gemination/degemination of stops in ligature with semi-vowels

[victor van Bijlert]

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

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
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!
Stella Sandahl
--
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  
> etymology.
>
> 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  
>> noticeable.
>> Moreover, if this orthography also occurs in manuscripts from  
>> Central Asia
>> that are not written in Nagari, the orthography still needs to be  
>> explained.
>> Victor
>>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] Namens Allen W  
>> Thrasher
>> 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  
>> the
>> result that t and tt can look virtually identical.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> Congress.