Translation and the challenges it poses

[Cino]

Brother. Do you see that you are using English transliteration which is a cut and paste. Because it's a cut and paste from somewhere it has that elongation on top of the letter a. I can't cut and paste because I am translating into English directly from Pali, and writing it in English to sound like Pali as much as I can. I can't be cutting and pasting from anywhere.

In the Sinhalese script, there is a way to write "long a" onto a consonant, right? And "short a" is not specifically marked, because it is inherent in the consonant - for example "ka", is not written as "ka" plus some addition to mark the short "a", right? But if the inherent short a should be omittet, to write a standalone "k", there is a way to mark that, right?

So if you would just drop your incredulity and open up to the fact that romanization is a 1:1 mapping of all features of the indic Pali scripts, and if you would study the romanization scheme for a short while, you could stop getting caught up over "elongation" and "translating directy from Pali", and we could get down to the really intresting bits. I offered to recommend a Pali primer in English - not to teach you the language, but to give you some hands-on examples of how Western scholars have been working with the romanzation for over a century now. The offer still stands, if you change your mind.

Anyway in Pali (Not any kind of translation), the two letters of M will be written closer to each other than other letters. That means both have to be pronounced as MM.

Yes, that is called "gemination" in Western scholarship. Like long vowels (which are marked with a bar over the letter in the romanization), long consonants, geminate consonants, are also represented in an exact 1:1 counterpart to the indic scripts.

Though in English after S, there is an 'a', in the Pali script there is none. If you put a vowel there the meaning changes. You have cut and pasted the sanskrit doing the same mistake. Do you understand?

As I already stated, and as you would discover if you picked up an english book or pdf on Pali or Sanskrit, the romanization does not use inherent vowels, meaning the short "a" which is part of every letter not marked as silent in any indic script, has to be explicitly written in romanization. It is still an exact 1:1 mapping of the Pali orthography onto the latinized Pali alphabet.

And what you should know is Samma is not Sammaa with the elongated pronunciation that you had cut and pasted above. All this while both words are practically the same, though when you add a vowel it is intensified which is called "Ala" in grammar.

Well, there is a massive difference between a verb root and an adverb. Verbs in Pali are always derived from a verb root, I have learned. It is possible that I am missing something, as I am really just a dabbler, my formal Pali studies were introductory, not graduate-level.

What is your reasoning that this verbal construction, sammantīdha, should not be derived from a verb root like any other verbal construction, but instead from an adverb?

 

[Firedragon]

In the Sinhalese script, there is a way to write "long a" onto a consonant, right? And "short a" is not specifically marked, because it is inherent in the consonant - for example "ka", is not written as "ka" plus some addition to mark the short "a", right? But if the inherent short a should be omittet, to write a standalone "k", there is a way to mark that, right?

But that would turn it into "Al", not "Ala". So it's really bad.

So if you would just drop your incredulity and open up to the fact that romanization is a 1:1 mapping of all features of the indic Pali scripts, and if you would study the romanization scheme for a short while, you could stop getting caught up over "elongation" and "translating directy from Pali", and we could get down to the really intresting bits. I offered to recommend a Pali primer in English - not to teach you the language, but to give you some hands-on examples of how Western scholars have been working with the romanzation for over a century now. The offer still stands, if you change your mind.

No, but thanks.

Yes, that is called "gemination" in Western scholarship. Like long vowels (which are marked with a bar over the letter in the romanization), long consonants, geminate consonants, are also represented in an exact 1:1 counterpart to the indic scripts.

THat's not what I was referring to.

Well, there is a massive difference between a verb root and an adverb. Verbs in Pali are always derived from a verb root, I have learned. It is possible that I am missing something, as I am really just a dabbler, my formal Pali studies were introductory, not graduate-level.

You should study the script, then you will understand better. It's actually pretty easy. The thing is, you should engage with it as much as you can only to understand the point of view. It's very important. The personality is very important. Anyway, I think you should pick up a class on the script. Just my advice. Up to you.

What is your reasoning that this verbal construction, sammantīdha, should not be derived from a verb root like any other verbal construction, but instead from an adverb?

What? Adverb? It's not an adverb. YOu have not understood what I said. You have completely misunderstood.

 

[Cino]

Okay. So what happens when you join Antha to both words from both languages?

I think it is simply the 3rd person present verb ending "-nti" which we are seeing in the form "sammanti".

It is written with an unaspirated "ta", rather than an aspirated "tha".

 

[Firedragon]

I think it is simply the 3rd person present verb ending "-nti" which we are seeing in the form "sammanti".

It is written with an unaspirated "ta", rather than an aspirated "tha".

