tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post2233368762278431915..comments2024-03-22T14:47:42.501+02:00Comments on Tibeto-logic: Hooking and Keeping YangUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-48355414516382133582017-11-14T18:26:40.996+02:002017-11-14T18:26:40.996+02:00I should have supplied this link to a remarkable e...I should have supplied this link to a remarkable essay by Charles Ramble on the Yang Summoning rite:<br />http://kalpa-bon.com/index.php/rituals/gyang-gug/introductionDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-18420662574249691162017-09-06T22:26:36.772+03:002017-09-06T22:26:36.772+03:00Thanks for these comments.
Yes, I have read Beckw...Thanks for these comments.<br /><br />Yes, I have read Beckwith's ḥarya paper, which is quoted on the 'belly' comment thread. The Tibetan and Chinese parts of his argument depend on <i>rgya</i> being the result of a metathesis, and Beckwith's own reconstructions for Old Chinese.<br /><br />I didn't mean to ask for your views on where rgya 'China' comes from; my impression is that most people (not including Beckwith) agree that the matter can't be decided at the present state of scholarship. I was simply inviting any vaguely <i>rgya</i>-relevant comments at your discretion, which you have indeed provided.<br /><br />On the Zhangzhung side of things, I was thinking of <i>lgyam</i> (which I stupidly misspelt in my previous comment), which ('dubiously') could be paired with Tib. rgyas 'wide' based on one occurrence of the technical term <i>pra lgyam dub</i> ~ Tib. <i>phra rgyas dug</i> (Skt. <i>anuśaya</i>). This is from your Zhangzhung dictionary. There is some discussion of this issue in <a href="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00339148/document" rel="nofollow">this paper by Guillaume Jacques</a>, which argues that lgyam also admits another interpretation, 'increase'. For the 'wide' interpretation, he proposes possible cognates. I was wondering if you might have any new thoughts on that mysterious <i>lgyam</i>.Jichang Luluhttp://jichanglulu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-90882657963150722442017-09-06T12:13:59.893+03:002017-09-06T12:13:59.893+03:00PS: Here's the entry from the Zhangzhung Dicti...PS: Here's the entry from the Zhangzhung Dictionary, which does show that rkya is a well-documented ZZ word for 'lord, king.' But do ignore the gloss "chief; respected, honored; reverend," just the ruminating of Haarh.<br /><br />RKYA (rje) lord, chief; respected, honored; reverend. ZZH. See LZ 13. Humm1 512, 514. OZZ 29, 32. (rje, rgyal) lord, king. Mdzod. Zhu. Note that Chaudangsi word for ‘king’ is hya (perhaps explaining OT spelling of the title Lig mi rhya in place of the later Lig mi rgya??). See skya. See wer zhi skya.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-61285634851824343252017-09-06T12:04:56.408+03:002017-09-06T12:04:56.408+03:00Dear J.,
Oh my, good gracious no. I’m not going ...Dear J., <br /><br />Oh my, good gracious no. I’m not going to contribute to that maddeningly complicated discussion on rgya. I'd recommend reading and absorbing the very recent paper by Chris Beckwith on the subject. If you can excuse the loss of diacritical marks, here is the reference, although I'm sure you know of it: “The Earliest Chinese Words for 'The Chinese': The Phonology, Meaning & Origin of the Epithet Harya ~ Ârya in East Asia,” Journal Asiatique, vol. 304 no. 2 (2016), pp. 231-248. Of course in the Zhangzhung royal title Lig-mi-rgya, the rgya (or perhaps more correctly rkya) does stand for 'lord' (Tib. rje), and the whole title just means "Lord of Existence" (or, to give it in Tibetan, where it makes more sense: Srid-pa'i Rje). Okay, enough of that for now. I've often been puzzled about the rgya in Rgya-nag (China) and Rgya-gar (India), like just about everyone who has ever studied Tibetan. But I don't have arguments of my own to offer right now.<br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-29701137936224026732017-09-05T19:21:59.021+03:002017-09-05T19:21:59.021+03:00...which Shangri-la theme was also treated on Lang......which Shangri-la theme was also <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=28689" rel="nofollow">treated</a> on Language Log.<br /><br />For all I know, the Shambhala sign remains unexplained. As in, how was that string of faux-Tibetan produced, copied and executed as a (presumably expensive) sign? <br /><br />Your post also contains a mystifying transcription, that <i>yu'u dzi</i>. So many questions!<br /><br />On sheep: it has been proposed (at least by Laurent Sagart) that <i>g.yang</i> could be a cognate of Chinese 祥 <i>xiáng</i> 'auspicious'. In the Chinese graph, 羊 'sheep' is a phonetic element (which of course doesn't preclude a semantic connection, or an common etymology). So that hypothesis is also arguably evoked.<br /><br />Finally, if I may be allowed a shameless plug [if not, Dan, please feel free to excise this paragraph], some Tibetan issues are central to <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=34247" rel="nofollow">this post</a>. Any comments on <i>rgya</i> (such as any new insights on the 'dubious' connection between <i>rgyas</i> and Zhangzhung <i>lkyam</i>?) or the other topics brought up there would be much appreciated.<br /><br />Best,<br />J.Jichang Luluhttp://jichanglulu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-51906423591671345862017-09-04T11:48:19.694+03:002017-09-04T11:48:19.694+03:00Dear H.A., That's hilarious that it went up ju...Dear H.A., That's hilarious that it went up just yesterday. I personally don't see any problem with the expression g.yang-khyim. It's analogous to bla-mtsho, as in a lake [that is the abode of, or otherwise associated with] the bla-spirit. G.yang-khyim would just mean a house [that is the abode of] [livestock-associated] prosperity. Well, I'm not sure if we ought to take these often laughable trilingual signs very seriously (as in the blog entry "Signs of Shangri-la"). At least we may have to search for their 'meaning' in something besides their wording. Did what I just said mean anything at all?<br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-87927883914091770192017-09-04T08:16:34.060+03:002017-09-04T08:16:34.060+03:00Only for fun...
