1 THE PROVERBS AND ITS DEFINITION (Part I): A KA:RMIK LINGUISTIC REVIEW WITH A CHECKLIST I INTRODUCTION

Proverbs are language and as such they inherit the properties of language. As language, they are created through the medium of sound in patterned structures at the level of phonology, morphology, and syntax to semiotically represent meaning, also, in definite patterns to perform again certain functions. These patterned structures representing

meaning and performing functions are products of cognitions of individuals (Vyashti) generalized at the collective (Samashti) level of the society or culture. Furthermore, these cognitions themselves are patterned and are derived annshangikally (In a set, an individual member inherits the properties of the former member in addition to having its own property) from the svabhavam (disposition) of the individuals as the society. What is more, the svabhavam which is the cause (Karanam) for the impressionality (Vasana) in cognitions is the result of the karma the individuals as the society performed. Hence, the proverties of proverbs as language span across the formal (structural), functional, cognitive, svabha:vik, and ka:rmik levels of action.

Proverbs are also a genre of language and as such they will have their own generic properties. These properties can be secondary, essential, uncommon, and impossible. The secondary properties are differentially distributed among the same genre and also can equally be found in other genres in the same way; the essential properties are universally found within the same genre but also can equally be found in other genres either as secondary or essential properties; the uncommon properties are the essential characteristics which are genre specific and absent in other genres; and the impossible properties are the negative properties which cannot be obtained within a genre. Hence, the properties of proverbs as a genre can be secondary, essential, uncommon and impossible under the properties of proverbs as language which are, as already pointed out, formal, functional, cognitive, svabha:vik and ka:rmik.

For the definition of proverbs as a genre to be made correctly, its linguistic and generic properties have to be not only understood intuitively but must also be identified and

2 classified. Only then can we to incorporate the most essential ingredient, which is the uncommon characteristic, into the definition. Inability to do so will result in mere descriptions in the grab of definitions, as it happened in the history of paremiology.

Right from the time of Aristotle, many critics have made attempts to describe the properties of proverbs and define them in terms of these properties. Some described the secondary properties and some described one or two essential properties but none the uncommon characteristics. Hence they could not hit the nail of the proverb on the top of its uncommon characteristic and fix it solidly on the definition plane.

Such a failure can be attributed to a number of factors. First, research on proverbs is lopsided. Proverbs have been subjected to extensive analysis in the field of meaning and aetiology on the one hand and collection and compilation of individual proverbs on the other hand. Very little research has been done in the most important and vital area of discourse analysis of proverbs, be it their collection or interpretation. Second, the so called mainstream linguists have not focused their attention on proverbs to a considerable extent. None of the pioneers of linguistic theories have written research articles on proverbs, be it Bloomfield, Chomsky, or Halliday. Third, pragmatics and discourse analysis are relatively recent phenomena in the long history of paremiology. As such, the earlier paremiologists have been deprived of the necessary tools to handle proverbs. It is true that a bad workman quarrels with his tools but it is equally true that a good workman cannot succeed (in his work) without good tools. Adding fuel to fire, most of the Paremiologists are not thoroughbred linguists. In spite of their dedication and erudition, they have been turned into unskilled workman who cannot even use the linguistic tools, let alone them inefficiently. Such is the case with giants like Archer Taylor, Alan Dundes and even Wolfang Mieder who is virtually an encyclopaedia of paremiology! Forth, proverbs belong to a complex genre whose properties cut across the formal, functional, and cognitive linguistics and beyond into social psychology. As a result, an inter-disciplinary approach is needed to grasp the over-all nature of proverbs. Very surprisingly, no such over acting research have been made and all research is ;iece meal, scattered and tattered until today, nobody has attempted to comprehensively record the

3 overall formal, functional, cognitive, and cultural anthropological linguistic properties at one place. So the interpretation of proverbs for a definition has become a wild goose chase without a centrally co-ordinated orientation.

What is more, the mainstream linguists are all partially blind. Formal linguists are functionally myopic; functional linguists are formally hypermetropic; cognitive linguists are formally and functionally astinguatic; and anthropological linguists are culturally jaundiced. Finally, all the linguists and ka:rmikally blind, thus turning the whole dialectics of linguistics into a tangled choreography of fission, diffusion, fusion and confusion, making confusion worse confounded! In such a scenario, the paremiologist has impaired his sense of vision, and in turn his description of the elephant proverb has become anushangikally and proverbially blind fittering the properties of the cause into the properties of the effect as in jaundiced vision. Finally, he is not in a position to comprehensive by pmpoment the characteristics of proverbs at all levels under an overall framework as such and such. Bhuvaneswar (1997 2003) attempted to study proverbs from such an overall perspective under a unified theory called the karmic linguistic theory and identify their characteristics as secondary, essential and uncommon. From that perspective it is possible to look afresh at the definitions in this paper. But before that, let us make a comprehensive review of the definitions of proverbs made so fat by the learned critics.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW Learning aside the oral tradition of the Vedas dating back to 4000 B.C., we can trace the use of proverbs to The precepts of Ptahhotep which is considered to be the oldest book in the world preserved in the papyms prisse at about 3440 B.C. These precepts profess to be founded on the wisdom of anthorities still more ancient, and to give the words of those who have heard the counsels of former days (see Records of the Past, N.S. i ii, 16 seg.) (Mieder 2003:157)

