Kyoto-Harvard transliteration

[Mark Allon]

Stefan,

I did look at mAtrA counts but found that 

"mAtrA value does not does not seem to be a determining factor, for although there are examples of sequences which conform to the WSP and which also conform to a possible “waxing mAtrA value principle” (e.g. sukha-dukkha, 2+2 syllables, 2+3 mAtrAs; kesa-massu, 2+2 syll., 3+3 mAtrAs) there are many examples which conform to the WSP but whose mAtrA values are erratic. For example, mUla-phala (2+2 syll., but 3+2 mAtrAs); lAbha-sakkAra-siloka (2+3+3 syll., but 3+5+4 mAtrAs)." (p. 194).

I meant to add in my previous email that the WSP is applied to the ordering of all sequences of similar word elements in prose texts (strings of adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc.), not just to the components of dvandvas.

Regards
Mark

Mark Allon
Department of Indian Subcontinental Studies
University of Sydney
 

>[As I was writing the below Mark’s email arrived, but it is maybe
>worth adding the additional details and examples. Mark: Did you
>address the issue of mora count in your book – which I have of
>course, but not with me?]
>
>One might add that the principle of waxing syllables (and moras,
>see below) remained operative in MIA formulaic language, see e.g.
>pp. 15 ff. of:
>
>    Oskar von Hinüber, 1994. Untersuchungen zur Mündlichkeit früher
>   mittelindischer Texte der Buddhisten. Mainz: Akademie der
>   Wissenschaften und der Literatur. (Abhandlungen der geistes‐
>   und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1994,Nr. 5 /
>   Untersuchungen zur Sprachgeschichte undHandschriftenkunde des
>   Pāli, III.)
>
>who notes that in the Pali grammatical tradition it is referred to
>by Aggavaṃsa (under the name vācāsiliṭṭhatā) and provides the
>following reference to another early discussion of Pāṇini 2.2.34
>and the OIA side of the coin:
>
>   W. Caland, 1931. A rhythmic law in language. Acta Orientalia 9:
>    59–68.
>
>Now the mora count of words like ār(i)ya or sūr(i)ya differs of
>course between Ṛgvedic and Pali as consonant assimilation and
>epenthesis were based on the disyllabic OIA form and operated
>after the Law of Two Moras:
>
>   ārya > *arya > ayya, ariya / ayira
>
>But it appears from other examples that mora count (secondary to
>syllable count) remained relevant in MIA formulas. Among the
>examples given on pp. 15–31 of von Hinüber’s study there are, at a
>glance, six cases where two adjacent member have the same syllable
>but a rising mora count:
>
>   abhirūpa dassanīya pāsādika (4 + 4 + 4 s.; 5 + 6 + 6 m.) [18]
>   dubbhikkhe dvīhitike setaṭṭhike (3 + 4 + 4 s.; 6 + 6 + 7 m.) [20]
>   dubbhikkha duhitika setaṭṭika salākavutta (3 + 4 + 4 + 5 s.; 5
>+ 4 + 6 + 7) [20]
>   vuḍḍhiṃ virūḷhiṃ vepullaṃ (2 + 3 + 3 s.; 4 + 5 + 6 m.) [23]
>   daliddo appadhano appabhogo (3 + 4 + 4 s.; 5 + 5 + 6 m.) [29]
>   aḍḍho mahaddhano mahābhogo (2 + 4 + 4 s.; 4 + 6 + 7 m.) [29]
>
>and only one counterexample (same syllable but falling mora count):
>
>   attamanā pamuditā pītisomanassajātā (4 + 4 + 8 s.; 6 + 5 + 13
>m.) [30]
>
>The continued relevance of mora count in MIA rhythmic language is
>of course unsurprising seeing the rise of mātrāchandas etc. Von
>Hinüber does not seem to go into the mora side of things (unless I
>missed it), but surely this has been discussed elsewhere.
>
>Best wishes,
>Stefan Baums
>
>--
>Stefan Baums
>Asian Languages and Literature
>University of Washington