Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 Phillip ernest asked: _________________ Is it only western sanskritists who pronounce it jnya, that is, as an unaltered conjunction of the consonants of which it is theoretically made (assuming palatal n to be pronounced ny). _______________________________ I vaguely recall that S.K. Chatterjee in his article "The pronounciation of Sanskrit" (by the way, there are two different complementary articles by him with this title) describes how when the British decided to standardise the script of sanskrit as devanagari in the educational system of India they also wanted to standardize the pronounciation of sanskrit and had a committee of pandits come up with a standard pronounciation of sanskrit with acceptable variations in pronounciation. I think (but I might be wrong) he describes the pronounciation as the VAranasi pronounciation with Maharashtra elements. For the pronounciation of j~n the committee of Pandits selected several very different acceptable variations (I don't have the article with me and can't remember the exact variations they said were acceptable.) Harry Spier 371 Brickman Rd. Hurleyville, New York USA 12747 >"deshpandem" <mmdesh >INDOLOGY >INDOLOGY >Re: [Y-Indology] Pronunciation of jn : Some Historical Issues >Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:31:37 -0000 > >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 > > > > > > Links > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.