4 Mieder (ibid 157 158) further lists 25 unnumbered proverbs from this ancient source our of which only 24 and 25 are metaphorical: 24. The ox which goes at the head of the herd and leads the orhers to pasture is but an animal like his fellows? (ibid 158) 25. A good walker comes to his jourmeys and without needing to hasten (ibid 158). All the remaining 23 proverbs are literary: 1. Good words are scarcer than emeralds. 2. Thou hast the advantage of the angry if thou keeepest silence. 3. The impassive man is the better of the two. 4. He that is wrong fights against himself. 5. He is to blame who makes a bad use of his moments. 6. Listen with kindness if you would have a clear explanation. 7. Thousands ruin themselves for a moments enjoyment. 8. The great man is the steward of Gods goods. 9. A wife will be doubly attached if her chain is pleasant. 10. A good listener is a good speaker. 11. A son who receives his fathers instruction will grow old. 12. The wisdom of son is his docility. 13. Let thy thoughts be free, but they mouth restrained. 14. A good son is a gift of God. 15. Keep a cheerful countenance as long as life lasts. 16. Gods doings are unknown. 17. If thou wouldest be wise make thy son pleasing to God. 18. What God loves is obedience, what he hates is disobedience. 19. A good son is one of the gifts of God. All the above mentioned precepts are of ptah hotep. The remaining seven are taken from the Maxims of Ani and The Moral Papyrus of Boulag: 20. What Gods house hates is much speaking. 21. God will judge the right. 22. Whoso magnifieth God, He magnifieth.

5 [18 20 are taken from Budges Book of the Dead, 1895 pp.ixxxv ixxxviii (Mieder 2003:158)] 23. He who hates idleness will come without being called. [23 25 which appear to be popular proverbs are quoted from The Moral Papyrus of Boulag. See Maspero, The struggle of Nations, p.503. (ibid)]

As can be seen from this short selection by Mieder, the ancients have already incorporated both literary and metaphorical proverbs into their proverbial repertoire as proverbs. Mieder however has not given us any information about whether any definitions or discussion of proverbs were made in those books. Ever since then, many collections of proverbs have slowly trickled down the history of human civilization into bubbling streams of the modern times. However, a comprehensive critical discussion of what proverbs are, how they are used, when they are used where they are used and why they are used is a relatively secant phenomenon, especially their structural discourse analysis. In spite of this, Mieder has amasses an unbelievable collection of 7,368 references in his three monumental supplements to International Proverb scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography (see Mieder 1982, 1990, 1993, 2001). Paremiology and paremiographers alike owe a permanent debt of gratitude to this living encyclopedia of paremiology.

In spite of such a Himalayan contribution to the bibliographical studies of proverbs, it is surprising that he has still not discovered many peaks and hillocks! To cite one such instance is the case of Telugu proverb bibliography. Leave alone Mieder, the native scholars themselves have not yet prepared comprehensive bibliographies my own collection of more than 250 references (the most comprehensive so far) is yet to be published! In such a scenario, it is practically impossible to review all the available critical literature on proverbs but the important and well known potitions taken by critics can be examined as they are available to us.

6 From that standpoint, we attempt a literature review of the available material on the definitions of the proverb and try to prepare a background for a comprehensive analysis of what proverbs are and how they should be defined. According to Mieder(1993a:4), The problem of defining a proverb appears to be as old as mans interest in them. Not only did such great minds as Aristotle and Plato occupy themselves with the question of what constitutes a proverb, but early Greek paremiographers in particular wrestled with this seemingly insurmountable task as well. And according to Trench (1905 and 2003:7), Nothing is harder than a definition. While on the one hand there is for the most part no easier take than to detect a fault or flaw in the definitions of those who have gone before us, nothing on the other is more difficult than to propose one of our own, which shall not also present a vulnerable side.

Mieder (1993a, b and 2000) in his three seminal articles on the nature and popular views of the proverb gives us a very concise but highly informative account of the various attempts made by scholars to define a proverb and proposes his own definitions. He reviews the work of such well known authorities as Taylor(1931), Whiting(19320, Burke(1941), Bryant(1945), Gallacher(1959), Seitel(1969), Milner(1971), Kirshenblah Gimblett(1973), Blehr(1973), Barley(1974).

Krikman

(1974),

Dundes(1975),

Silverman

Weinreich(1978),

Rokem(1982),

Cram(1983), Arora(1984), Norrick(1985) and many others. In addition, he also disusses the major insights into the nature of proverbs as discovered by such critics as Bock and Brewer(1980), Grambo(1972), Holbek(1970), Rothstein(1969) and Zhokooskii(1978) regarding the poetic aspects of proverbs; Goodwin and Wenzel (1981), Honeck and Kibler (1984), Kemper (1981), and Pasamanick (1985) regarding the cognitive aspect of proverbs; Lieber (1984), and Yankah (9183) regarding the pragmatics of proverbs; Bond (1936) regarding legal proverbs; Elmquist (1934 35) regarding medical proverbs; Szemerkenyi and Voigt regarding variant proverbs; Lucus (1965) on the national character of proverbs; and so many other critics regarding their definitions.

7 In addition to Mieders three articles which provide us with detailed survey of the critical literature on the definition of the proverb as well as his own interpretation of proverbs for his own definition, three more articles need to be consulted for their intrinsic value. The first is that of Richard Chenevix Trench (1807 86) that is titled The Form and Definition of a Proverb. This seminal article was published in 1853 along with five more articles in the form of a book on the Lessons in Proverbs. This book was an important and influential survey on the origin, nature, distribution, meaning, and significance of proverbs in the English speaking world (Mieder 2003: ii). The second article is that of Gyula Paczolay (1970) in which he classified the proposed definitions into three classes: 1. Those denying the possibility of a definition; 2. those identifying the proverb with its text; and 3. those which are complex. The third article is that of Paul Hermadi and Francis Steen (1999) in which the characteristics of proverbs are described under the five sub-headings of 1) what; 2) when; 3) where; 4) How; and 5) Why are proverbs.

Let us first make a list of the distinct definitions proposed by various scholars and then identify the characteristics mentioned by them (in their definitions) for proposing those definitions. After such an identification, let us critically examine these definitions in the light of those characteristics and evaluate their worthiness.

A 1.

