<i>WORD</i>

ISSN: 0043-7956 (Print) 2373-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwrd20

The Vowels of Sanskrit

Punya Sloka Ray

To cite this article: Punya Sloka Ray (1964) The Vowels of Sanskrit, <i>WORD</i>, 20:3,
353-359, DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1964.11659827

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659827

Published online: 04 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 66

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwrd20

Download by: [117.196.88.203] Date: 20 July 2017, At: 02:18

PUNYA SLOKA RAY----------------------

The Vowels of Sanskrit

0. Purpose.
There are at least four concepts of the vowel. One is a lack of constriction
in articulation. Another is the relatively greater frequency of occurrence
of one subclass of the totality of the segmental phonemes as against that of
the other subclasses. A third is the notion of the vowel as a minimal syllable.
Finally, a vowel may be conceived as a regular marker to a syllable, so that
counting the vowels would be the same thing as counting the syllables. This
paper assumes the last concept, and shows that Sanskrit at the time of its
codification was a language without vowels.

I. Preamble.
If the spoken language is accessible, then of course the syllables, that is
the chest pulses, are as much audible as are the segmentals. Why is it
necessary then, in a phonological analysis, to state any rules of association
between syllable number or syllable demarcation or syllable configuration
on the one hand and the segmental phonemes on the other hand? Only two
assumptions can provide this necessity: that syllable structures are to be
recorded in writing, and that by phoneme classes rather than by special
unit phonemes. The first assumption is again ambiguous, unless writing for
the sake of teaching pronunciation is distinguished from that for the sake
of a subsequent grammatical analysis of the language. The second assump-
tion too has to be clarified: is a preference to be justified from conveniences
of penmanship or typography or from-exigencies of a subsequent gram-
matical analysis?
It is a priori quite plausible that some aspect or other of syllables should
not be contrastive for a particular language. There is at least one language
for which syllable aspects cannot be contrasted, since these are entirely
predictable. This is one variety of standard Bengali. 1 Prima facie the
following class of segmentals might be suspected of being vowels:
I The data, not the interpretation, are from Dr. Suhas Chatterjee. The author's own
speech differs in these crucial cases: [dai]'midwife' [dai] 'responsible' [ca~] 'he wants it'
[cae] 'in the tea' [mee] 'girl', for which Chatterjee has respectively [daj], [da~i], [ca~].
[ca~] and [meee]. For further discussion: Suhas Chatterjee, A Study of the Relationship
between Written and Colloquial Bengali. Hartford Seminary Dissertation (1962), pp. 25-
29.
353
354 PUNY A SLOKA RAY

fa re e i o o uf. However, in sequences of two, fe of are nonsyllabic,

i.e. not at syllable peak, when after fa re e o of syllable peak, and /i uj
are nonsyllabic when after any of the seven. The syllable boundary is im-
mediately after the first nonsyllabic segmental when there is at least one
and when it is either /i u e of or any nonsyllabic segmental followed by
pause or another nonsyllabic segmental. In all other cases, it is immediately
after the syllabic segmental. That is, a syllable coda is permitted before
pause, before a syllable onset, before another syllable peak if the coda is
occupied by a vowel candidate, and nowhere else. This statement must of
course depend on the interpretation that there are no semivowels and no
syllabic consonants in the usual senses. Further, there is no accentual
system, that is, no lexically significant contrast between syllable pitches or
syllable stresses. The only basis that remains for the recognition of such
entities as syllables is the distinction between minimal and nonminimal
stressgroups. But in Bengali each of the seven vowel candidates may appea~
alone as a complete stressgroup, and there are no minimal stressgroups
which are obligatorily more complex. In terms of contrastive structures
then, this is a language without syllables, and therefore also without
vowels, unless a vowel is redefined as a minimal stressgroup.
The situation for earliest recorded Sanskrit was quite different. It is not
challenged here that Sanskrit syllables did contrast in one or more of their
features. What is challenged is that there were vowels in the sense of regular
syllable markers. A crucial part of this challenge is the denial of a zero
accent, that is, of the existence of any so-called unaccented syllables. There
is, a priori, little reason for classifying certain syllables as unaccented unless
these are proved to be either unstable in pitch or weak in stress. Low pitch
alone is not a persuasive criterion; since in most of the languages currently
accessible the phonetic drift is towards the upper mid level of pitch for the
larger part of the duration of the utterance. Moreover, most of the tradi-
tional notations of Sanskrit utilize in fact two zero accents, marking
regularly only the svarita, and the other two, udiitta and anudiitta, only in
certain positions. It is submitted here that none of the three pitch accents
deserved to be unmarked in an analytical transcription, and that a con-
sistent marking of all the three will lead to an important simplification of
Sanskrit morphophonemics.

