Classic and colloquial Tibetan
- KonchogUrgyenNyima
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:34 am
- Location: PNW
Classic and colloquial Tibetan
Mod note: This post has been [submitted within this topic before: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 19#p658019
It was being split to this new topic.
hello all.
So I’ve heard it said, and I’m sure that many of you have too, that classical tibetan is grammatically so different from colloquial tibetan that knowing one does not do a lot in the way of helping you comprehend the other.
To those who know, how true is this?
For instance, if I learn to speak fluent Tibetan and then pick up a text like a commentary or a Tantra or something, will I truly just not be able to understand? Assuming I can read tibetan script that is.
And how does this concept apply to reading sadhanas? It seems that sadhanas are not really meant to be read so much as you would read a book, but like you’re using words as indicators for what to practice. I believe this is why people say that sadhanas drop a lot of the grammar of classical Tibetan.
I want to believe that learning to speak colloquial Tibetan will help me read sadhanas (and mayyyyybeeee the kunzang lamai shelung???) in Tibetan, but is this actually the case?
It was being split to this new topic.
hello all.
So I’ve heard it said, and I’m sure that many of you have too, that classical tibetan is grammatically so different from colloquial tibetan that knowing one does not do a lot in the way of helping you comprehend the other.
To those who know, how true is this?
For instance, if I learn to speak fluent Tibetan and then pick up a text like a commentary or a Tantra or something, will I truly just not be able to understand? Assuming I can read tibetan script that is.
And how does this concept apply to reading sadhanas? It seems that sadhanas are not really meant to be read so much as you would read a book, but like you’re using words as indicators for what to practice. I believe this is why people say that sadhanas drop a lot of the grammar of classical Tibetan.
I want to believe that learning to speak colloquial Tibetan will help me read sadhanas (and mayyyyybeeee the kunzang lamai shelung???) in Tibetan, but is this actually the case?
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm
- Location: Benelux, then USA, now Southern Europe.
Re: Classical and colloquial Tibetan
That is not the case. It will help you gain a larger vocabulary quicker. And you will be able to ask questions of native speakers about the texts you want to study. But classical Tibetan is really quite different from colloquial as well as from a classical text related to a different category. I would recommend doing both. It takes a long time anyway so plan for pushing through the hard patches.
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
We need to be careful about terms. The division between "Classical" and "Colloquial" is a bit misleading.
There are three dimensions of Tibetan language variation:
Written modern Tibetan and written Classical Tibetan are quite similar, but spoken modern Tibetan can be pretty different. After I learned Classical Tibetan I could read Modern TIbetan texts about Buddhism, but I couldn't communicate with people.
The divide is a bit artificial, anyway. Educated Tibetans can use both the spoken language and the written language, and the two complement each other really well. If you study Classical Tibetan, you will gain a good understanding of verb arguments, verb root tenses, and particles; if you study Modern Tibetan, you will gain a good understanding of the meaning of words, verbal auxiliaries, and verb structure. If you only learn one or the other, then you'll probably have a lot of blind spots.
There are three dimensions of Tibetan language variation:
- time -- what century? ("Classical" vs. "Modern" is a rough heuristic for time)
- space -- what place? ("Amdo" vs. "Kham" vs. "Utsang" Tibetan is a rough heuristic for space)
- spoken vs. written language
Written modern Tibetan and written Classical Tibetan are quite similar, but spoken modern Tibetan can be pretty different. After I learned Classical Tibetan I could read Modern TIbetan texts about Buddhism, but I couldn't communicate with people.
I think you'd be able to understand some stuff, but you'd struggle making sense of it all, because a lot of the words and constructions are completely different. For example:For instance, if I learn to speak fluent Tibetan and then pick up a text like a commentary or a Tantra or something, will I truly just not be able to understand? Assuming I can read tibetan script that is.