DISTINCT DEFINITIONS OF THE PROVERB ARISTOTLE (4C. B.C.) a. The fragments of an elder wisdom, which, on account of their brevity and aptness, had amid a general wreck and ruin been preserved. b. Proverbs are metaphors from one species to another (Rhetorica Bk. 11/21).

2.

GOETHE

Es ist ein grosser Unterschied, ob der Dlichter zum Allgemeinen das Bosondere such order in Besonderen das Allegemeine schant. Aus jener Art entsteht Allegorie, wo das besondere nur als Beispiel, als Exempel des Allgemeinen gilt: die letztere aber ist eigentlich die Natur der Poesie, sie spricht ein Besonderes aus, ohne ans Allgemeine zu

8 dunken oder darauf hinzuweissen. Wer nun dieses Besondere lebendig fast, erhalt

zngleich das Allgemeine mit, ohne es gewahr zu warden, order erst spat.

3.

MATHIEN DE VENDOME (12 CENTURY)

A proverb is a popular phrase accredited by custom, accepted by the general opinion , expressing a trugh that has been proved genuine (As quoted by Gynla Paczolay 1978).

4.

Lord John Russell (1792-1878)

The wisdom of many, the wit of one or One mans wit, and all mens wisdom (Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable Sir James Mackintosh, edited by his son Robert James Mackintosh, Esz., 2. Vols. (London 1835), 2. 472.

5. a.

RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH (1953) Without this popularity, without these suffrages and this consent of the many, no saying, however brief, however wise, however seasoned with salt, however worthy on all these accounts to have become a proverb, however fulfilling all other its conditions, can yet be esteemed as much. This popularity, omitted in that enumeration of the essential notes on the proverb, is yet the only one whose presence is absolutely necessary, whose absence is fatal to the claims of any saying to be regarded as such. (Proverbs and Their Lessons: 10) (italics mine). one quality of the proverb, and that the most essential of all I mean popularity, acceptance and adoption on the part of the people. (Proverbs and Their Lessons: 10)

b.

6. a.

ARCHER TAYLOR (1931) The definition of the proverb is too difficult to repay the undertaking; and should we fortunately combine in a single definition all the essential elements and give each the proper emphasis, we should not even then a touchstone. An

incommunicable quality tells us this sentence is proverbial and that one is not. Hence no definition will enable us identify positively a sentence as proverbial.

9 Those who do not speak a language can never recognize all its proverbs, and similarly much that is truly proverbial escapes us in Elizabethan and older English. Let us to content with recognizing that a proverb is a saying current among the folk. At least so much of a definition is indispurtable, and we shall see and weigh the significance of other elements later. (The Proverb: 3). b. A saying which summarizes a situation and in its own inimitable way passes some sort of judgement on it or characterizes its essence. 7. a. Bartlett Jere Whiting (1932) A proverb is an expression which, owing its birth to the people, testifies to its origin in form and phrase. It expresses what is apparently a fundamental truththat is a truism in homely language often adorned, however, with alliteration and rhyme. It is usually short, but need not be; it is usually true, but need not be. Some proverbs have both a literal and figurative meaning, either of which makes perfect sense; but more often they have but one of the two. A proverb must be venerable; it must bear the sign of antiquity, and, since such signs may be counterfeited by a clever literary man, it should be attested in different places at different times. This last requirement we must often waive in dealing with very early literature, where the material at our disposal is incomplete. (The Nature of the Proverb: 302) b. A short pithy saying in common and recognized use, a concise sentence often metaphorical or alliterative in form, which is held to express some truth ascertained by experience or observation familiar to all, an adage, a wise saw (As quoted in Oxford Dictionary) c. What is a proverb? The question has been often asked, frequently by those dissatisfied with definitions previously given. Of such queries there is no end. What is truth? Asked jesting Pilate, but, jester or not, Pilate, wise in this generation, would not stay for an answer . It is somewhat disconcerting experience of one who, through the years (since, to be definite, 1932), has made several attempts at formulating a definition, that those who do stay for an answer are rarely pleased with what they receive. One might, in effect, as well answer why is a mouse when it spins?

10 (Early American Proverb and Proverbial Phrases 1977: XIX-XX) 8. G.L. Apperson (1935) A proverb is a crystallized summary of popular wisdom or fancy. (As quoted by Joanna Wilson in the Introduction to the Third Edition of The Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs. Oxford: Clarendom Press. 1970, vii)

9.

Kenneth Burke (1941)

Proverbs are strategies for dealing with situations. In so far as situations are typical and recurrent in a given social structure, people develop names for them and strategies for handling them. Another name for strategies might be attitudes. (Literature as Equipment for Living in The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action, 1941: 256)

10.

Marjorie Kimmerle (1947)

Alan Dundes comments as follows as her treatment of proverbs: Her scheme was closely tied to linguistic and syntactic formulas. Not all her seventeen categories were relevant to proverbs and the use of such grammatical distinctions as the presence of a predicate noun or predicate adjective or direct object suggests that her analysis was more of surface structure than deep structure, to employ the Chomsky metaphor. (Dundes 1975: 962)

11.

Anonymous (1961)

Many people have loved proverbs for the wisdom embedded in them. Others have treasured proverbs for the vividness or earthiness of their imagery. But students of the subject are impressed by still another characteristic of the proverb: its verbal economy. Proverbs are rarely wordy. The usual proverb is spare and austere in expression, and some are marvels of compactness. [Can Anybody Compare a Proverb. The New York Times (November 12, 1961), section IV, pp.8, col.3. As quoted in Mieder 1993b, pp.32]

12.

Matti Kuusi (1957)

11 Monumenta humana.

13. a. b.

Horace Reynolds (1959) A proverb in the hand is often worth a thousand words. Like Poetry, the proverb is indefinable. There have been some good tries. Francis Bacon called proverbs: The edged tools of speech. Lord John Russell in a much quoted appraisal called a proverb the wisdom of many and the wit of one. But the definition I like best comes from the good old Encyclopaedia Britannica: A pungent criticism of life. That seems to fit the insight and compassion which mark the proverbs at its best. [A proverb in the Hand Is Often Worth a Thousand Words. The New York Times Magazine (September 13, 1959), pp.74. As quoted in Mieder 1993b, pp.30]

14.