What in the world are you talking about Cino? I am not going to debate you on the matter of grammar in this and you making such statements about a word ending that's pretty much out of this world. I apologise for that.

But you are right. It is an "unaspirated"

 

[Cino]

But that would turn it into "Al", not "Ala". So it's really bad.

When you decide to learn the romanization, you will see how it works.

No, but thanks.

Welcome.

THat's not what I was referring to.

I think it is. What do you think gemination refers to, if not this feature? It is part of the prosody of the language, just like long vowels. It is not just part of Pali, but also of ancient Greek, for example, and many other languages.

In a previous job, I had a co-worker named Abdallah. Most Germans mispronounce the name, not taking time to say the geminate l, which butchers the beautiful, rhythmic sound of the name (the reason being, in German orthography a double consonant doesn't change the consonant, but shortens the vowel before it - weird, I know). Anyway, is that what you had in mind? Amman, Abdallah, ... samma - it is not two consonants pronounced separately, but a single, long one. This is called "gemination".

You should study the script, then you will understand better. It's actually pretty easy. The thing is, you should engage with it as much as you can only to understand the point of view. It's very important. The personality is very important. Anyway, I think you should pick up a class on the script. Just my advice. Up to you.

Yes. Like I mentioned, I understand how the script works, and I can decipher printed texts, but I really work from the romanized forms. Life is short. But one of these days, I might meet the right person to teach me how to become fluent in reading and writing the Sinhala script.

What? Adverb? It's not an adverb. YOu have not understood what I said. You have completely misunderstood.

"sammā" is an adverb, and If not what is it?

 

[Cino]

What in the world are you talking about Cino? I am not going to debate you on the matter of grammar in this and you making such statements about a word ending that's pretty much out of this world. I apologise for that.

Oh come on. Verb conjugation is hardly advanced grammar.

 

[Firedragon]

Oh come on. Verb conjugation is hardly advanced grammar.

But you made such absurd statements. Forget advanced or mediocre. It's nonsensical. So cannot engage with that Cino. I apologise. It's impossible.

"sammā" is an adverb, and If not what is it?

Nope.

I think it is. What do you think gemination refers to

No it's not.

 

[Cino]

But you made such absurd statements. Forget advanced or mediocre. It's nonsensical. So cannot engage with that Cino. I apologise. It's impossible.

Set me straight, if it is not too much to demand. Explain my error in assuming that "sammanti" is the 3rd person present form of the verb "to be appeased"?

Explain to me what type of word "samma" is, if not an adverb as I am assuming?

Tell me where I go wrong with my understanding of "gemination"?

If you just say "no" without further explanation, I will assume you are just being contrarian for the fun of it.

 

[Firedragon]

Set me straight, if it is not too much to demand. Explain my error in assuming that "sammanti" is the 3rd person present form of the verb "to be appeased"?

Explain to me what type of word "samma" is, if not an adverb as I am assuming?

Tell me where I go wrong with my understanding of "gemination"?

If you just say "no" without further explanation, I will assume you are just being contrarian for the fun of it.

Sometimes it's easier to just say "no" and escape a futile discussion when someone does not have the disposition to learn something but just make statements based on conjecture after conjecture. I have told you many times to just ask the question rather than making conjecture. That's the reason I just no. And you can think or "assume" anything about me, like you have been doing with a beautiful and fantastic language. You are murdering the language by making such facade conjecture. I have not come across anyone in my entire life who makes guesses about a language he doesnt know well. Never in my life.

I have explained the word Sammanthi many times.

It's not an adverb because it's Uktha, and not modified.

Your understanding of gemination is correct. I didn't refer to gemination but had a whole explanation to try and teach you how that word is meant and how the language works. If you want to talk about another thing, it's separate to what I was telling you.

If you make conjecture out of thin air about another language Cino, I will not get into good explanations because. That's because you do it every single time. You don't know the language brother. Just accept that and if you want ask questions and learn about the language rather than making such assumptions. This is not even a philosophy lesson where you could make arguments based on some kind of organised thought. You can make some assumptions there based on some premise. You can't do that with an alien language to you. It's impossible. I am not gonna sit here and make assumptions about the german language, because I don't know the language. Or Hebrew, or Malay, or something else.

Hope you understand.

 

[Firedragon]

Sorry if there are mistakes in my English writing up there because sometimes writing in a hurry makes me do typos and miss one word or two in a sentence.

 

[Cino]

All right. Thanks for an overall enjoyable thread.

 

[Firedragon]

All right. Thanks for an overall enjoyable thread.

The honour is mine brother. Cheers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hm, not sure which passage you mean? Dhammapada Verse 5?



