Top ten egregious mispronunciation of lyrics

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
sureshvv
Posts: 4718
Joined: 05 Jul 2007, 18:17
x 90
x 287

#1

Post by sureshvv » 28 Dec 2009, 14:37

My nomination goes to "Shukha Shounakha". This seems to trip up quite a few artistes, like on the radio this morning :)
0 x

girish_a
Posts: 405
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 13:33
x 3
x 15

#2

Post by girish_a » 28 Dec 2009, 15:04

Isn't Shuka Shaunaka correct? Shuka Shaunaka Kaushika Mukha Peetam...It is hard to make a mistake there, I think...
0 x

sureshvv
Posts: 4718
Joined: 05 Jul 2007, 18:17
x 90
x 287

#3

Post by sureshvv » 28 Dec 2009, 15:10

Some say Suka sounaka. Some others Shuka Sounaka. And other times Sukha Shounaka. Many times differently during the same concert. The different letters Sa, Sha, S'a, Cha all get folded into Sa.
0 x

rajaglan
Posts: 709
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:34

#4

Post by rajaglan » 28 Dec 2009, 16:01

I remember from Kumudam (gnani - if mem memory is good) said that 'Sha' in sankar by brahmin is colonial side effect.
I donot remember how he connected it.
Last edited by rajaglan on 28 Dec 2009, 16:02, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

keerthi
Posts: 1309
Joined: 12 Oct 2008, 14:10
x 1

#5

Post by keerthi » 29 Dec 2009, 10:41

rajaglan wrote:I remember from Kumudam (gnani - if mem memory is good) said that 'Sha' in sankar by brahmin is colonial side effect.
I donot remember how he connected it.
unsubstantiated..


shankara is 'one who confers mangala/ auspiciousness'

sankara is 'crossing over/contamination/ migration'

The former word is used in the names of shiva and the Acarya.
0 x

rajaglan
Posts: 709
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:34

#6

Post by rajaglan » 29 Dec 2009, 11:43

keerthi wrote:
rajaglan wrote:I remember from Kumudam (gnani - if mem memory is good) said that 'Sha' in sankar by brahmin is colonial side effect.
I donot remember how he connected it.
unsubstantiated..


shankara is 'one who confers mangala/ auspiciousness'

sankara is 'crossing over/contamination/ migration'

The former word is used in the names of shiva and the Acarya.
Keerthi,

Cool explanation. I
0 x

Nick H
Posts: 8776
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03
x 442
x 228

#7

Post by Nick H » 29 Dec 2009, 12:21

How do you pronounce "egregious "?

;)
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#8

Post by srkris » 29 Dec 2009, 13:55

The Sh- of Shankara/Shiva/Sharavana etc is commonly transliterated as z- under the harvard-kyoto method, and as Å› under the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST).

For those not familiar with Sanskrit is easy to identify the words that have Å›. They are written both as S and as Sh (for example Siva/Shiva, Sankara/Shankara etc). But eventually Å› is neither s nor sh. It is a different phoneme altogether.
0 x

sureshvv
Posts: 4718
Joined: 05 Jul 2007, 18:17
x 90
x 287

#9

Post by sureshvv » 29 Dec 2009, 22:53

Another one that bit me today is "Sayana" as in "Bhujaga Sayana".
0 x

rshankar
Posts: 13131
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26
x 406
x 120

#10

Post by rshankar » 30 Dec 2009, 08:41

Suresh - I get lost well before the 'Sayana' of 'bhujaga Sayana' is hit - bujaga or worse, bujhaga already set my teeth on edge usually.
0 x

sureshvv
Posts: 4718
Joined: 05 Jul 2007, 18:17
x 90
x 287

#11

Post by sureshvv » 31 Dec 2009, 15:55

In the off chance that some performing artistes are reading this, I am hoping some concrete benefits could come out of this thread :)

rANi substituted for rAgni is another one that makes me cringe.
0 x

sureshvv
Posts: 4718
Joined: 05 Jul 2007, 18:17
x 90
x 287

#12

Post by sureshvv » 31 Dec 2009, 15:57

nick H wrote:How do you pronounce "egregious "?
http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=e ... mit=Submit
Last edited by sureshvv on 31 Dec 2009, 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#13

Post by srkris » 31 Dec 2009, 19:05

>>rANi substituted for rAgni is another one that makes me cringe.