Stuart A. Gallacher (1906-1977)

A proverb is a concise statement of an apparent truth which has [had or will have] currency among the people. (Frare enlobs Bits of Wisdom: Fruits of this environment, 1959)

15.

Mario Pei (1964)

Proverbs are among the most ancient of human institutions. Criticism of life, in brief and pithy form, is characteristic of proverbs, while their popular philosophy is, indeed, proverbial. Proverbs are the wisdom of peoples goes an Italian saying. This is perhaps an exaggeration, but there is no doubt that much of nations fold-philosophy gets into proverbs, along with the spice of national customs and, above all, the peculiar flavour of the nations language and phraseology .. proverbs are generalizations of human experience, condensations oft-reported occurrences of the trail-and-error variety. Above all, they are the fruit of observation and inductive reasoning, two of the great faculties of the human mind a generalization .. caught on became popular, was passed from mouth to mouth, from generation to generation. Ultimately it became an integral part of the

12 groups folklore, and was repeated whenever the situation it described recurred every proverb tells a story and teaches a lesson. [As summarized in A Proverb is a short sentence of Wisdom by Wolfgang Mieder in Proverbs Are Never out of Season, 1993, pp.32. Gringinally in Mario Pei (May 2, 1964). Parallel proverbs. Saturday Review, pp.16-17 and p.53 (here pp.16)].

16.

F.L. Lucas (1965)

A proverb is by definition a popular maxim Proverbs are among the most ancient literacy forms, and among the most universal Even if it [the proverb] holds its measure of truth Proverbs are anonymous wisdom literature of the common man in ages past. Yet they often bear the stamp of minds by no means common. They can throw fascinating light on human nature, on national character, on life itself. And even when we doubt their wisdom, we can still often admire their trenchancy, their brevity, their imaginative imagery. A proverb, says the Arab, is to speech as salt to food. [F.L.Lucas (September 1965). The Art of Proverbs. Holiday, 38.8 and 10 13 (here pp. 10 -11); quoted in Mieder 1993b]

17.

Peter Seitel (1969 and 1976)

Proverbs in English may be provisionally defined as short, traditional, out of context statements used to further some social end (Proverbs: A Social Use of Metaphor in Folklore Genres, p. 127)

18.

George B. Milner (1969)

in its most typical form a traditional saying is a quadripartite structure in two halves, each consisting of two quarters. It is possible to allocate plus or minus values to each quarter (or to its constituent segment) in such a way that the combined values of the quarters and their segments match the values of each half. (Quadripartite Structures in Proverbium 14, 1969, pp.380 81)

19.

Gyua Paczolay(1970)

13 A proverb is a short statement, having an evident or implied general meaning, related to a certain typical field of general human conditions, attitudes or actions, where it is valid with implied limitations. It is known and often quoted in a period of time in a certain language community, sometimes in a short form (the rest being implied). In common knowledge it has no known author or literary source. [some notes on the Theory of Proverbs. Proverbium No.20, 1970, 737 750 (here p.742)]

20.

Roger D. Abrahams (1972)

Proverbs are short and witty traditional expressions that arise as part of every day discourse as well as in the more highly structured situations of education and judicial proceedings. Each proverb is a full statement of an approach to a recurrent problem. It presents a point of view and a strategy that is self-sufficient, needing nothing more than an event of communication to bring it into play . Proverbs take a personal circumstance and embody it in impersonal and witty form. (Proverbs and proverbial Expressions. Folklore and Folklife An Indtroduction. Ed by Richard M Dorson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972: 119) Barbara Kirshenblatt Gimblett (1973)

21.

No definition is given but a general observation is offered at the beginning as follows: Proverbs sound authoritative. The truths they proclaim feel absolute. This impression is created by the proverbs traditionality and the weight of impersonal community consensus it invokes. The proverbs form reinforces this effect by sounding so right. Neat symmetries and witty convergences of sound and meaning, tight formulations of logical relations, highly patterned repetitions, structural balance, and familiar metaphors encapsulate general principles and contribute to the feeling that anything that sounds so right must be true. (Proverbium 1973, vol. 22, P. 821)

22.

Alan Dundes (1975)

In summary, the proverb appears to be a traditional propositional statement consisting of at least one descriptive element, a descriptive element consisting of a topic and a

14 comment. This means that proverbs must have at least two words. Proverbs which contain a single descriptive element are nonappositional. Proverbs with two or more descriptive elements may be either oppositional or nonappositional. (On the structu re of the Proverb, Proverbium 25, 1975: 970)

23.

Nigel Barley (1972)

A Proverb may be taken as a standard statement of moral or categorical imperatives in fixed metaphorical paradigmatic form. It deals with fundamental logical relationships. (A Structural Approach to the proverb and Maxim with Special Reference to the AngloSaxon Corpus, Proverbium 20, 1972, p. 741)

24.

Harald Burger (1977)

A proverb is a general statement or judgement, explaining, classifying or assessing a situation. (As quoted in Mieder 1977, pp.2)

25.

O. Nagy (1979)

A proverb is a popular set phrase having no author, known mostly in different languages, expressing in one sentence a principle, advice, a genuine or assumed truth in a general, concise form, its basic idea being of general validity, or at least its used considers it as such. (Encyclopedia of World Literature vol. 6 Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1979, pp.645). Galit Hasan Rokem (1982)

26.

A common genre of folk literature is the proverb, a multivalent poetical s ummary of a communitys collective experience. It is precisely the multivalence of the proverb which determines the potency of its meaning; proverbs combine poetic structure with frozen meaning in ways that render their usage exceptional. (The Pragmatics of Proverbs: How the Proverb Gets its Meaning, Exceptional Language and Linguistics, 1982, pp.169).

