[INDOLOGY] RAW transcription for a Tamil text (Re: Devanagari v and b in manuscripts from Kashmir

Tue Mar 14 12:55:13 UTC 2023

Dear all,

Many of these points must also be considered when providing a 
preliminary transcription for a Tamil text, written in the traditional 
method used in MSS, with a very ambiguous spelling.

This is why, for a number of years, I have decided that I shall always 
make use of a RAW VERBATIM transcription system, when first transcribing 
a MS.

To give just one example, when this last message came,
I was in the process of transcribing the beginning of the first line in 
leaf 26 of an old MS of the சேனாவரையம் [cēṉāvaraiyam], which is a 
medieval commentary on the second book of தொல்காப்பியம் [tolkāppiyam]

I attach a fragment of the image (TC_19c_5.png), for the reference.

The XML fragment which I just now wrote is at the bottom of my 
contribution to this message.

The transliterated text, inside <incipit_transliterated>..., with a 
detailed analysis, was prepared by me many years ago.

The (raw) VERBATIM text, inside <incipit_verbatim>..., illustrates a set 
of conventions which I have developped over the years, in order to AVOID 
PREMATURELY RESOLVING the ambiguities inherent in the Tamil script used 
in MS, where for instance

(A) No puḷḷi is used

(B) -e and -ē are not distinguished, and are therefore transcribed by me 
as @ (my notation for the கொம்பு [kompu]), which is also part of the 
notation for -o (undistinguished from -ō)
   COMPARE @ ச ய ய ப ப ட ட [ceyya+-paṭṭa]
   WITH @ ப # ரு @ ள [poruḷ -ē]

(C) The same glyph, which I transcribe here as "#",
- can note long -ā
   (See வ லி த # யி ற @ ற னி ன [valit-āyiṟṟ-eṉiṉ])
- can note "ra" (modern ர) ((no example in this sample))
- is part of the notation for -o (undistinguished from -ō)
   (See @ ச ய ற @@ க ப X @ ப # ரு @ ள [ceyaṟkai+-poruḷ -ē])

(D) The standalone symbol for -ai is noted as "@@" by me, except when 
writing லை ளை னை and ணை
  (See நி ல த @@ த [nilattai]  and @ ச ய ற @@ க [ceyaṟkai]

<leaf>
         <nbr>26</nbr>
         <line_count>11</line_count>
         <marginal_words>@ ச ய // XX க க</marginal_words>
         <marginal_number>௰ ௩</marginal_number>
         <incipit_verbatim>து கு ற று ச @ ச ய ய ப ப ட ட நி ல த @@ த வ லி 
த # யி ற @ ற னி ன து @ ச ய ற @@ க ப X @ ப # ரு @ ள ய # ம</incipit_verbatim>
         <incipit_modernized/>
         <incipit_transliterated>{kal= -um iṭṭikai -~um pey || tu kuṟṟu+ 
ceyya+-paṭṭa nilattai valitu āyiṟṟu} eṉiṉ, atu ceyaṟkai+-poruḷ -ē 
~ām.</incipit_transliterated>
         <incipit_location>TC19c_5</incipit_location>
         <REMARK></REMARK>
         <page_1934>22</page_1934>
         <line_in_parag>2</line_in_parag>
         <date>2023/03/14</date>
     </leaf>

Best wishes to all

-- Jean-Luc

https://htl.cnrs.fr/equipe/jl-chevillard/

On 14/03/2023 10:23, Philipp Maas via INDOLOGY wrote:
> Dear Dominik and Harry,
> Determining “exactly what the MS says” may sometimes be a less 
> straightforward task than it may seem. Frequently, transcribing requires 
> interpreting. To quote Walter Slaje:
> 
> “The ambiguity of some characters of the Śāradā script that are almost, 
> or in many cases actually, homographic makes reference to the lexicon, 
> grammar, and syntax now and then a necessary condition for the 
> interpretation of a character. In any case, an interactive process of 
> script deciphering and textual understanding is required.”
> (My rough translation of Slaje, Walter (1993). /Śāradā 
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/602wzzrp7c5uf52/Slaje_Sarada_1993.pdf?dl=0>. 
> Deskriptiv-synchrone Schriftkunde zur Bearbeitung kaschmirischer 
> Sanskrit-Manuskripte auf der Grundlage von Kuśalas 
> Ghaṭakharpara-Gūḍhadīpikā/. Reinbek: Verl. für Orientalistische 
> Fachpublikationen, (Indische Schriften 1), p. 2: “Beding durch die 
> Mehrdeutigkeit einiger nahezu oder oft auch tatsächlich homographer 
> Zeichen der Śārdā-Schrift ist der Rückgriff auf Lexikon, Grammatik oder 
> Satzkonstruktion mitunter eine notwendige Voraussetzung für die Deutung 
> der Schriftzeichen. Es bedarf daher auf jeden Fall eines 
> wechselwirkenden Verfahrens von Schriftentzifferung und Textverständnis.”)
> 
> Slaje provides a list of “semi-homograph akṣara-s” in the Śāradāscript,  
> including /ba /and /va, /onp. 43-45.
> 
> I fully agree with Dominik that orthographic peculiarities like the 
> gemination of consonants after /r/, the writing of class nasals and 
> anusvara, etc., should be exactly reflected in transcriptions. However, 
> any manuscript transcript should be based on a benevolent interpretation 
> of the Sanskrit text transmitted in the witness, containing, for 
> example, /ba/or /va/, when and wherever required by the contexts.
> With best wishes,
> 
> Philipp
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________
> 
> PD Dr. Philipp A. Maas
> Research Associate
> Department of Indology and Central Asian Studies
> University of Leipzig
> ___________________________
> 
> https://spp1448.academia.edu/PhilippMaas 
> <https://spp1448.academia.edu/PhilippMaas>
> 
> 
> Am Mo., 13. März 2023 um 20:42 Uhr schrieb Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY 
> <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>:
> 
>     In transcribing a manuscript it is best practice to transcribe
>     diplomatically exactly what the MS says.
> 
>     A second, separate file may be prepared that contains various
>     normalisations, like ba/va or śa/sa, rma/rmma, etc.
> 
>     To normalise the main transcription file takes away the opportunity
>     to study these phenomena.  And in any case, the majority of these
>     features can be manipulated with regular-expression rules, as in
>     Saktumiva <https://saktumiva.org/wiki/orthography>.  So there's no
>     need to normalise them.
> 
>     Best,
>     Dominik
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     INDOLOGY mailing list
>     INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>     https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>     <https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TC_19c_5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 388062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20230314/dc9220a4/attachment.png>