Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:27 am
And so he is a very valuable source of data, but he is not the only source of data.
There is no evidence that Sera Jetsun studied Sanskrit with a native Sanskrit speaker. His reasoning is also unsound.

There is also no evidence that pronouncing a labial as a guttural is valid in any Sanskrit context. It is a laughable, unsupportable contention.

My teacher studied Sanskrit for many years at Sanskrit University.
Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Virgo »

nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:57 am The idea that there's only a single correct way to pronounce Sanskrit is not tenable even on the basis of Indian sources.
Have you demonstrated that?

Just because there are regional variations does not mean that some ways are not more correct than others.
nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:57 am The idea that there is a single correct way to pronounce Sanskrit is a typical example of linguistic prescriptivism. Ultimately this boils down to fixating on a single model as being "correct" or "legitimate", and categorically rejecting everything else as being wrong. Prescriptivism can be useful in language education sometimes -- it's way easier to focus on learning a single standard, and this has political value for nation-states -- but as a general approach to studying languages it's very much "old man yelling at cloud" energy.
Don't you think this applies more to common languages like English?

Sanskrit places import on specific sounds and pronunciations, does it not?

:namaste: Virgo
stong gzugs
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:58 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by stong gzugs »

nyamlae wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:43 pm I am in the process of translating it to get more clarity on the reasons (if any) provided, but that will take a bit of time. As far as I've seen while skimming the text, no reasons are provided, and the information is simply presented as fact.
That's fantastic. Please do keep us updated when your work is ready! :anjali:
nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:57 am The idea that there is a single correct way to pronounce Sanskrit is a typical example of linguistic prescriptivism. Ultimately this boils down to fixating on a single model as being "correct" or "legitimate", and categorically rejecting everything else as being wrong.
Let's take the benza example. This term seems to pretty clearly stem from two facts: (1) a lot of the tantras were translated out of Bengal where the v and b sounds are often conflated as a matter of dialect, and (2) the va letter isn't really present in Tibetan. Hence the Sanskrit "vajra" transforms into something like "badzra" and ends up "benza" in plenty of today's sadhanas.

In this case, describing "vajra" as more correct than "benza" seems fairly straightforward. I don't see the need to attach some ominous-sounding jargon like "linguistic prescriptivism" to it. I'm not sure if you're an academic in the humanities, or have an affinity with it, but it's pretty standard fair there to use such jargon as a cudgel in service of their own axiomatic assumptions (like that knowledge is indistinguishable from power, such that to maintain standards is thereby to exercise power and exclude others, so we should be skeptical of all standards, etc.). But I don't find these moves particularly impressive. Basically, I agree with Virgo below.
Virgo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:51 am Just because there are regional variations does not mean that some ways are not more correct than others.
We can also reverse the case you're making against prescriptivism. If we're embracing a skepticism of standards for "correctness and legitimacy," how far do we take that? There are clearly transcription errors that occur when manuscripts are hand-copied. Do we no longer have a basis to identify those as "errors"? Why privilege one language use over another? To take the same logic even further, isn't it exclusionary to say that American postural yoga teachers are "mispronouncing" the names of the stretches and subtle body when they teach in the local YMCA? It'd be prescriptivist to say that Indians have a monopoly on the language, no? So why not "shock-ra" instead of "chuck-ra" for cakra? And so on. I'm obviously not claiming you're taking these positions. I am, however, asking whether you can put forward a clear and consistent decision rule around how we can assert some language uses to be errors/incorrect and others are not, without being "prescriptivists" to some degree.
nyamlae wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:43 pm Tibetans are super meticulous about every aspect of the dharma, but for some reason everyone seems to have just assumed that they have no idea how to pronounce Sanskrit and are just doing it wrong.
I don't know that it's an assumption per se, as it's fairly observable. Take something even of great significance like the Vajrasattva mantra used for karma purification. As a (thought) experiment, take a random sample of 50 lamas: how consistent are they in how they pronounce the Sanskrit or how they cluster the hundred syllables into words, and thus interpret/translate their meanings (e.g., in the practice materials they hand out to students)? Do they universally recognize that the section mention of Vajrasattva is not a vocative but instrumental use ("vajrasattvatvena"), do they consistently distinguish between "samaya manupālaya" and "samayam anupālaya", etc.? Such distinctions are not merely about pronunciation, but also have implications for practice.

