^ Request for Ishwa
[quote name='Ishwa' date='11 July 2010 - 05:10 AM' timestamp='1278804738' post='107396']
The eye-witness is Pelsaert, the Dutch/Flemish employer of the Dutch factory in Agra.
[...]
I know for sure that there are more lies about Agra city in the standard books, one of which is also given in Pelsaerts account: the eastern bank of Agra city above the side of I'timaduddaulah's tomb upto the Mehtab Bagh opposite the Taj was a well built en well populated city (!) with many garden retreats and some palaces, called Sikandra (spelled by Pelsaert as Tsekandra and even Tschandra elsewhere. The last gives possibly a faint name Chandra.)!
[/quote]Chandra is definitely a possibility. Not faint at all.
There is no "Ch" sound in Dutch (I mean the let's call it 'English' ch sound - which is also there in Samskritam. What's written as "ch" in Dutch is a different sound). In Dutch, when it encounters the 'English 'ch' sound - it being alien - it can be either
1. approximated in attempts to phonetically convey this foreign/unDutch ch sound - with techniques like "tsch" as above
(will happen only when they want to preserve the sound in the original language)
OR
2. the 'ch' sound is entirely replaced - as is done in pronunciation - with the subconscious, non-existent-in-official-Dutch, approximate* "sh" sound. (I think the pronunciation of ch as sh is a French-derived behaviour, but sh is otherwise not Dutch either.)
E.g. in Dutch, the starting sound of the foreign names Chantal, Charlotte are pronounced some sort of sh. (In such cases, the English also say the (real) sh for these non-English names, rather than pronounce the ch that's used in their spelling. It's again French-derived behaviour.) The Dutch also make their approximated sh sound for China, as the French do. (Meanwhile the English pronounce China with the usual English pronunciation for ch. But Dutch and French are consistent: what's written ch is pronounced as sh - well, as close as an avg Dutch person will get to sh.)
About 1:
Actually, the closest sound that Dutch people naturally make to what English means with Ch is written "Tj", like in the utterance Tja in Dutch. They never use this spelling for imported Ch sounds (i.e China is pronounced Shiena not Tjiena <- I mean the Latin J as it is in Dutch - which is the Y; there is no 'English' J sound in Dutch; the French 'J' sound is different from both). But, Tj is still not the same as Ch across every Dutch person's pronunciation (most pronounce Tja - where the ch sound is formed briefly in passing - as tchya, some as chya, a few as tcha, a very few as bordering cha), whereas English-speaking people who say Ch for China sound consistent in their Ch.
I think the reason for the range of sounds for this is because 'Tj' is an unofficial combine, hence no consensus. Just like sh is an undocumented 'sound' in Dutch. That's also why Chantal is not consistently pronounced Shantal in Dutch, since even the Sh is approximated by some - which sometimes really is a combine of sh+y rather than plain sh (hence the Flemish used to write the imported word shampoo phonetically as sjampoo <- obviously they don't write shy in Dutch phonetics precisely because the sh combination doesn't exist in Dutch). I.e. "Chantal" is pronounced Shyantal by some Dutch people and as Shantal by others. The way some Japanese say "L" consistently for every R/L encountered, while other Japanese say "R" consistently and some pronounce an intermediate sound to approximate an English R or L. Actually the Japanese case is more intriguing still, because another alternative that also frequently occurs is that certain Japanese people will say *either* R or L for one and the same word at different times (so it's not that these individuals are incapable of pronouncing either), *without* knowing they have pronounced two different letters each time: because, what sounds like an L and what sounds like an R to us is one and the same sound to them. Fascinating.
Anyway:
But I don't know that I've ever come across the Dutch thinking to approximate English "ch" with the impromptu/unofficial Dutch combine "tj" (as in Tja) - curious - a phonetic approximation which is arguably closer to ch than "sh/shy" is.
"Tsch", however, is something they would conceivably think of to write when they wish to approximate the *actual* ch sound as we know it (i.e. ch in English). Tsch doesn't sound remotely like a ch when pronounced in a Dutch way (Dutch sch is not the German sch, not even on ending -sch(e) when pronunciation changes in Dutch). But then, in English itself, "ch" is best approximated with "tsh" <- which doesn't work in Dutch because the Dutch don't officially/really have a "sh" sound. (See the problem? Ch is a nightmare to indicate in Dutch.)
So yes, when a Dutch person is trying to approximate a Bharatiya word with the Roman letters "Tschandra", it is quite possible that the original word was Chandra (if this were to be rendered in English).
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
Of course, as I said, this depends on what Dutch sounded like then.
[quote name='Ishwa' date='11 July 2010 - 05:10 AM' timestamp='1278804738' post='107396']
The eye-witness is Pelsaert, the Dutch/Flemish employer of the Dutch factory in Agra.