2. Statement.
According to the model proposed here, Sanskrit did not have any
vowels, but only a set of semiconsonants that could occur at syllable peaks
as well as at syllable margins. These were fa i u r 1/ and very infrequently
also frpf.
 THE VOWELS OF SANSKRIT 355

The following rules are postulated to be adequate for determining the

distribution of syllabicity, pending the question of the pitch accents to be
discussed later.

Rule I. In a sequence /QXQ/ when /Q/stood for pause or a consonant

other than one of these semiconsonants, and /X/ stood for one of these
semiconsonants, any /X/ was syllabic. e.g. jpati/ [pati] jrjuf [rju] /klpta/
[kjpta] fvaasaa f!l si/ [vasaf!lsi].2
Rule 2. In a sequence /QX 1X 2Q/, only /XII was syllabic if /X 2/ was
fr 1/, except for the sequence /QurQ/ which followed rule 3. e.g. ftarka/
[tarka] /kalpa/ [kalpa].
Rule 3. In a sequence /QX 1X 2Q/ not covered by Rule 2, only /X 2/ was
syllabic. e.g. /rama/ [rama] /ripu/ [ripu] flaghu/ [laghu] flupta/ [lupta]
/iama/ [yama] /iisa/ [isa] /iukti/ [yukti] fuana/ [vana] fuidhi/ [vidhi]
fuu~aa/ [ii~a] jaika/ [eka] faujas/ [ojas] furta/ [vrta]
Rule 4. In a sequence /QX 1X 2X 3Q/, only /X 2/ was syllabic if /X 1X 2/
was not /au/ and /X 3/ was /r 1/. e.g. fuarta/ [varta] jjaalma/ [jalma]
fatialpa/ [atyalpa].
Rule 5. In a sequence /QX 1X 2X 3Q/ not covered by Rule 4, only /X 3 /
was syllabic if /Xtf was not fa/ and /X 2/ was identical with /X 3/. e.g.
fraama/ [rama] fruupa/ [riipa] /riiti/ [riti] jlaabha/ [Iabha] /liina/ [lina]
fuaama/ [varna] jiuutha/ [yiitha].
Rule 6. In a sequence /QX 1X 2X 3Q/ not covered by Rules 4-5, only /X 3/
was syllabic if /XII was fuf and /X 2/ was /i r 1/. e.g. /urata/ [vrata] fulaga/
[vlaga] fuirddha/ [vyrddha].
Rule 7. In a sequence /QX 1X 2X 3Q/ not covered by Rules 4-6, only /X 3/
was syllabic if /X 1X 2 / was /ia ua/. e.g. jiai/ [ye] fiau/ [yo] fuai/ [ve] fuau/
[vo].
Rule 8. In a sequence /QX 1X 2X 3"X 4 Q/, only /X 4 / was syllabic if
/X 1X 2X 3/ was jura uia uaa iaa/ e.g. furaatia/ [vratya] /uiaakaral)a/
[vyakaral)a] jiaau/ [yau] juaai/ [vai].
Rule 9. In all sequences of three or more semiconsonants not covered by
Rules 4-8, a syllable division occurred before the second from last member.
This syllable division behaved like a /Q/, so that Rules 1-8 applied re-
cursively to the fractional sequences as given from right to left. e.g. fkaaria/
[karya] fauiaia/ [avyaya] /maaiaauii/ [mayavi] jiaiaati/ [yayati] fraaiai/
[raye] /kaiuala/ [kevala] /tapauuana/ [tapovana] fanaaurta/ [anavrta]
fpraiia/ [preya] /saaiuiaa/ [saivya].

2 AraQya Sik~a. 52. Quoted by Siddheswar Varma, Critical Studies in the Phonetic
Observations of Indian Grammarians (Delhi, 1961), p. 82.
 356 PUNY A SLOKA RAY