I've seen a large amount of variability in all the above and don't find it surprising that Tibetan lamas might not be experts on the nuances of a language they don't natively speak, with sounds that don't appear in their own mother tongue, especially when they emphasize practices of repeating terms as they've heard them from their own teachers and traditions rather than producing critical editions, and so forth. But I'm open to evidence that the transformations they made like vajra to benza were intentionally made and have important esoteric meanings. Off the top of my head, I can think of one such example, but I don't see this as the best explanation for the vast majority of cases.
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:50 am There is no evidence that Sera Jetsun studied Sanskrit with a native Sanskrit speaker.
Who is Sera Jetsun?
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:50 am His reasoning is also unsound.
What reasoning, and how?
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:50 am There is also no evidence that pronouncing a labial as a guttural is valid in any Sanskrit context.
What labial?
Virgo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:51 am Have you demonstrated that?
There are lots of different sources on this, e.g. this or this. That first link provides an example of ཥ་ being read as "kha" per Vedic standards, as Zhen Li mentioned.
Virgo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:51 am Just because there are regional variations does not mean that some ways are not more correct than others.
If there are regional variations, then what makes some ways more correct than others?

The fact is, all you have is the axiomatic assertion that a certain way is correct, whereas other ways are wrong. You can try to support this with texts, but again, those texts will just be other people who hold to the same axiom.
Virgo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:51 am Don't you think this applies more to common languages like English?

Sanskrit places import on specific sounds and pronunciations, does it not?
Religious people place this import (because they believe Sanskrit to be soteriologically powerful), not Sanskrit itself. Grammarians place this import (because they are describing the language), not Sanskrit itself. Sanskrit has nevertheless been subject to natural language variation and will do what it wants, regardless of what people feel about it.
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:03 am Let's take the benza example. This term seems to pretty clearly stem from two facts: (1) a lot of the tantras were translated out of Bengal where the v and b sounds are often conflated as a matter of dialect, and (2) the va letter isn't really present in Tibetan. Hence the Sanskrit "vajra" transforms into something like "badzra" and ends up "benza" in plenty of today's sadhanas.
I think calling 1) an example of "conflation" is not a value neutral description; it has the implication that this is wrong just because it's different from an earlier standard. More plainly, we can simply say that this stems from Bengali pronunciation of Sanskrit.
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:03 am it's pretty standard fair there to use such jargon as a cudgel in service of their own axiomatic assumptions (like that knowledge is indistinguishable from power, such that to maintain standards is thereby to exercise power and exclude others, so we should be skeptical of all standards, etc.). But I don't find these moves particularly impressive.
I'm not evoking linguistic prescriptivism here for some kind of argument about power or exclusion; my point is that axioms are baseless by definition, so ideas of a "correct" form of Sanskrit is basically just a bunch of people saying "no, do it this way!" and getting angry when people point out differences. I find the whole thing quite silly. I'm more interested in historical linguistics and sociolinguistics, which describe how languages change and vary over space and time.
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:03 am If we're embracing a skepticism of standards for "correctness and legitimacy," how far do we take that? There are clearly transcription errors that occur when manuscripts are hand-copied. Do we no longer have a basis to identify those as "errors"? Why privilege one language use over another?
Descriptivism is sensitive to things that are considered incorrect by a given speech community. So, for example, it would capture people's insistence that there is only one correct way to pronounce Sanskrit, and their judgment that this or that form is incorrect. This kind of information would not be excluded from a description of a language. Transcription errors are recognized as errors in a given speech community, and it is fine to acknowledge that. There's also the distinction that transcription errors are typically considered to be errors (and worthy of correction) by the people who make them, unlike most language drift. It's really just about describing what people are doing and how they feel about things, without getting caught up in some fossilized ideal and thus becoming emotionally resistant to or critical of any change or difference.
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:03 am I've seen a large amount of variability in all the above and don't find it surprising that Tibetan lamas might not be experts on the nuances of a language they don't natively speak
Sure, but this is not what I mean. I'm not saying that every single Tibetan is an expert in Sanskrit, I'm saying that Tibetans in general are making intentional and textually-based decisions for Sanskrit pronunciation; and furthermore, I see no reason to think that all these deviations from whatever norm are reducible to Tibetans just being bad at pronouncing Sanskrit.
Last edited by nyamlae on Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
jet.urgyen
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by jet.urgyen »

nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:57 am
jet.urgyen wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:39 pm is there any reliable translation? if not, will this text ever be translated once and for all?
It's short, I should be able to translate it pretty soon.
This is most interesting to me. Thanks. Any way to keep track of this?
true dharma is inexpressible.

The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Zhen Li »

nyamlae wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:53 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:34 am This is interesting, I wonder if these pronunciations are derived from a Nepalese tradition.
For instance, in Newar "va" (व) is pronoucned anywhere from wo or just o (though in svāhā it is a "wa" sound because of the long ā). And while sh (श) is closer to s (स), ṣ is often pronounced as kh (ष = ख)—this is a convention that is found even in some Vedic Sanskrit (e.g. ṛṣi being pronounced like "rikhi").
Oh neat, could you link any resources that discuss these points? For example, I looked up the Newar language article on Wikipedia and it just gives w+schwa for व, rather than wo/o. I also don't know any good sources that discuss the pronunciation of ष as ख in some Vedic Sanskrit, so I'd appreciate any leads.
The Newar-related pages on Wikipedia are not reliable. For Newar pronunciation, I'd look up the books on Newar grammar by Felix Otter and Hans Jørgensen.

As for the ṣ as kh matter, I noticed that it is discussed in the book Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors.

A lot of the stuff I know about Newar language is from my own experience, but there are also some books only available in Nepal by local scholars—they are not very up to date on posting things online.
stong gzugs
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:58 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by stong gzugs »

nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:20 am Descriptivism is sensitive to things that are considered incorrect by a given speech community.
Got it! Thanks for clarifying. If I understand you correctly, as a descriptivist, you only identify as errors things that a particular community identifies as an error. So errors are only relative to a community, not based on objective standards. If so, then, based on your approach, there is actually no error when the community of American yoga teachers pronounces cakra as "shock-rah" as they are collectively happy with that pronunciation? Nor is it an error, for instance, when they say things like "yogis and yoginis" to be gender inclusive, even though "yogi" is a gender neutral term and so the gendered versions according to objective Sanskrit standards would be "yogins and yoginis"? It's just a different regional dialect.

That makes sense to me as an internally consistent position. But I'd suggest dropping the framing where the prescriptivists are the bad guys imposing a system of judgments, whereas the descriptivists are not. A commitment not to make such judgments is itself a judgment system, and one that is loaded with political implications. There's a reason communities of religious practice are all fairly committed to maintaining the integrity of their language systems. Descriptivism gives these communities no resources to combat, for instance, the wild misinterpretations and misappropriations of terms like "tantra" in the West.
nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:20 am I'm not saying that every single Tibetan is an expert in Sanskrit, I'm saying that Tibetans in general are making intentional and textually-based decisions for Sanskrit pronunciation; and furthermore, I see no reason to think that all these deviations from whatever norm are reducible to Tibetans just being bad at pronouncing Sanskrit.
You propose a model of change driven by intentional educated decisions. It would be very interesting if this was the case. I'd love to see substantial textual evidence in this regard. For instance, where someone in a text was saying "Hey, they used to say 'vajra' but we prefer to use the word 'benza' because the b and n sounds resonate better on the upper palate, which unlocks the talu granthi, etc." I've instead offered an alternate explanation based on historical and linguistic evidence, where chance factors like where the tantras were imported from and how idiosyncracies of Bengali and Tibetan scripts prompt the transformation from vajra to benza, rather than intentional educated decisions.