- Written Modern Tibetan: ཇི་ལྟར་མོག་མོག་བཟོ(ས)་སྟངས་ how to make momos
- Spoken Modern Tibetan: གང་འདྲས་སེ་མོག་མོག་བཟོ་དགོས་མིན་ how to make momos
The divide is a bit artificial, anyway. Educated Tibetans can use both the spoken language and the written language, and the two complement each other really well. If you study Classical Tibetan, you will gain a good understanding of verb arguments, verb root tenses, and particles; if you study Modern Tibetan, you will gain a good understanding of the meaning of words, verbal auxiliaries, and verb structure. If you only learn one or the other, then you'll probably have a lot of blind spots.
Sadhanas drop grammar because they're in verse format. It is taught in Tibetan grammar (specifically in the Sumchupa) that verses can drop particles for the sake of metre. This means that verses can be pretty ambiguous. You're not really supposed to learn by reading verse, because understanding verse well requires a mastery of prose so that you have an idea of what words are being dropped. People like to approach verse as if it has no grammar, but this is kind of irresponsible.And how does this concept apply to reading sadhanas? It seems that sadhanas are not really meant to be read so much as you would read a book, but like you’re using words as indicators for what to practice. I believe this is why people say that sadhanas drop a lot of the grammar of classical Tibetan.
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
Is there a summary anywhere (online or in a book) of the "rules" relating sadhanas and the required formats for classical texts, without studying the Sumchupa and/or its commentaries in depth? Not to become familiar with all of the rules, but rather just to have an overview.nyamlae wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:08 pm
Sadhanas drop grammar because they're in verse format. It is taught in Tibetan grammar (specifically in the Sumchupa) that verses can drop particles for the sake of metre. This means that verses can be pretty ambiguous. You're not really supposed to learn by reading verse, because understanding verse well requires a mastery of prose so that you have an idea of what words are being dropped. People like to approach verse as if it has no grammar, but this is kind of irresponsible.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
~Chatral Rinpoche
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
It's less about formulaic rules, and more about becoming familiar with the full form of words so that you recognize them when they're abbreviated and can "reconstruct" them properly. This requires mastering Tibetan prose in the same genre as the verse you're reading. Otherwise you will reconstruct a word or idea that is not part of the genre.Punya wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:15 amIs there a summary anywhere (online or in a book) of the "rules" relating sadhanas and the required formats for classical texts, without studying the Sumchupa and/or its commentaries in depth? Not to become familiar with all of the rules, but rather just to have an overview.nyamlae wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:08 pm
Sadhanas drop grammar because they're in verse format. It is taught in Tibetan grammar (specifically in the Sumchupa) that verses can drop particles for the sake of metre. This means that verses can be pretty ambiguous. You're not really supposed to learn by reading verse, because understanding verse well requires a mastery of prose so that you have an idea of what words are being dropped. People like to approach verse as if it has no grammar, but this is kind of irresponsible.
The example given in Situ Shellung (a Sumchupa commentary) is very simple -- it says that ཟག་བཅས་ཟག་པ་མེད་ཆོས་རྣམས། should be reconstructed as ཟག་པ་དང་བཅས་པའི་ཆོས་རྣམས་དང་། ཟག་པ་མེད་པའི་ཆོས་རྣམས། (i.e. "contaminated dharmas and uncontaminated dharmas"). This is obvious to anyone who knows a little bit of abhidharma and who is familiar with བཅས་/མེད་ pairs, but a beginner who isn't familiar with this topic could end up with some totally off-base reading like "...and contaminations lack contamination, and dharmas..."
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
Ok. That take sense.
So given all this complexity, as discussed here and in the Tibetan as a Written Language thread linked above, is there any value in an ordinary practitioner, with no ambitions to be a translator, learning classical Tibetan? I'm hoping someone will have something to positive to say about this.
