From JHUBBARD at EARN.JPNCUN10 Sun Dec 1 11:09:04 1991 From: JHUBBARD at EARN.JPNCUN10 (Jamie Hubbard) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 91 11:09:04 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015200.23782.11534611588271450395.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Status: RO Hate to drag this list down, but Richard Hayes' increasingly anachronistic remarks on the politics of Devanagari rouse me from my textual slumbers: >Ronald E. Emmerick's suggestion that transcribing a text into Devanagari >could be interpreted by some as a political act was, I must confess, >an aspect of the issue that I had never given any thought. Richard, when you first raised this issue, didn't you write something to the effect that your initial concern arose because of the increased sensitivity to such matters shown by your colleagues working with other languages? I had assumed that you were specifically referring to the sort of political considerations (or sensitivity to cultural issues, or whatever) that you here repudiate. Further, from the comments so far it seems that Devanagari tends to be neither the original script nor necessarily more accurate, and complicates the life of encoders and text-critical "taggers" of machine-readable texts as well. Do not the political considerations remain a serious issue? I think so, as I tried to indicate in my earlier comment on the subject (perhaps the message that led to the branding of this List as-- horrors-- degenerating to the quality of the Buddhist list). >I am tempted to say that if it is not my intention to >take a political stand by using a particular script, then it is not >a political act. How tempted are you? This of course sounds like a Buddhist sort of position, reflecting the a-social, individualist approach of the Buddhist tradition to action and influence in this world. Unfortunately, unless "intention" is redefined so as to make it unrecognizable as well as incompatible with your statement (including somehow the intention of society and culture, perhaps), a sociology of individual intention is demonstably untenable and rather unethical to boot. >At best, having such things pointed out to me only serves to make >me more weary of the dreadful stupidity of human beings. I always thought human beings stupid because of their short-sighted refusal to see all of the ramifications (causal ripples) of their actions (including the political). I, too, am very weary of the invective of the battles over political correctness. My home institution, a women's college in New England, is constantly embroiled in various questions of this sort. It is rather delightful to be in Japan for some time, where questions of sexism, nationalism, ageism, racism, and the like are simply not things the average person is aware of. Jokes about women's "parts" and minorities once again! Thank god for R&R, but I prefer the arghhhh!, politically correct over the incorrect. arghhhh!-ingly yours, Jamie Hubbard.  From ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER Mon Dec 2 15:42:00 1991 From: ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER (ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 91 10:42:00 -0500 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015203.23782.2791579329861823693.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Status: RO Conerning Emmerick's comments on Nagari: The concern I was expressing with respect to errors centres around the large number of diacritics which must be checked in proofs. My eye at least will more easily pick up errors in the script. When looking at roman with diacritics I tend to miss much more. Also I am more likely to pronounce the script text in my mind when reading that to relie on visual inspection as with roman. Perhaps this is particular to me and may not be general for all who work with these materials. Emmerick's comments on politically based concerns add an additional element to the discussion, not considered previously. K.G. Zysk From vigyan!iimb!kaujalgi at IN.ERNET.SHAKTI Tue Dec 3 22:02:06 1991 From: vigyan!iimb!kaujalgi at IN.ERNET.SHAKTI (vigyan!iimb!kaujalgi at IN.ERNET.SHAKTI) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 22:02:06 +0000 Subject: testing email from india Message-ID: <161227015201.23782.2914758560051335542.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Status: RO please reply for this mail it is being tested thanks dr v b kaujalgi, iim, bangalore, india From ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL Wed Dec 4 10:14:11 1991 From: ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL (Dominik Wujastyk) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 10:14:11 +0000 Subject: testing email from india Message-ID: <161227015205.23782.3874641427175676993.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Status: RO Dear Dr Kaujalgi, I did indeed receive the following mail from you -- via the Indology list at Liverpool. This is a great development: one of my abiding regrets has been that until now, the Indology discussion has not been shared with colleagues in India. I hope the arrival of your email means that this situation will now begin to change. There are two institutions in Delhi which seem to have an email connection, although I have never succeeded in making contact: the INSA and the IGNCA. Do you have any information about them? Best wishes, Dominik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Dominik Wujastyk, | Janet: D.Wujastyk at uk.ac.ucl Wellcome Institute for | Bitnet/Earn/Ean/Uucp/Internet: D.Wujastyk at ucl.ac.uk the History of Medicine,| or: dow at harvunxw.bitnet or: dow at wjh12.harvard.edu 183 Euston Road, | last resort: D.Wujastyk%uk.ac.ucl at nsfnet-relay.ac.uk London NW1 2BN, England. | Phone no.: +44 71 383-4252 ext.24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \begin{quotation} > From root Tue Dec 3 22:23:45 1991 > Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 22:02:06 GMT > Reply-To: Indology discussion list > Sender: Owner of INDOLOGY > From: SHAKTI.ERNET.IN!vigyan!iimb!kaujalgi > Subject: testing email from india > X-To: vigyan!indology at uk.ac.liverpool > To: Dominik Wujastyk > > > > > please reply for this mail > > > > it is being tested > > > thanks > > dr v b kaujalgi, iim, bangalore, india > > > > > > \end{quotation}