Idiom and Grammar (and chariots again!)

[S Bhatta]

Dr. Farmer,

I apologize, but please understand that my concern is your reliance upon translations, which can never convey that which must be communicated orally.

I realize we all must rely on print, but I am afraid your inexperience is being overshadowed by your lack of proficiency in the language.

As for Subrahmanya, you, as it is so easy to do with this contraption, emotionally fired off a response without properly understanding my post.

I am in no way defending 'Dubrahmanya,' as Dr. Witzel as so called him before and no where did i even suggest a hint of support.

As I said, I think it is silly for you to take an authorative position on the subject and to suggest readings to someone when in fact you cannot read the original.


Furthermore you wrote:

Bhatta's apparent claim is that since I'm a comparative
historian and not a Vedic scholar I'm incapable of verifying my evidence

The apparency of this claim resides within your mind Dr. Farmer. You are saying more than I ever thought. As all can see, I pointed out your lack of proficiency in Sanskrit (Vedic or otherwise).



You then wrote:
although my copies of
Monier-Williams and of Macdonell's _Vedic Grammar_ are getting a bit worn
by now)

May I suggest Bohtlink und Roth's Sanskrit-Worterbuch (7 volumes); you will probably find these more suitable as many have before you.


You then wrote:
I began looking intensely at Vedic traditions several years ago,attempting to solve some puzzling theoretical questions about textuallayering and processes of canonization posed by my work in premodern
traditions outside India.

Question: How can you perform 'higher criticism' without an understanding of the originals? No translation is an exact equivalent as I am sure you know. How do you know for certain that you are not chasing a wild goose and ignoring the orality of the texts which you are studying?


You continued:
But the fact that I came to Indology late doesn't
mean that I would fall into the amateurish trap (like Talageri) of basing
my opinions about any RV passage (let alone claiming that I had produced an
"invincible" interpretation of the whole text!!) based on Griffith's
Victorian translation or late-ancient sources like the
Anukramanis.

You are alone once again on this one.

And then you wrote:
If you want to do serious work as a comparative historian, you need to be
competent in a half dozen languages at a minimum;

Here you claim serious work is contigent upon competency in language. I agree; this is precisely my point. And I would like once agian ask, how can you without a competency in Sanskrit (Vedic or otherwise) do anything but amateurish work (your words).


Yopu wrote:
you are also expected to verify any novel conclusion drawn from translated texts carefully against the originals; but you cannot expect to become fluent in the literally scores of languages that your research may require you to investigate.

Of course not, even 'Sanskritists' are specialized. I doubt your cohort as you have so fondly called Dr. Witzel before, would claim intimate knowledge of the Tantras. But how do you account for the ORALITY of the language and the accuracy of the translation, some of which are based on non-critically edited editions. Please, describe your criteria for the process. Something this delicate could not rely on your subjective whims.


You wrote: Sanskrit idiom & grammar aren't *quite* so unfamiliar if you approach them after years of studying (and producing scholarly translations,in some cases) other premodern I-E languages like Latin & Greek,and can read a half dozen other languages as well.

But if i am correct, you have only dabbled with Sanskrit; so how could it ever be familiar enough to you?



You wrote:
Any trained premodernist can make many valid inferences about the RV (if not an "invincible" interpretation, like Talageri) if he or she has the linguistic tools (as Talageri has not) to consult the existing *scholarly* translations of the RV with notes in German
(Geldner), French (Renou), or Russian (Elizarenkova) -- and is willing to
doublecheck those translations when needed against Monier-Williams, the
_Vedic Indices_ of Macdonell-Keith, etc., and the mass of scholarly studies
in German, French, and other scholarly languages that Talageri hasn't taken
the time to learn.

Dr. Famer, the orality, how do you account for that in a translation. For example, if you were to read "Do you think that I cannot smash this grape with small of my hand?" This can be read with force as well as a lack of force. The multiple dimensions of words need to be conveyed to one orally; otherwise, you may never understand the sentence proper and could take off on the wrong path.


I am sorry! I black out seems to be in the making!! will continue. Will send now before all is lost.

b

_____________________________________________________
Chat with your friends as soon as they come online. Get Rediff Bol at
http://bol.rediff.com