> But I noticed from this font that unicode Sharada has one code point for avagraha (#11c1) and another for Sharada sandhi mark (#11c9) and in this font the two characters are identical (same size, same shape, same position).
How did you find that? They seem different to me, avagraha is spacing and the sandhi mark is non-spacing, smaller and lower, as expected:
The Google Fonts specimen website shows them different too:
Thanks,
Jan
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> On Behalf Of Harry Spier via INDOLOGY
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 8:36 PM
To: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com>
Cc: Indology Indology listserve <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Avagraha (or lack of) in Kashmiri manuscripts
Dominik wrote:
My book Metarules of Paninian Grammar was partly based on Raghunatha MSS and they were definitely copied from Śāradā originals. I discussed the reasons in my introduction. For example, several character-pairs are confused, that are similar in Śāradā but quite different in Devanāgarī.
Still available at a reasonable price for indological books: https://www.amazon.com/Metarules-Paninian-Grammar-Paribhasavrtti-Critical/dp/812083982X
Also the Sharada unicode font I was looking. at was a google unicode font Noto Sans Sharada . So if anyone needs a Sharada font the link is:https://fonts.google.com/noto/specimen/Noto+Sans+Sharada
But I noticed from this font that unicode Sharada has one code point for avagraha (#11c1) and another for Sharada sandhi mark (#11c9) and in this font the two characters are identical (same size, same shape, same position). In manuscripts are Sharada avagraha and sandhi mark identical? If so it seems strange that unicode has two different code points based on the usage of this one sign.
Harry Spier
Best,
Dominik
On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 19:54, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Thank you to all the knowledgeable people who answered both on and off-list. Sven Ekelin, Deepro Chakraborty, Dominik Wujastyk, Lubomire Ondracka, Wlater Slaje, Jonathan Silk, Sweta Prajapati, Charles DiSimone, Elliot Stern, Charles Li.
I wonder if this folio 6a from ajñānadhvāntadīpikā (attached) also from Ragunath temple in Jammu like the other manuscripts, confirms that the devanagari manuscripts are copying Sharada originals. This is the only avagraha in the entire manuscript(circled with a blue line). I had thought this was an insert, but looking at a Sharada font, this appears to be the position and size of the Sharada avagraha. So maybe the scribe just absent mindedly wrote it in the way it was in the Sharada original.
Harry Spier
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:42 AM Walter Slaje <walter.slaje@gmail.com> wrote:
Here are my humble suggestions:
Kaulārcanadīpikā 43b
Avagraha erroneously placed after, instead before, yaṃ: loko yaṃ ’ → loko ’yaṃ
57a
The two dots written on top of each other (visarga) were misread or accidentally misspelled (or simply give the wrong impression through blurred ink) as being an avagraha:
mokṣa’syād → mokṣaḥ syād
Dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṃhitā 21a
As above (57a):
ṛṣi’syād → ṛṣiḥ syād
So apparently also 55b.
Mudrāprakāśaḥ 11a
Appears to indicate word separation
21a/30a
Word separation and/or exegetical function: separating the conditional clause (yadi syād) from the main clause.
Similarly 18a: separating the scope of iti from the definiendum.
Regards,
WS
Am So., 7. Mai 2023 um 22:20 Uhr schrieb Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:
It was suggested offlist that the unusual avagrahas may be used as a gap filler. At his request I'm attaching a pdf of the folios with the unusual avagrahas circled.
Thanks,
Harry Spier
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 9:35 AM Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Elliot,
I've been going through transcriptions of a group of manuscripts from the Ragunath Temple, Jammu and in the eloquent words of Charles DiSimone who replied offlist in describing some Nepalese manuscripts, its a mishmash.
Some don't have have avagraha. Some have one or two in a whole manuscript and some use avagraha. Where manuscripts use avagraha to elide a afte e or o they also use avagraha to indicate ā+a .
But in some cases I'm finding avagraha in places strange places. I've checked these following cases against the actual manuscripts which are in archive.org. For example:
dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṁhitāऋषिऽस्याद्दक्षिणामूर्तिर्गायत्रीछंद उच्यते ।। 4 ।। folio 21aअंते जीवऽशिवस्या तु विद्या वरुण पूजिता ।। 43 ।। folio 55bkaulārcanadīpikāलोकोयंऽजुगुप्सिति folio 43bनिःसंग एव मोक्षऽस्याद्दोषाः सर्वे च संगजाः । folio 57amudrāprakāśaḥशिखयागालिनीं मुद्रामऽर्धस्यो परिचालयेत् । folio 11aअनामा मध्यमे अंगुष्टेन स्पृशेदित्यऽपानमुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 18aस्यादऽपानहुतौ मुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 21aमध्यापृष्टेंऽगुष्टौ मध्या क्रोडे स्थितौ कामः काम इति काममुद्रेत्यर्थः ।। 19 ।। folio 30aAny explanation for the use of avagraha in these cases would be appreciated.
If anyone wants to look at the actual manuscript I can provide the images for these cases.
Harry Spier
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 10:18 AM Elliot Stern <emstern1948@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Harry,
The use of avagraha to mark elision of an initial short a is not usual in Sanskrit mss. MacDonell, for example, says in his Sanskrit Grammar for Students (page 5):
The elision of अ a at the beginning of a word is marked in
European editions with the sign ऽ called Avaagraha ('separation'); e.g. तेऽपि te 'pi for ते अपि te pi.
Best wishes,
Elliot
On May 5, 2023, at 9:14 PM, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear list members,
I'm looking at the manuscript ajñānadhvāntadīpikā by somanāthaḥ
As far as I can tell there are no avagrahas in the manuscript.
For example if you look at the end of line 5 on the attached 1st folio
The end of verse 5 is संन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेत्रसमासतः ५Anirban Dash (and several others pointed out that this should beसंन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेऽत्रसमासतः ५As far as I can see there are no avagrahas anywhere in the manuscript.
Is this normal or unusual for Kashmiri manuscripts not to use avagraha.
The manuscript can be downloaded from egangotri on archive.org from https://archive.org/details/AgyanDhvantaDeepikaShriSomnath4966Alm22Shlf4DevanagariTantra_201708
Thanks,
Harry Spier
<VERSE 5.pdf>
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology