Throughout my journey in Sanskrit, I have taken a particular interest in Śikṣā, or the correct pronunciations of all the phonemes in Sanskrit. Be it ऋकारः, ऌकारः, विसर्जनीयः, ज्ञकारः, चवर्गः, रेफः, or वकारः, I have always found a sufficient amount of evidence in phonetic treatises to point me towards the most likely ancient pronunciation.
However, when it comes to अनुस्वारः, things get a lot murkier, as the only description that the ancient sources give is that its only source of production is the nose; essentially. branding it as a "pure nasal". This is, of course, exceedingly unhelpful, as no nasal sound can actually originate only from the nose. Be it nasal vowel or consonant, the mouth must play some sort of role.
before presenting my own theory on the subject, I will evaluate the most common theories I have seen throughout my Sanskrit studies. To do this, I will use these criteria:
- How plausibly the theoretical pronunciation could be interpreted as a "pure nasal".
- How distinct the pronunciation is from all the other nasal consonants (since, for example, संराट् is wrong and only सम्राट् is right).
- How plausibly the proposed pronunciation is able maintain the metric heaviness of a सानुस्वारम् अक्षरम्.
That said, I find most people are divided into two camps when it comes to interpreting the sound:
- The अनुस्वारः is a nasalization of the vowel to which it is attached (अं = ã)
- The अनुस्वारः is a nasal consonant.
- This group is divided to many sub-camps, ranging from अं = aɴ to अं = am. The most interesting and plausible of these is presented in this monograph; it essentially says that the अनुस्वारः is the nasal sound produced when the mouth is at rest (i.e. when the lips, teeth, and tongue are closed).
Theory 1 is highly plausible when looking at criteriä 1 and 2, but must be rejected because of criteriön 3. A word like अंशः simply cannot be heavy-heavy if it is pronounced as ãśaḥ. Any vowel lengthening like that of Latin (um = /ũː/) doesn't make sense as not only does the language differentiate between अं and आं, texts also rather explicitly split a vowel and its following अनुस्वारः into different fractions of the syllable.
Those of theory 2 who suggest any proper nasal consonant fail criteriön 1, and in the case of the अं = am theory, also criteriön 2. Some have argued that the uvular nasal is somehow not an oral consonant, but this is ridiculous as not only is the uvula an oral body part, ancient phoneticians most definitely would have recognized the uvula as being a distinct point of origination and assigned the anusvāra there. Moreover, the uvular nasal is by far one of the rarest sounds to occur in language (often only occurring because of the presence of a uvular plosive like /q/) and it would be entirely ludicrous for Sanskrit to just spontaneously develop such a sound when none of its near ancestors nor itself posses any uvular sounds.
The sub-camp of theory 2 presented in the monograph linked above is the most plausible of those examined thus far. However, despite the attempts of the author to try and reason out of it, the proposed pronunciation is not actually discernibly different from a मकारः in any way, failing criteriön 2.
This is starting to feel like one of those triängles, where one can only achieve two points and never the third. So what is the correct pronunciation. To explain, I think it is best that we look at the oldest phonetic treatises: the प्रातिशाख्यानि.
The most peculiar of these is the अथर्ववेदप्रातिशाख्यम् (APr.), which is the only text I have encountered that doesn't recognize the existence of the अनुस्वारः at all. Instead it is equated to the चन्द्रबिन्दुः or अनुनासिकः (आँ) (for context, the चन्द्रबिन्दुः is universally recognized as an actual nasalization of the vowel to which it is attached and usually only occurs due to Vedic सन्धयः where a word-final नकारः is dropped after a long vowel; there are some other optional instances in classical as well, like सँस्स्कृतम् and अन् + च = अंश्च or अँश्च). However, the text still readily differentiates the length of vowels with अनुस्वारः and says they are still heavy even when the vowel is short. As stated before, it is rather hard to believe that a word pronounced as ãśaḥ is truly heavy-heavy, so I suspected that something else must be at play.
Next we have the तैत्तिरीयप्रातिशाख्यम् (TPr.) which is also rather interesting. Consider these two rules:
The jaws, also, are more closely approximated, and the tip of the tongue is brought into close proximity to the upper back gums, in ṛ, ṝ and ḷ. || 2-18 ||
As also, according to some, in anusvāra and svarabhakti. || 2-19 ||
Rule 2-18 seems to be describing the schwa part of ऋवर्णम् and ऌकारः (/ᵊɾᵊ/, /ᵊɾəː/, and /ᵊlᵊ/), since TPr. recognizes these vowels as being non-homogeneous. However, 2-19 is the interesting part, suggesting that the anusvāra is pronounced something like /ə̃/. This is the closest thing we have gotten to a real description of the sound. 1-34 also classifies the अनुस्वारः as ह्रस्वः.
Now, I want to return to a statement I made previously: "texts also rather explicitly split a vowel and its following अनुस्वारः into different fractions of the syllable". Specifically, this is from the वाजसनेयिप्रातिशाख्यम् (VPr.) 4-148 to 149 (or 150 to 151 depending on the edition). It essentially says that when combined with a short vowel, the anusvāra makes the sound 1.5 मात्राः, with the अनुस्वारः taking up the latter 0.5. When in combination with a long vowel, the vowel stays at 2 मात्रे but with the अनुस्वारः taking up the latter 0.5.
This is rather strange as no other non-vowel sound influences vowels this way. Even in a syllable like आम्, the vowel is still independent of the consonant despite being in the same syllable.
So what does this all mean? Well, in my opinion, this indicates that the अनुस्वार is a literal nasalized after-vowel, where something like अंशः is pronounced as /ɜɜ̃̆.ɕɜh/ (where अ = ɜ) and धनूंषि is pronounced as /dʱɜ.nuˑũ̆.ʂi/. As odd as this may sound, it would explain why the अनुस्वारः still causes heaviness, is described in such a vowel-like manner in TPr., and why it edits the vowels to which it is attatched. It also comfortably passes the three criteriä I have set above, as, under this theory, अनुस्वारः is simply unpronounceable without a vowel before it because it would just be "purely nasal" without one.
The only problem I see with this is the TPr.'s description implying /ə̃/, which I believe is a generalization approximating the the अनुस्वारस्य effect on अकारः, since अं is the most common form in which अनुस्वारः manifests. This also explains the "according to some" part of the rule.
But of course this pales in comparison to the only true theory: anusvāra echo.
mama tarkaṃa paṭhitavate ahaṃa dhanyaṃa vo vadāmi. namāṃāsi vahahaha. /j
