From ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL Fri Nov 1 11:02:05 1991 From: ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL (Dominik Wujastyk) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 11:02:05 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015167.23782.8482033314168537475.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Jonathan says, \begin{quotation} > Dominik's recent remarks made me think more about the problem of > Romanization, and one of the ways he put things made me sit up > and think: What does it mean so separate the -what was the expression? > something anyway equivalent to the men from the boys (but less sexist)? > Here's one thing it means: any colleages who are not Indologists will > not be able to read our articles!! \end{quotation} It is a very important point, I agree. But whenever I read a serious book about ancient Greece, say, I have to manage the Greek script. No quarter is given by the classicists! Perhaps it could be argued that proper names should be transliterated as well as being in script. The audience for a piece of writing must be an important consideration. For example, Thieme's seminal _Panini and the Veda_, published in Allahabad in 1935 had all the Skt. in Devanagari, and a reprint should keep it so, in my view. Anyone reading about subjects like Panini, Veda, Kavya, and so on must be able to cope with Devanagari, if they are serious. There is just too much important stuff written on such subjects in Devanagari script (Sanskrit, Hindi, Thieme-like, etc.) for progress to be possible without the script (and the language). Cardona's more recent book on Panini is odder in its conventions. It's a pity George isn't here on INDOLOGY, because he has obviously thought about some of these issues, and I would be interested in his ideas. In his book, done on a Mac, he has used romanization throughout, but actual Paninian sutras (and citations from other grammarians) are duplicated in Devanagari. We are used to grammar primers, like Macdonnell, duplicating words in script and romanization, and it makes sense in a pedagogical work. But I don't see the point in Cardona's book. Dominik From E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC Fri Nov 1 14:53:56 1991 From: E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC (E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 14:53:56 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015165.23782.2477399070019888210.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Dominik's recent remarks made me think more about the problem of omanization, and one of the ways he put things made me sit up and think: What does it mean so separate the -what was the expression? something anyway equivalent to the men from the boys (but less sexist)? Here's one thing it means: any colleages who are not Indologists will not be able to read our articles!! The Sinologist who wonders about Indian History in a certain period will have no problem deciding who Candragupta (in Romanization, just like you see it now) is, but imagine his discomfort with a string (see Dominik's note on this word!) of crazy scrawls. I remember well me own great discomfort as a beginning student of Buddhist with Yamakami Sogen's excellent ook on Buddhist Philosophy which follows closely the conventions Richard Hayes suggests. Richard must have read this book; I wonder if he will respond to us about his reactions to it (it was printed in Calcutta, if memory serves in the 1930s). I'm inkind of a rush now, but what do others have to say about this? It seems one thing o publish a text edition, which ipso facto non-specialists will not consult, in Naagarii. I will not necessarily scream. But articles that we want others to actually read? What say ye? Jonathan Silk (still in Kyoto). From JHUBBARD at EARN.JPNCUN10 Fri Nov 1 20:08:40 1991 From: JHUBBARD at EARN.JPNCUN10 (Jamie) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 20:08:40 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015169.23782.1222746532038280259.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Thank you Jonathan. I was going to say something similar, and I heartily second your comments. I would perhaps even go further. It has been some 15 years since I studied Sanskrit, and even then the script was not much of an issue. I surely could not get very far if I had to deal with Devanagari. The great Dictionaries are fun, but the Worterbuch or even Monier-Williams slows me down 'cause of the script...and I could maybe even find some flash cards... But I would really just walk next door and ask the Sanskrit specialist. But since she is always busy, I hesitate. . . Actually, though, I do care about whether tathaagatagarbha is a bahuvriihi or tatpurusha (sp??