You've shown that people write down in books how they pronounce things. You've also stated your axiomatic discomfort with lines saying that benza is somehow less accurate than vajra as a Sanskrit term and characterized those who disagree with your assumptions as fossilized, ridden by emotional resistance, old man shouting at cloud, etc. But neither are evidence for informed educated decisions. I'm open to and intrigued by the possibility that these vajra-to-benza or phat-to-phey type transformations are educated intentional decisions, as you've claimed. I just haven't seen it yet.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Virgo »

stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:17 pm There's a reason communities of religious practice are all fairly committed to maintaining the integrity of their language systems. Descriptivism gives these communities no resources to combat, for instance, the wild misinterpretations and misappropriations of terms like "tantra" in the West.
He doesn't care what religious people or communities think. He cares what academics think (see below).
nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:20 am
Virgo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:51 am Don't you think this applies more to common languages like English?

Sanskrit places import on specific sounds and pronunciations, does it not?
Religious people place this import (because they believe Sanskrit to be soteriologically powerful), not Sanskrit itself.
He is here to correct you.

Virgo
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:20 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:50 am There is no evidence that Sera Jetsun studied Sanskrit with a native Sanskrit speaker.
Who is Sera Jetsun?
My error, I see that this is by dge 'dun dpal, 14th century.
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:50 am His reasoning is also unsound.
What reasoning, and how? [/quote]

་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར


Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:50 am There is also no evidence that pronouncing a labial as a guttural is valid in any Sanskrit context.
What labial?
ṣa.་ཥ

Sure, but this is not what I mean. I'm not saying that every single Tibetan is an expert in Sanskrit, I'm saying that Tibetans in general are making intentional and textually-based decisions for Sanskrit pronunciation; and furthermore, I see no reason to think that all these deviations from whatever norm are reducible to Tibetans just being bad at pronouncing Sanskrit.
You mean like "shing kun" for Hingu?
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Virgo »

Just wait... "I took teachings from this lama and that lama..."

Meanwhile:

"Religious people place this import..."

:rolling:

Virgo
dzoki
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by dzoki »

nyamlae wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:30 am
stong gzugs wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:15 pm Generally, there is disagreement about whether it's important to properly pronounce Sanskrit mantras in Tibetan Buddhism. There's a lot of interesting debate to be had here, and yes it is always good to follow your teacher, but you also deserve a simple answer to your question. So, whether you're on team vajra or team benza, here are the proper way to pronounce the Sanskrit
You provide the Western-style pronunciation, which is fine, but it's specifically in the "team vajra" camp.

Unfortunately for the OP, there's no neutral "proper" way to pronounce Sanskrit, so you really do just have to pick a camp.

Tibetans aren't really mispronouncing Sanskrit; they are following pronunciation standards that are hundreds of years old, laid out in the many Mantrasya Pathopaya (སྔགས་ཀྱི་བཀླག་ཐབས་) texts that are part of the tradition. Everything from the pronunciation of སྭཱ་ཧཱ་ as "soha" to the pronunciation of ཥ་ as "kha" are intentional, educated decisions. For example, see page 31 of this text (སཏྭ་ལྟ་བུ་ལས་སཏོཝ྄་ལྟ་བུར་བཀླག་གོ། "for example, from satva you should read satow.") or page 22 of this text (གཞུང་ལས་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ཥ་འདིའི་སྒྲ་ཁ་ཞེས་བཀླག་དགོས། "As is clarified in the classics, ཥ་ has the same aspect as kha, and so the sound of this ཥ་ should be read as kha.")
This work by Gendun Pal is actually quite late, he lived in 14th to 15th century, when the contact of Tibetans with India was quite limited already, so no wonder, that some mistaken pronunciations are presented as correct.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

