcribe 'Saṁyutta' in Ukrainian and Russian, I would like to know the most reliable version of its niggahīta ancient pronunciation.
Charles Duroiselle wrote:
"ŋ, (niggahīta), found always at the end of words is, in Burma, pronounced like 'm' in, jam, ram; in Ceylon, it is given the sound of 'ng' in, bring, king"
A Practical Grammar of the Pāli Language
http://dhamma.ru/paali/durois/paligram.pdf
I have read in Wikipedia:
"In Vedic Sanskrit, the anusvāra (lit. "after-sound") is a sound that occurs as an allophone of /m/ — at a morpheme boundary — or /n/ — morpheme-internally—, if they are preceded by a vowel and followed by a fricative (/ś/, /ṣ/, /s/ or /h/).
First, the anusvāra began to be used before /r/ under certain conditions, then in Classical Sanskrit its use had extended before /l/ and /y/, replacing earlier [l̃] and [ỹ]."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anusvara
Does this signify that pronunciation on Sri Lanka (Ceylon) has undergone influence from Classical Sanskrit, while Myanmar (Burma) preserved an earlier form?
E. Miller writes in his "Simplified Grammar of the Pali Language":
"Before a 'y' the anusvāra can remain, or the whole group can migrate into 'ññ', as e.g. saṁyoga or saññoga."
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxbHMM5sfpAC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20
https://archive.org/details/simplifiedgramma00mulliala
What does this imply for ancient pronunciation?
Metta,
Dmytro
Previous in thread:
4488Next in thread:
4492Previous message:
4490Next message:
4492Contemporaneous posts Posts in thread all posts