Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this two-hour Tibetan language instruction session, Ilia Durovic leads students through detailed grammatical analysis of a classical Tibetan text about Je Tsongkhapa’s studies under the master Rendawa. He walks through practical translation choices step by step: how to handle compound verbs and clauses; the critical distinction between differentiative and non-differentiative verbs and how it shapes case marking; proper use of ergative and absolutive cases with different verb types; genitive versus coordinate particles; and subtle interrogative pronouns like su versus kang. Throughout, Durovic emphasizes that translation requires conscious decisions about grammar before rendering into Tibetan, not after. He also addresses course logistics—balancing vocabulary memorization with translation pace, settling on one page per week at a minimum to finish the text within a reasonable timeframe. The tone is practical and exacting, aimed at serious students already receiving regular instruction.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2012-03-15.mp3
UUID: 694a9cad-497a-43c9-b426-cc5ce220ff3e
Teacher: Ilia S. Durovic
Collection: Tibetan Language
Date: 2012-03-15
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~4,625
Useful. It should be helpful. Is it worth considering us translating less into English and spending more time in the Well, if the translating takes your time away from the vocab, yes. I mean, I don’t know. I have no measure of how much time you can dedicate.
You know? When I was a student, it was full time. This was, you know, it was seven, eight hours a day. You know? Then, you know, let me know.
I mean, you should be memorizing five to 10 words a day every day. Then we stick then we Then I’ll give you I’ll give you one page a week, you know, but at a condition that you learn the vocab of the page and of the presentations. You know? But if we come to the page, we can help end the vocab. No.
No. No. Let’s not let’s not start renegotiating what was negotiated. You know? One page a word.
I’m happy to be Jewish, but you can be Armenian. No. No. No. No.
So we’ve gone from two pages to one page. Now, you know? Yeah. No. I think this is about talking to Anthony.
Said, basically, if if the trailer will be No. No. More time. Yes. Yes.
I if that’s if that’s the goal, I think it’s a good idea. One. You know? But you have to do the vocab. You see, normally, I would teach this course differently.
I can’t do it at TBI. Normally, it could be with exams. Then it’s through the exams you enforce vocab acquisition. That’s how it’s done. You’d have cited Chinese, all the languages.
You’d have one quiz a week, midterm, term, final. You know? This is a good start. This is a goal. Goal.
A This goal. Yourself, you have a rhythm. Have a rhythm. It’s every day. It’s not two days before the class.
Every day. You know? Every day. You know, the problem in that is you you all have different capacities and different amounts of time. Some are professionals, some are retired, then it’s very difficult to have one program which fits all.
Very difficult. The reason we are doing two pages a day is because I like to translate this text. One page a day, we’ll be doing this text for four years. Not quite. Not quite, but almost.
It’s 200 pages. Yeah. Should be. Should be. I’ve said it, but what I’m doing to you is I’m I’m basically through dictations in this, you are you’re gonna have a very hard time if you don’t learn the vocab.
You know? Then? You know? What more can I do? You know?
Very little. Then okay. Ralf did a little bit. Anthony, maybe, would you take the next paragraph for us starting with nonetheless? So what’s your mistake?
Wait. We’re translating this here, aren’t we? So what’s your subject? Subject is Is it? Yeah.
An implicit subject. Right? He. He is your subject here. Just in other words.
Very good. What’s your verb? Give rise to. Yeah. To give rise to.
Then you have subsidiary verbs, don’t you? Which are? Yeah? So to give rise to depends how you choose to translate it. He.
Subject. Okay. What’s your object in this sentence? In English. It’s an object clause, right?
Object clause. Now you have subsidiary verbs. We may or may not translate them as verbs to study. And mastering, technically, it’s a present participle. It’s also a verb.
But whether we translate it by a verb or not in Tibetan is open to question. Right? Again. Yes. Yes.
Now Clauses, yes. Nonetheless, what’s your next big clause? You sure? Exactly. You can.
Then the question you have to address which is unclear in English grammar, but you have to decide before you translate in Tibetan is is the great hardship applying only to this subclause studying the view or also to mastering the meaning? In other words, do you have this or do you have this? Now that you have to decide before you translate. Did he undergo great hardship only to study the view or did he undergo it to study the view and to master logic? Reason dictates Both.
Right? It’s ambiguous, but reason dictates it’s both. Alright? If you do not make these decisions, you can’t translate correctly. Right?
