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.