My stilted, mostly word-by-word translation:

Not, indeed, is hatred by hatred appeased here at any time;
By non-hatred it is appeased, this is the law, everlasting.

However, I don't see any blunder in the more conventional renderings like the Ven. Sujato's version:

For never is hatred settled by hate, it’s only settled by love: this is an eternal truth.

Can you point out which blunder you meant?

A sanskrit word is 'varenyam' (part of Gayatri mantra - tat savituh vareniyam - that deity good choice). Varenyam means choosing, like in 'Swayamavara' (choosing the groom herself). Applying that meaning to your verse it becomes:

Not, indeed, is hatred appeased by choosing to choose here at any time;
By not-choosing it is appeased, this is the law, everlasting.

Not that I am translating the verse, but only throwing a light on the use of 'varena'.
Vanara is men of the forest, not necessarily apes. Many of them painted their faces in various ways making them look like monkeys. Easy.

 

[Firedragon]

Vanara is men of the forest, not necessarily apes. Many of them painted their faces in various ways.

Exactly what I meant. Great.

 

[Firedragon]

A sanskrit word is 'varenyam' (part of Gayatri mantra - tat savituh varenyam - good choice that deity). Varenyam means choosing, like in 'Swayamavara' (choosing the groom herself). Applying that meaning to your verse it becomes:

Not, indeed, is hatred appeased by choosing to choose here at any time;
By not-choosing it is appeased, this is the law, everlasting.

Varenyam is not used in verse in concern, neither is an equal word. Varenyam is not the equal word in Sanskrit for Veren. If someone is using that to replace veren in the Pali Text, they are making a huge mistake as it does not make sense. Varenyam would mean accepted to enter or valuable enough to enter. I don't know how that replaces Veren which means hatred.

I have never read the sanskrit translation of the Tipitaka, but the word that is right will be dvesh. I guess, Dveshas will be the correct rendering because in Pali the actual word for Dvesh is Vera. Veren means "Of hate" or as usually given "hatred". Which would be Dveshas.

 

[Cino]

I have never read the sanskrit translation of the Tipitaka,

Just an aside - as far as I am aware of, there is no direct Sanskrit translation of the Tipitaka, in the sense of Vinaya-, Sutta-, and Abidhamma-Pitaka.

There are some more-or-less parallel texts of many suttas. But each school had its own Abidhamma, and there were also different Vinaya traditions.

In some cases, the original Sanskrit texts are lost now, but there are still Chinese and Tibetan translations of them.

 

[Cino]

I'd like to get back to one of the original points made by @Firedragon which sparked off this thread in the first place:

How valid is a translation into English, for an English-speaking Western audience, which uses "love" for "avera" (non-hatred) in the context of the verse under discussion? I'm especially interested in the opinion of @Thomas and @RJM on this. Is this a good, useful translation that works for Christian sensibilities, or does it paint the wrong mental picture?

 

[RJM]

I'd like to get back to one of the original points made by @Firedragon which sparked off this thread in the first place:

How valid is a translation into English, for an English-speaking Western audience, which uses "love" for "avera" (non-hatred) in the context of the verse under discussion? I'm especially interested in the opinion of @Thomas and @RJM on this. Is this a good, useful translation that works for Christian sensibilities, or does it paint the wrong mental picture?

For me 'non-hatred' would be closer to 'non-attachment' than the more active conventional meaning of the word 'love'

ahimsa
(in the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist tradition) respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others.

 

[Cino]

For me 'non-hatred' would be closer to 'non-attachment' than the more active conventional meaning of the word 'love'

ahimsa
(in the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist tradition) respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others.

The verse is about the antodote for hatred - the literal meaning is "non-hatred", but that leaves open a lot of possibilities. @Firedragon feels that "love" is a very misleading translation, and prefers a more literal one. I feel it is acceptable, especially when the target audience is Western, a culture steeped in Christian concepts.

I see your point about the "active" meaning of the word "love". On the other hand, non-violence is not a passive strategy at all, neither historically nor its contemporary applications.

 

[Firedragon]

Just an aside - as far as I am aware of, there is no direct Sanskrit translation of the Tipitaka, in the sense of Vinaya-, Sutta-, and Abidhamma-Pitaka.

There are some more-or-less parallel texts of many suttas. But each school had its own Abidhamma, and there were also different Vinaya traditions.

In some cases, the original Sanskrit texts are lost now, but there are still Chinese and Tibetan translations of them.

Yeah. But we were talking about the sanskrit because that's what Aup spoke about. Thus, this is all irrelevant. Hope you understand.