So then you have to slightly get it going quite much, it would be one clause. So you have one I will use square brackets to make things somewhat clearer. You have one large sub clause here or one large clause and this clause includes one major sub clause to study the view extensively at the feet of the noble Rendawa and to master or mastering the reasonings of Buddhist logic. Okay? Now your verb still sticking to English could actually be very well understood to be to be unable to give rise to.
Compound. A compound verb. Exactly. Compound verb. Sorry for handwriting.
So he obviously is Now what sort a verb is it to give rise to? What’s the question you have to ask now? Yes. Exactly. That’s a big question.
This is a big question, isn’t it? Have checked in your verb tables? Yes. You have to look at the Tibetan at present. Choose a Tibetan word.
Exactly. At present, it’s your call. I used so you you can you have several forms of the verb You have causative and resultative forms. Right? You have differentiative and non differentiative forms.
Then you have to decide what you are trying to convey here. That is your call. So I used a causative and I think I used differentiative. I used kappa but this kappa, right? You have kappa and kappa.
So this kappa is causative and it’s differentiative. That’s very good. Yes, very good. So that you have to decide in function of your understanding of what happened, you know. Don’t want to see.
Why not? He did not see the view which understood. It’s not a precise translation but it’s close enough. Why not? Why not?
Anthony, what is your translation? What’d you do? I used to. Mhmm. Jewel?
Yes. How in Tibetan would you translate a sentence like this? You have a subject given in the first paragraph. In English, we just give the article, right? Definite article he.
What’s an option in Tibetan? Exactly. I mean, the subject is evident. You leave it out. That’s standard.
We’re talking about Je Tsongkhapa. It’s obviously Je Tsongkhapa who is the subject. Would you like to would you like me to type it out? If you give me your text, it’ll save us a fair bit of time. I should have typed it in actually.
You sent it to me. I don’t know why Tibetan fonts have to be tiny. Okay. I’ll correct the spelling where need be. But if there are grammatical mistakes, which I’m not saying there are, I will keep them.
So you tell you tell me is unable an adverb? Is able an adverb? What is able in English? Able is a verb. Right?
I am able. I’m so unable is a verb. Then it doesn’t it’s a verb. Right? Typically, an adverb in English has y at the end.
Quickly, strongly, extensively, fast, you know, etcetera. So so you can perfectly repeat as you did but as we said it is not necessary. You can drop it also. So what is meaning? Yes.
What does it really mean? In addition. In addition. Is in addition what we are saying here? Not really.
What are we saying? Despite. Despite. So it’s not. It would be yang.
Young. But you wouldn’t put yang here. You’d put it somewhere else in the sentence. Would be in addition. You expect something which is concordant with what was said previously.
Right? Yes. Very good. Ultra classical. Ultra classical, but very good.
It’s like, you know, this is pre eleventh century Tibetan written by, you know, a statesman, you know, but why not? Yes. Yes. Very nice. So what was the verb you settled upon, Anthony then?
Then within this clause, your subclause, we’ll take Anthony’s text as is. For a reason. Well Reasons. Yes. But you see, he underwent great study to study the view.
Right? So where’s the view here? I see. Okay. So step by step here.
So Ta yang, we said probably a bit dodgy. Right? A bit dodgy. Then unnecessary but if we choose to include it, what do we have to ask? Yes.
What’s the verb in your construction here not in what I I wrote. What’s the verb? But here specifically in this clause, it’s right? So to Anthony chose to translate this as a verb to become the lord of to master. What sort of verb
Would it be? Yeah. That’s alright. Is it is it a verb of motion? Is it a verb Motion of So you have to put an ergative, right?
It’s if you’re going to put so you see, it’s very practical if you can drop these things. Right? You have one mistake less to worry about. Now here, you wanted to translate the reasonings of Buddhist logic. What is that?
These are Buddhists of reasoning and logic. So your genitive is upside down. It’s a very common mistake for an English speaker. So what would be the correct form just using your own construction? The correct form would be?
Yes. Exactly. Right? Etcetera, right? So this is you have to be very, very careful here.
Word order will play tricks on you over and again, right? Very classically you choose to use it’s technically it’s not a genitive. It’s it’s a particle which is also used for the genitive but here oh, forget. Forgive me. What were you going to do?
I see. You consider this a which. Okay. Okay. That’s more like it.
It’s not a Okay. So it’s it looks like a genitive. It’s not a genitive. It’s a conjunction of coordination or concession here. However, why not?
Then what did we say in English? He studied the view. Study. Oh, okay. This is my fault.
This is. You wrote probably, and I typed. No. No. I didn’t exactly what I wrote, but it’s Okay.
Then it’s it’s Right? So lab is in study. Yes. Very good. Four.
An antrum. Yes. So that’s very good. Very good. Having undergone great hardship, So your here is your concessive.
Yes. In the past tense. Excellent. So here the question is, if you read if you write what’s the problem? Sure.
This is Anthony’s translation. Then we will do another one later. Ablative clause. Then your verb. Therefore this is obviously your adverb preceding the verb in Tibetan verb in marker.
Verb, past tense, right? Very good work on the tenses, Anthony, by the way. The problem is that the verb Not really. The problem with is that is an uncontrolled process of arising. It’s an involuntary verb.
It’s nonvolitional. It’s really an auxiliary in many senses of the term. Then what is the meaning here? It’s not that rain didn’t fall. Yeah.
There’s effort involved. So is it appropriate to use such a verb here? What’s a verb you should use? Then you can choose to use the causative or the resultative You could. Depends what you want to emphasize.
Causative is better here because you are clearly trying to convey effort and the means used, you know, that is not appropriate. Yeah. Jaw is not appropriate. The Inanimate objects. I honestly don’t know.
I mean, there’s a there’s a ton of debates about Juma and Songa in Tibetan. Depending on the author you read, there is a clear connection between the two auxiliaries and the perfect usage. In animate objects, no. Normally, no. Then you want to use a different verb here.
Now let me show you an alternate translation. It’s very creditable piece of work Anthony. Very creditable. Can I? So if you have your English text in front of you, nonetheless having undergone great hardship to study the view extensively at the feet of the noble Rendawa and mastering the reasonings of Buddhist logic.
Having become what? As the lord of Buddhist reasoning, at the feet of in other words, under. At the at the feet, it’s always at the feet of. At the feet of the noble Rendawa, what did he study? So it’s Tsongkhapa we’re speaking of, therefore we use a honorific to study.
Study what? The view. Right? Now you will see here I have not included right? But because the verb is what type of verb?
Yes. But of the two four divisions we always ask it is a differentiative verb. Therefore, is indeed, absolute and unmarked. Right? So even though I have not included in the ergative, I must keep tawa in the absolute and unmarked.
What is the hearer? Yes. Non case usage of the precisely. You could put put you know, but is quite appropriate here. Hardship.
This is an appropriate usage of hardship arose. It wasn’t just Tsongkhapa who chose, you know, to have hardship, but he had physical and mental hardship studying. Although it arose if Na Yang Na Ang is Na Yang. Right? Contraction.
Contraction of nayang. So this is the nonetheless at the beginning. Yeah. The nonetheless at the beginning comes here. Right?
This is the way you would do it in Tibetan. Then realization. The view understanding emptiness is what we wrote. So the view which realizes Then what verb to use? I basically used a causative form of He was unable to give rise to this view, obviously, finalizer because we have the end of the sentence.
As we said, the finalizers are facultative. You don’t have to put them. But here, this is the where a major ending. A good good place to put one. So you could be equal?
Then you could also put means power. Power. Two piece. You can put. Sorry?
Did you say soul? Sorry. No. I said an alternative way instead of using Tupa Yeah. You could use my goodness.
The typos. So this is not me. This is me. My apologies. It’s a program the the word processor is very odd.
You can also put new new for to be able to. Then you would need a different finalizer. Right? Yeah. Yeah.
That’s perfectly correct. Actually, it was alright to say, in some sense, it’s okay to put arise not able. Instead of you put born not able. The only problem there was usage of. Everything else was correct.
Everything else was correct. So No. That’s very good. Share in which sense? Which Yes.
The thing is it’s not quite an English verb. Right? We spoke of generating. Then the idea is to stick as close as possible to the English. And is also standardly used.
Is never used with. Is used with. If you’re going use a verb to understand, you have to use this. Uh-huh. With pleasure.
With pleasure. With pleasure. Then? Sorry. I’m doing this in a very Tibetan fashion from the end to the beginning, but it works better like that.
Alright? Now You have one major sub clause here ranging from this square bracket to this square bracket. Here you have a concessive, Here you have an ablative clause and here you have what as a clause? A Locative. Locative clause.
Right? Now here, we said that in this sentence, our English subject he, right, if you remember in the English is untranslated. If it were translated, it would be in which case? Verbative. Why?
Exactly. Verb Therefore, if we translated he, we would put in the instrumental. Right? But we don’t. It would be rather ugly in Tibetan, frankly.
It is very, very heavy. It’s unnecessary. But in English, we have if you really wanted to be precise, you put Now he studied. The first verb here is to study. We said this verb is a differentiative verb.
