[Buddha-l] FW: H-ASIA: Tibetan language --Tibetan termsfor"autonomy" & "independence" --query on usage

[jkirk]

Jim--thanks a bunch
Joanna 

-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of
Blumenthal, James
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] FW: H-ASIA: Tibetan language --Tibetan
termsfor"autonomy" & "independence" --query on usage

Joanna,
Generally the Tibetan term rang dbang is translated as
"independent" and  rang rgyud is translated as "autonomous".
Best,
Jim Blumenthal


James Blumenthal
Oregon State University
Department of Philosophy
102-A Hovland Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331
USA



-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com on behalf of jkirk
Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 8:03 AM
To: 'Buddhist discussion forum'
Subject: [Buddha-l] FW: H-ASIA: Tibetan language --Tibetan terms
for"autonomy" & "independence" --query on usage
 
This question raises some interesting, er, questions-- I'd love
to know what the Tibetan language specialists on this list think.
Is it true "that the Tibetan lexicon made no distinction between
the English words for 'autonomy' and 'independence''' ?

Hoping for replies, Joanna K.
==========================================================


H-ASIA
Augsut 12, 2008

Query on Tibetan language usage - "autonomy" and "independence"
*****************************************************************
*******
From: Vincent K Pollard <pollard at hawaii.edu>

Dear Colleagues,

In his article "Official Policies and Covert Programs; The U.S.
State Department and the Tibetan Resistance," _Journal of Cold
War Studies_, vol. 5, no. 3 (Summer 2003), John Kenneth Knaus
refers to "the misgivings of the consulate translator, George
Patterson [in Calcutta, India], who warned [in 1951] that the
Tibetan lexicon made no distinction between the English words for
'autonomy' and 'independence'' (p. 62).

[Based on information supplied earlier in Knaus's article, the
bracketed material in that quotation has been supplied by me.]

In support of the statement quoted above, Knaus cites a letter
written by Patterson to him forty-five years after the event --
on 2 April 1996.

Was Patterson correct?

And is this an accurate summary today? In other words, has
language usage in Tibetan changed in the intervening fifty-seven
years?

                               
Vincent K. Pollard University of Hawai'i - Manoa

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pollard/Asia.html


_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l