Verification of the Rataraju Case - 9 -

Significance of Rataraju’s dialogue in present progressive tense

Rataraju, the personality of the subject’s previous life, had a dialogue in present progressive tense as follows:

(CL stands for the subject, Risa, and KP for the Nepalese woman, Ms. Kalpana Paudel)

CL: Tapai Nepali huncha?
  (Are you Nepalese?)

KP: Ho, ma Nepali.
 (Yes, I am Nepalese.)

CL: O, ma Nepali.
 (Oh, I am Nepalese, too.)

It is easy to inadvertently overlook the importance of this dialogue, but this can be considered as something extremely interesting and thought-provoking regarding the existence of the appeared personality of the subject’s previous life.

That is to say that Rataraju, the personality of the subject’s previous life, is apparently asking “Are you Nepalese?” to the Nepalese woman, Ms. Paudel in this present moment and seeing her response. This means that it is not possible to construe that “Risa is recalling a piece of memory from her previous life stored in her subconscious mind” as is often considered concerning the process of a past life regression.

This means that Rataraju is not a personality narrated by Risa by recalling the memory of her previous life. Thus, Rataraju must be an appeared entity (personality) that is different from what of Risa's present life. Mr. Inagaki suggests that it is more natural to construe this phenomenon that “the personality of the subject’s previous life, Rataraju, whose personality is different from what of Risa, expresses himself during the conversation by using Risa’s body (vocal cords).  〔Note from translator: Please note that Rataraju's personality is "proven" to be a personality of Risa's own previous life according to several investigations and hypotheses, and that this is not a phenomenon of a "posession" by an entitiy belonging to someone else. Regarding the difference between the phenomena where a personality of a previous life apprears and where a posession by an entity belonging to someone else takes place will be presented in a future article on this blog.〕

Rataraju’s personality that lived in a previous life does not own a body now, but is manifesting as a personality (conscious mind) existing at this present moment and making a conversation in present progressive tense.

According to Mr. Inagaki, this dialogue in present progressive tense is evidence implying the possibility of his unique working hypothesis for SAM Progression Therapy being correct, i.e. that there is consciousness of one’s spirit hidden in the abyss of the subconscious mind in a human body and that entities (personalities) from previous lives are living and existing there even now.

This is the last part of the verifications of the authenticity of the Nepali used by Rataraju.

From next article, verifications of the content uttered by Rataraju will be presented.

<To be continued>

Verification of the Rataraju Case - 8 -

Huge linguistic distance between Neapli and Japanese

Japanese and Nepali belong to different language families and it can be stated that there is a huge linguistic distance between these two languages.

For instance, regarding the two cases of responsive xenoglossy under hypnosis presented by Dr. Ian Stevenson, one of them, ”the Case of Jensen” where the subject, whose native language was English, made conversations in Swedish and the other one, ”the Case of Gretchen” where the subject, who also had English as her native language, made conversations in German. These languages belong to the same language family, i.e. the Germanic group. They are, therefore, related closely linguistically and have many similarities in vocabulary and grammar. That is to say that these are easy to be learned for those who have any of these as their native language.

Also, there was another case of responsive xenoglossy, “the Case of Sharada”, where a woman whose native language was Marathi spoke in fluent Bengali when her personality suddenly became transformed to another one in the awake state. These two languages belong to the same language family, i.e. the Indic group.

In conclusion, these three cases discovered by Dr. Ian Stevenson can be stated as being responsive xenoglossy occurred between the languages relatively close to each other.

Nepali is a very rare foreign language not familiar to Japanese people. There are extremely few Japanese people who know Nepali words and furthermore, when it comes to conversational skills in Nepali, common Japanese people do not normally have any opportunity of learning it except for those very limited groups of people such as diplomats, trading company employees and researchers on Nepal.

Besides, it can be stated that there is hardly any conversational school in Nepali other than in big cities. In the local city with its population of 500,000 where Risa lives, there is no facility where Nepali can be learned.

If Risa had learned Nepali, it can be assumed that there is no other means to learn it than by a several-years´ acquaintanceship with a friend who speaks Nepali.

In previous times, it is said that NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) Educational TV broadcasted a course in Nepali, but the suspicion of Risa having learned Nepali through this program can be excluded by her family´s testimony.

Taking all these into consideration, the value of this Rataraju Case can be highly recognized in the point that the subject Risa could make a conversation in Nepali, which linguistically has a huge distance from her native language Japanese and is a “highly difficult language to learn” for the subject compared to the other cases of responsive xenoglossy.

It is, of course, clarified that Risa has never been to Nepal, never met any Nepalese or most of all, never learned Nepali in her life by her testimony.

 

<To be continue>

Verification of the Rataraju Case - 7 -

Responding to the word ”swasni” (wife); an informal and provincial word

In the page “Rataraju speaking in Nepali 1”, there is a dialog between Rataraju and Ms. Paudel as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(KA stands for Ms. Paudel and CL for the subject, Risa)

KA: ①Tapaiko srimatiko nam ke re?　
　　　 (What is the name of your wife?)

CL: Oh jirali 　　　
        (*Unknown words.)

KA: ② Srimati, swasniko nam? 　
　　　 (Wife, wife’s name?)

CL: Ah ... ah ... mero swasni Ramel...Rameli. 　　　
        (Ah… ah… my wife’s name is Ramel… Rameli.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This part of the dialogue requires a careful attention to notice that Rataraju answered ”Oh jirali”, which is not an understable reply, when Ms. Paudel used the word “srimati” (wife) at ① above.Thereafter, Ms. Paudel repeated the same question by adding another word for wife ”swasni” to the already used word ”srimati”.

As a result, Rataraju responded ”…mero swasni Ramel...Rameli.” (my wife’s name is Ramel… Rameli.)

This means that Rataraju understood the meaning of the word ”swasni” (wife) used at the later part ② correctly and answered ” mero swasni Ramel..” while he showed an reaction that can be construed as if he did not understand the question when the word ”srimati”, also meaning wife, used at the first part showen as ① above. It seems that Rataraju can understand the word “swasni” but not “srimati”.

What does this imply?

According to Dr. Chandra Kishor Khanal, a Nepalese guest researcher at Chubu University, the word “srimati” is a formal and common word in Nepali while the world “swasni” an informal and provincial one.

And concerning the situation that someone can understand the word ”swasni” but not the word ”srimati”, this can happen with someone who spoke old Nepali or a Nepalese living in Nepal but whose mother language is other than Nepali, such as Tamang tribe. (Masayuki Ohkado, “Research on Sprituality”, p.68)

Based on the above mentioned, it can be regarded as natural that Rataraju, the personality of Risa´s previous life, can understand only the informal and provincial word “swasni” meaning wife and not the formal one “srimati” considering the fact that he lived in Nallu Village where Tamang tribe accounted for 97 % of the population (as of 2010) and that he existed about 100 years ago.

As a conclusion, the fact that Rataraju can understand the word “swasni” but not “srimati” can be considerd as a supportive circumstantial evidence that he existed as a Tamang in the quite old days.

At the same time, since it is almost impossible for Risa to learn the informal and provincial Nepali word “swasni”, the suspicion of Risa having learned Nepali somewhere in secret can be cleared. It can be also mentioned that the result of polygraph test shows that there is no trace found that she had learned Nepali.

By analyzing in detail, several evidence of Rataraju´s existence can be found. It is amazing that Rataraju left those evidence in such a short conversation as this one lasted for 24 minutes.

＜To be continued＞

Verification of the Rataraju Case - 6 -

Use of the expression “8 and 70” for indicating age


Prof. Ohkado at Chubu University, who is a member of the Xenoglossy Research Team, has published a book titled “Research on Spirituality” (Fubaisha, Inc.). In the latter half of this book, an analysis of Nepali in the Rataraju Case is presented from his point of view as a co-researcher observing the session. As a complementation to the analysis of the same conversation part mentioned in Mr. Inagaki’s book “Reincarnation is proved scientifically!” (p. 107, Natural Spirit Inc.), Prof. Ohkado stated as follows:


・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

We have found evidence indicating that the Nepali Rataraju’s personality speaks is the one spoken by those who speak Tamang language, and furthermore, that it is a very old form of Nepali. That evidence consists of how to count numbers.