Rule 10. A nonsyllabic fif after /Q/ and before a syllabic /i/ was a
lengthening cum fronting cum heightening of the latter. Such /ii/ was [i].
Rule 11. A nonsyllabic fuf after /Q/ and before a syllabic /u/ was a
lengthening cum backing cum heightening of the latter. Such fuuf was [0].
Rule 12. A nonsyllabic fa/ was a lengthening cum lowering of a succeed-
ing syllabic fa i uf. Thus fai au aa/ were [e 6 a], and faai aau/ could be
either [;!e !!O] or [~~i ~~u] or [re o].3
Rule 13. /i/ was front, fuf back, frf retroflex, /1/ lateral, and fa/ residu-
ally unqualified, all voiced vocoids.
To sum up, three allophones each are postulated here for /i uf, of classes
A, Band C; two allophones are postulated for /a/, of classes A and C; and
two allophones each are postulat~d for /r 1/, of classes A and B; class A
consisting of syllabic phones, class B consisting of nonsyllabic nonport-
manteau phones, and class C consisting of nonsyllabic portmanteau-
included phones.
3. Examination.
How far does the stated model go in covering the actually available data?
A complete answer to this question must require a great deal of hunting
through the reference texts. One of the prime functions of such a model as
stated here is just to provide the motivation for selective data gathering.
However, a preliminary and tentative examination should be performed
here if only to show the superiority of the stated model over the traditional
analysis.
A search in Monier Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary revealed the
following contradictory evidence.
[toya] 'water'. The model would permit [taviya] in the form ftauiia/ to
contrast with ftauia/ [tavya] 'able' and ftauiiias/ [taviyas] 'abler'. But as the
existing record stands, [taviya] was a free variant of [tavya]. That is, [toya]
is not generable, though attested.
Seven words with initial [yi] such as [yiyak~at] etc. The model permits
only initial [i]. These do not, however, constitute a big problem, since for
some of the same roots alternative derivations with [i] are also recorded,
such as [iyak~amaQa]. One is a proper name, and that too very late.
Eight words with initial [vu] such as [vu<;lita] etc. The model permits
only initial [v]. Five of these have alternants with initial [bu], and one an
alternant with [vru]. The remaining two are recorded only in very late
texts.
3 The current Eastern pronunciation of these as [a ~aQ]cannot be accommodated in
the proposed model. But there are other features in the current Eastern pronunciatio~
that are admittedly different from the earliest attestation, for instance the merger be
tween /5/ and/~/.
 THE VOWELS OF SANSKRIT 357

Eleven words with initial [ur], such as [uras] [urvara] etc. The model
permits only [vr] or [vr]. A minimal pair actually occurs in [uraQa] 'ram,
sheep' and [vraQa] 'wound, hole'.
At this point what is surprising is not that a few contradictory pieces of
evidence could be discovered, but that so very few could be discovered
from quite a large dictionary. The number and the nature of these counter
instances are far from constituting a crucial mass of evidence.
A stronger set of objections would arise out of an internal examination
of the proposed model. The rules are too many, one may argue, and the
phonetic basis for them is not clear. They appear merely to summarize the
recorded data in a clever manner. 4 Such objections prove the exact opposite
of the intended, granted the absence of a zero accent. If there were no zero
accent, the location of an accent should indicate simply and regularly the
position of a syllable peak. The system of rules as outlined above could
then be regarded as a redundant system, a secondary instrument reinforc-
ing the identification of syllable peaks. And a redundant system should be
expected to be both a little complicated and just short of total success, as
almost but not quite competitive to the distinctive system.
But do we need to write the pitch accents for Sanskrit? That we do has
never been doubted, and can be shown by a series of minimal pairs. Let us
write the high pitch or udtitta with the acute accent, the low pitch or
anudtitta with the grave accent, and the high falling pitch or smrita with the
circumflex accent. Then-

/kf~Qa/ 'antelope' fkr~Qa/ 'black'

frudhira/ 'blood'
fuiupta/ 'scattered' [vyupta]
/sui~ta/ 'much desired' [svi~ta]
/suar/ 'heaven' [svar]
fnadias/ 'rivers' [nadyas]
frudhira/ 'red'
fuifipta/ 'shaved' [vyupta]
fsuista/ 'properly offered' [svi~ta]
/sua/ 'own' [sva]
fsadias/ 'the very day' [sadyas]

Now, the rephonemicization proposed above would permit us to regard

those cases where the rules did not work as relatively rare minimal pairs
distinguished by tone placement alone: 5
ftauiaj 'water' [toya] ftauia/ 'able' [tavya]
furaQa/ 'sheep' [uraQa] furaQa/ 'wound' [vraQa]
4 The author is indebted to Prof. Henry M. Hoenigswald and Dr. H. S. Ananthanara-
yana for criticism of an earlier draft of this paper.
s This contrastive syllable pitch contour is quite comparable to the contrastive
syllable stress contour of British English, such as in nadir ['nei.dia], shadier ['seid.i.a] and
India ['indi.a]. Daniel Jones, An Outline of English Phonetics (ninth edition), pp. 122,210.
358 PUNY A SLOKA RAY