-- sorry, no time to remember spelling at the moment) and it is sometimes important for me to check a Sanskrit edition, which I can do easily and meaningfully if it is Romanized form. I admit I am a baby in these matters, but if the only reason to use Devanagari is male macho (to be a man rather than a boy) than I vote against. If the question is PC-ness, that is another issue with perhaps more merit, though the comments about Buddhist texts not being originally in Devanagari would seem to count against at least those texts being presented in a vernacular script (I believe that is what librarians use to refer to a "local" script). Chinese and Japanese, at least, are another case altogether, of course, and perhaps the comparison is worthwhile. Oh well. Jamie. From CXEV at CA.MCGILL.MUSICA Sun Nov 3 14:44:59 1991 From: CXEV at CA.MCGILL.MUSICA (Richard Philip Hayes) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 09:44:59 -0500 Subject: Teaching through romanization Message-ID: <161227015171.23782.8352117907989666989.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Jamie said: \begin{quotation} It has been some 15 years since I studied Sanskrit, and even then the script was not much of an issue. \end{quotation} Dominik said: \begin{quotation} We are used to grammar primers, like Macdonnell, duplicating words in script and romanization, and it makes sense in a pedagogical work. \end{quotation} These comments are particularly interesting to me, because I am teaching second-year Sanskrit to students who were introduced to the language through Michael Coulson's book. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Coulson's book, the convention he used was to discuss most grammatical features in romanization in the main body of the text; the exercises at the end of each lesson are in Devanagari, but he also provides a romanized transcription for every exercise; the vocabulary is given in both Devanagari and romanization, and the paradigms are in romanization only. It is therefore possible to get through his book without really having to learn Devanagari. And what I find in second-year Sanskrit is that most non-Indian students are still stumbling at reading the script and are almost hopelessly awkward at writing it. In other words, they avail themselves of the opportunity that Coulson provides for learning Sanskrit without learning the script. I don't use a textbook in my Sanskrit course, but I hand out a lot of explanatory material, as well as drills and exercises, that I have prepared myself. (Operating on the principle that Sanskrit is a language rather than a form of mathematics, I try to give the students drills designed to reinforce basic and frequently encountered linguistic habits rather than sets of problems designed to enhance the student's skills at solving puzzles.) Every Sanskrit word that occurs in these materials---including those that are cited as isolated words in English sentences---is in Devanagari. For the first week or so, the students falter quite a bit, but within a reasonably short time they are reading Devanagari fluently. This is not, of course, to say they are reading Sanskrit fluently; it's just to say that they get stuck at a deeper level than that of the script. I am also teaching elementary Tibetan this year. Right from the first day, I do everything in Tibetan script without ever putting any Tibetan word in roman characters. Students can master both reading and writing the script within a couple of weeks. After a month or so, I do reveal some of the systems of transliteration that have been devised, and students laugh until their sides ache at how funny Tibetan looks in roman characters. My experience makes me wonder why one should not teach Sanskrit only in Devanagari right from the first lesson. In other words, I am beginning to question whether romanization really does make sense in a pedagogical work. I have a hunch that Macdonnell, Whitney, Monier-Williams and others used romanization not because they wanted to make the task of learning Sanskrit easier for beginners, but because they wanted to make the morphological features of Sanskrit more accessible to classicists and comparative philologists, most of whom never intended to learn Sanskrit at all, or at least did not intend to gain more than a superficial familiarity with its resemblances to Latin and Greek. I do not disparage comparative philologists or modern linguists at all, and I can easily see why works intended to reach them should use romanization. But in pedagogical works intended to train people to use Sanskrit, I can less easily see much value in romanization. Comments from other teachers or students of Sanskrit (past and present) would be welcome. Now that Devanagari is readily available through TeX, Chiwriter, Multilingual Scholar, and Mac, do you Sanskrit teachers still use romanization in the classroom? (I confess that when I'm in a hurry, I am much more likely to write romanization on the blackboard, because I can write roman characters much more quickly than I can write Devanagari. But I am thinking I should reform my ways.) Richard Hayes Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University From ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER Mon Nov 4 13:59:00 1991 From: ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER (ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 08:59:00 -0500 Subject: Nagari or not? Message-ID: <161227015173.23782.1488763949916629967.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> The important issue raised by Dominik is beginning to degenerate into something like the BUUDHIST FORUM type of discussion. May I suggest that we focus on the issue and personal comments aside and may we list the points pro and con, both of which have ideological merit and seek resolution. Ideology is one thing. The major problem I cannot seem to see clearly is one of implementation. Relatively few Indologists, Buddhologists, etc., have the hardward, software, and know how to use Nagari in their scholarly writing. How then can everyone be brought to the same level of technical expertise to make the venture successful? I know a couple of very excellent scholars who still do their work with pen and paper! K. Zysk From cnkumar at COM.DEC.ENET.QCAV01 Thu Nov 7 03:32:05 1991 From: cnkumar at COM.DEC.ENET.QCAV01 (Be no coward,knave nor fool) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 19:32:05 -0800 Subject: Can anyone help please? Message-ID: <161227015176.23782.1080332958558436120.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> I am interested in an English translation of the set of 20 slokas in Sanskrit in praise of the Mother called "MAHISHASURAMARDINI STORTRA". Can any of you who participate in this list help me get it. Please send mail to :CNKUMAR at QCAV01.ENET.DEC.COM Thanks Kumar From E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC Thu Nov 7 15:36:00 1991 From: E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC (E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 15:36:00 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015174.23782.411962178304739402.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> I'm frankly not sure what Ken means about devolution of the discussion, but anyway, the points seem to me to be: I) In favor of Nagari: a) Misprints can probably be reduced significantly. b) Scholars not familiar with romanization can use the work. c) It is traditional and classicists do it (mutatis mutandis). d) It looks "cool." II) Against Nagari: a) Data is perhaps / probably not fully transferable. b) Non-specialists cannot read it (e.g., historians, linguists). c) Not all have the capacity to produce it, or produce it in a lovely way. d) Journals will cause an uproar if so requested. (trivial if we unite to insist; it is importatnt to note in this regard that most Asianist journal still do not print even Japanese or Chinese (which cannot bemeaninfully romanized) in the body of articles!!! >> So, It seems we might provisionally conclude that editions of texts which we think will be of minimal or no interest to those who do not make the investment to learn Nagari can and should be printed in the latter. Texts in which some non-specialists (like Jamie, a specialist in East Asian Buddhism) might take an interest and want to check a word or phrase (does it say, e.g., stuupa, or does the extant Skt have caitya?) should perhaps be printed in roman. Words and phrases - isn't it a little pedantic to put these into nagari? I hope Ken does not consider this "forum-ish" and I wonder what he thinks of the summary. Jonathan Silk. From ASHER at EDU.UMN.ACS.VX Mon Nov 11 16:01:00 1991 From: ASHER at EDU.UMN.ACS.VX (RICK ASHER) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:01:00 -0600 Subject: Vrindaban Research Institute Message-ID: <161227015182.23782.18270882004319302938.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Was it Johannes Bronkhorst who wanted the address of the Vrindaban Research Institute? In any event, it is: Vrindaban Research Institute Vrindaban-281 121 India Frederick M. Asher From JBRONKHO at CH.UNIL.ULYS Mon Nov 11 10:39:35 1991 From: JBRONKHO at CH.UNIL.ULYS (JBRONKHO at CH.UNIL.ULYS) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:39:35 +0100 Subject: Institutes in India Message-ID: <161227015178.23782.7700065202124982960.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Would anyone be able to send me the addresses of the following institues in India? 1. Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, Jodhpur 2. Vrindaban Research Institute, Vrindaban 3. R.V. Sahitya Research Library, Udaipur Many thanks! Johannes Bronkhorst From ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL Mon Nov 11 12:05:03 1991 From: ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL (Dominik Wujastyk) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:05:03 +0000 Subject: Institutes in India Message-ID: <161227015180.23782.9081900236862051960.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> \begin{quotation} > Would anyone be able to send me the addresses of the following institues > in India? > 1. Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, Jodhpur This isn't perfect (no code) but try Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, Head Office, P.W.D. Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, INDIA > 2. Vrindaban Research Institute, Vrindaban > 3. R. V. Sahitya Research Library, Udaipur R. V. Sahitya Sansthan Research Library, Sahitya Sansthan, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, INDIA. \end{quotation} Dominik From ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL Tue Nov 12 20:29:15 1991 From: ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL (Dominik Wujastyk) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: Review of Siegel's Magic book Message-ID: <161227015183.23782.8118850024247971179.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> I was very pleased to see a review of Lee Siegel's delightful, provocative, and extremely funny _Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions of India_ (U. Chicago Press, 1991) in the current issue of Scientific American (November 1991, pp. 102 f.). Well deserved publicity: may it cause his book to vanish from the shops in great numbers. Om, gilli gilli gilli! Yantru-mantru-tantru-jalaajalaa-tantru! Phat! Dominik From ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER Wed Nov 13 16:40:00 1991 From: ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER (ZYSK at EDU.NYU.ACFCLUSTER) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:40:00 -0500 Subject: nagari or not ? Message-ID: <161227015185.23782.18284457225856665525.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> I very much appreciate Jonathan's summary of the important issues surrounding the discussion of adopting devanagari as the standard in academic writing pertaining to Indology/Buddhology. It is clear that there are two camps which correspond neatly to Indologists and Buddologists. The former would work comfortably with nagari, the latter word experience difficulty. As the two demonstrate a great deal of overlap and benefit from each other's contributions,I must say that Jonathan's comments are well founded and I should be inclined at this point to opt for the status quo. Thank Jonathan for clear picture. Ken Zysk From QQ43 at UK.AC.LIVERPOOL Sun Nov 17 20:55:10 1991 From: QQ43 at UK.AC.LIVERPOOL (Chris Wooff) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 20:55:10 +0000 Subject: Delays in receipt of mail Message-ID: <161227015186.23782.12997190502091379630.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Those of you registered with one of our lists at an Internet site will have noticed that there have been significant delays in mail transmission lately. These delays have been caused by the normal gateway between the UK academic network (JANET) and the Internet known as nsfnet-relay. Within the last few days the delays have been as much as 5 days. To try and improve the situation the University of Kent at Canterbury kindly allowed me to use them as an Internet gateway to clear the huge backlog of mail here. I have therefore spent time this weekend in retransmitting about 700 items of mail destined for Internet sites. This exercise is now largely complete. I'm sorry for these delays which were not the fault of Liverpool. I'd finally like to thank Kent for their help. Chris Wooff BITNET/EARN/NETNORTH: QQ43 at LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (QQ43%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL at UKACRL) INTERNET: QQ43 at LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (QQ43%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK at NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK) JANET: QQ43 at UK.AC.LIVERPOOL SPAN: RLESIS::CBS%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL::QQ43 UUCP: ....!mcsun!uknet!liverpool.ac.uk!qq43 From YANOM at EARN.JPNKSUVX Tue Nov 19 09:36:00 1991 From: YANOM at EARN.JPNKSUVX (YANOM at EARN.JPNKSUVX) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 18:36:00 +0900 Subject: BURROW'S BIBLIO Message-ID: <161227015188.23782.16869228007921448035.