When Rataraju was asked about his age of death, he answered “aath sattariri (8 and 70)”. Since you do not say the digit in the first place before the digit in the ten’s place in modern Nepali, Ms. Paudel (who spoke with Rataraju in Nepali at the session) became confused and asked “Do you mean 70?”

To prove Ms. Paudel’s response, all the Nepalese people who listened to this part found it “unnatural as Nepali”.

However, when verifying this issue on site, Mr. Prithivi Galan, age 78, told that people counted as “8 and 70” in Nallu Village in the old days. According to him, after education has been spread, this way of counting has vanished and consequently, there is hardly anyone who knows how to count in this way today.

Masayuki Ohkado, “Research on Spirituality”, 2011, p.81

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

The reason why the Reserach Team considered it significant that Rataraju’s personality answered “8 and 70”, i.e. “78 years old” to the question when he died is that this answer in Nepali is consistent with his answer that he “died at the age of 78” clearly made in Japanese at the first session 4 years ago. This utterance is consistent with what he answered in Nepali 4 years later, i.e. that he died at the age of 8 and 70, i.e. 78.

That is to say that this was acknowledged as significant in proving that Rataraju’s personality that had appeared at the session 4 years ago and the one appeared 4 years later were the one and same personality. It is because it could be considered as a circumstantial evidence that Rataraju’s personality was not a fictive one Risa had created arbitrarily.

The fact that the way of expressing as “7 and 80” for indicating an age has been confirmed as the way that actually had been used in the quite old Nepali according to the field investigation conducted by Prof. Ohkado this time can be, in addition to the fact that the name “Rataraju” is a name used in the old days in Nepal, considered to be a supportive circumstantial evidence that Rataraju existed more than about 100 years ago.

This is because it can be estimated that the period of 78 years that Rataraju existed lies somewhere between 1784 and 1933.

The expression “8 and 70” that Rataraju used is rather a natural way of expression as a native speaker of the old Nepali, which can be considered to be a supportive circumstantial evidence of his existence.

Furthermore, this expression “8 and 70” for indicating an age, which is not used in modern Nepali, is something that cannot be learned normally even if Risa had learned Nepali in secret. Therefore, this can be considered to be a proof (of xenoglossy) that Risa had not learned Nepali in her present life.

Aside from the field investigation by Prof. Ohkado, there was another investigation in Nallu Village conducted by Dr. Shobana Bajracharya, a Nepalese cultural anthropologist living in Nepal. In this investigation, Dr. Bajracharya searched for an official family register and other documents and conducted hearings with 34 patriarchs in Nallu Village of what they could recall, but there was nothing that could confirm Rataraju’s existence.

However, including foremost the expression “8 and 70” for indicating an age, there are several utterances made by Rataraju which all turned out to be compatible with the facts, such as eating habit of “kodo”, a sort of millet which is scarcely eaten in Kathmandu these days, existence of many leeches in the village, cremation at the mountain and the flashback image of the village scenery that Risa had, which can be considered as supportive circumstantial evidence of Rataraju’s existence.

It is hard to believe that the subject Risa did wild guess during the sessions and that all of the utterances happened to be compatible with the facts by coincidence.

Therefore, it should be regarded that the reason of Rataraju’s utterances turned out to be compatible with the facts was that it indeed was Rataraju’s personality that appeared and uttered about the nature and living environment in Nallu Village.

<To be continued>

Verification of the Rataraju Case - 5 -

Use of the irregular numerals in Nepali

It is very hard to learn how to count in Nepali, since there is no regularity in Nepali numerals and you need to memorize each number one by one.

For instance, “one”, “two” and “three” in Japanese (“ichi”, “ni” and “san”), which is the subject, Risa’s native language, are correlated with the numbers in the tenth place, i.e. “eleven”, “twelve” and “thirteen” which are “juu-ichi”, “juu-ni” and “juu-san” in Japanese (“juu” indicates “ten”), which makes it easy to memorize. However, “one”, “two” and “three” in Nepali are “ek”, “dui” and “tin” while “eleven”, “twelve” and “thirteen” are respectively “egara”, “bara” and “tera”; thus there is no regularity there which makes it harder to memorize.

