My apologies for the inadvertent typos: pādfas > pādas, elibible > eligible. GC
On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, George Cardona <cardonagj@verizon.net> wrote:

I have a suggestion, which I proposed some years ago in Purāṇa Itihāsa Vimarśa, Essays in Honour of Professor S. G. Kantawala, Delhi/Varanasi, 1998, pp. 313-335 (‘Ideal and performance in Sanskrit’): the accepted text of the Ṛgveda included hypermetric (bhurik) and hypometric (nicṛt) pādas, which the Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya acknowledges.  The same prātiśākhya also provides that, for perfecting a pāda, one may break up the results of sandhi, including the insertion of i and v to give iy, uv instead of y, v.  The apparent inconsistencies are reconciled if one accepts that the ideal pādas arrived at are intended not for recitation but for theoretical purposes: to allow stating by rules the syllalbles of pādfas that are elibible for metrical lengthening and the structures of cadences. which Śaunaka also does in his prātiśākhya.  George

On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:26 AM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there a misunderstanding? There is no doubt that metrical defects that are incorrigible do exist. I came across cases of nine syllable gāyatrīs/anuṣṭubhs that have not been classified by the Prātiśākhyas. Whitney too noted some of them. These are defective metres and are meant when it is asserted that one syllable too many or less does not matter.    

But is not íḍyo nū́tanair utá to be read as íliyo nū́tanair utá covered by Ṛk-Prātiśākhya 17.14(22-23) and 8.22(40)? Again, that one is still asked to recite váreṇiyaṃ in RV 3.62.10a also points to the old tradition of reading disyllabic for metrical consistency. Obviously the RP means such cases as can be made regular by disyllabic reading. The tradition became weak and slack through the ages.

Best

DB


On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu> wrote:
Hello Tim,

     I myself was surprised by the statement from the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa that I have cited.  How to bridge that statement and the treatment in the Prātiśākhyas that you refer to is an important question.  One possibility is that the analytical tradition of the Prātiśākhyas became consciously aware of the metrical deviations and tried to account for them, while the tradition represented by the AB did not much care for this issue.  This is perhaps analogous to the earliest oral traditions of the Veda did produce variant branch Samhitās with different readings, but with the later development of the rigorous methods of recitation like the various permutational Vikṛtipāṭhas, further splitting of the Saṃhitās was arrested.  With metrical deviations, there is a similar possibility.  That is just my guess.  Best,

Madhav

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Lubin, Tim <LubinT@wlu.edu> wrote:
But, Madhav, isn't it the case that the Prātiśākhyas (e.g., Ṛkpr. 8.22 and 17.14) recognize that in Vedic hymns y and v must often be pronounced i and u?  Isn't indeed the Taittirīya convention of writing, e.g., suvar an explicit acknowledgement that it is dissyllabic, despite the convention elsewhere (where, nevertheless, a dissyllabic pronunciation might tacitly be acknowledged -- albeit this is a special case, a fixed form in TS.

Tim

Timothy Lubin
Professor of Religion and Adjunct Professor of Law
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, Virginia 24450

http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint  https://twitter.com/TimothyLubin
ḷ

From: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu>
Date: Monday, January 12, 2015 6:43 PM
To: Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004@gmail.com>
Cc: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Metrically restored Rgveda and traditional recitation

It is not clear how much the tradition was bothered by metrical inconsistencies.  There is an interesting passage in the Aitareya Brāhmana that says: na vā ekenākṣareṇa chandāṃsi viyanti na dvābhyām.  Even by a deviation of up to  two syllables, the tradition did not consider the meter to be violated.  The text titled Vedavicāra (19th century) that I am editing and translating cites this passages and extends it further: ekena dvābhyām ity upalakṣaṇam, tasmād akṣaranyūnādhikabhāvena chandāṃsi nānyathā bhavanti.  Thus, it seems to be that "metrically restored RV" is a purely modern creation.  If the Brāhmaṇa texts were not bothered by deviations of meters up to two syllables, can we be so certain that the authors of the Vedic hymns were so bothered.  There is a possibility that "metrically restoring texts" could be something like a modern hyper-correction.  Modern reciters of the Vedas that I am familiar with do not seem to worry about reciting a metrically correct text.  While they seem to show interest in reciting the various Pāṭhas and their permutations, I am not at all certain that they are scanning the recited text for metrical deviations.

Madhav Deshpande

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004@gmail.com> wrote:

It is the metrically restored text which the Ṛk-Prātiśākhya enjoins for recitation. I have heard the disyllabic recitation from at least two Vedic reciters and was myself advised to do so with the few verses that I had to learn to utter as a child. But I have not examined each and every case of recitation.  I hope Professor Deshpande has the same experience

Best

DB


On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Harry Spier <hspier.muktabodha@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear list members,

Do any members know if when the Rg Veda is recited by Vaidikas if that recitation agrees with the metrically restored Rg Veda or if they recite it like the written text with the metrical anomalies.

Thanks,
Harry Spier

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info



--
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA



--
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info