[...]
I know for sure that there are more lies about Agra city in the standard books, one of which is also given in Pelsaerts account: the eastern bank of Agra city above the side of I'timaduddaulah's tomb upto the Mehtab Bagh opposite the Taj was a well built en well populated city (!) with many garden retreats and some palaces, called Sikandra (spelled by Pelsaert as Tsekandra and even Tschandra elsewhere. The last gives possibly a faint name Chandra.)!
[/quote]Chandra is definitely a possibility. Not faint at all.
There is no "Ch" sound in Dutch (I mean the let's call it 'English' ch sound - which is also there in Samskritam. What's written as "ch" in Dutch is a different sound). In Dutch, when it encounters the 'English 'ch' sound - it being alien - it can be either
1. approximated in attempts to phonetically convey this foreign/unDutch ch sound - with techniques like "tsch" as above
(will happen only when they want to preserve the sound in the original language)
OR
2. the 'ch' sound is entirely replaced - as is done in pronunciation - with the subconscious, non-existent-in-official-Dutch, approximate* "sh" sound. (I think the pronunciation of ch as sh is a French-derived behaviour, but sh is otherwise not Dutch either.)
E.g. in Dutch, the starting sound of the foreign names Chantal, Charlotte are pronounced some sort of sh. (In such cases, the English also say the (real) sh for these non-English names, rather than pronounce the ch that's used in their spelling. It's again French-derived behaviour.) The Dutch also make their approximated sh sound for China, as the French do. (Meanwhile the English pronounce China with the usual English pronunciation for ch. But Dutch and French are consistent: what's written ch is pronounced as sh - well, as close as an avg Dutch person will get to sh.)
About 1:
Actually, the closest sound that Dutch people naturally make to what English means with Ch is written "Tj", like in the utterance Tja in Dutch. They never use this spelling for imported Ch sounds (i.e China is pronounced Shiena not Tjiena <- I mean the Latin J as it is in Dutch - which is the Y; there is no 'English' J sound in Dutch; the French 'J' sound is different from both). But, Tj is still not the same as Ch across every Dutch person's pronunciation (most pronounce Tja - where the ch sound is formed briefly in passing - as tchya, some as chya, a few as tcha, a very few as bordering cha), whereas English-speaking people who say Ch for China sound consistent in their Ch.
I think the reason for the range of sounds for this is because 'Tj' is an unofficial combine, hence no consensus. Just like sh is an undocumented 'sound' in Dutch. That's also why Chantal is not consistently pronounced Shantal in Dutch, since even the Sh is approximated by some - which sometimes really is a combine of sh+y rather than plain sh (hence the Flemish used to write the imported word shampoo phonetically as sjampoo <- obviously they don't write shy in Dutch phonetics precisely because the sh combination doesn't exist in Dutch). I.e. "Chantal" is pronounced Shyantal by some Dutch people and as Shantal by others. The way some Japanese say "L" consistently for every R/L encountered, while other Japanese say "R" consistently and some pronounce an intermediate sound to approximate an English R or L. Actually the Japanese case is more intriguing still, because another alternative that also frequently occurs is that certain Japanese people will say *either* R or L for one and the same word at different times (so it's not that these individuals are incapable of pronouncing either), *without* knowing they have pronounced two different letters each time: because, what sounds like an L and what sounds like an R to us is one and the same sound to them. Fascinating.
Anyway:
But I don't know that I've ever come across the Dutch thinking to approximate English "ch" with the impromptu/unofficial Dutch combine "tj" (as in Tja) - curious - a phonetic approximation which is arguably closer to ch than "sh/shy" is.
"Tsch", however, is something they would conceivably think of to write when they wish to approximate the *actual* ch sound as we know it (i.e. ch in English). Tsch doesn't sound remotely like a ch when pronounced in a Dutch way (Dutch sch is not the German sch, not even on ending -sch(e) when pronunciation changes in Dutch). But then, in English itself, "ch" is best approximated with "tsh" <- which doesn't work in Dutch because the Dutch don't officially/really have a "sh" sound. (See the problem? Ch is a nightmare to indicate in Dutch.)
So yes, when a Dutch person is trying to approximate a Bharatiya word with the Roman letters "Tschandra", it is quite possible that the original word was Chandra (if this were to be rendered in English).
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
Quote:even Tschandra elsewhere. The last gives possibly a faint name Chandra.)!Actually, it's even possible that back in the early 17th century, sch in Dutch - like say in Belgium - was pronounced closer to the German variant (where sh does exist in the form of sch). So if that holds, then Tsch could be pronounced Tsh and that is exactly the closest English phonetic approximation to ch.
Of course, as I said, this depends on what Dutch sounded like then.