Rataraju uttered spontaneously three numbers in Nepali, “tis (30)”, “pachs (25)” and “ath satori (8 and 70 meaning 78)” . We believe the fact that he was able to utter these complex numbers can be admitted as a convincing evidence that a Nepalese personality called Rataraju indeed appeared and made a conversation in Nepali.

<To be continued>

Verification of the Rataraju Case - 4 -

Correct use of auxiliary verbs in Nepali

Verbs and auxiliary verbs in Nepali are inflected intricately agreeing with the subject in number, gender, status and person.

Taking the important verb “hunu” which means 'to be” or “to become” as an example, the ending is expressed with “hu” when it refers to the first person singular (for example “I am…”), with “hunuhuncha” regarding the second person with high grade (i.e. for a humble expression) and “ho” regarding the third person singular with low-grade.

According to the analysis done by the TV program production team of “Unbelievable”, it turned out that Rataraju uttered “Mero buwa Tamang hunuhuncha.” (meaning “My father is a Tamang.”) by using the auxiliary verb “hunuhuncha” properly inflected agreeing with the word “father” which is considered to be an honorific title in Nepali.

We consider this fact that Rataraju is able to respond properly by using the correct inflected auxiliary verbs to be one of the compelling evidence that he possesses an ability to use Nepali correctly.

<To be continued>

Verification of the Rataraju Case - 3 -

The Nepali words which the other part (the Nepalese woman Ms. Kalpana Paudel) had not uttered

What is significant is whether Rataraju used Nepali words which Ms. Kalpana Paudel had not used in her utterances.

This is because it may give a false impression that a dialog is established even when Rataraju actually did not understand the meaning of a question, if he just used the same words uttered by Ms. Paudel repeatedly.

If Rataraju indeed was a personality of a past life, the credibility of him using Nepali words would be low if there were no Nepali words that were uttered firstly by Rataraju and not by Ms. Paudel. Otherwise, we would not be able to consider it as responsive xenoglossy with conversational skills in strict meaning.

Therefore, except for the personal names, we picked up the Nepali words which Rataraju uttered firstly from all the sessions and found out that there were 29 such words as shown below.

mero（my）・ ke（what）・ tis（30）・ bujina（I don´t know）・ ho（yes）・ ma（I) ・ Shiba（God Shiba）・ dhama（religion）・ Nepali（Nepalese）・ Gorkha（Gorkha soldiers）・pachis（25）・ hoina（no）・ pet（stomach）・ dukahuncha（hurt）・ rog（disease）・ guhar（help) ・ ath（8）・ satori（70）・ Tamang（Tamang tribe）・ kana（food）・ dal（bean soup）・ bha (rice) ・ kodo（a sort of millet）・ sathi（friend）・ cha （is/are）・ Nallu gaun（Nallu village）・ kancha (son）・ Shah（Shah dynasty）・ Himal（mountain/Himalaya）


We believe that this fact is an evidence that Rataraju knows Nepali words and that he possesses the conversation skills in Nepali.

Besides, considering the fact that his father is said to be a Tamang, it is possible that Rataraju´s mother tongue is Tamang language and not Nepali. Taking all these into consideration, the fact that Rataraju was able to respond interactively by using not a few Nepali words can be considered to have an even greater significance.

It is worth mentioning that in Rataraju´s pronunciation, you can hear sounds which are totally different from the way Risa uses her tongue when she speaks her mother tongue Japanese.

According to Dr. Chandra Kishor Khanal, a guest researcher at Chubu University who was in charge of analyzing the dialogue, Rataraju´s utterances were authentic Nepali where you could clearly find traces of Tamang dialect for example in the pronunciation of the numbers.

Furthermore, he stated that it would require around 3 to 4 years´ stay in Nepal in order to be able to have a conversation in Nepali as Rataraju did.