That such minimal pairs were rare at the time of the codification may be
taken as proof that Sanskrit was at the time on the verge of becoming a
non-tonal language.
Little is gained in this discussion by bringing in the metrics, which
utilized a contrast between heavy and light syllables, the latter being
identified in the traditional analysis by a so-called short vowel not followed
by a syllable final consonant. Although classical Chinese verse was built on
a contrast between just two kinds of syllable pitches, even and changing,
that fact alone cannot be taken as sufficient evidence that classical Chinese
was a language with two tones only; it is by no means necessary that a
metric category should be homogeneous from the phonological point of
view. Again, it is not difficult to re3:_d off the transcription recommended
here the metric category of each syllable; for the accent sign marks the
syllable peak, which, if not followed by a syllable final and preceded im-
mediately by pause, a consonant, or a semiconsonant other than fa/, itself
preceded by pause of a consonant, would mark a light syllable. Further,
syllable number may be counted in the recommended transcription quite
easily through counting the accent marks. In effect, the analysis proposed
here amounts to elevating each accent into the status of a vowel and con-
sidering the associated sequence of segmental phonemes as its diacritic.
The argument so far stands on the facts that the tones were distinctive
and that a redundant system was also available for syllable peak identifica-
tion. It is only an indirect confirmation of the theory proposed here that its
adoption would immensely simplify the segmental morphophonemics,
without either increasing or decreasing the complexity of the tonal mor-
phophonemics. The greater simplicity is shown most clearly in regard to
apophony and sandhi. An example of apophony would look like this:
fuid uaida uaaidika/ [vid veda vaidika].
And examples of sandhi would be rewritten as: fnai+ana=naiana/
[ne+ana=nayana] fgaai+aka=gaaiaka/ [gai+aka=gayaka] jprati+
aasannai = pratiaasannaif [prati + asanne = pratyasanne] fatha + u=a thaW
[atha+ u =a thO].
But of course a complete automatization of sandhi would not be
achieved yet. For instance, a rule would still be needed that at word final,
and some times also at word initial, a geminated semiconsonant must
become single. e.g. fmaha:i + iis:i = mahaisa/ [maha +!Sa= mahesa].
It is not a valid alternative to avoid the dismissal of all vowels by ad-
mitting a semivowel additional to the ones listed in the tradition, a non-
syllabic counterpart to syllabic fa/ that one may perhaps write as fxf. Such
a hypothesis will merely complicate the segmental morphophonemics
without any compensating advantage towards a simplification of the tonal
morphophonemics.
 THE VOWELS OF SANSKRIT 359
A potentially fatal contradiction to the theory presented here arises out
of a different interpretation of the same data. According to the thesis 6 de-
fended by H. S. Ananthanarayana, proto-Sanskrit must have had a word-
tone system, that is, contrasted pitches only on the stressed syllables and
not on the unstressed syllables. This implies a zero accent, namely for the
unstressed syllables. This thesis is independently strengthened by two pre-
sumptions, the fact that the actually attested tonal morphophonemics of
Sanskrit are complex enough for us to suspect error in the record, and the
fact that those modern Indo-Aryan languages which have been found to
exhibit lexically significant pitch distinctions, such as Panjabi or Garhwali
or Chittagong Bengali, have word-tone systems.
The analysis presented here differs from such speculations in one funda-
mental respect. It is a strictly synchronic structuralization of the actually
attested data on earliest Sanskrit, not a diachronic internal reconstruction
of an unattested proto-Sanskrit. Consequently, there is no motivation here
to make assumptions such as that since the svarita occurred more fre-
quently on morpheme boundaries it must have been absent in prehistory,
or that tonal morphophonemics and segmental morphophonemics had
been both not only uncomplicated at some period of prehistory but so at
exactly the same period of prehistory.

4. Conclusion.
Sanskrit was at the time of its codification a syllable-tone language
without vowels. That this fact could be missed by such profound analysts
as Panini and others may perhaps be explained by these considerations.
Given the rather low functional load of tonal distinctions and the relative
complexity of morphophonemic and intonational perturbations of tone
structure, it was inviting to disregard tones. Given the practical urgency for
speech correction and the absence of tqe concept of a portmanteau phone
shared between successive phonemes, it was safer to hug the phonetic
ground closely. The price paid was a tremendous complication of the
segmental morphophonemics.
Department of Linguistics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

6Studies in the Language of the Taittiriya Briihmana, University of Texas Dissertation,

1962.
3-w.