Any suggestions!

[Madhav Deshpande]

Allen has indeed brought up an important question.  I wonder how one would
go about distinguishing between orthographic versus calligraphic
interpretation.  In my manuscript, I find zraatdha for zraaddha, zutdha for
zuddha, sitdha for siddha, batdha for baddha.  However, I found one
instance where one clearly reads prasiddha and not the expected prasitdha.
This one instance tells me that the copyist can calligraphically
distinguish between -tdha- and -ddha-, though in 99.99% of the cases, he
uses -tdha-.  With this data, what might one conclude?  Best,
                                        Madhav

--On Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:51 AM -0500 Allen W Thrasher
<athr at LOC.GOV> wrote:

> There is the epistemological problem how to know whether this is a
> question of orthography (spelling) or of calligraphy, i.e. whether the
> scribe thought the sign was the equivalent of ta+virama+dha or
> d+virama+dha.
>
> Allen
>
>
>
> Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D.
>
> Senior Reference Librarian       101 Independence Ave., SE
> Southern Asia Section               LJ-150
> Asian Division                            Washington, DC 20540-4810
> Library of Congress                     U.S.A.
> tel. 202-707-3732                       fax 202-707-1724
> Email: athr at loc.gov
>
> The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the
> Library of Congress.