Message-Id: <m0tFnS1-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 15 Nov 1995 14:21:00 -0500
Reply-To:     "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Pitch Accent
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199511150131.UAA28740@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Goran Topic
              on Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:27:56 MET)
Content-Length: 1341
Lines: 28

>Date:         Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:27:56 MET
>From: Goran Topic <topic%STUDENT.MATH.HR@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>X-To:         Lojban Listserv <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>

>I think, however, that
>Vedic Sanskrt has the true tonal accent (Ever heard Rg Veda? I didn't
>believe my professor when he told me that Rg Veda is recited rather than
>sung. I said, "But I heard melody!". He said, that's just accents. Sama
>Veda is Rg Veda in song."). AFAIK.

I heard a tape of someone reading a section of the ramayana in Sanskrit
(which is classical sanskrit, later than vedic), and it certainly sounded
chanted or melodic to me.

I'm reminded of the cantillations used in the Bible (partly because I'm in
the middle of reading a truly incredible book about all their details and
intricacies).  They were clearly put in for two purposes: as
sentence-structure punctuation marks, and also as melody (you can tell by
the way they're arranged and used that both aims are part of their
purpose).

It also reminds me some of the way the Talmud is often learned.  You read
it out loud, not with a true "melody", and there are no cantillations, but
intonation is very exaggerated, and you use a distinctive sing-song style.
It's impossible to miss if you ever hear it; it's not the kind of thing
that you can say it's just plain ordinary reading.

~mark