Those who have seen the video broadcasted at the TV program "Unbelievable" may have noticed that it was a natural conversation between Nepalese. This is easy to notice by watching Rataraju´s tone in Nepali, facial expressions and bodily movements while he talks, which can not be expressed in the written transcripts.


<To be continued>

Verification of the Rataraju Case -2-

The degree of establishment of the conversation

In analyzing the degree of establishment of the conversation, we devided the conversation into 58 sections by topic and evaluated whether Rataraju responded appropriately or not in each dialogue. The result of the evaluation including some presumptions is as shown below:

A) Conversation established with appropriate responses:
     26 sections (45 %)

B) Conversation not established with no appropriate responses at all:
     8 sections (14%)

C) Difficult to evaluate due to short and ambiguous responses:
     24 sections (41%)

The sections "Conversation not established" refers for example to where Rataraju responded “I don’t know” to the question “Is your wife at home?” or “Shiba… religions” to the question “What do you eat?” etc, thus to the dialogues where Rataraju undoubtedly made inappropriate responses.

The sections “Difficult to evaluate due to short and ambiguous responses” are for example where Rataraju responded shortly such as “I don’t know” or “Yes”, which were not clear enough to judge if Rataraju understood the meaning of the questions appropriately.

From the rough analyzation and evaluation mentioned above, we can conclude that around 80 % of the dialogues are to be regarded as established although not perfect.

Many of you who have read the transcript of the conversation from the session may point out the problem that several of Rataraju’s responses consist of short and simple ones such as “Yes” and “I don’t know”.

Besides, you may have doubts if the conversation indeed can be regarded as an appropriate one in Nepali due to Rataraju’s halting responses.

However, on this point, this Rataraju Case is not inferior at all compared with the transcripts of the conversations in German from the Grethchen Case reported by Dr. Stevenson.

Most of the responses of Gretchen, a personality of a previous life, consisted of short and simple ones such as “No”, “I don’t know” or “Town” etc.

In the first place, utterances of clients in hypnosis are generally slow and it should be mentioned that it is very rare where a client responds immediately to a question in a long context. Furthermore, it is vanishingly unlikely that a client utters at his or her own initiative.

Even Stevenson stated that Gretchen seldom uttered spontaneously and that she responded only shortly to the questions.

Where Rataraju uttered not as a response to a question but spontaneously occurred only twice; when Rataraju stated a question to Ms. Kalpana Paudel as “Are you Nepalese?” and when he complained of a stomachache.

It is worth mentioning that the sessions of Gretchen were conducted as many as 19 times. By reading the transcripts of the recordings, you cannot see so much change in the tendency of Gretchen giving only short responses with lack of fluency even in the later sessions.

Regarding this point, Dr. Stevenson stated for example that Gretchen’s responses were halting, that both grammar and vocabulary were not perfect and that there was no clear improvement or deterioration noticed throughout the entire sessions.

Rataraju’s conversation is very similar to this and for this reason, it can be concluded that the credibility of the Rataraju Case being responsive xenoglossy is high.

Taking the above into consideration, we believe that it should rather be valued that Rataraju was able to have a conversation in Nepali to this extent at his first session in Nepali.

<To be continued>

Verification of the Rataraju Case -1-

The main purpose of the verification of the utterances by Rataraju is, according to the hypnotherapist Mr. Katsumi Inagaki, nothing else but whether it is possible to add this Rataraju Case to the other two xenoglossy cases occurred under hypnosis previously reported by Dr. Ian Stevenson; The Jensen Case and the Gretchen Case.

So far, there had been only these two cases in the world which Dr. Ian Stevenson discovered and reported as xenoglossy occured under hypnosis during his over 20 years' research.

If succeeded in proving the Rataraju Case to be xenoglossy, it becomes the third xenoglossy case in the world occurred under hypnosis, which will also be the first case of the 21st century. In addition, it will be the very first case in the world to be successfully video-filmed. Some of you readers may have seen parts of the session at the TV program "Unbelievable" broadcasted on August 5, 2010 in Japan.

As a widely recognized hypothesis in parapsychology, there is a theory called ESP, which means that human beings can obtain various information through extrasensory perception (ESP). This ESP hypothesis has been the biggest hurdle to overcome to be able to prove the reincarnation hypothesis scientifically over the past 100 years. It may be no exaggeration to say that the reincarnation hypothesis is scientifically proved for a long time if this ESP hypothesis had not existed.

However, there is one thing which cannot be obtained through ESP and that is a "skill".

Since a skill is not information, any kind of psychic cannot acquire a skill he or she has not learned by using his or her supernatural powers. This is because a skill cannot be acquired without practice. A skill is "tacit knowledge", i.e., something that cannot be verbalized and thus not be transferred as information.

One of these typical skills is the ability to have a responsive conversation. Concerning the ability to just utter some foreign words or sentences a person has never learned, this can be explained by the ESP hypothesis.

However, regarding the conversation skill where a person is able to respond interactively, it is not possible to apply the ESP hypothesis.

And the one who focused attention on this point was  Dr. Ian Stevenson, a pioneer of the research in the reincarnation hypothesis.

It is due to the above mentioned that Mr. Inagaki considers it crucial to most of all prove the Nepali spoken by Rataraju to be xenoglossy. Of course, it is important to verify the contents of the utterances by Rataraju as well. However, although they could have been verified to
be compatible with the facts, they could be refuted by using the ESP hypothesis and cannot thus be a conclusive scientific proof of the reincarnation hypothesis.

Therefore, in verifying Rataraju's utterances, the primary purpose is to prove that this case is xenoglossy, and the verification of the contents of Rataraju's utterances will be the secondary one.

Hereafter, verifications of the Nepali dialogue by Rataraju and whether the client Risa had not learned Nepali in her life will be presented one by one.


<To be continued>

Rataraju Speaking in Nepali 7

KP: Tapailai kehi bannu man cha bhane bhannusna.
(Do you have anything you would like to say?)

CL: Ho.
(Yes.)

KP: Hajur?
(Yes?)

KP: Kehi cha bannu man lageko?
(Do you have anything you would like to say?)

CL: Ho.
(Yes.)

KP: Chaina? Bhayo?
(Nothing? Is it enough?)

CL: Ho, ho, hoina.
(Yes, yes, no.)

KP: Hoina?
 (Not enough?)

KP: Kehi cha banna man lageko?
(Would you like to say something?)

KP: Kehi cha manma kura?
(Do you have anything you would like to say?)

CL: Bujina.
(I don’t know.)

KP: Buji ... bujina?
 (You don’t… you don’t know?)

KP: Tapaiko gauma ko ko hunuhuncha sathi?
(Who is your friend in your village?)

CL: Gaun ...
(In the village…)

KP: Hajur, gauma.
(Yes, in the village.)

CL: Ha ... hajur ...
(Ha… yes…)

KP: Hajur, gauma ko ko hunuhuncha?
(Yes, who are there in the village?)

KP: Tapai kati barsa hunubhore, pheri ek choti bhanidinusta?
(What is your age? Can you say that once again?)

CL: Ha ...
(Ha…)

KP: Kati barsa hunubho?
(What is your age?)

CL: Ah ... Ana.
(Ah… ana.)

KP: Tapaiko chora kati barsako bhayo? Chora ... chora ... chora kati barsako bhayo?
(How old is your son? Your son… son… how old is your son?)

KP: Kancha, kanchi?
(Your son? Daugter?)

CL: Kancha.
(Son.)

KP: Kancha?
(Son?)

CL: Ah, Adis.
(Ah, Adis.)

KP: Kancha, Adis.
(Is your son Adis?)

CL: Hum ...
(Hum…)

KP: Kati barsako bhayo Adis?
 (How old is Adis?)

CL: Adis.
(Adis.)

KP: Adis kati barsako bhayo?
(How old is Adis?)

CL: Moi (?) ho ... ho...
(Moi*… yes, yes…)  *Unknown word

KP: Adis kati barsako bhayo?
(How old is Adis?)

CL: Bujina.
(I don’t know.)

KP: Bujnubhayena.
(Don’t you know?)