dzoki wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:08 pm
nyamlae wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:30 am
stong gzugs wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:15 pm Generally, there is disagreement about whether it's important to properly pronounce Sanskrit mantras in Tibetan Buddhism. There's a lot of interesting debate to be had here, and yes it is always good to follow your teacher, but you also deserve a simple answer to your question. So, whether you're on team vajra or team benza, here are the proper way to pronounce the Sanskrit
You provide the Western-style pronunciation, which is fine, but it's specifically in the "team vajra" camp.

Unfortunately for the OP, there's no neutral "proper" way to pronounce Sanskrit, so you really do just have to pick a camp.

Tibetans aren't really mispronouncing Sanskrit; they are following pronunciation standards that are hundreds of years old, laid out in the many Mantrasya Pathopaya (སྔགས་ཀྱི་བཀླག་ཐབས་) texts that are part of the tradition. Everything from the pronunciation of སྭཱ་ཧཱ་ as "soha" to the pronunciation of ཥ་ as "kha" are intentional, educated decisions. For example, see page 31 of this text (སཏྭ་ལྟ་བུ་ལས་སཏོཝ྄་ལྟ་བུར་བཀླག་གོ། "for example, from satva you should read satow.") or page 22 of this text (གཞུང་ལས་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ཥ་འདིའི་སྒྲ་ཁ་ཞེས་བཀླག་དགོས། "As is clarified in the classics, ཥ་ has the same aspect as kha, and so the sound of this ཥ་ should be read as kha.")
This work by Gendun Pal is actually quite late, he lived in 14th to 15th century, when the contact of Tibetans with India was quite limited already, so no wonder, that some mistaken pronunciations are presented as correct.
Yes, but our friend here knows better than everyone so...
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

jet.urgyen wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:30 am This is most interesting to me. Thanks. Any way to keep track of this?
I'll post it on my website here when it's done. I don't have a mailing list for updates, but if you check back in a week or two it'll probably be up.
Zhen Li wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:44 am The Newar-related pages on Wikipedia are not reliable. For Newar pronunciation, I'd look up the books on Newar grammar by Felix Otter and Hans Jørgensen.

As for the ṣ as kh matter, I noticed that it is discussed in the book Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors.

A lot of the stuff I know about Newar language is from my own experience, but there are also some books only available in Nepal by local scholars—they are not very up to date on posting things online.
Thank you for the info! I'll look into these. :cheers:
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:17 pm If so, then, based on your approach, there is actually no error when the community of American yoga teachers pronounces cakra as "shock-rah" as they are collectively happy with that pronunciation? Nor is it an error, for instance, when they say things like "yogis and yoginis" to be gender inclusive, even though "yogi" is a gender neutral term and so the gendered versions according to objective Sanskrit standards would be "yogins and yoginis"? It's just a different regional dialect.
No, that's not the point. These are loanwords, not regional dialects.
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:17 pm Descriptivism gives these communities no resources to combat, for instance, the wild misinterpretations and misappropriations of terms like "tantra" in the West.
Sure it does, because you can descriptively note that these are out of step with the meaning of "tantra" according to such and such sources, for example. There have been good critiques of so-called yoga that take this approach..
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:17 pm You propose a model of change driven by intentional educated decisions.
No, I'm proposing a model of pronunciation driven by intentional educated decisions. I am agnostic as to the cause of the differences/changes, except e.g. the raising of a, o, and u before dentals, which is undoubtedly due to Central Tibetan vowel raising.
stong gzugs wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:17 pm You've also stated your axiomatic discomfort with lines saying that benza is somehow less accurate than vajra
I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making, and I don't think you're arguing in good faith at this point. All the best.
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:32 pm ་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར
This is presented as an adverb (པར་), not as a reason (པས་).
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:32 pmṣa.་ཥ
ཥ་ ṣa is a retroflex, not a labial.
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:32 pm You mean like "shing kun" for Hingu?
This is a loanword, not a rule in a guide to Sanskrit pronunciation. This would be like dismissing English guides to French pronunciation just because English speakers pronounce the loanword "hors d'oeuvres" as "orderv". It's not relevant and not convincing.
dzoki wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:08 pm This work by Gendun Pal is actually quite late, he lived in 14th to 15th century, when the contact of Tibetans with India was quite limited already, so no wonder, that some mistaken pronunciations are presented as correct.
This is a good reason to be skeptical of his guide, but it does not actually prove that his guide is mistaken, nor (if so) in what way. More information about these guides and about the education of their authors (including Narthang Lotsawa) would help us better understand which pronunciations are well-grounded in Sanskrit tradition, and which pronunciations are of Tibetan origin. This is one of my main goals and interests in translating this literature.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:39 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:32 pm ་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར
This is presented as an adverb (པར་), not as a reason (པས་).
Nick, you pay too much attention to western grammar standards.

The la don ra frequently stands as a “reason.”

In any case, there is no chance kha is a valid pronunciation of Sa.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:39 am
This is a good reason to be skeptical of his guide, but it does not actually prove that his guide is mistaken, nor (if so) in what way. More information about these guides and about the education of their authors (including Narthang Lotsawa) would help us better understand which pronunciations are well-grounded in Sanskrit tradition, and which pronunciations are of Tibetan origin. This is one of my main goals and interests in translating this literature.
We already know Sapan had thirty Sanskrit tutors, and some modern Marathi pronunciation of purusha as purukha is hardly convincing on any level.

I do want to add however that your investigation is interesting, if quixotic,
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:52 am
nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:39 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:32 pm ་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར
This is presented as an adverb (པར་), not as a reason (པས་).
Nick, you pay too much attention to western grammar standards.

The la don ra frequently stands as a “reason” in this particular construction.
I study Tibetan on the basis of Tibetan grammatical texts and from Tibetan teachers, so I'm not sure what you mean about Western grammar standards?

I learn new things all the time, but I've never seen or heard "ra" used to mark a reason. Do you have an example of this?
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:52 am In any case, there is no chance kha is a valid pronunciation of Sa.
I have already provided a source discussing how this is a known Vedic style of recitation.

There is more information provided in this article and this response. They discuss how the Takri and Devanagari scripts use the glyph for ṣa to mark the sound "kha", and they also discuss how this pronunciation is part of the Madhyandina school of the Shukla Yajur Veda in central+western North India.

Plus, Zhen Li has already commented on how this is also done in Newar recitation.

So, it is established beyond any doubt that this pronunciation of ṣa as "kha" is a known phenomenon in North India, not some oddity restricted to Tibetan.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:05 am some modern Marathi pronunciation of purusha as purukha is hardly convincing on any level.
I'm not sure why you're talking about modern Marathi?
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:05 am I do want to add however that your investigation is interesting, if quixotic
I strive to be nothing less! :smile:
Last edited by nyamlae on Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

jet.urgyen wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:39 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:05 pm Sorry, but these are incorrect pronunciations. Tibetans mispronounce mantras because there are certain sounds they cannot easily make, like kṣa in in the middle of a word, or hriḥ without a sibilant added to it.

If you wish to know how a Tibetan highly educated in Sanskrit pronounces mantras, you should read Sakya Pandita's Flower that Produces Fruit (sngags kyi klog thabs 'bras bu 'byung ba'i me tog, https://legacy.tbrc.org/#library_work_V ... 3%7CW22271)

།ཤ་ཥ་ས་ཡི་ཡི་གེ་གསུམ།
སྐབས་ཀྱིས་ལྕེ་ལ་གང་བདེར་བཀླག

In other words, they are sibilants, produce with the tip of the tongue.

