FW: [Sanskrit] L2: Pronounciation of 'brahma'

[Cynthia Churchill]

When the topic of pronunciation of “brahma” arose in 2009, I saved this interesting e-mail.  

Sincerely,

Cynthia Churchill, M.D.
 learn-sanskrit.com
  chant-sanskrit.com



------ Forwarded Message
From: Jay Vaidya <deejay...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sans...@cs.utah.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: <sans...@cs.utah.edu>, <nsvnar...@gmail.com>, "Vasuvaj ." <vas...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] L2: Pronounciation of 'brahma'

svasti vasuvaj-vara,

aurasya 'h' is the voiced breath without constricting the kaNTha (velar region of the back of the mouth). Many Indians, especially those who take care to pronounce the 'h' BEFORE the 'm' in 'brahma' already pronounce this 'h' without constricting the kaNTha. So no special effort is needed to teach these people. (Also your example of the saMskRta "hyaH" or the word hAM in hindI, hyAlA in marAThI, etc.)  The deep sigh of tiredness "hhhhh" is aurasya (though it is sometimes unvoiced). Most Indians also know to pronounce the kaNThya version.

I believe that arabic still maintains the lexical distinction between Haa' (kaNTha - more strongly articulated than saMskRita, more like the 'k/h' in high-draviDian tamizh maha [meaning son]) and haa' (aurasya). This distinction is nearly lost for loan words in hindi/urdu, where many people have to actually say "big ha", "small ha" while describing spelling, instead of just listening to a clear sound and writing it. For example, most hindi/urdu speakers do not distinguish between the aurasya hAlA (meaning liquour) and the kaNThya hAlA (meaning "at present"). But highly educated speakers can make the distinction.

This separate issue:
> As per the oral tradition, brahma is pronounced as bramha,
> prahlada is pronounced as pralhadah, madhyahne is
> pronounced as madhyanhe and so on.
While I agree that such an oral tradition exists, including in my family, this is the simple flow of apabraMsha. We cannot escape the pervading influence of our mother-languages especially in words that appear to be written the same with the same spelling in both saMskRta and our mother-language. An aside: as a marAThI speaker, my family tradition often uses the pronunciation sauMskrut.h (halanta, also note 'ru') instead of saMskRta (akArAnta). While I have great love for my family tradition, I think I should just keep it there :-)

(Just to clarify: While speaking in marAThI, it is most correct for me to say "sauMskrut" - saying "saMskRta" is incorrect. But the opposite is the case while trying to read saMskRta aloud.)

Regards and best wishes,
Dhananjay

--- On Fri, 7/17/09, Vasuvaj . <vas...@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Vasuvaj . <vas...@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Sanskrit] L2: Pronounciation of 'brahma'
To: sans...@cs.utah.edu, nsvnar...@gmail.com, deejay...@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, July 17, 2009, 1:06 AM


Namaste.

Due to various reasons , I couldn't send this mail earlier.
Sorry for the delay.
Hope all of you can read the writing in Devanagarii in the attached PDF file.

If not the 'crude' Roman transliteration is below

Hakaaram panchamairyuktam anta:sthaabhishca samyutam . Aurasyam tam vijaaniiyaat kaNthyamaahurasamyutam .. Paaniniiyashikshaa 16

Panchama = all the fifth consonants of each vargah
Anta:sthah= 'yaN' pratyaaharah ie     ya, va ra, la,



The rule clearly  states that if 'hakara' is followed by any of the above alphabets, then it should  NOT be pronounced as 'KANTHYAM" but pronounced as 'AURASYAM'

"akuhavisarjaniiyanaam kanthah".... by this we know that 'hakarah' is pronounced from the 'kantha'

But how do we pronounce 'aurasya' hakaarah. None of the present day scholars know it. It is lost. If any of the readers in this list, know or know any scholar who knows how to pronounce 'Aurasya hakarah', do inform .

As this method of pronunciation is lost,we have to rely on the Vedic scholars who learnt it orally from their acharyas.

As per the oral tradition, brahma is pronounced as bramha, prahlada is pronounced as pralhadah, madhyahne is pronounced as madhyanhe and so on.

But if we apply the same logic, it is impossible to pronounce 'hyah' as 'yhah' which means 'yesterday'.

Bhavadiiyah,
Vasuvaj

 

---

_______________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription or topics of interest, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
and follow instructions.

------ End of Forwarded Message

[hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks for the source.  With anthaHstha-s it has been recorded by Panini too in his rule when they are in conjunction with a preceding "m":

हे मपरे वा   । । ८,३.२६ । ।

नपरे नः   । । ८,३.२७ । ।

मपरे हकारे परे मस्य मो वा. किम् ह्मलयति, किं ह्मलयति. (यवलपरे यवला वा). किंय्ह्यः, किं ह्यः. किंव्ह्वलयति, किं ह्वलयति. किंल् ह्लादयति, किं ह्लादयति etc. 

In any case, in spite of phonological script Devanagari, not all the pronunciations could be represented orthographically. The conclusion would be better, even though we hear bramhma, or vahnhi, or so it may be a different in pronunciation that orthographically represented which is described as "aurasya". Or it may be written as we write now, and pronounced as such, which can be unknowingly "aurasya" even if we do not recognize it in association with the above letters noted in the ShikShA. Only that there is no separate orthographic representation than ह, like संवृत अकार and विवृत. In usage, it is संवृत as noted by the last rule by Panini, as pronounced by the Hindi Speakers, "अ अ इति। । ८,४.६८। । Like others are this is also विवृत and this last rule prescribes संवृत in usage. But no letter is assigned to it separately. Just like, औरस्य "h"  doesn't have any special letter to note it. What we hear traditionally may be similar to "mhm" as in the above sequences, but not orthographically identical.

Whether it is due to the influence of Prakrit or regional languages via Prakrit is a different point to be discussed in the light of Historical linguistics and not in the traditional way that Veda-s are eternal words and the Vedanga-s including Paniniya, part of the eternal literature, in which there is no scope for historical discussion.

/                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Thanks for providing the source. Yet, the question is unresolved. It should be "h" pronounced as "aurasya" unlike other consonants. I could not find another consonant articulated among those listed and appropriated articulation in Siddhantakaumudi to compare with the pronunciation of any other consonant.

Thanks once again for bumping up the original thread of the discussion. It assimilates like "mhm" sequence may the tentative solution to the question raised long ago and now by Daniel.

We may be certain that it is not a case of metathesis. 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY