[Y-Indology] Pronunciation of jn : Some Historical Issues

[Guest guest]

I think there are some historical issues related to the question of jn that may

be kept

in mind. Some have voiced a concern as to how one could pronounce an affricate

j

before a palatal nasal ny. While it is true that the current pronunciation of

the c-

series is an affricate pronunciation, except for the last nasal, it is not clear

that it

was historically so. The Pratisakhyas and Siksas, as best as I know, do not give

any

indication of affrication involved in the pronunciation of c, j etc. The

historical

alternations of k~c, g~j etc. also suggest that the palatal point of

articulation was

much farther back, as compared to the point of articulation in present day

articulation

which seems much closer to the alveolar point. [A few years ago, as I was

explaining

in my first year Sanskrit class that the order of k, c, T, t, and p series is

from back

to front, an observant student with linguistics major pointed out to me that if

my

pronunciation was correct, the c-series should be placed after the retroflex

series,

since in my Marathi-based pronunciation, the c-series was closer to the alveolar

point

of articulation.] If one understands that the palatal articulatory point, in

some

historic dialects was much farther back, that explains the approximation to

-gya-,

gnya in those dialects. On the other hand, the forward movement of that palatal

point of articulation in the direction of alveolar/dental created the Marathi

like

pronunciation -dnya-. All of these regional pronunciation, by not involving any

affrication, probably indicate the original historic situation where the

c-series of

palatals did not involve any affrication. Current (western/academic)

pronunciations

involving an affricate j + a non-affricate nya are again a compromise

pronunciation,

and not a complete reflection of how these sounds were historically pronounced.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

 

 

INDOLOGY, phillip.ernest@v... wrote:

>

> >-- Messaggio originale --

> >INDOLOGY

> >"nathrao" <nathrao>

> >Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:43:48 -0000

> >Re: [Y-Indology] jn

> >INDOLOGY

>

> >Well, Sanskrit 'j~n' becomes just '~n' in Pali.

> >

> >In Tamil classes in Madurai, pronouncing the initial consonant of

> >'~naanam' (< jnaana) as a nasalized y was acceptable (at least that is

> >what I did/do). To me this sounds different from 'ny'. The learned

> >pronunciation of such words as yajna, vijnaana etc seemed to me like a

> >palatal stop + nasalized y. I asm not sure if this is what you mean by

> >'jny':

>

> I don't think so. I was thinking of the sound that you seem to describe

> in the next sentence.

>

> For the life of me, I can't pronounce a palatal affricate +

> >'ny'.

>

> I can, but that wouldn't be a conjunct consonant, but a ja-nya. I have

> been told by indian friends that no one makes this sound for jn in any indian

> language they know of. They may be wrong but I don't know better than they

> do. I myself have only ever heard western sanskritists use the palatal

> affricate plus ny. No, in fact, I think I have only heard this used by

> western non-sanskritists trying to pronounce sanskrit words. When I have

> heard western sanskritists say jn, it has always, from what I remember,

> been one of the indian sounds that we have been discussing and trying to

> describe.

>

> The common pronounciation of 'vijnaana' was more like 'vi~n~naana'.

>

> I am very encouraged by this; this seemed to me the natural pronunciation

> when I tried to imagine what the conjunct might originally have been, but

> I have never till now had any evidence to suggest that this pronunciation

> of jn is used in modern India. So it sounds like I might be understood

> even before I reform my practice.

>

> Many thanks.

>

> Phillip