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/...Only for fun...<br /><br />http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=34330<br /><br />Hridayarthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10713264962804395563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-71312760696680207402017-09-03T21:36:24.905+03:002017-09-03T21:36:24.905+03:00Dear J.L., Thanks for your thoughts. It was fun to...Dear J.L., Thanks for your thoughts. It was fun to be reminded of that guest-blog by P'i-kuo That the Agi should have a more respectable meaning than wormwood goes without saying, so you must be right about that. And you may be the only one who caught my subtle reference (in the illustrations only) to the usual explanation for Tibetan g.yang, which is that it's just that Chinese word yáng for sheep. I didn't actually revive that old idea here because I wanted to present something different for a change. Of course abundance for nomads means plenty of livestock, and sheep and goats would be the most normal livestock to keep. The word 'wealth,' nor, can even be an ordinary word for livestock. And a phyug-po (rich man) means a person with a lot of phyug[s] (domestic animals). <br />Yours,<br />D.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-23824591856886306212017-09-03T19:21:45.688+03:002017-09-03T19:21:45.688+03:00Dear Dan,
Thanks for another very informative pos...Dear Dan,<br /><br />Thanks for another very informative post.<br /><br /><a href="https://tibeto-logic.blogspot.nl/2015/10/padampas-plant-community-pi-kuos.html#comment-form" rel="nofollow"><i>Artemisia</i> sp.</a>, we meet again. <i>Agi</i> ᠠᠭᠢ агь is indeed the Mongolian name for one or more species. One dictionary gives 小白蒿 <i>xiǎobáihāo</i> (<i>A. frigida?</i>), that might look like a 'small' (<i>xiǎo</i>) <i>A. vulgaris?</i> (<i>báihāo</i>). Presumably some of these <i>agi</i> plants are called མཁན་པ་ <i>khan pa</i> in Tibetan...<br /><br />Relevant proverb: <br /><br /><b>ᠠᠭᠢ</b> ᠰᠠᠢᠢᠲᠠᠢ ᠭᠠᠵᠠᠷ ᠠᠳᠤᠭᠤ ᠣᠯᠠᠨ<br />ᠠᠭᠠᠯᠢ ᠰᠠᠢᠢᠲᠠᠢ ᠺᠦᠮᠦᠨ ᠳᠤ ᠨᠥᠺᠦᠷ ᠣᠯᠠᠨ<br /><br /><i><b>agi</b> sayitai gazar aduɣu olan<br />aɣali sayitai kümün-dü nökör olan</i><br /><br /><b>Агь</b> сайтай газар адуу олон<br />Ааль сайтай хүнд нөхөр олон<br /><br />'A place with good <b>agi</b> has many horses,<br />a man of good disposition has many friends.'<br /><br />'<i>Artemisia</i> sp.' wouldn't normally be someone's name, even though the Chinese name for it, 艾 <i>ài</i>, is a Chinese surname (think Ai Weiwei 艾未未).<br /><br />There's another word <i>agi</i>, which might be the one here. I'm not sure it can be a personal name; have you encountered any such use? But it certainly is a title. It's a Mongolisation of the form <i>age</i> ᠠᠭᠡ (in Cyrillic spelling агь, indistinguishable from <i>agi</i>), which breaks Mongolian vowel harmony and comes from Manchu. It meant 'son of an emperor', but also apparently of other dignitaries, and also had a generalised use as an honorific ('sir, master'). Based on the Tibetan text, it's impossible to determine if the <i>age</i> or <i>agi</i> form was intended, since it also gives Mongolian <i>i</i>'s as <i>e</i>'s: ཆིང་གེས་ <i>ching ges</i> for ᠴᠢᠩᠭᠢᠰ <i>Činggis</i>, བནྡེ་ <i>bande</i> for ᠪᠠᠨᠳᠢ <i>bandi</i>. So we needn't worry about <i>age</i> vs <i>agi</i>. Do you think it would make sense to read 'a noble bandi' here?<br /><br /><i>Yu'u dzi</i> is mystifying. The emperor is certainly Yongzheng, as you say; the Galdan Shiretu went to Beijing in 1734/5, and was conferred the title 慧悟禅师 Huìwù chánshī, for which your source gives the Tibetan spelling (minus the last syllable, probably a scribal error). Now <i>yu'u dzi</i> does look like a transcription, but of 'Yongzheng'? I think the modern Tibetan spelling for Yongzheng is ཡུང་ཀྲིན་; I can see how the second syllable could be treated differently, but how could the first one be anything but ཡུང་? Do you have access to the original Tibetan text of the source for the biography?<br /><br /><i>Siregetü</i> ᠰᠢᠷᠡᠭᠡᠲᠦ Ширээт is indeed understood to be a translation of <i>khri pa</i>. In Chinese, the Galdan Shiretu lineage is also known as 赛赤活佛 <i>Sàichì</i> (< གསེར་ཁྲི་) <i>huófó</i>.<br /> <br />Are the sheep references just a pun on 羊 <i>yáng</i>, or something else?<br /><br />Jichang Luluhttp://jichanglulu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-23986107253407402272017-09-02T13:11:10.387+03:002017-09-02T13:11:10.387+03:00Dear Tsering, Changes made! Now let's try and ...Dear Tsering, Changes made! Now let's try and find an accurate translation for g.yang, as well as for some other difficult-to-translate words like dbang-thang, kha-rje, rlung-rta, she[d]-mong, phya, and so on. Hope all is well. Yours, DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-80610868900560754902017-08-28T19:50:12.979+03:002017-08-28T19:50:12.979+03:00Dear Dan,
Yes, 'taking a shot in the dark'...Dear Dan,<br />Yes, 'taking a shot in the dark' captures the meaning behind that phrase. Thanks a lot for the info on variation in spelling in older manuscripts. Talk to you soon.<br />Best,<br />TseringTsering Sampei Dondruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921673925717357418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-48682487343732766092017-08-28T10:02:14.197+03:002017-08-28T10:02:14.197+03:00Dear Tsering,
I'm with you. So right now I'...Dear Tsering,<br />I'm with you. So right now I'm convinced a better idiomatic translation in English would be 'taking a shot in the dark.' If you think that can work I'll change it right away. One thing: I've often noticed in older (pre-Mongol period) manuscripts the 'jal (or even 'byal) is found in place of mjal (noticed also in some early proper names like 'Khon and 'Chad-kha-ba / Mkhon & Mchad-kha-ba). But of course it's right that this variation in spelling isn't so likely to appear in recent centuries.<br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-6446789455250170442017-08-27T19:26:41.369+03:002017-08-27T19:26:41.369+03:00Dear Dan,
I understand how you are coming to this ...Dear Dan,<br />I understand how you are coming to this interpretation, I think the verb "'jal" here is critical to understand the phrase, it means "to measure" and which is very different from "mjal" for meeting etc. I understand the phrase as something like "aimless action/fruitless work/guessing work". You can find some contemporary use of the phrase here (http://gyalshenbondra.com/?tag=གོ་འཇོ་དབང་འདུས)<br />and here (http://www.khabdha.org/?p=56347&cpage=1), these passages might provide some contextual information (I actually use this passage when I write). Anyways, let me how you think. <br />Best,<br />TseringTsering Sampei Dondruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921673925717357418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-3390965547311096162017-08-27T14:47:23.653+03:002017-08-27T14:47:23.653+03:00Dear Tsering,
Thank you for your comment, and you...Dear Tsering,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment, and you are probably right. I'm still thinking about it. I was taking it to mean something close to 'dom-thug, which is defined in the Btsan-lha dictionary as 'dra mnyam gnyis phyogs gcig tu 'dzom pa, 'two like or similar things getting combined into one.' In what I still call the three-volume dictionary, you find this entry:<br /><br />•'dom thug 'dzoms te 'phrad pa ,... ngo shes pa mang po dus gcig tu 'dom thug pa byung song ,... las ka khag mang 'dom thug byung 'dug ,...<br /><br /> 'Dom may mean 'arm span' or 'fathom,' but it can also be a verb meaning 'coincide, come together, pile up, converge.' <br /><br />I'd like to know more about how you understand the usage of the expression. Would it mean to engage in a useless activity? (It does seem a little absurd to measure the pitch darkness with any sort of dimensional measuring system. Although I suppose we might want to measure the lumens of the darkness, if there were any.) Write back soon, we'll hammer this problem out.<br /><br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-53262022147001111622017-08-27T05:05:38.671+03:002017-08-27T05:05:38.671+03:00Dear Dan, Thanks a lot for this blog, I enjoyed re...Dear Dan, Thanks a lot for this blog, I enjoyed reading it very much. However, I want to make a comment about the expression mun nag 'dom 'jal or "bumping into one another in the dark" in your blog. It literally means "measuring darkness in 'dom [arm span]", so I think the translation is bit off. I have not had the chance to check C. Cüppers & P.K. Sørensen's A Collection of Tibetan Proverbs and Sayings. Tsering Sampei Dondruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921673925717357418noreply@blogger.com