|
Alpana:
I hope you could
see and clarify the point I was making. Modern Indian languages did not come
through Sanskrit. These came through the Pakrits. Sanskrit remained fixed in
time as a written language because people stopped speaking it on the
street. It is only in modern times that these Indian languages are using
Sanskrit as a rich source of old words which were retained by Sanskrit. Thus
when I say Sanskrit is a dead language I did not say that in a derogatory sense.
A language is called dead, ie not living, when nobody claim that language as a
mother tongue. No mother speaks in Sanskrit to her child today. That is it.
Otherwise, yes, there is a huge literature in Sanskrit not to speak of huge
Hindu scriptures (which is however in Vedic Sanskrit language). I have also
heard there some Sanskrit speaking clubs. I wrote this because I got the
impression that you may be thinking I am writing against the Sanskrit
language itself. That is far from it. I love Sanskrit. I think you have seen the
following tribute to the Sanskrit language by Sir William Jones:
"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful
structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more
exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger
affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could not
possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer
could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some
common source which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason,
though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic,
though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the
Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family..."
But my point is let not this
beautiful language try to change our simple Assamese language from the top
because that will create a huge gap what people are speaking on the street and
what is being written by the scholars. A language should develop and flow from
and by the people on the street. If Assamese are to loose the X sound tomorrow,
let the people on the street loose it, but not because some Sanskrit lover
Assamese scholars are Sanskritising the Assamese language from the
top. Xongkordev was a great Sanskrit scholar, but he chose to write in
Assamese-Brojawoli and he did it without any influence from Sanskrit.
Probaly you know that he was the first to use the word OXOM in the
Kirton.
That is my
point.
Barua
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:19
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom,
phonetically speaking
>They had to come
through Sanskrit (panini's grammar 600-650 B.C.).
Alpana:
No. This is not correct. Please
read that chart again. The Sanskrit (Panini's grammar 600-650BC) is actually
shown as a dead end. The languages are actually coming from the other branch
(where Sanskrit is not there) the old Prakits : Sauraseni, Prachya etc and
ultimately Magdhi, Rajasthani, etc.
Please read the chart
again again and you will see what I am saying. Even than if you have
question, I can clarify.
Thanks for the site.
Barua
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:21
AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom,
phonetically speaking
>history of the Indian
languages carefully. It is tricky. Sanskrit, by definition, is a dead
>language, which means it ended in itself. As such none of the Indian
>regional languages are derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese,
Bengali, Oriya and all >the Indo-Aryan languages in India are derived
from different Pakrit languages like
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/B_0137.HTM
Please see the chart in the above
web site.
You can say the Indo-Aryan
languages came from the Ancient Prakrit
(800 B.C., Old/spoken
Indo-Aryan) languages, yes. But they did not come
directly from there. They were NOT Assamese or
Bengali then or the other modern Indian languages that we have now.
They had to come through Sanskrit (panini's
grammar 600-650 B.C.).
Sanskrit is from 600/650 B.C. and
the ancient Prakrit (old spoken Indo-Aryan) is from 800 B.C., which is also
dead and from which Sanskrit itself came from. They themselves are dead
but their descendents are the modern languages.
So the argument:
>language, which means it
ended in itself. As such none of the Indian >regional languages are
derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese, Bengali, Oriya and
does not hold any water. One can
say Sanskrit itself came from the ancient Prakrit languages (old/spoken
Indo-Aryan). But to become the modern Indo-Aryan languages like
Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, etc. they had to come through the stages
of which Sanskrit was a main one.
Latin has become a dead
language, but isn't it a fact that the modern Indo-European languages are
descended from it??
Both Latin and Sanskrit are dead
languages but are still alive in new forms.
Disclaimer: From a non- expert
(on languages, in this case) who trys to dig up and put
forward vaild arguments against something that sounds outrageous sometimes,
but is always open to accept counterarguments. :-)
From: "Rajen Barua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ram
Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
assam@assamnet.org
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom,
phonetically speaking
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:46:06
-0600
Ram:
Thanks for the site. It is
great.
Regarding Assamese and other
languages coming from Sanskrit, please read the history of the Indian
languages carefully. It is tricky. Sanskrit, by definition, is a dead
language, which means it ended in itself. As such none of the Indian
regional languages are derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese,
Bengali, Oriya and all the Indo-Aryan languages in India are derived from
different Pakrit languages like Magadhi, Sauraseni, etc. Now these Pakrit
languages are derived from some Vedic and pre Vedic languages. Sanskrit
itself was one language which was derived from some pre Vedic language.
However, Panini standardized Sanskrit and made many changes phonetically
(we lost X sound) and grammatically. However due to Panini's strict
rules, Sanskrit remained as a fixed written language, fixed in time
forever. That is why it is called a dead language.
From above, it should be very
clear that Sanskrit cannot be the mother language on any of the Indo Aryan
languages: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Marthi etc. Sanskrit can be
strictly speaking a cousin language.
But if a dead language can
have power, it is Sanskrit which have been influencing the Indians
greatly. Many educated Indians (I mean scholars) make the mistake
again and again. How many times you will hear Indians stating that all
Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit etc. Technically this is not
correct. Please. Sanskrit is dead.
If we consider, Panini's time
(6th/7th century BC, Panini was from Afghanistan-Kandahar) to be the time
of Sanskrit the way we see it today, Assamese language is much older than
that. Historically it is my argument that the Assamese XO sound was there
in Assamese since 3000 BC when Narakaxur (contemporary to Rama and Sita)
established the first Aryan-Axur kingdom in Pragjyotishpur.
