retroflex ळ

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

11 10 11

Dear Colleagues,

    While I enjoyed participating in the debate on the sound [ḷ] or [ळ] in many languages, I am submitting the following to prevent any misconception about my view on the actual position in different languages. I dealt with the change of intervocalic /ḍ/ into [ḷ] primarily as a Rgvedic phenomenon irrespective of whether that is valid for any other language or not. While one may try to see its validity in individual languages the following cases may help

    In uḷṭā the ḷ is followed by a plosive and hence is not intervocalic. That means the necessity of intervocalic position does not exist in all languages for the occurrence of ḷ. This also means that unlike in the Ṛgveda the ḷ does not necessarily originate from ḍ in all languages. Still there is a condition – the plosive has to be a retroflex to change an l to ḷ. So this too like the Rgvedic [ḷ] is an allophone.  

    In mūḷa the ḷ is intervocalic but what is l in Sanskrit occurs as ḷ in Oriya. So this too does not originate from ḍ. Kuiper sees such words as of non-Aryan origin which many in India resent. If we admit Kuiper’s view then the ḷ of mūḷa should be a phoneme and not a combinatory variant like the RV ḷ. Otherwise we shall have to explain the cause. In case of puzhā/puṛā/puḷā (my friends from the South may kindly correct the orthography) too the same problem as with mūḷa will rise.

One thing is certain. There is still a lot to do on such phonological problems for the advancement of knowledge.

Best

DB