I think there are two very different scenarios in the transcription of manuscripts.

1) When a specialist in an indological field is looking at a small number of manuscripts in a field he's studied for years or decades for some study or some critical edition. So he has the expertise and also probably multiple manuscripts of the same text, so he has the data and the expertise to make" the benevolent interpretation of the Sanskrit text transmitted in the witness" Phillip Maas describes.

2) The second scenario is where a much larger number of manuscripts, perhaps a portion of some collection, is being transcribed by multiple non-specialist typists with various degrees of knowledge of sanskrit. supervised by a professional sanskritist. But where the volume of texts being transcribed is too large for every word to be checked by the supervisor. In that case it seems to me the safest practice is what Dominik Wujastyk asserts. I.e. " In transcribing a manuscript it is best practice to transcribe diplomatically exactly what the MS says". For the same the reason Jean-Luc Chevillard gives in order to avoid prematurely resolving inherent ambiguities. In this case the users of these transcribed texts will most likely be specialists with more knowledge than the typists to resolve any ambiguities in the text.

Thanks,

Harry Spier

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:24 AM Philipp Maas <philipp.a.maas@gmail.com> 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. 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 Śāradā script, including ba and va, on p. 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

Am Mo., 13. März 2023 um 20:42 Uhr schrieb Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <indology@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. So there's no need to normalise them.

Best,
Dominik

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology