gemination/degemination of stops in ligature with semi-vowels
victor van Bijlert
victorvanbijlert at KPNPLANET.NL
Tue Dec 23 12:22:48 UTC 2008
I do not think the earlier posters were not making sense. For the
significant difference between bodhisattva / bodhisatva and the other
examples is that Buddhist Sanskrit has a tendency to invariably have
meanings slightly different from 'normal' Sanskrit, also depending on the
context. This is part of the socio-religious rhetoric of Indian sects in
their debates. A good point to my mind is the very Buddhist advaya and the
terribly Brahmanical advaita.
If the Sanskrit bodhisattva / bodhisatva is a kind of translation from
Prakrit / Pali bodhisatta, the latter could have had the meaning of
bodhisatvan with a meaning different from bodhisattva. The double or single
t makes a semantic difference possible which is not the case with tatva /
tattva or karma / karmma.
But I agree, not being a pucka Buddhologist, that I could not care less
whether bodhisattva is a bodhisatva or a bodhisatta which is actually
perhaps a bodhisatvan. The socio-religious meanings of the term can be
understood from the way the term is used in various Buddhist texts.
Victor van Bijlert
Van: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] Namens Stella Sandahl
Verzonden: dinsdag 23 december 2008 13:07
Aan: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Onderwerp: Re: gemination/degemination of stops in ligature with semi-vowels
At last something sensible in the double t debate! Thanks!
University of Toronto
On 22-Dec-08, at 10:21 PM, Dominic Goodall wrote:
> Surely the alternation bodhisatva/bodhisattva in manuscript
> transmission has now been more or less explained.
> Gemination of stops in ligature with semi-vowels is unproblematic
> and no reader is fazed by karmma being written in place of karma.
> Degemination of stops in ligature with semi-vowels has therefore
> also long been assumed to be unproblematic by many transmitters of
> Sanskrit texts. For many a scribe, there is simply no meaningful
> difference between sattva and satva (even if a grammarian might
> baulk at writing the second). Reading one, a scribe may happen to
> `copy' the other. Many editors therefore pass over this sort of
> variation in silence on the grounds that there is no point
> differentiating what transmitters of the text have clearly regarded
> as functionally identical.
> Michael Slouber has helpfully pointed out the parallel case of
> tattva/tatva. But it is perhaps worth considering also such
> examples as v.rttyaa (instrumental singular of v.rtti): some
> transmitters may in the same text write v.rtti with a doubled t,
> but v.rtyaa with a single one. Noone is likely to entertain
> speculations about this difference reflecting different notions of
> Conclusion: it seems unlikely that anything can be useful known
> about the history of the word bodhisattva/bodhisatva from the way
> it is written in manuscripts.
> Dominic Goodall
> Pondicherry Centre,
> Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient (French School of Asian Studies)
> On 23 Dec 2008, at 02:47, victor van Bijlert wrote:
>> But then again in Bengali script the difference would be very
>> Moreover, if this orthography also occurs in manuscripts from
>> Central Asia
>> that are not written in Nagari, the orthography still needs to be
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] Namens Allen W
>> Verzonden: maandag 22 december 2008 20:44
>> Aan: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>> Onderwerp: Re: bodhisattva/bodhisatva
>> Frequently Nagari t's are written starting with a horizontal, with
>> result that t and tt can look virtually identical.
>> Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D.
>> Senior Reference Librarian
>> Team Coordinator
>> South Asia Team, Asian Division
>> Library of Congress, Jefferson Building 150
>> 101 Independence Ave., S.E.
>> Washington, DC 20540-4810
>> tel. 202-707-3732; fax 202-707-1724; athr at loc.gov
>> The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the
>> Library of
More information about the INDOLOGY