So given all this complexity, as discussed here and in the Tibetan as a Written Language thread linked above, is there any value in an ordinary practitioner, with no ambitions to be a translator, learning classical Tibetan? I'm hoping someone will have something to positive to say about this.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
~Chatral Rinpoche
-
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:57 am
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
If you recite your sadhanas in Tibetan just doing a beginner and intermediate level course will be very nice. You won't be doing decent translations yourself, but you'll have a greater appreciation of what you're reciting. The core vocab relating to important terminology in sadhanas is also relatively limited, so you can pretty much learn all of that without spending thousands of hours on language study.Punya wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:01 am Ok. That take sense.
So given all this complexity, as discussed here and in the Tibetan as a Written Language thread linked above, is there any value in an ordinary practitioner, with no ambitions to be a translator, learning classical Tibetan? I'm hoping someone will have something to positive to say about this.
In addition, given there's very little standardisation around word choices translators use, knowing the Tibetan for all the core terminology is also extremely helpful in "seeing through" translations and recognising underlying terms.
In short, if you've got the time and interest I'd say it's well worth it.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5707
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
Agreed. And it's not really true that there is "no grammar" in sadhanas--of course there is some grammar. But shortcuts are taken. Still, learning some basic grammar in a Classical Tibetan course is very useful for someone who wants to practice in Tibetan language.dharmafootsteps wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 12:38 pmIf you recite your sadhanas in Tibetan just doing a beginner and intermediate level course will be very nice. You won't be doing decent translations yourself, but you'll have a greater appreciation of what you're reciting. The core vocab relating to important terminology in sadhanas is also relatively limited, so you can pretty much learn all of that without spending thousands of hours on language study.Punya wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:01 am Ok. That take sense.
So given all this complexity, as discussed here and in the Tibetan as a Written Language thread linked above, is there any value in an ordinary practitioner, with no ambitions to be a translator, learning classical Tibetan? I'm hoping someone will have something to positive to say about this.
In addition, given there's very little standardisation around word choices translators use, knowing the Tibetan for all the core terminology is also extremely helpful in "seeing through" translations and recognising underlying terms.
In short, if you've got the time and interest I'd say it's well worth it.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
Yes, absolutely. I find it especially useful for understanding mental factors and terms related to meditation.
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
Thanks dharmafootsteps. Better articulated, of course, but this is more or less the reason I wanted to study classical Tibetan. Thanks also to Nyamlae and Cone for your positive input.dharmafootsteps wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 12:38 pmIf you recite your sadhanas in Tibetan just doing a beginner and intermediate level course will be very nice. You won't be doing decent translations yourself, but you'll have a greater appreciation of what you're reciting. The core vocab relating to important terminology in sadhanas is also relatively limited, so you can pretty much learn all of that without spending thousands of hours on language study.Punya wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:01 am Ok. That take sense.
So given all this complexity, as discussed here and in the Tibetan as a Written Language thread linked above, is there any value in an ordinary practitioner, with no ambitions to be a translator, learning classical Tibetan? I'm hoping someone will have something to positive to say about this.
In addition, given there's very little standardisation around word choices translators use, knowing the Tibetan for all the core terminology is also extremely helpful in "seeing through" translations and recognising underlying terms.
In short, if you've got the time and interest I'd say it's well worth it.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
~Chatral Rinpoche
Re: Classic and colloquial Tibetan
I think the advice generally for practitioners is study classical Tibetan first and spoken Tibetan second, but from the comments here it sounds like maybe either would work. Like any 2nd language learning interest waxes and wanes, so its good to have a strong motivation and to remind yourself it's a marathon, not a sprint. Personally I was more interested to find out the classical Tibetan word for "wisdom" than to learn the words for, say, train, truck and car.KonchogUrgyenNyima wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:07 am
I want to believe that learning to speak colloquial Tibetan will help me read sadhanas (and mayyyyybeeee the kunzang lamai shelung???) in Tibetan, but is this actually the case?
I'm just beginning to study some classical grammar and I'm not finding it easy, but if you have grasped the basics of reading Tibetan and you can recognise some words, it does leave you wondering about the other words/syllables in buddhist liturgy. If you then learn some grammar it helps you begin to fill in the gaps.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
~Chatral Rinpoche