I've heard that one of our most
powerful men one time condemned attempts to study Myanmar-sar
abroad as he had conceived of such initiatives. Though that was
many decades ago, I'm sure he would have known that the science of
linguistics existed a long time before his patriotic gesture.
With a plenty of free time to kill (in
terms of day to day assessment; it will be silly to think in terms of
weeks and months, let alone years for a guy of my age) I tried
reading a bit about linguistics. I'm perfectly aware that my day to
day time frame would not allow me to become a linguist of any sort.
Well I came across concepts like scripts, phones, phonemes,
philology, phonology and phonetics, lexicography, epigraphy, and
those other unfamiliar terms. I thought I could grasp what they
intend to mean and, that much, I am happy. On the other hand I am
aware that I am losing control of my STM (short term memory) and as I
ramble with readings of such new ideas, I often go into dreams.
One of my dreams was the coming of age
of a Myanmar Language Department at the University of Yangon (and
other Universities) where whatever science, art or other discipline
will be used by all lovers of this language to come together to study
and, simply, enjoy. And I also dream of an institute of linguistics
with all its modern trappings to learn and do research on past and
present languages of South East Asia, including the languages of our
own minorities and decipher a lost language like Pyu.
Quite a while ago one of my younger
friends said people graduated out of medical and engineering schools
here in Myanmar consider themselves a class apart from others. While
we have seen our engineering graduates toiling away in Singapore (and
may be in other places) we also have seen medical graduates choosing
to work as businessmen in different areas locally. Currently we see a
significant number of medical graduates happily working in national
politics or as various pundits in NGOs or INGOs. Well, if you don't
see such examples as careers misplaced you would be grateful that the
cream of our society choose to work in those areas where any other
ones among our lesser beings would certainly fail. Nevertheless, what
I overheard recently from the conversation of a mother with her
friend was baffling. It seemed that one of her daughter is attending
medical school and the mother was bitterly against her daughter's
boyfriend. The climax of the story is that this boy asked his
girlfriend to convince her mother that though he would be graduated
as a medical doctor he would be going into business as he is
perfectly aware that he wouldn't become rich with medical practice!
Has this to do with children's or parents' (common?) mindsets of
these times?
Weeks ago I've read a newspaper article
lamenting that no one has enrolled for the undergraduate COE
programme for History at the main campus of the revitalized Yangon
University. I tried looking for more information at YU website. I
tried to find the enrollment information. There was none. May be I
didn't look hard enough. Anyway, I suppose I found more information
on the Wiki page than on the University's own sites. Then I was
looking for more information about the Myanmar Language programme and
the participants and professors and their research. There isn't much
either. I'm a somewhat old fashioned guy. But I am not as old
fashioned as my godgrandpa who utterly refused to believe that man
reaches the moon. I am illiterate in linguistics but wish to pick up
scraps of knowledge so as to be proud of our people and our languages
without being completely blind
about what I am to be proud of.
Then there was
this controversy between the Tagaung and Kyaukse theories of the
origin of the Bamar people. I don't know if this controversy is still
current and remain unresolved. If so, I wonder if DNA analysis would
not resolve the controversy once and for all. DNA analysis may also
offer the clues for solving the mystery of how the Pyu people
vanished. Isn't it high time to do away with politically loaded
pseudo-science from our lives?
As
I browsed the web content on Myanmar script I was led to believe that
the rounded form of the script evolved when we started writing
(inscribing) on the palm-leaves with the stylus. It was argued that
the scribes could not use the preexisting
form of squarish scripts
as we see with stone inscriptions. It is easy to see that squarish
forms would tend to tear the palm-leaves more than the roundish form
of the script. For ordinary people in those days it is hard for me to
believe that their need for day-to-day writing could only be served
by the stone slabs as the medium. Also, wouldn't it be hard for
inscribers to compose the inscriptions in their heads or asked others
to dictate as they work? Alternatively, could they not be using the
drafts inscribed on palm-leaves? If so, rounded form of script
wouldn't be the primary ones?
On
the other hand imagine that a painted
form of palm-leaf
manuscripts where text had been written with a (reed) pen existed
where squarish form of Burmese (Myanmar) script and that they were
found to be predating the rounded scripts inscribed by stylus. Then
certainly the square script came first. Or was it?
The above is an example of the earliest
surviving Indian painting in existence and date from the late Pala
period (1000-1200 AD) according to Sacred
Leaves: The Conservation and Exhibition of Early Buddhist Manuscripts
on Palm Leaves by
Yana Van Dyke.
And “Palm
leaves have traditionally been written upon in two ways: either the
text has been incised into the surface or written on the surface.
...The other technique of writing on the surface is with a pen, most
likely made of reed, utilizing an ink composed of flame carbon with a
binder. The smooth, slick, oiled, flat, and dense epidermal layer
allows for the reed pen to flow smoothly and distribute the ink
fluidly and uniformly on its surface.”
Do we have such a tradition of painting
and writing on palm-leaves? I don't know, but I felt there is no
reason that we shouldn't have any.
The following observation from Lammerts
strengthen this view that writing with some kind of pen or painting
with brushes existed in the Bagan period:
10
The Burmese epigraph cited in note 7 mentions the donation of 55 kam
kū chān, which in later Burmese, refers to steatite or soapstone,
most commonly associated with writing on black parabaik, but also
used on metal, lacquered, or gilded manuscripts. It is not entirely
certain that the term has the same meaning here, but it is evident
that this is an implement used for writing on parabaik held by a
cartridge (kam kū tam 1 kleññ), as were soapstone crayons in later
eras. The inscription further mentions a number of minerals such as
copper, sulfite and minium, which were used to make colored ink or
paint, although no pen- or brush-like implements are named.
Note 7 mentioned that the medium for
writing “parabaik” was found at least in one stone inscription
but wasn't clear what the material was:
Note
that there is only one epigraph from 1223 documenting the use of
purabuit and from the context, it is not entirely clear that the
material is paper. In later eras, the appellation “parabaik” was
also applied to supports such as metal, wood, or leather.
Thinking of the stone inscriptions,
wouldn't had some king or abbot or noble man asked for a scaled down
version or a full sized clay-slab model before giving the green
light? If none of the half-finished rejected stone inscription could
be found, that could mean that draft text on palm leaf or clay slab
models had probably been used. Nevertheless, linguists and historians
may find these musings idiotic and easily refutable and then I would
be more than happy to learn of these.
Looking for the
clue for introduction of linguistics science into our land, I found
that (the first ever or just an early?) seminar on linguistics was
held on March 1-3, 1954 by the Burma Research Society in Rangoon.
Anna Allot in “Professor
U Pe Maung Tin (1888—1973): The Life and Work of an Outstanding
Burmese Scholar” noted that:
I
was myself taking part in this seminar and have a record of it in my
diary, where I have noted, “This lecture was chiefly about the
topics U Pe Maung Tin and I had talked about when reading together
his Burmese Syntax: about subject, object, noun-verbs, and submerged
subjects. He did start by saying that Burmese consists basically of
nouns, verbs, and particles.”
Also, Allot's paper contained the
details on this seminar that appeared in an article in The Nation
newspaper of March 6, 1954.
I wonder if our linguists have come a
long way since this groundbreaking seminar.