KP: Tapaiko gauma Magar kohi cha?
(Is there anyone in your village who is from the Magar Tribe?)

CL: Ah.
(Ah…)

KP: Magar. Tapai pani tamang ho? Tamang ho tapai?
(The Magar Tribe. You are from the Tamang Tribe, right? You are a Tamang, right?)

CL: Ha ...
(Ha…)

KP: Rataraju, Tamang ho tapai?
(Rataraju, you are a Tamang, right?)

CL: Hajur ah.
 (Yes, ah.)

KP: Gauma Magar chainan?
 (Isn’t there anyone who is a Magar in your village?)

CL: Hum.
(Hum.)

KP: Magar.
(A Magar.)

CL: Ha ... bujina.
(Ha… I don’t know.)

KP: Rai kohi chan ki ta?
(Is there anyone who is from the Rai Tribe?)

CL: Ah ...(
Ah…)

KP: Kun kun jatko manche chan gauma?
(Which caste do the people in the village belong to?)

CL: Ah ... bujina.
(Ah… I don’t know.)

KP: Bujnubhyena.
(Don’t you know?)

<End of the experimental session of Rataraju in Nepali>

Rataraju Speaking in Nepali 6

KP: Tapailai kehi bhanna man la cha aru?

(Do you have anything else you would like to say ?)

CL: Ah ...

(Ah…)

KP: Aru Gorkhako barema kehi bhannusna.

(Can you tell me something about Gorkha District?)

CL: Bujina.

(I don’t know.)

KP: Gorkha?

(Gorkha?)

CL: Gorkha?

(Gorkha?)

KP: Un.Gorkha. Gorkhako barama?

(Yes, Gorkha. Gorkha District.)

CL: Bua.

(Father.)

KP: Bua?

(Father?)

KP: Tapaile zutta lagaunuhuncha? Zutta?

(Do you wear shoes? Shoes?)

CL: Ke?

(What?)
KP: Zutta.

(Shoes.)

CL: Ke?

(What?)
KP: Zutta.

(Shoes.)

KP: Tapaile luga, ke luga lagaunuhuncha? Kasto luga lagaunuhuncha? Luga ...

(What kind of clothes do you wear? What kind of clothes do you wear? Clothes…)

CL: Bujina.

(I don’t know.)

KP: Luga. Tapaile jiuma kosto luga lagaunuhuncha?

(Clothes. What kind of clothes do you wear?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Tapailai git gauna aucha? Git. Git. Nepal ko git. Nepali git .

(Can you sing a song? A Nepali song. Nepali song.)

CL: Bujina.Oh, bujina.

(I don’t know. Oh, I don’t know.)

KP: Tapailai baja bajauna aucha? Sarangi bajauna aucha? Ke bajauna aucha.

(Can you play an instrument? Can you play the sarangi*? What kind of instrument can you play?)  *Sarangi is an instrument.

CL: Ah ...

(Ah…)

KP: Madal bajauna aucha?

(Can you play the madal*?)  *Madal is an instrument.
CL: Bujina.

(I don’t know.)

KP: Ke aba, ke garne ta, aru kehi sodou ki nasodou?

(What should we do? Can I ask you more questions or should I stop?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Sodon?

(Can I?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Tapaiko gauma manche morda keri ke garni garekocha? Gauma?

(What do you do in your village when people die? In your village?)

CL: Ah.

(Ah…)
KP: Hai.

(Hai.)

CL: Himal.

(Mountain, Himalaya).

KP: Himal?

(Mountain, Himalaya?)

CL: Himala ... Himal.

(Mountain… Himalaya.)

KP: Himal?

(Mountain, Himalaya?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Manche morda keri Himal lera jani?

(Do you transfer dead persons to Mt. Himalaya?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Himalma?

(To the mountain, Himalaya?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Ke ho, jalauni ki gadni? Himalma lagera ke garni jalauni ki gadni?

(In the mountain, Himalaya, are they cremated or buried?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Jalauni?

(Cremated?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

KP: Gadni?

(Burning?)

CL: Ho.

(Yes.)

<To be continued>