(Otherwise historically it cannot get into Assamese
later). If you read Kaliram Medhi, Dimbeswar Neog and others, you
will find that Assamese language has still retained, besides the XO sound
many characterisc of old Indo-European language like Persian etc which
were lost in Sanskrit and others. With all these data, one can in
fact make a convincing argument that Assamese is older than Sanskrit, a
point made by Medhi and Neog. Assamese still has many pre Vedic words
which were lost in Sanskrit.
(When you read Banikanta
Kakaoty, please read with caution. Being a student of Dr Suniti Kumar
Chatterjee, he did not contradict anything of his master. Compared to him,
I think Neog, Medhi and Bharali are much more original Assamese
scholars.)
The bottom line is, even Bani
Kanta Kanoty has never stated that Assamese originated from Sanskrit. If
he did, read his wording again, because he cannot mean that. But if you
find any reference, I would like to see, and would appreciate if you would
forward these.
As you can see, in Assam
there is hardly any scholars left today. Have you seen any leadership role
being played by Oxom Xahityo Xobha? The one genuine scholar left in
Assam, Dr Golok Ch Goswami is probably so frustrated that he decided not
to speak in such mundane latters. But what I am saying, he supports me
specially regarding the X sound and the use of W for W-kar in Roman
script.
Another point is that
Assamese has only one O and one Ah.
Hindi and Sanskrit have A=Horso Ah, then
AA=Dirgho Ah. So when they write A, the sound is
always short Ah like U=Up. Assamese say
Onil, in Hindi they say Anil with
Ah. All the Assamese names like Anjana, Ajanta,
Archana, Anil etc, in Assamese we pronounce with
O. But the same words are pronounced with
Ah by the mainland Indians in Hindi, Sanskrit. That
is why when we write Asom, an Assamese might pronounce
Osom, but Hindi and Sanskrit will
pronounce Usom. See the spelling of the word
Dalda in Hindi. It is written as Dolda
but pronounced as Dalda.
All these are happening
because (litikai) Assamese are trying to follow the Hindi, Sanskrit
group blindly without real that Assamese language is a much more simpler
language like Pail, and that it has its separate originality and
beauty.
We need to retain the lost
originality of the Assamese language. We need to stand up and say, we no
longer follow you mainland India blindly. We have our originality which we
need to retain.
Anyhow these
are is my points. I hope I am not confusing you.
Rajen
Barua.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 11:39
AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom,
phonetically speaking
Hi Barua,
I am glad the Statesman publised your article. It is quite
informative and one can lear a lot. But reading the papers and letters
to the editor, one gets the inpression, ASOM is here to stay and the GOA
is backing it up.
While browsing, I did come across several references to Assamese as
derivative of Sanskrit (you of course do not agree with this). Some of
the sources refered to Bani Kanta Kakati, Hemkox etc.
I can send you some of these if I come across them. I don't know
how authentic they are.
BTW: Here is a link that may interest you and others regarding the
"voiceless velar
fricative "
The link is very interesting and refers to Assamese also.
Interestingly, it seems the English language sometimes also uses the
voiceless velar
fricative.
Here is the link.
Hope it is useful to
you.
--Ram
On 3/7/06, Rajen
Barua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thanks.
The Statesman,
Kolkata has already published it. A friend from Kolkata
sent it to me.
We will have to keep on
fighting.
"Amar Oxom" Editor
Dr Nagen Saikia, Ex Oxom Xahityo Xobha President, is preparing to
publish my article in Assamese and contunue the debate.
I think this is an issue
for Assamese lifeline.
Many have not seen it as
such yet.
Let us see.
Thanks for your
support.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006
9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or
Oxom, phonetically speaking
Good note Rajen. Hope they publish it.
c
At 8:33 AM -0600 3/7/06, Rajen Barua wrote:
Letters to
the editor
THE
STATESMAN, KOLKATA 4 March 2006
Asom or
Oxom, phonetically speaking
Sir, I am writing
this letter with reference to a decision by the Assam government
to change the name of the state to Asom. This is a wrong decision
for certain reasons. Asom is a Sanskritised spelling and not an
Assamese spelling. The proper Assamese spelling in the Roman
script should be Oxom. The Assamese gutteral kh sound is a
well-recognised velar fricative, and is also found among other
languages including Greek and Russian. The International Phonetic
Association has designated the Greek letter, 'X', for this
Assamese sound. This sound is not represented by the letter, 'S',
as written in the word Asom. As such it is 'X' and not 'S' that
should be used. Again, the first letter should be 'O' and not 'A'.
The letter 'A' is used in Sanskrit and Hindi where they have
two 'A's. In Assamese we have only one 'A'. The correct vowel for
the Assamese pronunciation should be 'O'. The Assam government by
taking a decision to use the Sanskritised form of spelling Asom
instead of Oxom is trying to kill the proper Assamese ethnic
sound 'XO'. This will be a great letdown for the entire Assamese
people, and we request the Assam government not to meddle with the
Assamese language. If it has to change the name, it should adopt
the correct spelling, i.e. Oxom.
Yours, etc., Rajen
Barua,
Katy (Texas), USA, 4 March.
_______________________________________________
assam
mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam
mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>_______________________________________________
>assam
mailing
list
>assam@assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing
list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
|