15 27. Oxford Dictionary

A short pithy saying in common and recognized use; a concise sentence, often metaphorical or alliterative in form, which is held to express some truth ascertained by experience or observation familiar to all; an adage, a wise saw.

28. a.

Wolfgang Mieder (1993) A proverb is a short, generally known sentence of the folk which contains wisdom, truth, morals and traditional views in a metaphorical, fixed and memorizable form and which is handed down from generation to generation or A proverb is a short sentence of wisdom. (A proverb is a short sentence of Wisdom, in Proverbs are Never out of Season,

b.

p. 29)

29.

Hugh Kenner (1983)

Being recipes for managing our affairs, proverbs have been cherished like wise we say it [the proverb] now because it had seemed worth saying again and again descending father to son, mother to daughter, mouth to mouth for centuries before It was useful because it touched on a general truth . Proverbs use the experience people gain in skills to project what we are always wanting, some general guide for action. They did this for millennia before we had acquired the habit of seeking guidance from something written. They were short and memorable and self explanatory. [The Wisdom of the tribe. Why proverbs are Better than Aphorisms. Harpers (May 6, 1983). 84-86 (here pp. 84-85). As quoted in Mieder 1993 b, p. 35]

30.

Stephan Kanfer (1983)

The aphorism is a personal observation inflated into a universal truth, a private posing as a general. A proverb is anonymous human history compressed to the size of a seed. [proverbs or Aphorims? Time (July 11, 1983), pp.74. As quoted in Mieder 1999 b , p.35]

31.

Peter Grzybek (1994)

16 There is no generally accepted definition which covers all specifics of the proverbial genre. (Proverb. Simple Forms: An Encyclopedia of Simple Text Types in Lore and

Literature. Ed. Walter Koch. Bochum: Brochmeyer, 1994. 227-41 (here pp.227). As quoted in Hernadi & sheene 1999)

32.

Jan Harold Brunvand (1986)

Popular saying in a relatively fixed form which is or has been, in oral circulation. (The Study of American Follore: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Now York: Norton, 1986, pp. 74)

33.

Paul Hernadi and Franci Steen (1999)

Proverbs are brief, memorable, and intuitively convicing formulations of socially sanctioned advice. (The Tropical Landscape of Proverbia: A Cross Disciplinary Travelogue. Style 33. 1. Dekalb: Northern Villinois University. 1-20 (here pp.1))

34.

Voo (1989)

A proverb is a stereotype linguistic entity expressing a fixed idea. On the linguistic level it is an artistic picture, on the level of ideas a judgment. As a work of art of folklore it belongs to the secondary semiotic systems. It is a communication system with a double code, a carrier of information at the level of language, but at the same time the information carries another content too, becoming an instrument of poetic expressions. (A true man tells the truth. Proverbs from the folklore of Hungarians in Romania. Kriterion. Bucharest. 1989, pp. 19. As quoted in Paczolay 1998)

35. a. b. c. d.

English Proverbs about Proverbs All the good sense of the world runs into proverbs. Proverbs are the children of experience. Proverbs are the daughters of daily experience. Proverbs are the wisdom of the streets.

17 e. f. g. h. i. j. k. The wisdom of the proverb can not be surpassed. Common proverb seldom lies. Every proverb is truth. Old proverbs are the children of truth. Man folks and proverbs reveal many truths. Patch grief with proverbs. Wise men make proverbs and fools repeat them.

36.

Stevenson (1969)

A maxim is the sententious expression of some general truth or rule of co nduct, that it is a proverb in the caterpillar stage and that it becomes a proverb when it gets its wings by winning popular acceptance, and flutters out into the highways and byways of the world. (As quoted in The Kinds of Folk Literature in The Fundamentals of Folk Literature by George W. Boswell and J. Russell Reaver. OO sheerhoat: Anthropological publications. 1969, pp. 21)

37.

Dr. Champion (1928)

A racial aphorism which has been, or still is, in common use, conveying advice or counsel, invariably camouflaged figuratively, disguised in metaphor or allegory. (Champion, Selwyn Gurney, Racial Proverbs. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1928)

38.

Erasmus

Celebre dictum, scita quapium nouitate insigne (a saying in frequent use marked by some shrewdness and originality) (As quoted in Trench 1853, reprinted by Mieder 2003: 10)

39.

Better Eifelein

The Proverb is a coinage of the popular mint and owns its currency and acknowledged value to the people.

18 (As translated in Trench 1963, and reprinted by Mieder 2003: 10)

40.

James Howell (17c)

The peoples voice the voice of God wel call; And what are proverbs but the peoples voice? Coined first, and current made by common choice? Then sure they must have weight and truth withal. (As quoted in Trench 1853 and reprinted by Mieder 2003, p.14)

41. a.

Lord Bacon (They (proverbs)) serve not only for ornament and delight but also for active and civil use; as being the edge tools of speech which cut and penetrate the knots of business and affairs. (As quoted in Trench 1853 and reprinted by Mieder 2003, pp. 14-15) The genius, wit and spirit of a nation are discussed in its proverbs.

b.

42.

Cervantes

Short sentences drawn from long experience.

43.

Samuel Palmer

A proverb is an instructive sentence, in which more is generally designed than expressed and which has passed into the common use and esteem either among the learned or vulgar (Moral Essays in proverbs, p. 1710)

44.

John Ray

A proverb is usually defined as an instructive sentence, or common and pithy saying which is generally designed than expressed. (English Proverbs, Preface to the Fourth Edition, p. 1767)

19 B. A REVIEW OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THE PROVERB

From a close examination of the definitions given in section A, we find out that some of them are observations on the properties of proverbs while others are proper attempts to define proverbs. Whatever be the case, none of them has successfully captured the defining characteristics of proverbs that will account for the universal characteristic that constitutes a proverb and the distinguishing characteristic that differentiates a proverb from an item of another genre.

