[INDOLOGY] unsandhied juncture

[Jan E.M. Houben]

Dear List members,

As sandhi at the juncture of two words is expected in correct sanskrit, its
absence could point to carelessness of the author or scribe, but also
(rather) to the intention to make a quoted form stand out more clearly, as
in pacyase iti, or to indicate a "weak" clause boundary, for which a
da.n.da was felt to be too "strong".  I'm sure this problem has been dealt
with in various transcriptions and editions of inscriptions and
manuscripts. Is there any best practice regarding such places where sandhi
is not observed, intentionally or erroneously? Especially in the former
case the editor has to avoid "hypercorrection". Any widely accepted
symbol (which could by itself lead to confusion by suggesting that the
symbol represents something in the source)? Or adding a (clumsy) remark in
the text, "sandhi not applied", or in the apparatus each time? (In
Epigraphia indica volumes it appears commonly in notes "sandhi is not
observed here", e.g. EI 37 p. 83, 84, 304.) A plus-sign, pacyase+iti, would
probably at first sight suggest that an existing sandhi in the witness
(manuscript / inscription) is undone by the editor.

Best regards,

Jan Houben

-- 

*Jan E.M. Houben*

Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology

*Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite*

École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, Paris Sciences et Lettres)

*Sciences historiques et philologiques *

Groupe de recherches en études indiennes (EA 2120)

*johannes.houben [at] ephe.psl.eu <johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu>*

*https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
<https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben>*

*https://www.classicalindia.info* <https://www.classicalindia.info>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20260712/95fe92b8/attachment.htm>