Shouldnt it be rAj~ni? But Sanskrit has internalized the prakrit rANi.
0 x

keerthi
Posts: 1309
Joined: 12 Oct 2008, 14:10
x 1

#14

Post by keerthi » 01 Jan 2010, 15:45

srkris wrote:>>rANi substituted for rAgni is another one that makes me cringe.

Shouldnt it be rAj~ni? But Sanskrit has internalized the prakrit rANi.
Can you indicate any instances where rANi is used in Sanskrit..?
0 x

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
x 4

#15

Post by cmlover » 01 Jan 2010, 21:18

Good observation!
The word rANI (queen) is perhaps of dravidian origin and got passed on to other languages in India!
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#16

Post by srkris » 01 Jan 2010, 22:48

>>Can you indicate any instances where rANi is used in Sanskrit..?<<

Hmm, how about words like indrANI?

CML, it's not dravidian by any stretch of the imagination, it's certainly Indic (Indic is the name for the Indo-Aryan subfamily of Indo-European, not generally meaning Indian).
0 x

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
x 4

#17

Post by cmlover » 02 Jan 2010, 01:18

indrANI has nothing to do with rANI.
It is the feminine derivative of indra. By the PANinian rule(4.1.49) one has to add 'An' before the feminizing suffix 'I' before these words. Here the female part of
indrs is 'indrA +An +I = indrAnI-->indrANI (because of the intervening 'ra' phoneme)
In Sanskrit the root word 'rAjan' becomes in the nominative rAjA. The feminine is derived by adding the 'I' suffix which yields
'rAjan + I = rAjanI' with the alternate form 'rAj + nI = rAjnI -->rA~nI' (through euphonics). The Tamil word rANI is very ancient (even during puRanAnooRu) which perhaps was also found in arabic (strictly not indic).
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#18

Post by srkris » 02 Jan 2010, 03:16

CML, thanks for the explanation

Existence in the puRanAnUru is not an evidence of a word being dravidian, it has a large number of Indic words (mostly derived from prakrit and therefore indirectly from sanskrit). I found a few in the kadavuL vAzhttu.
0 x

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
x 4

#19

Post by cmlover » 02 Jan 2010, 03:27

Just tell me on the basis of your linguistic studies as also through your gut feelings;
Which is older? prAkritam or dravidian (Tamil/kannada/..)...
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#20

Post by srkris » 02 Jan 2010, 06:03

Sorry in advance for the long post.

There are 2 things called prakrit that we need to distinguish here.

1. The Prakrit (as a form of speech) contrasted with the Sanskrit form. The Sanskrit form was built on the vedic prototype (somewhat like the current tanittamil movement where some form of redemption activity is happening to make it sound more like old-Tamil, while tanittamil focusses on the vocab, the Sanskrit focussed on the phonetics) while the Prakrit form was the form that had a more natural evolution from Vedic (prAkRta = natural,old). I capitalize the P of Prakrit since this is a proper noun. Sanskrit is considered old-Indic in a linguistic sense while Prakrit is considered middle-Indic, not because Sanskrit is chronologically older than Prakrit, but because Sanskrit is more like Vedic than Prakrit is. So we can derive the Prakrit form of Sanskrit words (because sanskrit represents some kind of redeemed Vedic, even without some major features like the vedic swaras), but not the other way round, due to the application of a theory called geminate inalterability theory (for example inRaikku becomes innikku, and panRikku becomes pannikku in the colloquial language. Innikku and pannikku have a similar structure but we cant devise a common grammatical rule to get back their proper sources since the geminates are inalterable once formed). Once maudgalya becomes moggalla, the damage is permanent, you can't get back maudgalya by linguistic rules, since it is a one way street. This was also a period where writing had not yet reached the Sub-Continent, and any damage to vAk was permanent, there was no reference to older speech, and over time, the Scripture had the risk of becoming unintelligible and therefore lost. Knowing the operation of this theory, the founders of scientific linguistics (i.e. the old grammarians of Indic) exhibited a strong preference for the preservation of the Vedic form. How they came up with the sanskrit form is evident from the words they have used to describe it. They called it vyAkarana ("splitting down"), where they split a word into its constituent parts. Then they used the process of saMskaraNa (building up of the word again from the constituent components that had been analysed in the vyAkaraNa process). The resulting word form was called saMskRta (constructed), and this as expected matched closely with the Vedic form. Grammarians have taken pains to explain differences between Sanskrit and Vedic where the Sanskrit rules did not result in the Vedic word attributing the exceptions normally to "poetic license" (Arsha Prayoga). It is therefore normal to consider Sanskrit as older than Prakrit since Sanskrit is Vedic's representative today and the propaganda that Prakrit came first is ill-informed for Vedic itself has always been considered to be Sanskrit in form even though it was a vernacular that over time evolved into the Prakrit form through natural evolution. This is more like how modern formal tamil is literally no one's mother tongue, but still represents old-Tamil (since it follows the rules of grammar that were written to derive grammatical words that represent old-Tamil), but the real successors of old tamil are the koduntamizh (colloquial) dialects in use that cant be sufficiently explained with the standard grammar. It will be wrong to say that standard tamil form (irukkiRadu) evolved from koduntamizh (kIdu) the same way as it would be wrong to call Sanskrit younger than, or evolved from, Prakrit. It would also be wrong to say that standard tamil was no one's mothertongue since at some point of time, old-Tamil was spoken by people just the same way as Vedic was a natural spoken language.

