wujastyk / sushrutaproject Goto Github PK

Do you think it is worth noting the deletion between vikrośataś and ca? The two (?)deleted akṣaras have been rubbed out. How would you code this?

++

J

Hey Jason, on f.2v, line 6, what is that letter?

Dear Dominik,

I was wondering whether it is worth us formulating a set of abbreviations for notes in the transcripts. For example, it would be good to have an abbreviation for the Suśrutasaṃhitā edition by Vaidya Jādavji Trikamji Ācāryā, so that we can easily note variant readings. For example, in regard to that variant reading in the previous issue (i.e., °gaṇyāpari°), which may be an erroneous reading, it would be good to add a note like; TAE: °gaṇaparivṛtam.

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

I've been trying to remove all validation problems from my current version of the file kl_699_sutrasthana.txt. For some unknown reason, Oxygen keeps flagging this code as a problem:

<unclear reason="damaged">śyate atra kasmai</unclear>

It says the attribute "reason" is not allowed to appear in element "unclear", but I see this is recommended in both the TEI guidelines and Charles' tagging recommendations. Do you get this problem.

Oxygen also flags <pb n="2r"/> as a problem, saying, unexpected element "pb". But this seems correct to me.

As I think we discussed, Oxygen won't validate the metamark code, but I can't remember what we decided to do about this. So, I have changed it to an invisible note: <!-- probable cancellation marks above a ka before kri-->

As an aside, I just wanted to ask if all's okay on the admin side of the project? I haven't heard from Joanna or Lindsey, and just wanted to make sure that I haven't failed to reply to something or send requested information.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Jason

HI Dominik,

Do you think the <supplied></supplied> code the best way to make a record of emendations and conjectures as I transcribe? I know emendations, etc. are not necessary for the transcription itself, but including them as metadata in some way could be helpful for the editing process later on.

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

A general question.

I see we are following Vikramaji Ācārya's punctuation. I see a single daṇḍa after vatsāḥ. Have you considered whether it's worth reflecting the punctuation of KS699?

J

We come across this character a lot in NAK 5-333 and we do have some nice discussions about this character and its equivalent in certain other Eastern scripts on blogposts.

But I am still not sure how we should put it on XML. I didn't find any Unicode character code for this character. This character, however, looks pretty much like Tamil letter ai (ஐ). But I don't know if this can help.

Hi Dominik,

Have you ever seen a neuter pres. participle used in an impersonal construction? I'm wondering manasi naḥ pīḍā bhavat (Su.1.1.4) is possible? Both 699 and 5-333 have it.

I'm not sure whether this is the right place or time to ask (it's probably a discussion for the reading session), but I'm so intrigued by it that I've spent the last hour readings about impersonal constructions in classical Sanskrit to no avail.

I'd like to know your initial thoughts.

Jason

BTW, Dominik, I had to stop using the quick palaeographer. It became too difficult to navigate around the image of a folio. The image kept 'jumping' when I moved. I thought it might be the poor quality of my internet in quarantine, but I've had the same problem since moving to a place in Sydney.

Also, the image in quick palaeographer was significantly more pixelated than viewing it on my laptop using a pdf reader.

So, I am compiling screen shots of akṣaras in a separate document. The output is not as pretty as that of the quick palaeographer, but it is facilitating my learning of the script and provide a useful record. I asked Andrey whether he had made such a table. He used B 0029-19 as his point of reference rather than recording unique akṣaras of KL699's orthography. However, I think such a record might be worth including in the introduction to a critical edition, seeing that KL699 is so old and the main witness, which makes the peculiarities of its orthography important for readers of the edition and scholars of Nepalese manuscripts more generally.

Best wishes,

Jason

Dear Vitus,

I've corrected some XML errors and commented-out adhyāyas Su.sū.33-end, to shorten the CPU load on Saktumiva. Now I get a proper collation of the vulgate edition against the manuscripts. Can you confirm that it works for you too?

Best,
Dominik

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 01:26, Vitus Angermeier <[email protected]> wrote:

    Dear Dominik,

[...]

    Thanks for the Suśruta stuff and for adding the transcriptions from 1.6. However, I am not able to generate 
the Vulgata along with the MS apparatus. This results in a white page, or, 
if I only choose one MS, in a 500 internal server error.

​[...]​ 

    Best,
    Vitus

test test

I've added a new file here and also uploaded it to Saktumiva. This is the file that will have our evolving edition of the Nepalese recension of the SS, based mainly on KL 699 but including the other MSS (sigla H and N).

Dear @ankleb,
please do not say,

\item \emph{Udāvartā} (Retaining),

but say, rather

\item \se{Retaining}{udāvartā}

The latter form is better because

• it keeps English in the main English text (which is a translation, after all);
• it puts Sanskrit in parentheses for the specialists;
• The \se{}{} "Sanskrit-English" command also puts both S-E and E-S entries into the index.

Dear Dominik,

I tried to push kl_699_sutrasthana2.txt. I had to change the file name to this (from kl_699_sutrasthana.txt) when resolving conflicts because the updated file would not save on my computer. I kept getting a popup message along the lines of 'cannot save as file location has changed.' So I 'saved as' with kl_699_sutrasthana2.txt.

I was able to pull the changes from the file in the main branch, resolve conflicts (in which I added my recent work) and pushed it to GitHub. I did all this on Oxygen. I then pushed the updated file to the main branch using GitHub Desktop (but perhaps, I did not need to do this).

Anyway, can you check that the updated kl_699_sutrasthana2.txt is in the check place, branch, etc. I attach the version of this file on my computer.

Thanks again.

Jason
kl_699_sutrasthana2.txt

It looks to me that ādhyāyaṃ in Su. 1.1.1 has been corrected to adhyāyaṃ. The line for ā has been erased. Could this be a post correctionem, or perhaps it was done by the scribe?

I think the possibility of a correction might be worth mentioning in the blog.

J

Hi Dominik,

I probably won't be writing about issues like this every time they arise, but I thought I might try to insert a couple of screen shots to see how it goes.

I think this could be divo°. The 'o' consists of the hook before the va and the mātra after it. Like this (to):

J

Hi Dominik,

I suspect I'm doing something wrong with the Github\Oxygen pull/push procedure. Can we arrange to talk sometime?

When I pull and resolve conflicts using the dual window editor, a pop-up message tells me to save the resolved file, which I must do in order to close the dual window editor. When I have saved the resolved file, then another popup window tells me to save the original file. When I try to do this, the following message comes up

Cannot save the file: 'git://MineOriginal/01-su.su/kl_699_sutrasthana.txt' is marked as read-only.
You must save to a different location.

I can't seem to close the dual window editor at this point. The only way I've managed to proceed is to change the file name and save to a different location.

I'm sure I'm close to getting this right, so a quick Skype may sort it out.

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

I probably should have raised this issue earlier, but what's your view on standardising anusvāras in the transcript? There's quite a few instances of, say, bhagavantam prakṣyati, kaumārabhṛtyan nāma, etc.

I've been standardising them without thinking (i.e., bhagavantaṃ prakṣyati, kaumārabhṛtyaṃ nāma, etc).

But then I do record ñc, ṇṭ, etc.

Do you have a strong view on this? It's good to discuss now so I don't have to revise the transcription at a later stage.

Best,

Jason

Jason, at 1.1.8.3

<l xml:id="Su.1.1.8.3">kāyacikītsā nāma sarvaśarīrāvasthitā<del rend="crossed out"
              /><supplied>nāṃ vyā</supplied>dhīnām upaśamakaraṇārthaṃ
            jvāraśāhvagulmaraktapittonmādāpasmārapramehātisārādīnāñ ca |</l>

you have an empty "del" element between -sthitā and nāṃ. It's not incorrect XML: it validates. But I don't know what you mean, editorially. It suggests that nothing is being flagged as having been crossed out. The <del> ... </del> elements should enclose whatever was crossed out. If there's actually a gap, it's a <gap>. If there's something crossed out that can't be read, then I think <del extent="two" unit="akṣaras"/> might capture the idea. Or maybe <del><unclear extent="two" unit="akṣaras"/></del>. What do you think?

Hi Dominik,

I thought this could be a good opportunity to try the issue function.

I'm not sure that KS699 (f. 1v, l. 1) reads ṛṣigaṇādhiparivṛttam. I think it has °gaṇyāparivṛttaṃ. I'm not sure about the °ṇyā°, but I don't see °ṇādhi°. What do you think?

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

Is there a particular publication of yours with a glossary or translations of technical terms with the Sanskrit included? Seeing that I'm unfamiliar with many medical terms, it would be good to have such a glossary as a starting point for draft translations, which we can then refine during reading sessions. I see that you have translated these terms in Roots of Ayurveda, but that omits the Sanskrit words you were translating (for obvious reasons).

Best,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

Do you think this ligature is ḥpra (f. 2r, line 2, 5 letters to the right of the right sūtra hole)?

If so, I've never seen a visarga like that before.

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

I'm still not sure how to include (i.e., what code to use) for private notes that I would like to add to the transcription as I go along. Any ideas? The markup in TEI is for notes in the witness, such as marginal or interlinear notes. What code should I use to add a note for myself or for you, such as 'I'm not sure about the letters kramat, please check again'?

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

I think we may have briefly discussed the use of the vulgate's sections for labelling (xml:id="Su.1.1.8.14") but perhaps we should give it more thought before we have progressed too far in the transcription to make changes easily. The breaks and daṇḍas of KL699 do not often correspond to those of the vulgate. In most instances this is not a problem (it's just a matter of inserting a new line in the transcription), but I've hit a situation where it is, because sandhi is an issue.

The vulgate has:
1.1.14 [...] rakṣaṇaṃ ca ||
1.1.15 āyurasmin [...] ||

KL966 has:
rakṣaṇaṃ cāyurasmin

If we follow the vulgate's section breaks, these type of problems could become more common, especially if KL699 starts to deviate more from the vulgate in significant ways (in the sense of omitting or adding passages that in effect create very different sections from those of the vulgate).

The alternative is to follow the punctuation of KL699, and wherever there is a daṇḍa, we would mark the next statement as a new line. We would then use this as the benchmark for collating the other Nepalese witnesses. I suppose we would then have to change the section marks in the vulgate in order to collate the vulgate's text, which would be a headache.

Another 'possible' problem is that the punctuation of KL699 may prove to be unreliable, erratic, etc., and then we'd have to decide what to do in such cases.

A different idea might be to insert `<l ' according to the lines of the manuscript KL699. This would in effect bypass punctuation, and foreground the layout of the main witness of the critical edition. What do you think?

Anyway, I'm wondering what to do with cāyurasmin. Perhaps, the label xml:id="Su.1.1.8.14–15" is necessary here if we retain the vulgate's section breaks?

Best wishes,

Jason

Hi Dominik,

At least initially, I'd like to follow the punctuation of KL699 and NAK 5-333 in the provisional edition, rather than that of the printed edition. So I'd like to have the following as one sentence in the edition:

atha khalu bhagavantam amaravaram ṛṣigaṇaparivṛttam āśramasthaṃ kāśirājaṃ divodāsam aupadhenavavaitaraṇaurabhrapuṣkalāvatakaravīragopurarakṣitabhojasuśrutaprabhṛtaya ūcur bhagavañ śārīramānasāgantubhir vyādhibhir vividhavedanābhighātopadrutān sanāthān apy anāthavad viceṣṭamānān vikrośataś ca mānavānam abhisamīkṣya manasi naḥ pīḍā bhavati |

Unfortunately, we have a line break with a label after ūcur.

<l xml:id="Su.1.1.3">atha khalu bhagavantam amaravaram ṛṣigaṇaparivṛttam
                        āśramasthaṃ kāśirājaṃ divodāsam
                        aupadhenavavaitaraṇaurabhrapuṣkalāvatakaravīragopurarakṣitabhojasuśrutaprabhṛtaya
                        ūcur </l>
                    
                    <l xml:id="Su.1.1.4">bhagavañ śārīramānasāgantubhir vyādhibhir
                        vividhavedanābhighātopadrutān sanāthān apy anāthavad viceṣṭamānān vikrośataś
                        ca mānavānam abhisamīkṣya manasi naḥ pīḍā bhavati |

I suppose we need to retain the label, but remove the line break. Is this possible?