Re: [INDOLOGY] Saṃmatu
danbalogh at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 08:48:13 UTC 2020
Dear Martin, indeed, this looks just like the definite u-s elsewhere on the
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:27, Martin Gansten <martingansten at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
> I think it is unquestionably an *u* -- I'll try attaching the relevant
> page to this message. Whether it is a scribal error is, of course,
> difficult to say, but it doesn't look anything like a virāma, and I haven't
> seen other such mistakes in this particular manuscript (at least not yet).
> I'm rather inclined at present to regard it as a kind of metathesis.
> Den 2020-07-03 kl. 09:57, skrev Dániel Balogh via INDOLOGY:
> Dear Martin, have you considered the possibility that the sign you read as
> u at the end is A) in fact a virāma; or B) a scribal error for what was
> meant to be a virāma? Given that it is a north Indian manuscript, a
> Telugu-ish ending seems unlikely as you say. I am sure I have seen "saṃvat"
> written (on a copper plate in Nagari) with a virāma that looked very much
> like an u. I have no particular recollection of ever seeing saṃmat instead
> of saṃvat, but it saṃmat would not be a strange development.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY