A Few Notes on Accent in this Text of the
Devanagari above thanks to Apple Computers'
forthcoming ISCII-based Indian Languages
Kit.
Traditionally, the Shatapatha is considered in its mss. to have underscore
("_") markings for udaatta. But, as noted, among others, by Hoffman
[1] the marking denotes anudaatta. Much of the
confusion arises because the mss. show markings of only one kind, that of
the understroke. The challenge has been to derive the traditional threefold
accentuation scheme of udaatta, anudaatta, svarita, from this rarified notation.
Caland, Minard, and Weber (cf. below) hold the former position (i.e. markings
are, in various explanatory justifications, udaatta) and are corrected,
somewhat, by Hoffman, whom I quote in full:
"The accent mark used in the ShB is, as it is well known, a horizontal
stroke below the letter. Leumann and Wackernagel believe this to be the
designation of the main accent, in every case. But then, this results in
very curious deviations from the Vedic norm of accentuation, both for single
words as well as for sentences (for example: manúSya- instead
of manuSyá-, or yátrá kva ca for yátra
kvà ca ). In order to arrive at the normal accentuation, Weber
(ShB p. xii sq.), Caland (ShBK introd. p. 7 sqq.), and Minard (Trois ènigm.
p. 7 sqq.) therefore suppose, that accent mark does not only indicate the
main tone (udaatta) of the same syllable but also svarita of the following
one. This results in the only important peculiarity of ShB accent: when
accented and unaccented vowels collide (as for instance in Rigvedic abhinihita
sandhi, too), the result is svarita (á
+ a> aà [i.e. svarita- long a], á
+ í> è, etc.), except when the prepositions aa and prá
(prá + ihi>préhi ) and when composition (citrá
+ uti> citróti ) are involved. Although the accent
system supposed by Weber, Caland, and Minard, in practical application allows
to arrive at correct results (manuSyá-, yatra kvà
ca ), it is hardly probable that one accent mark should have had two
different functions. If it is taken as granted that ShB had another peculiarity,
viz. that in all instances an udaatta syllable is followed by a svarita-
i.e. also in the sequence udaatta : svarita : udaatta (instead of RV udaatta
: anudaatta : udaatta), then the accent mark only
announces svarita of the following syllable
(thus, apparently already Weber, VS specimen II 6), and it does not designate
udaatta itself. Thus, it becomes explainable, why in an uninterrupted sequence
of udaattas apparently only the last one is marked: it is only the last
one that is followed by svarita. On the other hand, it is in concurrence
with the present system of notation, that in a sequence of svarita's not
only the last one, but each one is announced by the accent mark. in transliteration,
one therefore would have to write yatrà kvà ca, which
however, must be interpreted and transcribed as yátra kvà
ca. Only this accentuation, which appart from very few exemptions, coincides
with the rest of the Vedic norm, is a phonematic one. Even if one should
believe in accent shifts or in a special nature of the tone preceding a
svarita, these phenomena would be phonologically irrelevant, because an
accentuation yátrá kva ca (according to Leumann-Wackernagel)
could only exist, just because the phonematic word accents had been yátra
and kvà in the ShB too. Thus, the phonematic accent of a word
can, in almost all cases, be ascertained by a comparison of its occurrences
in different accentuations according to its position /among other words/
[sic] in the ShB itself.
As might be expected, such a lengthy explanation could only leave
room for further clarification--in particular as regards svarita. We turn
now to a discussion by George Cardona of ShB accent, according to the bhaaSika
accentuation system. Fundamental to understanding the accentuation of the
ShB begins with the observation that this later accent system omitted the
combined udaatta/anudaatta tone of svarita.[2]
Resolving the issue is a careful outline of the BhaaSikasuutra 1.13
presented in the cited article. The syllables wherein certain sounds conjoin
are called bhaaSika and are thus udaatta. For instance, udaatta vowels
followed by anudaatta vowels are anudaatta (BhaaSikasuutra 1.5: udaattaanudaattau
bhaaSikas tatsandhiH).[3] VS 25.24 . . . váruno
aryamaáyuúr (grave "'" here marking udaatta) becomes
marked as va-runorya-maayur in ShB 13.5.1.18, (anudaatta marked with "-"):
Thus in this e-text by Lehmann, based upon Weber, we have anudaatta marked
in 3 ways: with grave "'" over most vowels, with "!"
when with R (for internet/font reasons), and sometimes by ampersand "&"
as above. Following Weber's markings, then, the ampersand--per BhaaSikasuutra
1.5ff--can denote an udaatta-anudaatta conjoint as with bhaasaá +
antarikSam in ShB 9.2.3.34, herein marked as bhaasaa&ntárikSam--
"bhaasaa&" marks the conjoined udaatta 'aá' and anudaatta
"a," marked in VS 17.22 as bhaasaántárikSam. Note,
the second syllable in antarikSam is udaatta in VS, and anudaatta in
ShB.[4]It frequently becomes the case, then,
that some prior presence of udaatta is usually indicated by the ampersand.
The historical factors involved in this change have been detailed at some
length along linguistic and historical lines by both Cardona and Witzel.
In Tracing the Vedic Dialects, Witzel cites the
abundant variance and subsequent historic and geographic implications in
pronunciation dialects throughout the Vedic period. Relevant here, for
instance, is the distinction between Eastern and Western
dialectical pronunciation, (often a cause for scorn as in the JB viz.
Eastern accents).
[5] In "The BhaaSika System," Cardona notes
that these changes were not
unanticipated or unknown in the aSTAdhyaayii and the praatishaakhyas.[6]
In addition, then, the BhaaSikasuutra indicates that the anudaatta preceding
an udaatta is, of course, a low tone. When this low tone precedes another
low tone, a super-low tone is indicated.[7]
The historical and linguistic issues go beyond the immediate purposes
here with regard to deciphering the basic notation as found in the e-text,
but the
articles cited--and their related bibliographies--are essential reading
to precede any solid ShB inquiry.
In this e-text of the ShBM, then, the resulting "key" to accent
follow's Weber's markings by placing an ampersand "&" in the
conjoining of certain udaatta and anudaata syllables. Thus in the following
passage (click on it to go to the passage):
Thus the accent for mahato&kthéna is a conjoined syllable
with anudaatta on -é-.[8] NOTE: here
also is case of where, for reasons of ITRANS representation of vocalic R
as an upper case letter, the grave stroke does not compose and, accordingly,
the anudaatta is denoted by "!" Additionally, then note the following
example with the ampersand:
In the article cited above re. Hoffman, Witzel discusses in some detail
issues of variance in tonal pronunciation according to a given shaakha.[9]
In addition there is the tendency in modern pronunciation to render the
svarita as the high tone.[10] These variances
in tone are regional as well.[11]
Again, the text herein--according to these rules--should be interpreted
as follows re. accent. anudaatta is marked with an accent grave "'",
with the exeptions--as above--wherein udaatta and anudaatta have conjoined,
or other variance in the BhaaSika rules. The results of Hoffman, et al
may yield frequently accurate results, but they do not account for the ampersand
and, fundamentally, they assume the presence of a non-existent accent mark:
the svarita.
Notes
[1]Review of Wackernagel-Delbrunner, Altindische grammatik (1896-1954):
"Aufsaeze sur Indologie und Iranistik," (Wiesbaden, 1975), cited
and translated by Witzel, "On some unknown systems of marking the Vedic
accents," Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, 12, 1974, p.
475, n. 17.
[2]George Cardona, "The BhaaSika Accentuation System," Studien
zur Indologie und Iranistik, Band 18, 1993, p. 1.
[3] ibid, p. 2.
[4] ibid, pp. 2f.
[5]Summary in e-mail, Michael Witzel [witzel@husc3.harvard.edu], "Re:
Last Posting," personal e-mail message, November 9, 1996.
[6] Cardona, pp. 13f.
[7] ibid, p. 16.
[8]The explanation of this, and general direction to Hoffman and other attendant
concerns on accent, come thanks to Michael Witzel, [witzel@husc3.harvard.edu],
"Re: Sorry, Eudora : SB accent," personal e-mail message, 1 September,
1996.
[9]Witzel, 1974, pp. 496ff.
[10]ibid, p. 474.
[11]Michael Witzel, "Tracing
the Vedic Dialects."