New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Re: How do you pronounce the name Jyoti?
in reply to a message by fablesbyaesop
Like you would say it in English. The o is similar to the vowel in English go, and the i is short as in hit. In vedic intonation, there was a stress on the o, stress has disappeared in many modern Indian languages, and in some Indian languages, all vowels are of the same short quantity. The y is also like in English, but as the last part of a conjunct in an initial position, it only colours the vowel slightly, and most people will not notice if you omit it.
Of course the y was vitally important in the history of the word! The j arose as a palatalization of the d in words like div, to shine, and dyuti, shine, (though the former has a strong day/sky/divine connotation) which are in turn cognate with Zeus, Jove, Tiw, and Tyr. The palatal vowel i/semi vowel y was responsible for the d to j change.
Of course the y was vitally important in the history of the word! The j arose as a palatalization of the d in words like div, to shine, and dyuti, shine, (though the former has a strong day/sky/divine connotation) which are in turn cognate with Zeus, Jove, Tiw, and Tyr. The palatal vowel i/semi vowel y was responsible for the d to j change.
1
Replies
Sorry, I see I missed the pronounciation of t in my post.
In north Indian languages there is a contrast between dental (think French te) t and alveolar T (as in English take), and between unaspirated t/T and aspirated th/Th. (Thus, altogether there are t, T, th, and Th; all unvoiced, i.e. different from d, D, dh, and Dh). English (or any Western European language that I know) does not distinguish all these, and that is the root of the problem. Often English t is close to Sanskrit alveolar unaspirated T and th is close to Sanskrit dental aspirated th. Unfortunately jyoti needs the dental unaspirated (i.e. very little breath, but soft) t.
To add to this, the South Indian languages do not always maintain the aspirated/unaspirated distinctions of Sanskrit. So, they transcribe Sanskrit alveolar T/Th as t when writing in English, and t/th as th.
Sorry, the explanation got a bit messy ...
In north Indian languages there is a contrast between dental (think French te) t and alveolar T (as in English take), and between unaspirated t/T and aspirated th/Th. (Thus, altogether there are t, T, th, and Th; all unvoiced, i.e. different from d, D, dh, and Dh). English (or any Western European language that I know) does not distinguish all these, and that is the root of the problem. Often English t is close to Sanskrit alveolar unaspirated T and th is close to Sanskrit dental aspirated th. Unfortunately jyoti needs the dental unaspirated (i.e. very little breath, but soft) t.
To add to this, the South Indian languages do not always maintain the aspirated/unaspirated distinctions of Sanskrit. So, they transcribe Sanskrit alveolar T/Th as t when writing in English, and t/th as th.
Sorry, the explanation got a bit messy ...
1