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> I sent Burrow's bibliography to a Japanese network of linguists. Profs. KUMAMOTO (Tokyo) and KANAZAWA made additions and corrections. I was asked to send them back to INDOLOGY network. Michio YANO (Kyoto Sangyo University) 1944 "The Term 'agizala' in two KharoSThI inscriptions", Journal of the Greater India Society, 11, i, pp. 13-16 1949 "Earliest Contacts of Indo-Iranians", Nehru abhinandan granth, a b irthday book presented to Jawaharlal Nehru ... on completion of hi s sixtieth year November 14, 1949, Calcutta, Nehru Abhinandan Gran th committee, 1949, pp. 433-440 1950 "Indo-Iranica", siddha-bhAratI or the rosary of Indology, presenti ng 108 original papers on Indological subjects in honour of the 60 th birthday of Dr. Siddheshwar Varma, ed. Vishva Bandhu (Vishveshv aranand Indological Series, 1-2), Hoshiapur, V[ishveshvaranand] V[ edic] R[esearch] Institute P[rinting] and P[ublishing] Organizatio n, 3 vols. I, pp. 107-110 1954 "Sanskrit Etymological Notes", SarUpa-BhAratI or the Homage of Ind ology, being the Dr. Lakshman Sarup memorial volume, ed. Jagan Nat h Agrawal and Bhim Dev Shastri (Vishveshvaranand Indological Serie s, 6), Hishiapur, Vishveshvaranand Institute Publications, pp. 3-1 3 1970 "Sanskrit ja'lASa", W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch, London, Lund Hunphries, pp. 89-97 1946 "The date of 'Syaamilaka's Paadataa.ditaka",JRAS ?,pp.46-53. 1959 [Rev.]Renou,L.:`Etudes sur le vocabulaire du .Rgveda:Premi`ere s'erie(19 58),JAOS 79,pp.287-289. 1962 -Dravidian borrowings from Indo-Aryan(with M.B.Emeneau),[University of C alifornia Publication in Linguistics 26], Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univer sity of California Press, x,121pp. 1968 "Caa.nakya and Kau.tilya",ABORI 48-49,pp.17-31. 1975 "Two Saka Loanwords in ManusmRti", Ural-Altaische Jahrbu:cher, Band 47, pp. 30-3 4 1981 [Rev.]Emeneau,M.B.:Language and Linguistic Area(1980),BSOAS 44,p.179. ============================== corrections - A Dravidian etymological dictionary (with M.B. Emeneau), Oxford 1960. // - A Dravidian etymological dictionary (with M.B. Emeneau), Oxford 1961. 1936 `The dialectical position of the Niya Prakrit', BSOS, VIII, 1936, 419- // 1936 `The dialectical position of the Niya Prakrit', BSOS, VIII, 1936, 419-435. `A comparative vocabulary of the Gondi dialects', JAS, 2, 1960, 73-251. // `A comparative vocabulary of the Gondi dialects'(with S.Bhattacharya), JAS, 2, 1960, 73-251. From CXEV at CA.MCGILL.MUSICA Wed Nov 27 00:30:25 1991 From: CXEV at CA.MCGILL.MUSICA (Richard Philip Hayes) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:30:25 -0500 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015192.23782.4011323987069575167.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> 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. Having the matter drawn to my attention makes me rather sad. One of the great attractions of studying classical civilizations for me is the respite they provide from the world in which we live---a world in which nearly every aspect of life, from the pronouns one uses to the script in which one writes Sanskrit, is emotionally charged and politicized. 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. If others take my innocent actions as political, then it cannot be helped, I guess. Having it pointed out to me that using Devanagari is offensive to some is not likely to make me stop using Devanagari. At best, having such things pointed out to me only serves to make me more weary of the dreadful stupidity of human beings. Let's just get on with the business of being scholars and stop worrying about what the fools in the streets will think of what we do. Richard Hayes From FO90030%bitnet.DHHUNI4 at EDU.CUNY.CUNYVM Tue Nov 26 23:10:14 1991 From: FO90030%bitnet.DHHUNI4 at EDU.CUNY.CUNYVM (FO90030) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 23:10:14 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015190.23782.1642189488310609185.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Re Nagari In the discussion concerning the use of Devanagari by Western scholars I have been surprised that no thought seems to have been given to the political aspects of the matter. It must be well known that millions of Indians see the use of Devanagari as supporting the cause of Hindi nationalism. Do we in the West really want to take sides in the matter? Devanagari can be beautiful, but so too can other Indian scripts. Using Devanagari for writing Sanskrit is not like using Greek characters for writing Greek since in the case of Greek only the one script is involved. In mos t cases editions of Sanskrit texts are based on the use of many manuscripts, only some of which - if any - are written in Devanagari. Converting texts written for example in Newari or Malayalam scripts into Devanagari seems to me to be a political act and from a Western scholarly point of view a retrograde one at tha t since any transcription into Roman characters worthy of its salt incorporates an important element of interpretation that is sacrificed by the use of Devanagari. I am also puzzled by