What is the object of this verb in English? The object is Reasonings. Reasonings and the view. Yes. Then that object in Tibetan goes to which case?
Differentiative. Absolute. Absolute because it’s the object. Object. Exactly.
So this is your object here. I should write this out. Ablative. Here and here is simply an adverb, nothing particular about it. We saw it couple times constructed with the ending.
Okay? This can be put anywhere you want in the sentence. Is basically an apposition. Apposition. Is in what case here?
Yes. So you have one subject in English which becomes an ergative in Tibetan which is the ergative if you want ruling at least two verbs in the sentence. And the absolutives and here, unmarked. Right? Now if here I used instead of a verb which was non differentiative, what would change?
Then could I have this could I have this as a translation of the subject? No. What do I have to do? I have to repeat the subject. I have to repeat the subject.
And what case does this go in? Yes. Exactly. Obviously, you don’t want to do this. Right?
Because it’s really ugly. But that’s what you go in between. Where would it go? Yes. So if the verb was not differentiative.
So you see how critical this issue of differentiativity is. Your whole syntax, it goes one of two ways. You know? Then I would propose that we read on perhaps. We don’t have a lot of time.
So what would I suggest is we’ll be done a bit with my translation and then we will finish next time if you agree. I think it’s very beneficial or be it tedious. You. Very interesting. No.
No. It’s it’s fun for me. You know? And dissatisfied the noble’s thought. Oh my.
So we’re in the middle of the English text. The noble thought. Then what is your verb here in English? To think. Some samsarace.
Right? So if you check is a differentiative verb. Verbs of thought can be differentiative. What verbs cannot be? Verbs of Emotion.
Emotion. Exactly. Because you have no control. You know? So right?
So then there’s a big question. A Tibetan makes makes there’s two forms. And colloquial Tibetan keeps a distinction. Normally, if in colloquial Uncontrolled or, you know, crocodile tears. But isn’t isn’t isn’t that emotion in mental?
Mental no. Mental process is on I mean, can be differentiated or nondifferentiated, but emotion emotional processes are nondifferentiated because a person’s taken over. You know?
It’s something it’s nonvolatile. It’s nonvolatile. In crime, the distinction is made. If you say, like, colloquial Tibetan, Then is used for involuntary process. You expels tears by force.
Some people can do that. So in other words, your subject goes in the ergative. Then dissatisfied, I translated took his mind. Means to be troubled. To be troubled.
Anthony had a very good translation. Didn’t give that to you that’s why I didn’t use it. Means to be satisfied. It’s a precise translation. Or you could say Now what is your instrumental here doing?
Well, because because of did you say that in fact, then something Yes. Or something. Yes. Exactly. And we did say that you can usher quotes in an instrumental.
Yeah. So Can I ask the Please? Means without wishing, not wishing. Then it’s not quite what we’re saying here. Is a commonly used verb for troubling the mind of someone.
You know? Then is more accurate. Means his mind troubled dissatisfied. If even the scholars of yore accepted a view at odds with reasoning, from whom will I learn the mode of abiding of all phenomena? Then here we have a conditional clause which starts or maybe I should first cover our quote.
So what is missing here? Yes. There a reason for that? Normally, you should have one. Are this there’s something else with verbs of thinking, you can omit a quotation mark because it’s not a quote.
No. It’s it’s a it’s a one one. So you it is from what I have seen, no? You have both possibilities. You can have your quotation marker or not.
Then sometimes is used. Frequently, I didn’t give it here. Is used. Which is a verb which means he had the inner experience of. Yes, exactly.
Exactly. So we have a conditional clause within the quote. Then I will do it like this. This is ergative, right? Scholars of former generations, is your plural marker then key obviously is your ergative could be instrumental or ergative.
Here it’s an ergative marker. Yang, even as well. If even the scholars of yore, you see the young goes after the scholars which it qualifies if even they. Right? Then what are they doing?
They accept a view at odds with reasoning. If even they accept to accept, literally to take in the mouth. Right? To accept to accept what? Now what is our structure here?
We have an ergative. We have a differentiative verb. Object is in what case? Object is in the absolutive. Exactly.
So here we have ergative. Then what is our object here? We have an object clause. The view. The view is also facing.
Yes. It’s not just the view. We have an object clause in English which becomes in Tibetan an absolutive clause. The view which is contradictory. Now we saw this many times.
I told you can be used for frozen forms. It It doesn’t mean and, it means with in this context. And I gave you as contradictory with, right? Contradictory with concordant with etc. These are first and forms in which means with.
So the view which is contradictory with reasoning. So if even they accept that from whom or from what? Can refer both to a person and to an object. Can I learn or understand what? So that is your verb here.
