[Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
Chan Mahanta
cmahanta at charter.net
Fri Mar 10 14:48:13 PST 2006
Hi ya'll,
Thanks much for the very informative discourse. I
learnt a LOT from your discussions and Rajen's
very fine and hard work spanning all these years.
Alpana's work helped get the story together.
cm
At 4:36 PM -0600 3/10/06, Barua25 wrote:
> > The word Sanskrit means completed, refined,
>perfected. Sum (Complete) + krt (created).
>Virtually every Sanskrit >student in India
>learns the traditional story that Sanskrit was
>created and then refined over many generations
> >(traditionally more than a thousand years)
>until it was considered complete and perfect.
>The original crude language >from which Sanskrit
>was derived could be Prakrit.
>
>Alpana:
>You are right. The above statement is taken from
>one of the websites you referred. The above
>statement seems to explain it better. The
>original crude language from which Sanskrit was
>derived could be Prakrit. Our modern Indian
>languages also are derived from this original
>crude lanugae called Prakit. So from the same
>original crude Prakit language one branch(es)
>became our modern Indian languages and the other
>branch became more refined and structured and
>became Sanskrit.
>
>Now if we keep our conception to this,
>everything would seem clear. But the problem is
>sometimes some scholars would throw the word
>Sanskrit even to the poriginal Prakit and thrhow
>statements that all our languages are actually
>derived from Sanskrit. That is when people get
>confused. But once we know the basics, it should
>be clear.
>At least that is how I undertstand. Thanks for the sites. Those are great.
>Barua
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:absarangapani at hotmail.com>Alpana B. Sarangapani
>To:
><mailto:barua25 at hotmail.com>barua25 at hotmail.com
>; <mailto:assamrs at gmail.com>assamrs at gmail.com
>Cc:
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org ;
><mailto:rajen.barua at gmail.com>rajen.barua at gmail.com
>;
><mailto:texamese at yahoogroups.com>texamese at yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>
>Barua: Thanks for your note.
>
>I might have to get back to you later if these
>simple sites are not convincing. In simple
>words, Sanskrit was too hard for the commoners,
>so they had to use some 'aprabhramsha'(?) -
>words in simpler form were created which in turn
>became 'Prakrits' - meaning actual words instead
>of them being abstract. But the origin of these
>still came from Sanskrit.
>
>There is a new school of philosophy comprised
>of different researcheres, who believe that the
>'Prakrits' are as original as Sanskrit, to which
>like many traditional thinkers (who have
>provided enough evidences), I don't apparently
>:) belong.
>
>Please refere to this web site:
>http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/sanskrit.html, where
>it says "Sanskrit is also the ancestor of the
>prakrit languages of India."
>
>Also this:
><http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/prakrit.html>http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/prakrit.html., -
>it says: "We might say that the Prakrits are to
>Sanskrit as
><http://www.fact-index.com/v/vu/vulgar_latin.html>Vulgar
>Latin and the
><http://www.fact-index.com/r/ro/romance_languages.html>Romance
>languages are to Classical
><http://www.fact-index.com/l/la/latin.html>Latin."
>
>
>From: "Rajen Barua" <barua25 at hotmail.com>
>To: "Rajen Barua" <barua25 at hotmail.com>,"Alpana
>B. Sarangapani"
><absarangapani at hotmail.com>,<assamrs at gmail.com>
>CC: <assam at assamnet.org>,<rajen.barua at gmail.com>,<texamese at yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:52:33 -0600
>
>Alpana:
>I hope you could see and clarify the point I was
>making. Modern Indian languages did not come
>through Sanskrit. These came through the
>Pakrits. Sanskrit remained fixed in time as a
>written language because people stopped speaking
>it on the street. It is only in modern times
>that these Indian languages are using Sanskrit
>as a rich source of old words which were
>retained by Sanskrit. Thus when I say Sanskrit
>is a dead language I did not say that in a
>derogatory sense. A language is called dead, ie
>not living, when nobody claim that language as a
>mother tongue. No mother speaks in Sanskrit to
>her child today. That is it. Otherwise, yes,
>there is a huge literature in Sanskrit not to
>speak of huge Hindu scriptures (which is however
>in Vedic Sanskrit language). I have also heard
>there some Sanskrit speaking clubs. I wrote
>this because I got the impression that you may
>be thinking I am writing against the Sanskrit
>language itself. That is far from it. I love
>Sanskrit. I think you have seen the following
>tribute to the Sanskrit language by Sir William
>Jones:
>
>"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its
>antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more
>perfect than the Greek, more copious than the
>Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either,
>yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity,
>both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of
>grammar, than could not possibly have been
>produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no
>philologer could examine them all three, without
>believing them to have sprung from some common
>source which, perhaps, no longer exists; there
>is a similar reason, though not quite so
>forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and
>the Celtic, though blended with a very different
>idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit;
>and the old Persian might be added to the same
>family..."
>
>But my point is let not this beautiful language
>try to change our simple Assamese language from
>the top because that will create a huge gap what
>people are speaking on the street and what is
>being written by the scholars. A language should
>develop and flow from and by the people on the
>street. If Assamese are to loose the X sound
>tomorrow, let the people on the street loose it,
>but not because some Sanskrit lover Assamese
>scholars are Sanskritising the Assamese language
>from the top. Xongkordev was a great Sanskrit
>scholar, but he chose to write in
>Assamese-Brojawoli and he did it without any
>influence from Sanskrit. Probaly you know that
>he was the first to use the word OXOM in the
>Kirton.
>That is my point.
>
>Barua
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: <mailto:barua25 at hotmail.com>Rajen Barua
>To: <mailto:absarangapani at hotmail.com>Alpana B.
>Sarangapani ;
><mailto:assamrs at gmail.com>assamrs at gmail.com
>Cc:
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org ;
><mailto:rajen.barua at gmail.com>rajen.barua at gmail.com
>;
><mailto:texamese at yahoogroups.com>texamese at yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>
> >They had to come through Sanskrit (panini's grammar 600-650 B.C.).
>
>Alpana:
>No. This is not correct. Please read that chart
>again. The Sanskrit (Panini's grammar 600-650BC)
>is actually shown as a dead end. The languages
>are actually coming from the other branch (where
>Sanskrit is not there) the old Prakits :
>Sauraseni, Prachya etc and ultimately Magdhi,
>Rajasthani, etc.
>Please read the chart again again and you will
>see what I am saying. Even than if you have
>question, I can clarify.
>Thanks for the site.
>Barua
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:absarangapani at hotmail.com>Alpana B. Sarangapani
>To:
><mailto:barua25 at hotmail.com>barua25 at hotmail.com
>; <mailto:assamrs at gmail.com>assamrs at gmail.com
>Cc:
><mailto:texamese at yahoogroups.com>texamese at yahoogroups.com
>;
><mailto:rajen.barua at gmail.com>rajen.barua at gmail.com
>; <mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org
>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:21 AM
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>
> >history of the Indian languages carefully. It
>is tricky. Sanskrit, by definition, is a
>dead >language, which means it ended in itself.
>As such none of the Indian >regional languages
>are derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese,
>Bengali, Oriya and all >the Indo-Aryan languages
>in India are derived from different Pakrit
>languages like
>
><http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/B_0137.HTM>http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/B_0137.HTM
>
>Please see the chart in the above web site.
>
>You can say the Indo-Aryan languages came from
>the Ancient Prakrit (800 B.C., Old/spoken
>Indo-Aryan) languages, yes. But they did not
>come directly from there. They were NOT Assamese
>or Bengali then or the other modern Indian
>languages that we have now. They had to come
>through Sanskrit (panini's grammar 600-650
>B.C.).
>
>Sanskrit is from 600/650 B.C. and the ancient
>Prakrit (old spoken Indo-Aryan) is from 800
>B.C., which is also dead and from which Sanskrit
>itself came from. They themselves are dead but
>their descendents are the modern languages.
>
>So the argument:
>
> >language, which means it ended in itself. As
>such none of the Indian >regional languages are
>derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese, Bengali,
>Oriya and
>
>does not hold any water. One can say Sanskrit
>itself came from the ancient Prakrit languages
>(old/spoken Indo-Aryan). But to become the
>modern Indo-Aryan languages like
>Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, etc. they had to come
>through the stages of which Sanskrit was a main
>one.
>
>Latin has become a dead language, but isn't it a
>fact that the modern Indo-European languages are
>descended from it??
>
>Both Latin and Sanskrit are dead languages but are still alive in new forms.
>
>Disclaimer: >From a non- expert (on languages,
>in this case) who trys to dig up and put forward
>vaild arguments against something that sounds
>outrageous sometimes, but is always open to
>accept counterarguments. :-)
>
>
>
>
>From: "Rajen Barua" <barua25 at hotmail.com>
>To: "Ram Sarangapani" <assamrs at gmail.com>
>CC: texamese at yahoogroups.com, rajen.barua at gmail.com, assam at assamnet.org
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:46:06 -0600
>
>Ram:
>Thanks for the site. It is great.
>Regarding Assamese and other languages coming
>from Sanskrit, please read the history of the
>Indian languages carefully. It is tricky.
>Sanskrit, by definition, is a dead language,
>which means it ended in itself. As such none of
>the Indian regional languages are derived from
>Sanskrit. None. Assamese, Bengali, Oriya and
>all the Indo-Aryan languages in India are
>derived from different Pakrit languages like
>Magadhi, Sauraseni, etc. Now these Pakrit
>languages are derived from some Vedic and pre
>Vedic languages. Sanskrit itself was one
>language which was derived from some pre Vedic
>language. However, Panini standardized Sanskrit
>and made many changes phonetically (we lost X
>sound) and grammatically. However due to
>Panini's strict rules, Sanskrit remained as a
>fixed written language, fixed in time forever.
>That is why it is called a dead language.
>
>From above, it should be very clear that
>Sanskrit cannot be the mother language on any of
>the Indo Aryan languages: Assamese, Bengali,
>Gujarati, Marthi etc. Sanskrit can be strictly
>speaking a cousin language.
>
>But if a dead language can have power, it is
>Sanskrit which have been influencing the Indians
>greatly. Many educated Indians (I mean
>scholars) make the mistake again and again. How
>many times you will hear Indians stating that
>all Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit
>etc. Technically this is not correct. Please.
>Sanskrit is dead.
>
>If we consider, Panini's time (6th/7th century
>BC, Panini was from Afghanistan-Kandahar) to be
>the time of Sanskrit the way we see it today,
>Assamese language is much older than that.
>Historically it is my argument that the Assamese
>XO sound was there in Assamese since 3000 BC
>when Narakaxur (contemporary to Rama and Sita)
>established the first Aryan-Axur kingdom in
>Pragjyotishpur. (Otherwise historically it
>cannot get into Assamese later). If you read
>Kaliram Medhi, Dimbeswar Neog and others, you
>will find that Assamese language has still
>retained, besides the XO sound many characterisc
>of old Indo-European language like Persian etc
>which were lost in Sanskrit and others. With all
>these data, one can in fact make a convincing
>argument that Assamese is older than Sanskrit, a
>point made by Medhi and Neog. Assamese still has
>many pre Vedic words which were lost in Sanskrit.
>
>(When you read Banikanta Kakaoty, please read
>with caution. Being a student of Dr Suniti Kumar
>Chatterjee, he did not contradict anything of
>his master. Compared to him, I think Neog, Medhi
>and Bharali are much more original Assamese
>scholars.)
>
>The bottom line is, even Bani Kanta Kanoty has
>never stated that Assamese originated from
>Sanskrit. If he did, read his wording again,
>because he cannot mean that. But if you find any
>reference, I would like to see, and would
>appreciate if you would forward these.
>
>As you can see, in Assam there is hardly any
>scholars left today. Have you seen any
>leadership role being played by Oxom Xahityo
>Xobha? The one genuine scholar left in Assam,
>Dr Golok Ch Goswami is probably so frustrated
>that he decided not to speak in such mundane
>latters. But what I am saying, he supports me
>specially regarding the X sound and the use of W
>for W-kar in Roman script.
>
>Another point is that Assamese has only one O
>and one Ah. Hindi and Sanskrit have A=Horso Ah,
>then AA=Dirgho Ah. So when they write A, the
>sound is always short Ah like U=Up. Assamese say
>Onil, in Hindi they say Anil with Ah. All the
>Assamese names like Anjana, Ajanta, Archana,
>Anil etc, in Assamese we pronounce with O. But
>the same words are pronounced with Ah by the
>mainland Indians in Hindi, Sanskrit. That is
>why when we write Asom, an Assamese might
>pronounce Osom, but Hindi and Sanskrit will
>pronounce Usom. See the spelling of the word
>Dalda in Hindi. It is written as Dolda but
>pronounced as Dalda.
>
>All these are happening because (litikai)
>Assamese are trying to follow the Hindi,
>Sanskrit group blindly without real that
>Assamese language is a much more simpler
>language like Pail, and that it has its separate
>originality and beauty.
>
>We need to retain the lost originality of the
>Assamese language. We need to stand up and say,
>we no longer follow you mainland India blindly.
>We have our originality which we need to retain.
>
> Anyhow these are is my points. I hope I am not confusing you.
>
>Rajen Barua.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:assamrs at gmail.com>Ram Sarangapani
>To: <mailto:barua25 at hotmail.com>Rajen Barua
>Cc:
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org ;
><mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>Chan Mahanta ;
><mailto:rajen.barua at gmail.com>rajen.barua at gmail.com
>;
><mailto:texamese at yahoogroups.com>texamese at yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 11:39 AM
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>
>Hi Barua,
>
>I am glad the Statesman publised your article.
>It is quite informative and one can lear a lot.
>But reading the papers and letters to the
>editor, one gets the inpression, ASOM is here to
>stay and the GOA is backing it up.
>
>While browsing, I did come across several
>references to Assamese as derivative of Sanskrit
>(you of course do not agree with this). Some of
>the sources refered to Bani Kanta Kakati, Hemkox
>etc.
>I can send you some of these if I come across
>them. I don't know how authentic they are.
>BTW: Here is a link that may interest you and
>others regarding the "voiceless velar fricative "
>The link is very interesting and refers to
>Assamese also. Interestingly, it seems the
>English language sometimes also uses the
>voiceless velar fricative.
>Here is the link.
><http://www.answers.com/topic/voiceless-velar-fricative>http://www.answers.com/topic/voiceless-velar-fricative
>
>Hope it is useful to you.
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>On 3/7/06, Rajen Barua
><<mailto:barua25 at hotmail.com>barua25 at hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Thanks.
>The Statesman, Kolkata has already published it.
>A friend from Kolkata sent it to me.
>We will have to keep on fighting.
>"Amar Oxom" Editor Dr Nagen Saikia, Ex Oxom
>Xahityo Xobha President, is preparing to publish
>my article in Assamese and contunue the debate.
>I think this is an issue for Assamese lifeline.
>Many have not seen it as such yet.
>Let us see.
>Thanks for your support.
>Rajen
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>Chan Mahanta
>To: <mailto:barua25 at hotmail.com>Rajen Barua ;
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org
>Cc: <mailto:rajen.barua at gmail.com>rajen.barua at gmail.com
>Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:04 AM
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>
>
>Good note Rajen. Hope they publish it.
>
>
>c
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 8:33 AM -0600 3/7/06, Rajen Barua wrote:
>
>>Letters to the editor
>>
>THE STATESMAN, KOLKATA 4 March 2006
>
>Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
>
>Sir, I am writing this letter with reference
>to a decision by the Assam government to change
>the name of the state to Asom. This is a wrong
>decision for certain reasons. Asom is a
>Sanskritised spelling and not an Assamese
>spelling. The proper Assamese spelling in the
>Roman script should be Oxom. The Assamese
>gutteral kh sound is a well-recognised velar
>fricative, and is also found among other
>languages including Greek and Russian. The
>International Phonetic Association has
>designated the Greek letter, 'X', for this
>Assamese sound. This sound is not represented by
>the letter, 'S', as written in the word Asom. As
>such it is 'X' and not 'S' that should be used.
>Again, the first letter should be 'O' and not
>'A'.
>The letter 'A' is used in Sanskrit and Hindi
>where they have two 'A's. In Assamese we have
>only one 'A'. The correct vowel for the Assamese
>pronunciation should be 'O'. The Assam
>government by taking a decision to use the
>Sanskritised form of spelling Asom instead of
>Oxom is trying to kill the proper Assamese
>ethnic sound 'XO'. This will be a great letdown
>for the entire Assamese people, and we request
>the Assam government not to meddle with the
>Assamese language. If it has to change the name,
>it should adopt the correct spelling, i.e. Oxom.
> Yours, etc., Rajen Barua,
>Katy (Texas), USA, 4 March.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org
><http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org
><http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
>>assam mailing list
>>assam at assamnet.org
>>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060310/f8d916b5/attachment.htm>
More information about the Assam
mailing list