the suggestion that one is less likely to make typos by using Devanagari. Certainly Indian editions contain plenty of typographical errors. It is just as easy to forget to add vowel marks when writing Devanagari as it is to forget to add diacritics when writing Roman script. Typesetters even manage to confuse similar complex aksharas. Exactly what kinds of errors are most likely in either script depends on the method of input. The accuracy of input can be controlled quite adequately in both cases by making use of the possibilities offered by computers. Ronald E. Emmerick From ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL Wed Nov 27 22:20:21 1991 From: ucgadkw at UK.AC.UCL (Dominik Wujastyk) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 22:20:21 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015194.23782.16006080766166158253.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Dear Ronald, You make some very interesting points, but I think you overstate the case for associating the use of Devanagari with Hindi nationalism. Anyone can be silly about politics (probably most people are!), and any issue can be politicised. But historians rarely need to take much notice. Are Bob and Sheldon to stop translating the Ramayana because of the disgusting political antics of the BJP? To eschew Devanagari for Sanskrit scholarship seems equally unnecessary to me. > Do we in the West really want to take sides in the matter? I can't see why it is not perfectly acceptable to publish in Devanagari without taking sides, and furthermore without fearing that others might think that one had done so. You are perfectly right about the variety of scripts in MSS, and indeed I made this point myself in my original posting. > Devanagari can be beautiful, but so too can other Indian scripts. I couldn't agree more, and I would dearly like to see the acquisition of at least the Bengali and Telugu scripts (and "Saaradaa perhaps) as essential parts of a serious undergraduate course in Sanskrit, coupled with some practice in handling and deciphering manuscripts. When I was an undergraduate, Richard G. took us all into the Bodleian once a week, one term, and we read "Sakuntalaa from MSS. It was great. > Converting texts written for > example in Newari or Malayalam scripts into Devanagari seems to me to be a > political act and from a Western scholarly point of view a > retrograde one at that ... I disagree! It is a most interesting point, though. But surely the main purpose in -- say -- producing an edition is to make the author's work available to a fresh contemporary audience, and in a version that is as close as possible to what the author wrote. (By "version" I mean text, not script. The substance, not the form.) If, as you stress, the text is transmitted in MSS in several scripts, obviously one is going to have to come off the fence. Perhaps you could say that an edition should be printed in the script that the author used, but that is almost never known. But even if it were known, say, that the author was Keralan, and wrote Sanskrit in the Malayalam script, I still think that it would be counter- productive to produce an edition in this script. The audience for the book would be decimated, and this would be no service to the author, the editor, or the history of ideas. Just imagine if T. Ganapatisastri had printed the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series in Malayalam, or if the Bibliotheca Indica were in Bengali script. Aargh! Surely the great advantage of Devanagari is that lots of people can read it. Most people in India. That is reason enough. To use another script would be a *more* political statement, saying in effect, "I don't care if most people never read this". That's precisely what worries me about editions of Sanskrit texts in Roman script (e.g. Si). They satisfy our needs as Western scholars admirably, of course. But in the final analysis, at the end of the day, when all the birds come home to roost, etc., the torch of Indian scholarship belongs in India, and we do not serve Indians well if we publish in scripts that are not natural to them. There are many excellent Sanskrit scholars who would have a very hard time reading a romanized edition. How many copies of Si have sold in India? How many vaidyas have read it? Compare that with the number of editions of something like the Vaidyajivana, or even the Madhavanidana, which are both currently in print, probably with more than one publisher. I would argue that the Si would have equal appeal in India today, if it were available in a cheap, reliable Devanagari edition. It's history in medieval times, as you have revealed, shows that it has the capability of being extremely popular. > ... since any transcription into Roman characters worthy of its > salt incorporates an > important element of