Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
- Reaction score
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.
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.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.
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?