Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 On Oct 28, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Harry Spier wrote: > I'm preparing a title list of some manuscripts I have as photographs > of the > devanagari originals. In one of these the title only appears in the > last > line where the scribe has written: > > (I'm using Harvard-Kyoto transliteration): > ---- kAranIpUjApaddhatisamaptaH || ------ > > Should the spelling of the title be kAraNIpUjApaddhati and NOT > karanIpUjApaddhati which the scribe has written. I.e. retroflex N. > > Also should it be --- samAptaH ---- and not --- samaptaH --- which the > scribe has written. Yes to both questions. It is rare to find a manuscript without scribal errors, if one can find one at all! All the best, Toke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Assuming this is the deified woman KaraNI, 1387-1543 [sic], worshipped at Deshnoke, Rajasthan, our library has established the name as above, and of the nine titles about her none show an initial long A. If the colophon is supposed to be in Skt. it should be KaraNIpUjApaddhatiH samAptaH. But the omission of the final visarga in the title is not atypical. In my experience final colophons are often rather hasty and downright sloppy and are frequently in a mix of Sanskrit and vernacular (or sloppy Sanskrit), with either vernacular terminations, or rather none, e.g. no H (visarga) on a Sanskrit word, or a vernacular, uninflected, title followed by Skt. samAptaH. The question arises, why? Were the scribes non-Brahman technicians with an inadequate grounding in Skt., capable of copying a text with some adequacy but not concerned with grammatical niceties or capable of them? Did they just run out of energy and attention at the end of a piece of work. Were the mss copied not by scribes but by the users, who if mere ritualists might be inadequate in their grammar? Or finally, could the colophons not have been thought of as a part of the book itself, worth doing carefully, but just a convenient note for the owner? Or could their multilinguality be somehow like an added title Roman script, English page to a published work in Skt. (or a Greek classic). Or maybe as they finish the job there is a transition period in which they switch back to the vernacular from thinking in Sanskrit, during which transition they mix the languages. In Indian arts and crafts it sometimes seems that there will be a sort of hastiness and carelessness towards the end, e.g. not smoothing out a seam in a piece of metalwork when the craftsman presumably was perfectly capable of doing so. Or when labels to various figures are added onto a miniature the writing is sloppy thought the painting may be careful and superb. This might be because the painters were semi-literate, or they might have been illiterate and the words added by another hand. But in addition to that, the ink of the labels is often smeared or there are spatters, which is certainly carelessness. Have you checked the New Cat. Cat.? Allen Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D., Senior Reference Librarian South Asia Team, Asian Division Library of Congress, Jefferson Building 150 101 Independence Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20540-4810 tel. 202-707-3732; fax 202-707-1724; athr The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Library of Congress. >>> harryspier 10/28/05 12:51 AM >>> Dear list members, I'm preparing a title list of some manuscripts I have as photographs of the devanagari originals. In one of these the title only appears in the last line where the scribe has written: (I'm using Harvard-Kyoto transliteration): ---- kAranIpUjApaddhatisamaptaH || ------ Should the spelling of the title be kAraNIpUjApaddhati and NOT karanIpUjApaddhati which the scribe has written. I.e. retroflex N. Also should it be --- samAptaH ---- and not --- samaptaH --- which the scribe has written. Thanks, Harry Harry Spier 371 Brickman Rd. Hurleyville, New York USA 12747 Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 Dear Harry, Again, Paddhati being feminine, shouldn't it be samAptA? Again, shoudn't it be paddhatih samAptA? Rajendran Dr.C.Rajendran Professor of Sanskrit University of Calicut Calicut University P.O Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144 Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road, Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624 FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2005 Report Share Posted October 31, 2005 Harry Spier 371 Brickman Rd. Hurleyville, New York USA 12747 Firstly many thanks to Allen Thrasher and Timothy Cahill. One thing I noticed was that the handwriting on some devanagari manuscripts can be very regular (almost calligraphy) and on others almost scrawly. My assumption is that where the handwriting is very good its probably a professional scribe but where its less "professional" its more likely a scholar rather than a scribe. Thanks, Harry >"Allen W Thrasher" <athr >INDOLOGY ><harryspier,<indology> >Re: [Y-Indology] Spelling in manuscript >Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:39:24 -0400 > >Assuming this is the deified woman KaraNI, 1387-1543 [sic], worshipped at >Deshnoke, Rajasthan, our library has established the name as above, and of >the nine titles about her none show an initial long A. > >If the colophon is supposed to be in Skt. it should be KaraNIpUjApaddhatiH >samAptaH. But the omission of the final visarga in the title is not >atypical. > >In my experience final colophons are often rather hasty and downright >sloppy and are frequently in a mix of Sanskrit and vernacular (or sloppy >Sanskrit), with either vernacular terminations, or rather none, e.g. no H >(visarga) on a Sanskrit word, or a vernacular, uninflected, title followed >by Skt. samAptaH. > >The question arises, why? Were the scribes non-Brahman technicians with an >inadequate grounding in Skt., capable of copying a text with some adequacy >but not concerned with grammatical niceties or capable of them? Did they >just run out of energy and attention at the end of a piece of work. Were >the mss copied not by scribes but by the users, who if mere ritualists >might be inadequate in their grammar? Or finally, could the colophons not >have been thought of as a part of the book itself, worth doing carefully, >but just a convenient note for the owner? Or could their multilinguality >be somehow like an added title Roman script, English page to a published >work in Skt. (or a Greek classic). > >Or maybe as they finish the job there is a transition period in which they >switch back to the vernacular from thinking in Sanskrit, during which >transition they mix the languages. > >In Indian arts and crafts it sometimes seems that there will be a sort of >hastiness and carelessness towards the end, e.g. not smoothing out a seam >in a piece of metalwork when the craftsman presumably was perfectly capable >of doing so. Or when labels to various figures are added onto a miniature >the writing is sloppy thought the painting may be careful and superb. This >might be because the painters were semi-literate, or they might have been >illiterate and the words added by another hand. But in addition to that, >the ink of the labels is often smeared or there are spatters, which is >certainly carelessness. > >Have you checked the New Cat. Cat.? > >Allen > > > >Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D., Senior Reference Librarian >South Asia Team, Asian Division >Library of Congress, Jefferson Building 150 >101 Independence Ave., S.E. >Washington, DC 20540-4810 >tel. 202-707-3732; fax 202-707-1724; athr >The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Library of >Congress. > > >>> harryspier 10/28/05 12:51 AM >>> > >Dear list members, > >I'm preparing a title list of some manuscripts I have as photographs of the >devanagari originals. In one of these the title only appears in the last >line where the scribe has written: > >(I'm using Harvard-Kyoto transliteration): >---- kAranIpUjApaddhatisamaptaH || ------ > >Should the spelling of the title be kAraNIpUjApaddhati and NOT >karanIpUjApaddhati which the scribe has written. I.e. retroflex N. > >Also should it be --- samAptaH ---- and not --- samaptaH --- which the >scribe has written. > >Thanks, >Harry > >Harry Spier >371 Brickman Rd. >Hurleyville, New York >USA 12747 > > Links > > > > > Links > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.