Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: Re: correct pronunciation: ram Vs. rama (Lakshmi Srinivas)
2. Re: Re: correct pronunciation: ram Vs. rama (Sai)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 06:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lakshmi Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Sanskrit] Re: correct pronunciation: ram Vs. rama
To: Pratyush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Pratyush,
Allow me to place your comments in perspective.
Transliteration is just a convention - the one which runs in Hindi land for
whatever reasons is not universally valid. Similarly, the one which is used in
another state is probably invalid outside that state. You assume universality
for an unofficial transliteration convention prevalent for transcribing Hindi
sounds. It was originally popularized primarily by the Hindi movie industry and
now it seems to be universally used. But let me tell you this convention is a
dead loss for anything outside of shuddha hindi. Take, for example, the 'gh' in
gharib and ghanta, the pronunciation is not the same but the transliteration
convention is the same.
In the South, the addition of 'h' to a 't as in Pratyush comes from the time
when all 't''s used to represent the English 't', the alveolar one, pronounced
albeit by all Indians as retroflex! So when the question of representing dental
sounds of Indian origin came, the differentiation was done using an additional
'h'. In an earlier period, when Indian sounds were written like the English
pronounced it, there was no attempts to make even this distinction. Thus
'Courtallam' instead of 'kutralam' (literary version) or 'kutthalam' (spoken
version) or 'Tambaram' eventhough the initial 't' is dental, i.e., identical to
the 't' in Pratyush.
Hindi movie industry was the first 'institution' which required a uniform
convention since its users were outside the Hindi speaking belt in a large
number and outside India also, for that matter. Even then for a long time, they
and Hindi language itself has lived with all manner of contradictions like the
'd' in 'ladki' and 'badla', in each case a different sound. The retroflex 'd'
is spelt inconsistently e.g., the word for road 'sarak' spelt as such in the
case of a famous Delhi street but 'aadmi sadak ka' , the title of a movie.
For transliterating Sanskrit, rightfully the topic of most relevance, there are
multiple conventions available. My own personal preference is for the Harvard
Kyoto convention since it does not look unduly academic, does not have embedded
periods etc but it does look, in the opinion of many people, a little
unaesthetic.
In a list like this, I agree that we should have a uniform convention but I
notice that many people do not use any transliteration convention. If they are
consistent, it is merely easier to read.
Incidentally, the last 'a' in Rama, is properly dealt with in grammar. Panini's
last sutra 'a a' (P 8.4.68), along with the sutra 'tulyAsya prayatnam
savarNam' (P.1.1.9), deals with it elegantly. The commentaries tell you that
the short 'a' is a closed 'a' (saMvRta) as opposed to the long 'a' which is
long as well as open (vivRta).
Hope this helps,
Lakshmi Srinivas
Pratyush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks dhananjay and everybody else for elaborate replies.
Taking it further on the same note, I noticed that Rishi spelt "akArAntaha"
in "akArAnthaha pumlingaha Rama Shabdaha" with a "th". In hindi speaking
belt, this will be read as tha as in hAthI (an elephant) or "tha" in
Thailand. Even the Itrans spells a tha as in hAthI and not as a "t" in
sa.nskRRita. I have seen the same inclusion of an "h" along with a "t" in
many south Indian names. A lot of places my name too has to carry an
additional "h", as prathyush.
I am just curious to know if this is due to absence of some sounds in south
Indian languages, and what should be the correct transliteration of a word
like aja.ntA (this is itrans). Apologies if this is going beyond the scope
of the group.
Thanks,
-pratyush
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jay Vaidya
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Sanskrit] Re: correct pronunciation: ram Vs. rama
This adds to but does not contradict the informative
answer by PKR. Modifies the answer by Rishi Kumar.
Rishi Kumar correctly states that the word 'rAma' ends
in a vowel, but that vowel is incorrectly identified.
> ... "Rama" shabda ends with an "a as in art".
Most dialects of English (Indian radio/Standard
British RP/Standard American) pronounce "art" with a
long open 'a'. This is approximately transcribed on
this list as 'A' or 'aa'
The Sanskrit pronunciation of the final vowel of
'rAma' is the short closed variety. An example is the
vowel in the word 'up' in Indian English. In standard
American and British RP, the sound you are looking for
is that elusive unstressed vowel, which linguists
refer to as "schwa". It is the last vowel in the
British RP or Standard American pronunciation of
'matter'.
Since Pratyush appears to speak Hindi, it is possible
to give exact examples of the pronunciation rather
than the approximate equivalents in English. The final
vowel of 'rAma' is also represented as the first and
third vowels of the word 'banAras' (name of city) in
Hindi. The second vowel of 'banAras' is the long open
'A', which is also the first vowel of the Sanskrit
'rAma'.
As PKR says,
> Only in Hindi the last letter gives up its
> vowel like a.
Also maraThi, bAN^lA, gujarAtI, etc. But the 'a'
deletion rules are not identical to Hindi.
Hindi has its own complex set of rules for the
deletion of 'a', not only from the end of words, but
sometimes from within the word. For example:
. 'kamala' (lotus) is written without halanta, but the
final 'a' is deleted in speech, not writing, and the
word is pronounced as 'kamal' in Hindi
. 'kamalA' (name of woman), the central vowel 'a' is
deleted in speech, not writing, and the word is
pronounced as 'kamlA' in Hindi.
These pronunciations are CORRECT and GRAMMATICAL in
Hindi.
Therefore Hindi speakers must be careful not to apply
Hindi pronunciation rules to Sanskrit pronunciation.
(And Marathi speakers should not use Marathi-specific
rules, and Telugu/Tamil/Bengali/Punjabi speakers must
not use rules specific to their language) even though
the shape of the written word looks similar.
Words with halanta always have an explicitly written
halanta sign in Sanskrit, when written in scripts of
brAhmI origin (i.e., all Indian scripts except urdU,
sindhI, roman). In devanAgarI this sign is an oblique
line below the letter. Following this convention,
always give full value to the final 'a' sound in words
that do not have a marked halanta in brAhmI-origin
scripts.
This is important. e.g.,
tama (full value to final 'a') means 'darkness'
tam (halanta) means 'to him'. (But in Hindi, during
speech, it can mean 'darkness', based on Hindi
pronunciation rules.)
> That is the same reason that all south indian
> languages have rama instead of ram.
Be sure to remember that in some southern languages,
such as kannaDa, the final vowel is the OPEN, short
'a', a sound that does not exist in Sanskrit, where a
CLOSED, short 'a' sound is used.
> It has nothing to do with the influence of
> English.
Right on.
Dhananjay
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20050513/01770159/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:10:27 -0600
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Re: correct pronunciation: ram Vs. rama
To: Lakshmi Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
bhavatyAH vivaraNam sAdhuH asti |
(Your clarification is good).
etat charchA idAnIm stagitavyA athavA samskR^ite eva anuvartanIyA
(This discussion is best stopped now or else continued in the sanskrit
language itself)
api cha, mama transliteration convention "ITRANS".
- Sai.
Lakshmi Srinivas uvaacha:
> Pratyush,
>
> Allow me to place your comments in perspective.
>
> Transliteration is just a convention - the one which runs in Hindi land for
> whatever reasons is not universally valid. Similarly, the one which is used
> in another state is probably invalid outside that state. You assume
> universality for an unofficial transliteration convention prevalent for
> transcribing Hindi sounds. It was originally popularized primarily by the
> Hindi movie industry and now it seems to be universally used. But let me tell
> you this convention is a dead loss for anything outside of shuddha hindi.
> Take, for example, the 'gh' in gharib and ghanta, the pronunciation is not
> the same but the transliteration convention is the same.
>
> In the South, the addition of 'h' to a 't as in Pratyush comes from the time
> when all 't''s used to represent the English 't', the alveolar one,
> pronounced albeit by all Indians as retroflex! So when the question of
> representing dental sounds of Indian origin came, the differentiation was
> done using an additional 'h'. In an earlier period, when Indian sounds were
> written like the English pronounced it, there was no attempts to make even
> this distinction. Thus 'Courtallam' instead of 'kutralam' (literary version)
> or 'kutthalam' (spoken version) or 'Tambaram' eventhough the initial 't' is
> dental, i.e., identical to the 't' in Pratyush.
>
> Hindi movie industry was the first 'institution' which required a uniform
> convention since its users were outside the Hindi speaking belt in a large
> number and outside India also, for that matter. Even then for a long time,
> they and Hindi language itself has lived with all manner of contradictions
> like the 'd' in 'ladki' and 'badla', in each case a different sound. The
> retroflex 'd' is spelt inconsistently e.g., the word for road 'sarak' spelt
> as such in the case of a famous Delhi street but 'aadmi sadak ka' , the title
> of a movie.
>
> For transliterating Sanskrit, rightfully the topic of most relevance, there
> are multiple conventions available. My own personal preference is for the
> Harvard Kyoto convention since it does not look unduly academic, does not
> have embedded periods etc but it does look, in the opinion of many people, a
> little unaesthetic.
>
> In a list like this, I agree that we should have a uniform convention but I
> notice that many people do not use any transliteration convention. If they
> are consistent, it is merely easier to read.
>
> Incidentally, the last 'a' in Rama, is properly dealt with in grammar.
