Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Spelling of the word sangha

Expand Messages
  • flrobert2000
    Dear Jim, Thanks a lot for your explanation. However I thought this rule was concerning euphonic combinations mainly (sandhi). In this case can we also say
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jim,

      Thanks a lot for your explanation. However I thought this rule was
      concerning euphonic combinations mainly (sandhi). In this case can we
      also say that the word "sa.mgha" or "sa"ngha" is the result of a Sandhi?

      Kind regards,

      Florent

      --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Florent,
      >
      > Either spelling is acceptable according to suttas 30 & 31 of the
      > Kaccaayanabyaakara.na grammar. The niggahita (.m) can become a
      > nasal or vagganta consonant ("n, ~n, .n, n, or m) before a
      > corresponding vagga consonant. I'm not sure if the pronuncition of the
      > niggahita is constant (a pure nasal like the 'n' in French 'bon') or
      > if it should sound the same as one of the five nasal consonants, e.g.,
      > s~a-gha or sang-gha.
      >
      > Best wishes,
      > Jim
      >
      > > Dear all,
      > > I always thought the word sangha was transcribed "sa"ngha" in Pali
      > > roman script. However here in Burma it is always transcribed as
      > > "sa.mgha". Is there any reason for this discrepancy? I guess it is
      > not
      > > that important since the pronunciation would be the same but I just
      > > wonder why that it.
      > > Regards,
      > > Florent
      >
    • Jim Anderson
      Dear Florent, You re right, the two rules (Kacc 30 & 31) concern euphonic combinations. And, yes, the two words are a result of sandhi although I find some
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Florent,

        You're right, the two rules (Kacc 30 & 31) concern euphonic
        combinations. And, yes, the two words are a result of sandhi although
        I find some difficulty understanding some of the commentarial remarks
        on Kacc 30 (a.m bya~njane niggahita.m) which I think applies to
        "sa.mgha". With Kacc 31 (vagganta.m vaa vagge) it is easier to see
        that .m is changed to "n before gh in the case of "sa"ngha". It is
        possible that "vaa" may not have the meaning that I've been thinking
        it has.

        Jim

        > Dear Jim,
        >
        > Thanks a lot for your explanation. However I thought this rule was
        > concerning euphonic combinations mainly (sandhi). In this case can
        we
        > also say that the word "sa.mgha" or "sa"ngha" is the result of a
        Sandhi?
        >
        > Kind regards,
        >
        > Florent
      • gdbedell
        Sandhi refers to changes in pronunciation which take place when words or pieces of words (that is, stems and affixes) are combined. I would assume that the
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 12, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          'Sandhi' refers to changes in pronunciation which take place when words or pieces of
          words (that is, stems and affixes) are combined. I would assume that the spellings
          'sa"ngha' and 'sa.mgha' do not represent any difference in pronunciation. If that is the
          case, then the spelling cannot be itself an instance of sandhi. It is, however, a result of
          sandhi in the following sense: the word in question contains the prefix 'sa.m-' which
          means something like 'together'. It is found in many words where the spelling .m would
          have a different pronunciation than "n; the word 'sandhi' itself is an example, and you will
          sometimes see it written as 'sa.mdhi'. The rule which Jim refers to specifies that before a
          velar consonant (k, kh, g, gh) .m may be pronounced as a velar nasal ("n). So we might
          say that the existence of the rule allows the phonetic details of "n to be dispensed with in
          the writing system. It is interesting that in Sanskrit as well as Pali all cases of "n (outside
          phonetic treatises and grammars) result from this sandhi rule, so that the letter "n itself is
          dispensable.

          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Florent,
          >
          > You're right, the two rules (Kacc 30 & 31) concern euphonic
          > combinations. And, yes, the two words are a result of sandhi although
          > I find some difficulty understanding some of the commentarial remarks
          > on Kacc 30 (a.m bya~njane niggahita.m) which I think applies to
          > "sa.mgha". With Kacc 31 (vagganta.m vaa vagge) it is easier to see
          > that .m is changed to "n before gh in the case of "sa"ngha". It is
          > possible that "vaa" may not have the meaning that I've been thinking
          > it has.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          > > Dear Jim,
          > >
          > > Thanks a lot for your explanation. However I thought this rule was
          > > concerning euphonic combinations mainly (sandhi). In this case can
          > we
          > > also say that the word "sa.mgha" or "sa"ngha" is the result of a
          > Sandhi?
          > >
          > > Kind regards,
          > >
          > > Florent
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.