[INDOLOGY] Examples of very ambiguous devanagari Sanskrit sentences

[Elliot Stern]

Dear Dermot,

You are of course right that my response was not on target. Some of the earlier responses led me away from the specific focus of your question.

I don’t see, however, that Martin Gansten’s response met your requirement:

sa mene na and sam enena are distinct in the usual roman transcription, but they are also distinct in the usual printed devanagari:


स मेने न        समेनेन

In case your system doesn’t read this devanagari, here is the same as transcribed into roman:

sa mene na           samenena

Cheers!

Elliot

Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
emstern at verizon.net

> On 09 Feb  2015, at 09:34, dermot at grevatt.force9.co.uk wrote:
> 
> Dear Elliott,
> 
> Thank you for your contribution below. But that example (´sveto) is ambiguous whether you
> write it in roman or devanagari. The original request was for sentences that are ambiguous in
> devanagari but not in roman. Martin Gansten's example from BU 4.3.1, sa mene na / sam
> enena, fulfils the requirement, because the space between sa and mene can be written in
> roman though not in devanagari. But Matthew Kapstein's example ekonAviMzati / eko nA
> viMzati doesn't fulfil the requirement, because the spaces can be written in devanagari as
> well as in roman.
> 
> I notice that you follow the practice of only writing spaces in roman where they are possible in
> devanagari, e.g.  dhavatityekasmadeva rather than  dhavatity ekasmad eva. As far as I know
> this is a fairly recent practice; the older practice is to write spaces in roman where they are
> possible--that is, wherever a letter doesn't belong to two words because of sandhi. I have
> sometimes been rebuked for following this practice, on the grounds that I should transcribe
> the devanagari exactly. But the practice of writing spaces in devanagari is itself relatively
> recent. I haven't any firm evidence, but I understand it came in with printing, around 1800. So
> the demand to write spaces in roman only where they would be written in devanagari is not
> supported by ancient tradition. The rule for both is the same: write spaces where you can.
> 
> This means that in devanagari, though less often than in roman, editors of texts make
> judgments which guide the reader to one or other way of understanding the utterance: e.g. sa
> mene na or sam enena in BU 4.3.1. This is not a matter of variants in the text itself, but only
> two ways of interpreting it, since the text is neither of the above, but only samenena.
> 
> If anyone can help with more precise observations, I'd be grateful.
> 
> Dermot Killingley
> 
> On 8 Feb 2015 at 16:40, Elliot Stern wrote:
> 
> Here's an example as explained in nyayakaika:
> 
> yatha ´sveto dhavatityekasmadeva vakyadarthadvayamavagamyate ´suklo nirektiti ca
> kauleyaka ito druta gacchatiti ca
> 
> 
> 
> Elliot M. Stern
> 552 South 48th Street
> Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
> United States of America
> telephone: 215-747-6204
> mobile: 267-240-8418
> emstern at verizon.net
> 
> 
>    On 08 Feb 2015, at 15:25, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> 
>    well, there's always the famous prahelikaa verse:
>    ekona vi´sati stria  snanartha sarayu gata |  vi´sati pratiyata ca eko
>    vyaghrea bhakita
> 
>    where it all changes if you read:
>    eko  na
> 
>    Matthew
> 
>    Matthew Kapstein
>    Directeur d'études,
>    Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
> 
>    Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
>    The University of Chicago
> 
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    INDOLOGY mailing list
>    INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>    http://listinfo.indology.info
> 
> 
> --
> Dermot Killingley
> 9, Rectory Drive,
> Gosforth,
> Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1XT
> Phone (0191) 285 8053
> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150210/63b67e38/attachment.htm>