> Panini's last sutra 'a a' (P 8.4.68), along with the sutra 'tulyAsya
> prayatnam savarNam' (P.1.1.9), deals with it elegantly. The commentaries tell
> you that the short 'a' is a closed 'a' (saMvRta) as opposed to the long 'a'
> which is long as well as open (vivRta).
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Lakshmi Srinivas
>
>
> Pratyush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks dhananjay and everybody else for elaborate replies.
>
> Taking it further on the same note, I noticed that Rishi spelt "akArAntaha"
> in "akArAnthaha pumlingaha Rama Shabdaha" with a "th". In hindi speaking
> belt, this will be read as tha as in hAthI (an elephant) or "tha" in
> Thailand. Even the Itrans spells a tha as in hAthI and not as a "t" in
> sa.nskRRita. I have seen the same inclusion of an "h" along with a "t" in
> many south Indian names. A lot of places my name too has to carry an
> additional "h", as prathyush.
>
> I am just curious to know if this is due to absence of some sounds in south
> Indian languages, and what should be the correct transliteration of a word
> like aja.ntA (this is itrans). Apologies if this is going beyond the scope
> of the group.
>
> Thanks,
> -pratyush
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jay Vaidya
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:37 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Sanskrit] Re: correct pronunciation: ram Vs. rama
>
> This adds to but does not contradict the informative
> answer by PKR. Modifies the answer by Rishi Kumar.
>
> Rishi Kumar correctly states that the word 'rAma' ends
> in a vowel, but that vowel is incorrectly identified.
>
> > ... "Rama" shabda ends with an "a as in art".
>
> Most dialects of English (Indian radio/Standard
> British RP/Standard American) pronounce "art" with a
> long open 'a'. This is approximately transcribed on
> this list as 'A' or 'aa'
> The Sanskrit pronunciation of the final vowel of
> 'rAma' is the short closed variety. An example is the
> vowel in the word 'up' in Indian English. In standard
> American and British RP, the sound you are looking for
> is that elusive unstressed vowel, which linguists
> refer to as "schwa". It is the last vowel in the
> British RP or Standard American pronunciation of
> 'matter'.
>
> Since Pratyush appears to speak Hindi, it is possible
> to give exact examples of the pronunciation rather
> than the approximate equivalents in English. The final
> vowel of 'rAma' is also represented as the first and
> third vowels of the word 'banAras' (name of city) in
> Hindi. The second vowel of 'banAras' is the long open
> 'A', which is also the first vowel of the Sanskrit
> 'rAma'.
>
> As PKR says,
> > Only in Hindi the last letter gives up its
> > vowel like a.
> Also maraThi, bAN^lA, gujarAtI, etc. But the 'a'
> deletion rules are not identical to Hindi.
>
> Hindi has its own complex set of rules for the
> deletion of 'a', not only from the end of words, but
> sometimes from within the word. For example:
> . 'kamala' (lotus) is written without halanta, but the
> final 'a' is deleted in speech, not writing, and the
> word is pronounced as 'kamal' in Hindi
> . 'kamalA' (name of woman), the central vowel 'a' is
> deleted in speech, not writing, and the word is
> pronounced as 'kamlA' in Hindi.
> These pronunciations are CORRECT and GRAMMATICAL in
> Hindi.
>
> Therefore Hindi speakers must be careful not to apply
> Hindi pronunciation rules to Sanskrit pronunciation.
> (And Marathi speakers should not use Marathi-specific
> rules, and Telugu/Tamil/Bengali/Punjabi speakers must
> not use rules specific to their language) even though
> the shape of the written word looks similar.
>
> Words with halanta always have an explicitly written
> halanta sign in Sanskrit, when written in scripts of
> brAhmI origin (i.e., all Indian scripts except urdU,
> sindhI, roman). In devanAgarI this sign is an oblique
> line below the letter. Following this convention,
> always give full value to the final 'a' sound in words
> that do not have a marked halanta in brAhmI-origin
> scripts.
>
> This is important. e.g.,
> tama (full value to final 'a') means 'darkness'
> tam (halanta) means 'to him'. (But in Hindi, during
> speech, it can mean 'darkness', based on Hindi
> pronunciation rules.)
>
>
> > That is the same reason that all south indian
> > languages have rama instead of ram.
> Be sure to remember that in some southern languages,
> such as kannaDa, the final vowel is the OPEN, short
> 'a', a sound that does not exist in Sanskrit, where a
> CLOSED, short 'a' sound is used.
>
>
> > It has nothing to do with the influence of
> > English.
> Right on.
>
> Dhananjay
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
>
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Discover Yahoo!
> Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 26, Issue 9
***************************************