It appears that all the great scholars right from the time of Aristotle to Wolfgang Mieder have been carried away by the structural or functional characteristics of proverbs and missed the wood for the trees. Aristotle considers proverbs as metaphors and brief fragments of wisdom from a semantic perspective and the same view has been expressed by prof. Wofgang Mieder after approximately 2, 400 years. What a strange coincidence! As we know from a vast corpus of proverbs across different cultures and language all over the world that proverbs need not be metaphorical always, for example, as in the case of the English proverb Honesty is the best policy. So also, they need not always contain wisdom, for example, as in the case of antonymous proverbs: Better never than late Vs Better late than never; slow and steady wins the race or it is never too late Vs Strike when the iron is hot or A stitch in time saves nine.

If one is considered a wise saying, then what about the other? There are several such proverbs in all languages. Even if one argues that each proverb has its own point of view, which can be considered wisdom, there are some proverbs which are clearly unacceptable as wise sayings. For example, in the case of the English proverb A woman, a sheep, and a walnut tree the more they are beaten the better they will be. Or the Telugu proverb with sexual connotations in the absence of any husband, elder sisters husband along is the refuge, what is the wisdom? These are proportions that reflect the cognition of social praxis of the individuals in the society. Certainly, it is not true in our modern society that a beaten woman will be better than what she was earlier. On the contrary, such cases become worse! So also what is the wisdom in seeking an elder sisters husband? It is unethical in monogamous societies. It is as wise as stealing when in want? Sometimes,

20 the proverbs are not analytical/true, as in the case of: Every cloud has a silver lining. It is an empirical fact that all clouds need not have a silver lining. Above all, wisdom is a relative concept. What is one mans meat may be another mans poison! A very critical analysis of proverbs shows that proverbs are not in essence statements of wisdom but they may contain wisdom. Thats all! Goethe considers proverbs (as part of poetry) as generalizations. As I understand, a generalization involves induction. For example, The early bird catches the worm or prevention is better than cure can be easily considered generalizations but not all proverbs have generalizations as their propositional content. For example, what generalization is there in the English proverb If at first you dont succeed, try try again. Here, the proposition is not a generalization but an exhortation even if we argue that there is an implied generalization in this proverb since people who have tried again and again have succeeded and so one is exhorted to try and try again there is certainly, no generalization in If you are angry, count ten. Similarly, in the Telugu proverb (I heat that/understand that) if asked to see and come, (he/one) burnt and came, there is not generalization but a report of an event. Lord John Russells definitions of a proverb is one of the most popular definitions and here also, the emphasis is on wisdom. The only difference is in the manner of its origin. Certainly for a proverb to be formed some one must have uttered it first. It is only then it must have caught on and become popular. However, it need not necessarily be all mens wisdom, if there is wisdom in the proverb. Again, the wisdom need not necessarily be shared by the people before its reception by the many. It may be a case of recognition of the wisdom after its revelation. Nonetheless, that propositional wisdom must have been accepted by the users. In spite of these possibilities there is no evidence that all proverbs are wisdom bearing. Many proverbs like those born from unique incidents or legends or great thinking. One example of such a proverb is One butcher does not fear money sheep uttered by Alexander the Great when the Persians were advancing to attack him. The wisdom in the proverb was not perceived by the users before its creation but recognized after its. Coinage. Another example is in Greek many things find place between the cup and lip or its English equivalent there is many a ship twost the cup and the lip! (see Trench 1853 and 2003:38). In such cases as these, it is the orherway

21 round: the wit of one becoming the wisdom of many giving rise to popularity for the wit. To put it differently, The wit of one, the proverb for many. Mathew do vendones definition suffers from tantology without a purpose. Generally phrases accfrediated by custom are popular; also a truth need not be proud to be genuine. In spite its tantology, it brings in two characteristics for defining proverbs. Tradition and truth value. Not all proverbs are true, for example, Every cloud has a silver lining. The issue of tradition will be taken up for discussion a little later.

Richard C. Trench also brings in the issue of popularity as the most essential characteristic of a proverb. He also accepts at the same time brevity, and perch as important characteristics of proverbs. Tradition, currency, popularity they are all inderenminate terms and as such are difficult to measure in practice. For example, popularity is to be measured in terms of people who are aware of the proverb and among them the percentage who accept it raises many problems in quantification with respect to time, place and identification. Time further constrains the notion of puularity. At one period it may be popular and at another not, waxing and waning. Place is another problem: it can be a nation, a state, a district, a village, a locality and even a house! As far as identification of the people is concerned, we can do it on an occupational or religious or racial basis. But all these factors complicate the quantification of popularity. For example, in English, certain proverbs are popular among certain proverbs are popular among certain occupations but not so within the same language speaking community. Does it mean that they are no more proverbs? Our experience tells us that they are still recognized as proverbs, as unheard or not popular. There are certain proverbs more popular in a particular occupational group whose numbers are relatively very small when compared within the language community. Here, it is a matter of popularity vs non popularity but not proverb vs non proverb.

Another major issue that this popularity or tradition raises is its very choice as a parameter to judge whether a text is a proverb or not. Do we really require tradition and

22 currency as a yard stick to determine the provability of a text? Trench and Mieder say so. Also, many definitions include popularity as the essential characteristic of proverb. To answer this question, we need to know first of all what characteristics are to be included in a definition and low they should be included. In addition, we must also know how actions and objects are created. Unless we are clear about these two phenomena, we cannot conclusively decide whether tradition and currency are to be included in the definition at all! We will come to this point in section 3.

