Any suggestions!

[Ruzsa Ferenc]

As in Sanskrit *tdha is phonetically impossible, I think the best way is to
consider the ligature graphically built up of t- and -dha as representing a
local variety of ddha, probably in a linguistic environment where the
opposition between sonants and surds is not particularly strong.

Yours,
Ferenc
----------------------------------------------------
Ferenc Ruzsa
assistant professor of philosophy,
ELTE University Budapest
ferenc.ruzsa at elte.hu
-----Original Message-----
From: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at UMICH.EDU>
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: 2002. január 23. 14.51
Subject: Re: Any suggestions!


>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.
>