interpretation that is sacrificed by the > use of Devanagari. I am just as puzzled by this as you are about the claim that it is harder to make typos in Devanagari than in Roman. Any script can be corrupted by a typesetter or typist. I *wish* there were a bullet-proof script, but of course there isn't. Similarly, what is there about Devanagari that prevents markup? You can split up ak.saras, etc. Underlining, bold, size changes, accents, superscript numerals, etc. Why not? It looks ugly, but then it does in Roman too. It's just a matter of getting your eye in, isn't it? Best wishes, Dominik From E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC Fri Nov 29 16:05:14 1991 From: E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC (E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 16:05:14 +0000 Subject: None Message-ID: <161227015196.23782.12190851725973396390.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Status: RO I was interested, and frankly relieved, to see that despite the approval given my brief summary by Ken Zysk, the discussion did not end there. I am not current on Indian politics, and thus do not have an opinion one way or the other on RE's comments, vis-a-vis their accuracy. But I would like to note that I was surprised by Richard Hayes's comments: Richard, do you really think that in studying ancient society etc you can omit to take a political etc stand? I am currently finishing an overly long book review of Phillip Almond's _The British discovery of Buddhism_, a work methodologically indebted to Said's _Orientalism_ and one which should make us aware yet again of the enormous political ideological, etc etc background behind everything we do, even editing 9th century epistemology or medical texts - and I think I have to agree with Emmerick that the script question, HOWEVER it is resolved, cannot be pushed aside by wishing it were non-political. If someone makes it political in an explicit way, we cannot ignore this. This (the latter stance) is the worst kind of ivory-tower-ism. Please read Canetti's _Auto-da-fe_ (the English title) on this point. All this is not to say that I agree that RE's argument is right, but only that I am sure Richard's cannot be accepted if we as scholars are to take a responsible role in this world. (This, by the way, is a way of modernizing the constant harping in Mahaayaana texts on _iha loke_ as opposed to _paraloke_ or -loke.su.) It may be enough, pace Dominik's remarks on the Ramayana translation, to discuss the stand taken by the translators on whatever issue or set of issues seem to be in question. For whether they and all of use are conscious of it or not, we do and must necessarily have a stand, a background, a pre-text, just as we must speak in some language and use some grammar (even if we think grammar mere convention). Dominik alludes again to an issue I raised earlier, with different results. Yes, if we want Indians to read something it must be available in readable, affordable editions. I would think the emphasis should be on the latter. How many Indians do you know who can afford Rs. 500 for a one volume edition of something, devanagari or not? If I want to consult the Thai or Burmese Tipitaka, I can spend a few minutes with a table of letters and learn the alphabet. I forget it each time, I confess, but nevertheless the effort is not great. Anyone with a scholarly interest in Sanskrit can learn to read roman letters as or more easily that we nagari, which after all, for most of us was a quick thing anyway. Knowing Skt already would no doubt speed up the process. So I am led back to my original conclusion that technical considerations (and here I think Dominik should agree that roman odd fonts and styles look better than nagari ones) and the question of the hoped-for audience should decide the issue. What say ye? --Jonathan Silk From AKR at EDU.BROWN.BROWNVM Sat Nov 30 16:28:48 1991 From: AKR at EDU.BROWN.BROWNVM (Ajit Ranade) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 11:28:48 -0500 Subject: need info about grammar book Message-ID: <161227015198.23782.9881265868117290977.generated@prod2.harmonylists.io> Status: RO I am looking for a book called "Vyaakaran Kuunjika" by Uttamram Jayanand Thakker. It is an introductory book on Sanskrit grammar, written (I think) for a Gujarati speaking audience. Could anyone on this list supply details such as publisher and availability? I don't even know if it is a small and relatively obscure publication or whether it considered to be well known. I came accross a very favorable book review of this book penned in Gujrati. The book review was dated 1984. ps: Dominik, I am sending a copy of this letter to you since last time I submitted something to the list, it never appeared, or at least never made it to my mailbox. Greetings and regards, Ajit Ranade