When Archer Taylor, one of the greatest paremiologists, has denied the possibility of finding a definition for the proverb, he has unwillingly turned paremiology into a non scientific discipline. How can someone identify and object, an action, or any phenomenon as that or this without knowing it as that or this? If one agrees that it is not necessary to know the definition to know or identify an object simply because we know many things without knowing their definitions. For example, someone who sees an animal, say a cow, and knows it by the name cow, need not know its definition. If he is asked to define a cow, the definition he gives may not be its definition in the strictest sense of the term. The reason in such cases is they have not focused their attention critically. But such a failure does not mean that a cow cannot he defined. It only means that we have not succeeded in finding its defining characteristics. But the issue is we know what a cow is but we are not able to define it. God bless those seers who define a cow instantaneously! That means something which is not easily detectable is working for identifying a cow as a cow. If this were not so, how can anyone identify a cow and distinguish between a cow and a buffalo? Since such a quality was not easily discovered, we should find why it is so but not deny a definition for a cow. In a similar way, many of us know what a proverb is but when we tried to define it we all failed in providing a successful definition. So does it mean that a proverb cannot be defined? No. It only means that we have not succeeded in identifying its defining characteristics.

According to Searle, in principle what is meant can be expressed. But it should also be true that whatever is meant can be motivated if we accept the cause effect relationship: Every effect is preceded by a cause and Nothing comes our of nothing. From a

23 functional perspective, nothing exists without a function from a tiny blade of grass to the mighty cosmos! Even if one objects to this hypothesis by providing the case of non agential actions where action is performed for the sake of action, as in the case of nishkama karma, we say that it is itself the cause of performing that action. Again, even in he case of non sentient action, such as the blowing of the wind and up rooting a tree, we can still find a function for such an action at a higher level: Nature as causing the wind to blow to uproot a tree.

Another important reason could be the failure to understand the very properties of proverbs comprehensively across different cultures and within a culture as shown in proverbs. A classic example is that of considering metaphors and single sentences as proverbs but not phrases, comparisons and wellerisms as such. Many critics do, at the same time, call them proverbial phrases that have become idioms by losing their proverbial status, for example, to flog a dead horse, as . As., etc. The inatxility to precisely classify them is itself a proof of the inability on the part of paremiologists to know the differentiating characteristics of proverbs. Whitings definitions are genuine attempts to define proverbs in terms of their characteristics. His first definition shows the frustration of paremiologists to find the defining characteristics of a proverb that differentiate it from others and at the same time account for any proverb. His phrases often adorned, usually short and usually true all indicate only the particular characteristics of proverbs but not the universal

characteristics as can be seen from the definition itself. For example, the property of brevity or shortness is a particular characteristic of proverbs since brevity is a relative term and there are many proverbs which are long on English there are proverbs ranging from two words(eg. Time flies) to many (eg. They said to the camel bird [ie, the ostrich] carry it answered, I cannot for I am a camel). In deed, there are many Englis h proverbs which are adorned with figures of speech at the phonological, syntactic and lexical levels but there are equally many proverbs which are not adorned at all for example, where there is a will, there is a way has alliteration, repetition (there is a . There is a ) and even internal rhyme in the proverb(where . There . There)

24 whereas The early bird catches the worm has none at all. So also it does not have any syntactic figures of speech whereas He who holds the ladder is as guilty as he who mounts the wall has parallelism in it. As already pointed out earlier, antiquity as an important characteristic of proverb is a debatable point. In the modern world, there are some proverbs such as garbage in, garbage out, Different strokes for different floks, etc. that have no antiquity. They are recently born and are already in wide use. His third definition is not a definition at all and the second one is not precise. Proverbs need not necessarily express truths always. Appersons definition is precise but not universal in its characterization of proverbs. Some proverbs contain wisdom (eg. A stitch in time saves nine) but some do no (eg. If you cannot beat them join them) and some proverbs are born our or real life experiences (eg. Mirzis dog in Baluchi). Hence, bnoth wisdom or fancy are not universal among proverbs.

Kenneth Burkis description is indeed a very important characteristic of proverbs but again there are many other genres that function as strategies for dealing with situations. Even though he has pointed our a discourse function characteristic which is very vital for understanding proverbs, he has not pi8npointed how this strategy has come about. This point will be discussed in the context of alternative ways of saying the same thing.

The quotation of anonymous points out to wisdom, imagery and verbal economy in proverbs. The issue of verbal economy and wisdom has already been discussed. vividness or earthiness of their imagery is again not universal in proverbs. For example, literary proverbs such as Prevention is better than cure cure etc. do not have imagery at all. Horace Raynolds definirion of a proverb as a pungent criticism of life is again not a definition that captures the distinguishing characteristic of a proverb. Even non proverbial statements such as we can only know life backwards or Life is birth,

25 copulation and death or Life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury are memorable statements especially, the last one which is pungent, beet they are not proverbs. The other title definitions A proverb in the hand is often worth a thousand words again falls into the same category since a picture is also worth a thousand words. Gallachers definitions points our currency and truth value as the determining factors of a proverb. As has already been pointed our both these concepts are problematic proverbs need not be true and it is difficult to measure currency. Peter Seitels definition, like that of Kenneth Burke, is pragmatic but again does not pinpoint the distinguishing characteristics of proverbs. Other types of statements can also be used to further some social end.

Wolfgang Mieder has already commented on the structured definitions of Milner and Dundes and showed them to be madequate to define proverbs.

I. DEFINITION AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS A. WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING THINGS i. uddesa: mere naming of a thing ii. lakshana: the grasping of the form or nature of a thing iii. pariksha: thinking again and again over the form and nature of a thing In the case of proverbs, even the uddesa has not bean comprehensively described. All the properties of proverbs have not been identified, for example, the prototype categorical instantiation. In the case of lakshana, the properties of proverbs have been identified and described but again the properties for a definition of the proverb have NOT been identified and incorporated without the three following defects: 1. Ayapthi is under extension of a defining characteristic. For example, if a cow is defined as a black animal, such a definition is defective, since the property of black animalness is not universally present among all cows it excludes a white or brown cow from the species.