2. The prakrits (with a lowercase p and in plural) to denote the languages that are based on the Prakrit form. There are many prakrits and each of them fall into 4 major categories as most of us already know: sauraseni, magadhi, maharashtri & paisachi. We don't have multiple languages based on the Sanskrit form because Sanskrit currently follows a unified structure.

The identified prakrits (i.e languages) had a defined start. They did not exist before a point in time. But the prakrit form is as old as the Vedas (or were there in some form even before the Vedas were composed). The same way we should be able to say that some form of Dravidian has always existed in some form after its split from its unknown ancestor at an unknown time. But the individual identified dravidian languages had a defined start when they split from their dravidian sister languages.

Comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges, I conclude that the oldest prakrits were older to Tamil and Kannada (and have influenced all major Dravidian languages), although it is hard to put an age to Prakrit vs Dravidian.
0 x

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
x 4

#21

Post by cmlover » 02 Jan 2010, 06:30

Thanks for that erudite analysis. But I presume the last word is not written on that issue yet!
Can these be legitimately called 'Indic' ?
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#22

Post by srkris » 02 Jan 2010, 06:38

Indic is used to distinguish it from other Indo-European language families. It refers to the Indic family of Indo-European. Outside IE research, Indic would stand for Indian I suppose. However the world of IE is very strong in the discipline of linguistics (covering about 75% of the spoken world), and most others follow IE naming conventions.
0 x

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
x 4

#23

Post by cmlover » 02 Jan 2010, 08:47

My question concerns arabic which evolved outside of the IE branch. And Tamil had arabic affinity dating back to ages.
0 x

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3429
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Location: London, UK
x 10
x 28
Contact:

#24

Post by srkris » 02 Jan 2010, 13:24

I do not think Rani of arabic has the same meaning as the Rani of Indian languages. In arabic it is a male noun with a different meaning. Female is Rania.

Hope that answers your query. Yes Tamil has an Arabic connection (not too strong though) and there was a mixed language of Tamil with Arabic influence that is called Aravi (Tamil written in arabic script with lots of arabian loanwords).
0 x

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
x 4

#25

Post by cmlover » 03 Jan 2010, 03:54

I guess you are referring to 'arwi' which is considered almost a dead languge.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwi_language
I guess it will be 'rani' or raani' in arabic. The word could have passed on to tamil and then due to the influence of sanskrit:
raani -->raaNI evolved (since by sanskrit grammar the intervening 'ra' leads to 'na -->Na' and the feminine ends in 'I' as per grammar. Hence you may be right in 'rani' being masculine among arabics which got transformed to feminine 'rANI' in Tamil using sanskrit grammar (though the word has no currency in sanskrit itself) and may have passed on to other Indian languages from south...
0 x

Post Reply