Dear all, In Kannada, too, Sanskrit words are often written with a retroflex ḷ (ಳ = ळ) where we might have expected l (ಲ = ल). The retroflex ḷ in Sanskrit words is called by the name kṣaḷa (ಕ್ಷಳ) in Kēśava's Śabdamaṇidarpaṇam (1260 CE). Kēśava (or Kēśirāja, as he is also known) distinguishes this sound from the retroflex ḷ found in Kannada words, called kuḷa (ಕುಳ), which is however written with exactly the same letter (ಳ). Kēśava further notes that the kṣaḷa and kuḷa (ಳ = ळ) can serve as equivalents for the sake of prāsa (second-letter alliteration), whereas the dental l (ಲ = ल) cannot alternate with either of them.
I don't know precisely (a) why Kēśirāja felt it necessary to distinguish between the Sanskrit and Kannada retroflex ḷ; and (b) why the retroflex ḷ (kṣaḷa) occurs optionally in some Sanskrit words, in some positions, and not in others. Kittel in his *Grammar of the Kannada Language *pp. 14–15 <https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.23505/page/13/mode/2up>, §30, says: “It is often used by Kannaḍa people as a substitute for the Saṁskṛita ಲ (= ल), the sound of which in the Saṁskṛita language apparently bears a dubious character for them, one that is neither their ಲ (= ल) nor their ಳ (= ळ); this ಳ (= ळ) is Kêšava’s kṣaḷa.” I interpret this to mean: whereas Kannada clearly distinguishes a dental and retroflex lateral, Sanskrit does not, and the Sanskrit lateral is pronounced somewhere between a dental and retroflex position (kind of like the "dental" stops in most kinds of American English), with some phonotactically-conditioned variation within this range. The exact conditions of this variation remain a little obscure, but Kēśava does after all call the consonant kṣaḷa, which suggests that the retroflexion is found (among other places) in those same contexts where dental n is retroflexed to ṇ. Christophe's observation that retroflex ḷ is not used word-initially accords with my impression of Kannada usage. Andrew On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:08 AM Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY < [email protected]> wrote: > I was in course of stating more or less the same as Anna Aurelia about the > Malayalam script manuscripts, observing the regularity of the use of the > retroflex for peculiar words, which, I would add, usually preserve this > peculiarity in their borrowing/inclusion within Malayalam language. The > retroflex is systematically replaced by -l- in the Devanagari manuscripts > which are transcripts of Malayalam script mss., with the problem that this > retroflex > can in fact also sometime be used for -ḍ- (see below *jaḷa* for *jaḍa* > etc.). > Contrasting examples are *viḷambita* (cf. *viḷambase* in Esposito's post) with > a "forced" intervocalic -l- > -ḷ- after a prefixe (*lamb- *alone being > written with l-), versus *vilo**ḷita* keeping the initial -l- of the > theme after the prefixe. A more complete listing of the forms of the > concerned words (from the apparatus in crit. ed. mentioning them) should be > made for drawing linguistic conclusions. The references of Philipp Maas are > useful in this respect. > > A few samples from a text in course of edition > > vilolita : viloḷita > kuntala : kuntaḷa > lalita : laḷita > pulinā : puḷinā > milatpulakakuḍmalaṃ : miḷatpuḷakakuḍmaḷaṃ > valakṣagu : vaḷakṣagu > kalakala : kaḷakaḷa > alinda : aḷinda > gala : gaḷa > antarāla : antarāḷa > pacelima : paceḷima > bahala : bahaḷa > gadula : gaduḷa > nalina : naḷina > bakula : bakuḷa > > vilambita : viḷambita > > jaḍa : jaḷa > > From a purāṇa text: > > *pātāla *: *pātāḷa* > *śālin- *: *ṣāḷin**-* > *tolikā *: *toḷikā* > *argala-* : *arggaḷa-* > *vyāla*- : *vyāḷa*- > *bala- * : *vaḷa-* > *karāla- *: *karāḷa-* > *pralaya- *: *praḷaya-* > *dhūli*- : *dhūḷi*- > *alakā- : **aḷakā-* > > *-viluḍī*- : -*viluḷī*- > -*jaḍī*- : -*jaḷī*- > *-vrīḍam *: *-vrīḷam* > *kṣveḍita-* : *kṣveḷita-* > *thuḍa- *: *thuḷa*- > *huḍa- * : * huḷa-* > > > > Le 24 mars 2023 à 09:29, Anna Aurelia Esposito < > [email protected]> a écrit : > > Dear Harry Spier, > I found the same in drama manuscripts written in Malayāḷam script. In > particular Sanskrit words intervocalic l is replaced by ḷ. This usage > persevers not only in all manuscripts, but also in the editions printed in > Malayāḷam script (see e.g. the edition of the “Trivandrum Plays” ascribed > to Bhasa of Bhāskaran, 1987). > > In Cārudatta ascribed to Bhāsa we find for example ḷ in I.2a dehaḷīnām, > I.13b bahaḷa-, I.13b -kāḷā-, I.26.38 viḷambase, III.8b karāḷo, III.10b > -kākaḷīṣu, III.12d nīḷa-, in Dūtavākya -kaḷaṅka- 35.1, -praḷaya- 47c and > *49c, -laḷitā- *47a. > > So far, no one has been able to explain to me why the l has been changed > to ḷ in these words, and consistently in every manuscript (and also in the > printed edition). A possible explanation would be, as you suggest, that one > scribe read the text and the other wrote it; but in some cases it is > evident from the errors in the manuscripts that the text was copied and not > written down by hearing. I am curious if someone from the list can give us > an explanation. > > Best wishes, > Anna Esposito > > > Zitat von Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <[email protected]>: > > Dear list members, > I'm looking at the devanagari transcription of a south indian grantha > manuscript. most consonent l's are the classical sanskrit l i.e. ल but > some words have the letter, ळ . > Some examples are: > प्रक्षाळ्य > > > नाळिकेरोद्भवंपादौप्रक्षाळ्याचम्यमुकुळीकृतियपिण्गळायवामांघ्र्यब्जदळासह्रिताम्अण्गुळ्यग्रेणशुद्धविद्यातत्वव्याप्तसर्वमणळोपेतं > > I'm pretty sure this isn't from typist misprints because प्रक्षाळ्य > occcurs many times always spelled with ळ > > Any explanations would be appreciated. My understanding is that sometimes > manuscripts were created by one scribe speaking the text and another scribe > writing what he hears. Is that a possible explanation for the occurance of > this letter ळ . I.e. local pronounciation creeping in. > > Thanks, > Harry Spier > > > > > ********** > PD Dr. Anna Aurelia Esposito > ********** > Universität Würzburg > Lehrstuhl für Indologie > Philosophiegebäude, Zi. 8U6 > Am Hubland > 97074 Würzburg > Germany > Tel: ++49-(0)931-3185512 > ********** > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de%2Findologie%2Fmitarbeiter%2Fesposito%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cchristophe.vielle%40uclouvain.be%7Cd8b10707b4ce4be3164c08db2c41ead0%7C7ab090d4fa2e4ecfbc7c4127b4d582ec%7C0%7C0%7C638152433849611433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cu9pOhFOzwSjo58lzKce3U2Hd6VyohK%2BAjHnkDuJdxo%3D&reserved=0 > ********** > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.indology.info%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Findology&data=05%7C01%7Cchristophe.vielle%40uclouvain.be%7Cd8b10707b4ce4be3164c08db2c41ead0%7C7ab090d4fa2e4ecfbc7c4127b4d582ec%7C0%7C0%7C638152433849611433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wERlWgZNj00sVEdshe6iPsvgKrRLfw7UKfvbXcx%2BPeU%3D&reserved=0 > > > ––––––––––––––––––– > Christophe Vielle <https://uclouvain.be/en/directories/christophe.vielle> > Louvain-la-Neuve > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