26 2. Ativyapthi is over extension of a defining characteristic. For example, if a cow is defined as a four legged animal, such a definition is defective, since the property of four legged animalness is not only shared by all the cows but also equally shared by other animals such as a dog, a cat, and horse belongs to different specie. 3. Asambhava is the impossible presence of a defining characteristic. For example, if a cow is defined as a one hoofed animal, such a definition is defective, since the property of one hoofedness is not present in any cow. So far all the definitions that have been attempted as far as I know suffer from one or more of these defects, especially those of avyapthi or athivyapthi. Furthermore, these definitions could not identify, describe, and incorporate the uncommon characteristic (asadharana karana) of the proverb, which makes the definition error proof.

4. Asadharana Ka:rana, the uncommon characteristic is a characteristic which is universally present among all the members of the other specie.

Based on an understanding of the properties of proverbs, we can divide them into :secondary characteristics which are present in some but not all the members of the species, and which can equally be present in members of other species. For example, rhyme, alliteration compounding affixation, balance, parallelism, affirmation denegation etc. can be present in proverbs as secondary characteristics.

6. Essential characteristics which are universally present among all the members of the species and which can equally be present either as secondary or as essential characteristics among the members of a different species and 7. uncommon characteristics.

In addition the asadharana karana can be arrived at in three different ways as follows. B. TYPES OF LAKSHANA

27 1. The asadharana karana can be arrived at by a process of elimination by neti neti not this, not this. Such type of a lakshana is the vyavruththi Lakshana. 2. the asadharana karana can also be arrived at by realizing it as the unchanging basis of the changing objects. Such type of a lakshana is the tatastha Lakshana; 3. The asadharana karama can also be arrived at by realizing the direct feature or the inherent features. Such type of a lakshana is called the svarupa lakshama.

In the case of proverbs, such type of an analysis has to be conducted to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the uncommon characteristics of proverbs. It demands a much more rigorous enquiry into the nature of formation of objects and actions as discussed in the next sub section.

C. TYPES OF ASADHARANA KARANA From an observation of the nature of objects and actions, we find that the uncommon characteristic of objects, actions can be structural ?(formal), functional, cognitive, and karmic.

i. Structural Uncommon Characteristics A structural uncommon characteristic is a structural property. For example, a powder is a substance (object) whose uncommon characteristics is its unique poweriness this is a structural property.

ii. Functional Uncommon Characteristic A functional uncommon characteristic is a functional property. For example, a bed in an object whose uncommon characteristic is its unique function of providing the facility for lying down for taking rest. Here, the structure is variable but the function if constant. iii. Co Functional and Structural Uncommon characteristic A co functional and structural uncommon characteristic is one in which both functional and structural properties co occur together to constitute the uncommon characteristic. For example, a television is an object in which the structure of a screen and the electronic

28 equipment are the structural properties and relaying audiovisual signals from a relay station is the functional property. Both these properties have to be combined together to form the uncommon characteristic.

iv. Cognitive Uncommon Characteristic Impress ional cognition of an action or an object alters the perception of that phenomenon. Here, the structure by itself and the normal function associated with it by virtue of its structure have no meaning by themselves. For example, a deity in Hinduism is so because of the impressional cognition of the members in a culture. without that cultural cognition, the uncommon characteristic cannot be found. The Goddess Sarasvathi is the Goddess Sarasvathi by virtue of cognizing the veera in her hand and the padmasana on a white lotus as the structural uncommon characteristic of Sarasvathi Matha. If it were not for that, the deity would be a photograph of a woman.

v. Pragmatic Uncommon Characteristic A pragmatic uncommon characteristic is one in which the members of as society confer a particular function to an object, by a process of selection (and election). For example, a husband is one who is selected to perform the function of being a husband to a women and conferred husbandship through an act, a ritual etc. An M.P./P.M. is another example. Unless they are selected and elected (re selected) and further have taken the oath, they will not become so. Again, they have to function in that capacity to be so. One more example is that of a father in law. Here, a person (male) must have produced a female and performed another action of marrying her to a male. All these functions can range from one to many, as in the case of a grandfather, etc.

vi. A Ka:rmik Uncommon Characteristic A karmic uncommon characteristic is one in which an object, an action which is a patterned structure as an impressionally cognized meaning performs a function for the experience of pain and pleasure within time, space and matter. All material action performed by humans or any other sentient creature is karmic. The making of a powder, a bed, a television and a deity are all karmic actions. In a karmic perspective, every action

29 will have a structure which embodies a pattern which embodies a process which embodies a function which embodies an impressional cognition which embodies a desire which is a product of svabhavam which is a product of karma for the experience of pain and pleasure by humans in fact any sentient creature.

The uncommon characteristic of language is karmic characteristic. It is an impressional cognitional representational action of action in time, space and matter. Its highest function is to function as a resource for the construction of karmic reality which is realized as impressional cognitional reality social reality actional reality in that order.

The uncommon characteristic of a proverb as language is an impressional cognitional prototypical representational action of categorical action. To put it in other words, a patterned structure (ie, a frozen text) as an impressionally cognized meaning (ie. The prototypical meaning via the referential meaning as the contextual meaning) is used as a prototypical illocution to instantiate a categorical action over a setting for projected view of life (to experience pain and pleasure as the karmaphalam).

As can be seen from the above explanation, proverbs have a structure (a frozen text) performing a function (pro-cat instantiation) through a pragmatic, and impressional cognitional action of action. As such, they can be defined in a unified theory where form, function and meaning are inter related, inter connected, and inter dependent in a huge mind boggling network of karmic options of action and reaction as follows: A proverb is a culturally confirmed frozen text of a prototypical practice used as an illocution over a categorical action in a setting for a projected view of life.

Let us discuss the uncommon characteristic in a detailed manner using the above concepts in Part II as follows.

30