[INDOLOGY] Female name Bhaayi?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>there is practically no variation across manuscripts (I have now located a
third one) or metres. They all read *bhāyi* or *bhāi* -- I have not so far
seen a single instance lacking the aspiration. That was what made me wonder
in the first place.

                                          Prof. Aklujkar's " It was not
unusual to write the non-Sanskrit words as one heard them" solves the
problem of bhāi version of bāī being consistently followed through out. It
is not a scribal error. It is a variant pronunciation sincerely represented
consistently.



On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Martin Gansten <martingansten at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you, Ashok, for your comments.
>
> I see no problem with the manuscript reading
> śrīvatsa-saṃjñād dvija-puṅgavād yaṃ śrī-bhāyi-nāmnī suṣuve ca sādhvī |
> śrī-yādavena vyaracīha tena sudhā-nidhis tājika-yoga-pūrvaḥ ||
>
>
> I'm glad to hear it ;nor do I. I am just curious about the name.
>
> (but I do see a problem with David Pingree, a scholar I respect very much,
> if there are other instances of him emending texts as in the present case).
>
>
> I don't want to seem overly critical -- Pingree was a trailblazer, and
> every scholar working on the history of astrology owes him a debt of
> gratitude. But it must be conceded that he was somewhat prone to rash
> emendations and far-reaching interpretations. In recent years, Bill Mak has
> shown the problems with some of Pingree's work on the *Yavanajātaka*; and
> in another linguistic field (but still related to astrology), Stephan
> Heilen in his *Hadriani genitura* (De Gruyter 2015) similarly has some
> reservations about Pingree's edition of Hephaestio's *Apotelesmatics*. I
> am not competent to judge Pingree's work on texts in any language but
> Sanskrit, but there I do quite often find reason to disagree with his
> readings and/or translations. It would be interesting to learn from an
> Arabist what the situation is with his work in that area.
>
> It was not unusual to write the non-Sanskrit words as one heard them or as
> the metre required; approximation was acceptable. Therefore the writing of
> (our expected) bāī as bhāyī or bhāyi need not be viewed as presenting a
> serious problem. (again. cf. Paturi: “Shortening of the end vowel is not
> a hurdle …”)
>
>
> Yes, I take your point; but the situation here is the opposite: there is
> practically no variation across manuscripts (I have now located a third
> one) or metres. They all read *bhāyi* or *bhāi* -- I have not so far seen
> a single instance lacking the aspiration. That was what made me wonder in
> the first place.
>
> The “ca” in the second quarter of the verse initially bothered me, but
> there could be justification for it in a preceding verse of the section, if
> [if the verse under discussion is not the first verse of the section].
>
>
> That depends on how you define a section -- it is right towards the end of
> the last chapter, but the immediately preceding verse praises the work
> itself and says nothing of the author.
>
> Martin
>
>


-- 
Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20170424/4172a752/attachment.htm>