Dear Dermot,

You are of course right that my response was not on target. Some of the earlier responses led me away from the specific focus of your question.

I don’t see, however, that Martin Gansten’s response met your requirement:

sa mene na and sam enena are distinct in the usual roman transcription, but they are also distinct in the usual printed devanagari:

स मेने न        समेनेन

In case your system doesn’t read this devanagari, here is the same as transcribed into roman:

sa mene na           samenena

Cheers!

Elliot

Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
emstern@verizon.net

On 09 Feb  2015, at 09:34, dermot@grevatt.force9.co.uk wrote:

Dear Elliott,

Thank you for your contribution below. But that example (´sveto) is ambiguous whether you
write it in roman or devanagari. The original request was for sentences that are ambiguous in
devanagari but not in roman. Martin Gansten's example from BU 4.3.1, sa mene na / sam
enena, fulfils the requirement, because the space between sa and mene can be written in
roman though not in devanagari. But Matthew Kapstein's example ekonAviMzati / eko nA
viMzati doesn't fulfil the requirement, because the spaces can be written in devanagari as
well as in roman.

I notice that you follow the practice of only writing spaces in roman where they are possible in
devanagari, e.g.  dhavatityekasmadeva rather than  dhavatity ekasmad eva. As far as I know
this is a fairly recent practice; the older practice is to write spaces in roman where they are
possible--that is, wherever a letter doesn't belong to two words because of sandhi. I have
sometimes been rebuked for following this practice, on the grounds that I should transcribe
the devanagari exactly. But the practice of writing spaces in devanagari is itself relatively
recent. I haven't any firm evidence, but I understand it came in with printing, around 1800. So
the demand to write spaces in roman only where they would be written in devanagari is not
supported by ancient tradition. The rule for both is the same: write spaces where you can.

This means that in devanagari, though less often than in roman, editors of texts make
judgments which guide the reader to one or other way of understanding the utterance: e.g. sa
mene na or sam enena in BU 4.3.1. This is not a matter of variants in the text itself, but only
two ways of interpreting it, since the text is neither of the above, but only samenena.

If anyone can help with more precise observations, I'd be grateful.

Dermot Killingley

On 8 Feb 2015 at 16:40, Elliot Stern wrote:

Here's an example as explained in nyayakaika:

yatha ´sveto dhavatityekasmadeva vakyadarthadvayamavagamyate ´suklo nirektiti ca
kauleyaka ito druta gacchatiti ca



Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
emstern@verizon.net


   On 08 Feb 2015, at 15:25, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@uchicago.edu> wrote:

   well, there's always the famous prahelikaa verse:
   ekona vi´sati stria  snanartha sarayu gata |  vi´sati pratiyata ca eko
   vyaghrea bhakita

   where it all changes if you read:
   eko  na

   Matthew

   Matthew Kapstein
   Directeur d'études,
   Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

   Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
   The University of Chicago


   _______________________________________________
   INDOLOGY mailing list
   INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
   http://listinfo.indology.info


--
Dermot Killingley
9, Rectory Drive,
Gosforth,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1XT
Phone (0191) 285 8053

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info