________________
JUNE, 1894.]
MISCELLANEA.
MISCELLANEA.
There is, of course, a certain vagneness in the expression "common use," and words that may by one person be considered to fall under this head may by another be considered to be of but rare occurrence, the confusion arising from the exact meaning to be applied to "common." To take an example at random from the English language the word "eleemosynary" is one under. stood by persons possessing a good education und in certain circles (those connected with the administration of charities, as well as those taking an interest in the social problems of the day): it may even be said to be in 'common use.' At the same time it cannot be said to be so as regards the mass of the people generally, and as a matter of fact it would not be understood by the majority of those to whom the word 'educated' can fairly be applied. My contention is that the Sanskrit words under discussion occupy very much the same position, i. e., they are understood and are, perhaps, in common use in a few small educated
165
SANSKRIT WORDS IN THE BURMESE LANGUAGE. A REJOINDER.
The first of the objections of Mr. Taw Sein-Ko to what was said under the above head ante, Vol. XXII. p. 162, is a reiterated assertion that the words in dispute are in common use. He wisely, however, only quotes in support of this a small number of them, and, even of these, there are but one or two, on which I do not still join issue with him. Surely, Mr. Taw Sein-Ko does not mean to assert that the ordinary Burman uses chaǹkram when he says. he is going for a walk, or drap when he hints that his neighbour's ideas as to his position in society are not warranted by the facts of the case. In the first word (adhvan) taken seriatim Mr. Taw Sein-Ko practically gives his case away, for the only case he is able to adduce of this word in conversation is in a purely theological connec-being "based on the mere morphology of words," tion, and that too in one, which, unless the Burmese think a great deal more about their prospects after this life than strikes the ordinary non-Buddhist observer, is hardly likely to be of every-day occurrence. Moreover, there are plenty of more common equivalents for the meaning mentioned for adhvan.
Coming to the next word (abhisheka), Mr. Taw Sein-Ko's disparagement of my argument as
1 As regards mor in Mrang: mir, I rather doubt whether it is really an equivalent for Méru. The r is probably added; cf. the spelling mogh the sky, where the gh is added on a false analogy to the Pali megha. [Mr. Houghton will find it difficult to persuade scholars of the truth of the last assertion: e. g., Bur. RajagroSkr. Rajagriha. ED.]
2 [Does not this argument cut both ways? If the
circles, but that the great majority are truly "caviare to the general."
As regards the word amraik, Mr. Taw Sein-Ko has not given a tittle of evidence in support of his assertion that amrita became amrók in Northern India, nor has he in any way attempted to controvert my argument, based on philological grounds, as to its late introduction. Had he done so, it might have been worth while to diseuss seriously the original sound in the Burmese language of that vowel, which is now sounded as
when final and ai when penultimate. There are excellent grounds for supposing that neither of these two sounds represent the former pronunciation, but it is scarcely necessary to enter on the matter here.1
is not very clear, nor does he appear to have, in any way, controverted it. My position in reference to this, as well as to other words, is that the Burmese language has changed its pronunciation since it was reduced to writing, and that foreign words, transliterated according to the first pronunciation, were introduced before those transliterated according to the later one, and no amount of assertions as to the use of particular words avails, in any way, to controvert this argument. The only adequate reply to it possible would be the production of an old, extensive, and fairly popular literature, the approximate dates of the different works being known, proving the contrary, and there seems little possibility of such a literature ever being unearthed."
Merely observing that the two examples quoted of the common use' of chakra by Mr. Taw Sein-Ko shew evidently, as has been suggested above, that his ideas and mine as to what words can be legitimately so described are widely dif ferent, I would pause to inquire his objection to my expression "the old speakers of Pali." Perhaps "those who spoke Pâli in former times might be better turned, but is not this purely verbal quibbling ps
The authorities as to the supposed Sanskrit word chankram seem to be divided. Perhaps some
literature which will disprove Mr. Houghton's argument is wanting, the proof of it must also be wanting.ED.]
8 [But did Mr. Taw Sein-Ko mean any verbal quibbling? Was he not poking fun at Mr. Houghton for supposing that there were "old speakers of Pili," or "those who spoke Pâli in former times," in such a connection as the present PED.]