Sapan had thirty pandita tutors, there no more authoritative source for how Sanskrit was pronounced by 13th century Indians.
is there any reliable translation? if not, will this text ever be translated once and for all? :|

i mean, is someone doing it?
I had some free time tonight so I translated it: https://tibetanlanguage.school/miscella ... ears-fruit

It's a rough translation, but at least it gives something to read and talk about.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:11 am
I learn new things all the time, but I've never seen or heard "ra" used to mark a reason. Do you have an example of this?
The next time I run across this I will point it out. But that is not what I meant, In the sentence you provide “as kha is equivalent to Sa, it is pronounced kha.”

That’s bad reasoning.

Whereas, Sapan clearly points out za, Sa, and sa all should be pronounced within the range of sa.

Kha may retroflex in the series of ka kha ga gha nga, as is Sa, but that does not result in kha and Sa having equivalent pronunciations.


It may be the case that in some communities in India there is retroflex drift from Sa to kha, but it wouldnt stand at Varanasi, and certainly when I learned how to chant Vedic chants with Ramasvami, Sa was Sa and not kha.

[
Plus, Zhen Li has already commented on how this is also done in Newar recitation.
Tibetan influence. My roommate for many years (since passed) was Newari. He chanted the Namasamgiti in perfect Sanskrit daily. I listened to him every morning. Granted he also was at Varanasi at the same time as Khenpo Migmar, but he had been doing this since he was a small boy, and his father was a famous Newar Lana who trained in Tibet.
So, it is established beyond any doubt that this pronunciation of ṣa as "kha" is a known phenomenon in North India, not some oddity restricted to Tibetan.
Not buying it.

Your response article points out that this Yajur Veda voicing is a voiceless pronunciation, I.e “purukh,” not “purukha.” So for example, following the article itself, no one would pronounce bhaISajya as Bhekhenze as Tibetans regularly do, since in these instances Sa followed by the vowel, etc.
Varis
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:09 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Varis »

nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:11 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:52 am In any case, there is no chance kha is a valid pronunciation of Sa.
I have already provided a source discussing how this is a known Vedic style of recitation.
One of the oldest styles of Vedic recitation is that preserved by the Nambodiris in Kerala. They pronounce purusha as purusha.

As can be seen here:
"I have never encountered a person who committed bad deeds." ― Ven. Jìngkōng
jet.urgyen
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by jet.urgyen »

nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:35 am
jet.urgyen wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:39 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:05 pm Sorry, but these are incorrect pronunciations. Tibetans mispronounce mantras because there are certain sounds they cannot easily make, like kṣa in in the middle of a word, or hriḥ without a sibilant added to it.

If you wish to know how a Tibetan highly educated in Sanskrit pronounces mantras, you should read Sakya Pandita's Flower that Produces Fruit (sngags kyi klog thabs 'bras bu 'byung ba'i me tog, https://legacy.tbrc.org/#library_work_V ... 3%7CW22271)

།ཤ་ཥ་ས་ཡི་ཡི་གེ་གསུམ།
སྐབས་ཀྱིས་ལྕེ་ལ་གང་བདེར་བཀླག

In other words, they are sibilants, produce with the tip of the tongue.

Sapan had thirty pandita tutors, there no more authoritative source for how Sanskrit was pronounced by 13th century Indians.
is there any reliable translation? if not, will this text ever be translated once and for all? :|

i mean, is someone doing it?
I had some free time tonight so I translated it: https://tibetanlanguage.school/miscella ... ears-fruit

It's a rough translation, but at least it gives something to read and talk about.
thank's a lot, now i will study it.
true dharma is inexpressible.

The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”