Re: [INDOLOGY] Speaking of plagiarism: Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar’s Ṛgveda

[George Hart]

I remember years ago when I was studying Sanskrit Ingalls mentioned that Monier Williams had apparently copied from Boethlingk-Roth without attribution. He said that Boethlingk was able to adduce entries in Monier Williams that had the same mistakes originally made on the SP Lexicon. Plus ça change…. George Hart

> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:49 AM, David and Nancy Reigle <dnreigle at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> No, I did not intend to imply anything about Malhotra's writings, which I have never read. I wanted to call attention to two other cases of plagiarism, far more extensive than Malhotra's. Even if the possibility that something might be done about them is remote, it may be useful to know about them.
> 
> I was very disappointed when I saw what T. G. Mainkar had done with the Sāṃkhyakārikā and Gauḍapāda’s commentary, copying even omissions and typographical errors in Har Dutt Sharma's translation. It seems that all he did was read and edit the English, without even consulting the Sanskrit. He improved some English words here and there, and deleted all the parentheses that Sharma had used to distinguish his own additions from what is in the Sanskrit. Yet Sharma's superior translation has fallen into oblivion, while Mainkar's was again reprinted in 2004. I have scanned and posted Sharma's book in three parts here: http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/sanskrit-texts-3/sanskrit-hindu-texts/ <http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/sanskrit-texts-3/sanskrit-hindu-texts/>
> 
> Similarly, I was very disappointed to see that Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar had largely only copied Wilson's translation of the Ṛgveda, substituting God for the Vedic gods. The notes they added are helpful, and they reproduced Aufrecht's romanized text, and also a devanagari text. But I expected their translation to follow the Arya Samaj line of interpretation throughout, so that we could see how it differs from Sāyaṇa’s interpretation. What unsuspecting readers got instead, other than God for the gods, was in fact Sāyaṇa’s interpretation, by way of the silent appropriation of Wilson's translation.
> 
> My own work is textual, and these two cases of plagiarism are more important to me than is Malhotra's case. I wanted to use the opportunity that this discussion of plagiarism provided to call attention to these two cases. Sorry that I did not distinguish them more clearly from Malhotra's case.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David Reigle
> Colorado, U.S.A.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com <mailto:wujastyk at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Two wrongs don't make a right.  (If that's what you meant.)
> ​​
> Dominik Wujastyk​
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150719/16cba6f0/attachment.htm>