So here you have a tiny ablative clause. Right? Then you have your verb. You can say a composite verb here both are possible. There’s a slight difference of meaning between and And what is your English object and in what case in Tibetan?
It’s It’s a mode of abiding of phenomena. In what case? Yes. This is a very well behaved sentence basically. You have your English subject if you look here the scholars of yore, differentiated verb, then this has to be in the ergative, then its object in English becomes an absolutive in Tibetan, Chukineelu.
And then the question is, from whom can learn this? So is the the interrogative. Yeah. Exactly. Now These two.
Yes. I could have put instead. Instead of we could have used. What would the difference be? Su can be used only for?
Both are animate. We’re not the same we’re talking about. A difference of scope. Su can only be used for human beings. That’s oh, that’s that’s why I’m Only human beings.
Kang came from any that’s the problem. Only human beings. Kang can refer to animate and inanimate beings in the broad sense of the term. Who did Tsongkhapa receive teachings from? Therefore, you’re better off translating by Kang.
Because if you say Su in this text, Tsongkhapa is thinking of a human teacher. If you say the scope is broader. And because of what comes next. And for that matter means he could also learn it from what? From a text.
Exactly. Exactly. So these relatives are quite subtle in Tibetan. Su was in the past tense. Yeah.
This is an interrogative relative pronoun. Then I think we will stop here for today. Do you have do you have any questions about what we covered today? It’s helpful. Yes, Jasmine.
You could. It’s not as strong. It means but. It doesn’t mean It’s not like a. It means but.
Nonetheless, you can feel in English. It’s quite heavy. It’s a major concession cutting up. You know? No.
It’s it’s good. Nonetheless, the spot. They don’t they can go sometimes in the front or they can go at the place. That’s a gain. It’s sort of a They go after they go since it’s done before you finish it?
They go after what they qualify like here, the young. Yes. You could put young at the beginning. Yes. The syntax would be a little bit odd for Tibetan, and it wouldn’t convey what it conveys when it’s put after the.
The the the general will be always put afterward. Yeah. As in English? Immediately before. Right?
Any preposition in English goes into a postposition in Tibetan with the exception of one category of terms, adverbs. So adverbs are position unchanged. Right? And those are unchanged. Those are unchanged.
Those depend On the emphasis. But That’s what the emphasis are. Yeah. Your objectives, your articles, your prepositions in English come before what they qualify. Your articles, objectives, and prepositions in Tibetan come after.
J, you can. You can put you can put. Yeah. Then the reason that you have to be a bit careful because in Tibetan and some texts, everyone is J. Then there’s gonna be a big doubt.
Yes. Who are we talking about? No other questions? Then for next time, no special work. Please go carefully over what is left.
I think there’s no point in giving additional translating because we basically covered half the text today. We’ll cover the remaining half next time. What I’ll ask you to do is to go over all of the presentations quietly and to please start on the vocab. And as of next time, we will once again start translating one page, maybe a page and a half a week. We’ll see.
It depends on the rhythm. Yeah. I saw a page we haven’t translated, You have a page we haven’t translated, so there’s no point in in in going ahead. But do start memorizing the vocab from the beginning of the text.
You should be starting now and picking up the vocab from the PowerPoint presentation. We’ll be using it all the time. Points of grammar I think what you want to look at this week again is ergative absolutive constructions. It’s difficult point, you know, leave the morphology of the verb to the side a bit. Look at the difference between differentiative, non differentiative verbs, valence, ergative ergative, absolutive constructions, nominative, accusative constructions in Tibetan and that be really grounded for all of us.
Thank you very much. You know, there’s a Hungarian humorist who traveled to Switzerland, and he wrote a book about Switzerland, a very sharp witty one. You know, Hungarians have this reputation as very passionate people. So he was on the train. Right?
And he sees this Swiss banker. And you know Swiss bankers, they wear a gray suit and a blue tie or blue gray tie, and everything is gray. And he had this this folder open in front of him, and he was just leering at what looked like the pictures inside the folder. And whatever he I have to see this. This looking at This was a banker on a train in Switzerland, ogling at something.
And he said he was just he had this salacious gleam in his eyes. And the Hungarian came over and peeked, and he saw he was looking at the balance sheet. So that you would look at the rocks without glinting in your eye. Well, some of them might do, you wouldn’t believe this. When you when you’re passionate passionate with something, Me and the rocks.
But you have to slow down to communicate with them, don’t you? Well, yeah. You don’t need to write back anything. Yeah. Just