Apologies to the list for my many posts today, but naturally the solution is to eliminate the superfluous at the end of daśamyāṃ. This will give daśamyām alikhad bālakṛṣṇo. Mystery solved, verb restored, and the verse does seem to refer to the scribe after all (since the author has already been identified in the colophon).

Martin


Den 2026-09-02 kl. 19:01, skrev Martin Gansten:
I'll have to correct that: as was just pointed out to me off-list, what I read in haste as an 'e' stroke in fact belongs to a ha from the line above, and the semi-legible letter after kṛ is more probably ṣṇo, giving malikhadvālakṛṣṇo. A personal rather than place name? No verb, though, if this reading is correct.

Martin 


Den 2026-09-02 kl. 17:21, skrev Martin Gansten:
Dear Priya and all,

I agree that this is intriguing, and it did occur to me that tu might properly be a part of what followed rather than a separate particle, but I didn't have the background knowledge to identify Tukoji Rao. I imagine, though, that this short prose phrase (dillīnagare tukorāvakaṭake) refers to the copying of the manuscript, whereas the verse dating speaks of the book itself being completed (kṛto gaṇitapustakam [sic]), so the date and the Tukoji reference don't necessarily go together. In fact, malikhadvāle in the verse looks like a possible place name and could refer to where the work itself was written, although I have no idea of what or where that is.

Best wishes,
Martin


Den 2026-09-02 kl. 16:12, skrev Priyamvada Nambrath via INDOLOGY: