Dear Dominik and colleagues,
(1) Concerning kh / ṣ:
Ulrich Schneider wrote that the alternation of kh / ṣ is due to their phonetical resemblance in the following article (see attachment; 1954: 580, n. 22 = 2002: 23, n. 22).
Ulrich Schneider,
1954 “Acht Etymologien aus dem Aggañña-Sutta”, in: Asiatica: Festschrift Friedrich Weller, Leipzig, pp. 575~583 = 2002: 18~26.
2002 Opera minora, hrsg. Marion Meisig, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (Beiträge zur Indologie 39).
I asked my teacher, Mr. K. R. Norman, for his opinion on this matter more than thirty years ago in Cambridge. According to my memo, he said that the two akṣaras, kh(a) and ṣ(a), resemble in some Brāhmī scripts.
However, I do not think this confusion is due to writing –– I cannot find such a script –––, but purely due to phonetical resemblance. Puruṣa is pronounced like purukha, while sukha is pronounced like suṣa. I assume that both kh and ṣ were (are?) pronounced as voiceless velar fricative (x) at least in North (West) India at certain times.
(2) Concerning jñ /j
Writing and pronunciation often differ. I wrote about lots of instances of confusion of jñāna / yāna in the Lotus Sutra and other early Mahāyāna scriptures, and assumed that mahāyāna originally meant mahājñāna (this word occurs in the older manuscripts of the Lotus Sutra), i.e. buddha-jñāna. Both jñāna and yāna become as jāna or jāṇa in certain Middle Indic as well as modern languages. I wrote elsewhere as follows (“Vehicle (yāna) and Wisdom (jñāna) in the Lotus Sutra ––– the Origin of the Notion of yāna in Mahāyāna Buddhism”, in: Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, vol. 18 (2015): 170f.)
OIA. yāna (= Pā; Gāndhārī yaṇa) becomes jāṇa in Prakrit (Pkt.), while OIA. jñāna (> Pā. ñāṇa, Gāndhārī ñaṇa) develops into ṇāṇa, nāṇa or jāṇa.(Cf. Pischel: § 276.) Though Turner (CDIAL 5281 jñāna-) assumes that the development jñāna > Pkt. jāṇa took place under the influence of the verb jānāti, I assume the development jñ- > Pkt. j(j) might have occurred by itself (note 1). There are traces of OIA. jñāna > Pkt. *jāna/jāṇa, found in medieval and modern dialects, such as: Old Marathi jāṇa (see DOM, s.v.), Sindhī jāṇu, Panjābī jāṇ, Gujarātī jāṇ, Kashmiri zān, Newāli, Bengali, Hindī jān etc. (Turner, loc. cit.). To sum up, both yāna and jñāna became *jāna/jāṇa in Prakrit (note 2).
1 Cf. ājñā > Pkt. ajja, prajñā > Pkt. pajjā abhijñā > ahijja; vijña > vijja ; sarvajña > savvajja; sujñāna > sujjāṇa (cf. Pischel § 276); jñānin > jāṇi; saṃjñā > saṃjā. Cf. also Siddhahemacandram Adhyāna VIII, II 83. || jño ñaḥ || 83 || jñaḥ saṃbandhino ñasya lug vā bhavati | jāṇaṃ | ṇāṇaṃ | savvajjo | savvaṇṇū | appajjo | appaṇṇū | daivajjo | daivaṇṇū | iṃgiajjo | iṃgiaṇṇū | maṇojjaṃ | maṇoṇṇaṃ | ahijjo | ahiṇṇū | pajjā | paṇṇā | ajjā | āṇā | saṃjā | saṇṇā || kvacin na bhavati | viṇṇāṇaṃ | (Pischel 1877: 53); BHSD, a-jānaka, jānaka. In the Jain text Mahānisīha, whose language is essentially Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī though blended with Ardhamāgadhī, we find a part, where nāṇa and jāṇa, both Pkt forms of Skt. jñāna, occur repeatedly side by side (Deleu / Schubring 1963: 51; translation 120f.).
2 In the Jaina text Sūyagaḍa, § 1.1.1.18, there is a word jāṇayā, which is said to mean “Buddhists” (cf. MW, s.v. 2 jānaka “pl. the Buddhists”). Some relate this form to yāna, while others to jñānaka. Cf. Bollée 1977: 75.
Also, some Chinese transliterations indicate that jñāna was pronounced jāna, T. 28, no. 1546, 33a. 何者闍那(EH. dźja na > QYS. źja nâ-; < jñāna)秦言智(wisdom)。毘闍那(EH. bi dźja na > QYS. bi- źja nâ-; < vijñāna)秦言識(consciousness). Cf. also a famous translator’s name, 闍那崛多 Jnānagupta. The Chinese character 闍(EH. dźja > QYS. źja) was used otherwise to render Indic jā, jhā, e.g. 闍毘(jhāpita), 闍提 (jāti).
Sorry for this long e-mail.
Seishi Karashima
I'm sorry to be lazy, but is it possible to summarize the scholarship on ṣ/kh alternation as stating that it is
- due in some cases to orthographic practice,
- in other cases to spoken dialectical variation, and
- in yet other cases to the orthographic recording of a spoken form?
In other words, when we see ṣ/kh in manuscripts, it's not automatically possible to tell whether we are seeing a valid recording of phonetic /ṣ/ or /kh/, or just a scribe writing kh when he sees ṣ in his exemplar or hears /ṣ/ in the dictation he's following? So a critical editor should not automatically transcribe vikhaya or dokha as viṣaya and doṣa?--Professor Dominik Wujastyk,
Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity,
University of Alberta, Canada.South Asia at the U of A:sas.ualberta.caOn Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 02:36, Jonathan Silk via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:My sincere thanks to all who helped me understand this phenomenon!Jonathan______________________________On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:18 AM, Seishi Karashima via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:Dear Jonathan and colleagues,
Concerning kh / ṣ, cf. Weber, Über ein zum Weissen Yajus gehöriges phonetisches Compendium, das Pratijnâsûtra 1872: 84~85; Pischel § 265; Oertel, The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Brāhmaṇas, I. The Disjunct Use of Cases 1926: 56, § 29, ex. 6; AiGr I, p. 136-137, Nachträge p. 75; Vedic Variants II § 295; Renou, Gr, p. 4; Allen, Phonetics in Ancient India 1953: 56; Bloch/Master p. 73; Handurukande 1967: xiii; Kuiper, Gopālakelicandrikā 1987: 152~154 ( “the old North indian tradition” “a common interchange arising from Rājasthānī speech”); BHSD, p. 532, śeṣita (für śekhita); Masato Kobayashi, Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants, 2004: 60 (“/s./ and /kh/ are often confused in some manuscripts and in later Indo-Aryan languages”); cf. also A Dictinaray of Old Marathi (abbr. DOM) dokha < Skt. doṣa; viṣaya: DOM:/cf. vikhaya; a-namīkha : DOM: “without blinking, vigilantly" < animiṣa; agha-markhaṇa /Skt. aghamarṣṇa etc. etc.
Seishi Karashima
2018-09-12 23:35 GMT+09:00 Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:Dear Jonathan,As Professor Girish Jha described, the change of ṣa to kha, except in conjuncts with ṭa-varga [ष: खष्टुमृते], is prescribed by the Prātiśākhya of the Śukla-Yajurveda and seen in the recitation of this Veda till today. This also results in variation like pāṣaṇḍa/pākhaṇḍa. Certainly, a wide-spread dialectal feature.Madhav M. DeshpandeProfessor EmeritusSanskrit and LinguisticsUniversity of Michigan[Residence: Campbell, California]On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:41 AM Arlo Griffiths via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:______________________________
There is frequent reference to the same phenomenon in some of Michael Witzel's "Materials on Vedic Śākhās", his series of articles published in various journals in the 1970s-1990s.
Arlo Griffiths
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info > on behalf of Jonathan Silk via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 12:14 PM
To: jhakgirish
Cc: bvparishat@googlegroups.com; Indology
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} sha and khaDear Colleagues,
I am very interested in this equivalence, because what I remember having learned (I am not sure now whether this is the right word) that kha/ṣa "confusion" was a characteristic of Nepalese manuscripts, and that they were to be considered the same (I perhaps learned this from John Brough's lengthy review of Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, if memory serves...). But now it appears that this is not a "quirk" of Nepalese scribes but an instance of a wider phonologically motivated fusion?
Curious, Jonathan Silk
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:51 AM, jhakgirish via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear colleaguesSorry for the mistake due to haste.Both snushaa and snokhaa have the meaningdaughter-in-law and not grand daughter.Girish K.Jha
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
Dear colleaguesThere is a sutra in Shukla yajuh praatishaakhya i.e." shah khah tumrite" It means retroflex sha is pronounced as kha except combined with the group t(tavarga).Hence in Shuklayajurveda it is pronouncedas kha. But in kashta,vishnu,etc. It is pronounced as sha.Almost all over India it is pronounced as kha in Shuklayajusha. I would like to mention that in our Mithila(North Bihar) retroflex sha is not only pronounced in Shuklayajusha but in ClassicalSanskrit too pronounced as kha and also inMaithili Language( a modern Indo-Aryan).It would not be out of the context what I would say.It has been coming from the Indo-European period.There is a Russian parallel "snokhaa" which resembles Sanskrit "snushaa" but both have the same meaning i.e.grand daughter.RegardsGirish K.JhaRetd. Univ.ProfessorDept of SanskritPatna UniversityPatna:India 800005(Residence-Kolkata:India-------- Original message --------From: jhakgirish <jhakgirish@gmail.com>Date: 9/12/18 10:16 AM (GMT+05:30)To: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>, bvparishat@googlegroups.comSubject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} sha and kha
)Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.-------- Original message --------From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian@gmail.com> Date: 9/12/18 7:06 AM (GMT+05:30) To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvparishat@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: पुरुषसूक्तम् -- शुक्ल यजुर्वेद On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:23 AM Shashi Joshi <shashikgp@gmail.com> wrote:Interestingly this same ष ---> ख pronunciation transition is seen in Rajasthan. My grandfather would say words likeखडयन्त्र (षड्यन्त्र )पुख्य (पुष्य नक्षत्र)सुखेण (सुषेण in Hanuman Chalisa)लक्ष्मी becoming लकुमी is common in Kannada poetry. ಏನು ಧನ್ಯಳೋ ಲಕುಮಿSubmitted by shreekant.mishrikoti on Tue, 06/01/2009 - 03:19(ರಾಗ ತೋಡಿ ಅಟತಾಳ)ಏನು ಧನ್ಯಳೋ ಲಕುಮಿಎಂಥ ಮಾನ್ಯಳೋಸಾನುರಾಗದಿಂದ ಹರಿಯತಾನೆ ಸೇವೆ ಮಾಡುತಿಹಳೋ ||ಪ|-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयवि��
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
--
J. Silk
Leiden University
Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, LIASMatthias de Vrieshof 3, Room 0.05b2311 BZ Leiden
The Netherlands
copies of my publications may be found at
_________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
--J. Silk
Leiden UniversityLeiden University Institute for Area Studies, LIASMatthias de Vrieshof 3, Room 0.05b2311 BZ LeidenThe Netherlandscopies of my publications may be found at_________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)