The author is Dr Charles Li.
That's me!
Saktumiva is part of an ongoing effort to produce critical editions
starting from diplomatically* transcribing manuscripts. Then, at the
collation stage, common orthographic variants are filtered out
automatically — this can be configured depending on what you want to see
in your apparatus. The idea is to keep as much information intact as
possible, so that later scholars can reproduce the work and easily
critically evaluate the decisions that went into it.
Here is a shameless plug for a text that I recently edited in this way,
the story of King Śibi in the /Vahnipurāṇa/:
https://alt.cardiffuniversitypress.org/articles/10.18573/alt.58
The article is accompanied by a digital edition, here:
https://tst-project.github.io/siberupakhyana
The digital edition includes diplomatic transcriptions of every witness,
alignments of every verse in the text, and images of the manuscripts or
printed books that are transcribed, where possible. The idea is that the
work should be reproducible, like "Real Science" — following a series of
steps, you should be able to either reproduce that text that I've
critically edited, or else make different decisions that will give you a
different text. (I imagine I'm not the only person who has struggled
with interpreting a critical text, only to spend ages tracking down the
sources and finally discovering that the editor just misread an akṣara.)
Making all of the material available will also hopefully make it easier
for scholars to re-use the work in the future, whether for simple text
mining, or analyzing text reuse, or for creating new critical texts.
Best,
Charles
*As the foregoing conversation demonstrates, transcription is inherently
an interpretive act, and scholarly practice with respect to diplomacy
varies widely. But even mechanical reproduction is inherently
interpretive — for example, colour calibration in photography, and this
famous case of photocopier error:
https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2015/0823_video_slides_xerox_talk_froscon
On 2023-03-26 01:10, Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY wrote:
The author is Dr Charles Li. There's more information at the Github
site: https://github.com/chchch/upama .
See also,
* Reconstructing a Sanskrit text
<https://chchch.github.io/sanskrit-alignment/docs/index.html>
* For further discussion of the methodology behind Saktumiva, see Li
2017 <https://www.sidestone.com/bookviewer/9789088904837>: 305-310
and Li 2018
<https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/284085/limits_of_the_real.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>,
ch.4.
*
Li, C. (2022) “Helayo: Reconstructing Sanskrit Texts from
Manuscript Witnesses,” Journal of Open Source Software. /The Open
Journal/ 7: 4022. DOI <http://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04022>
Best,
Dominik
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 at 17:40, Harry Spier <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dominik,
Could you tell us a little more about saktumIva (saktumiva.org
<http://saktumiva.org>). The website tells us what it does, but I
couldn't find a page that gave some history of it, who its
principals were etc.
*Saktumiva* is a platform for producing and publishing critical
editions of Sanskrit texts. Users can produce transcriptions of
documents, such as manuscripts or printed editions, and then
automatically collate them to produce an apparatus of variants.
Thanks,
Harry Spier
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 7:20 PM Dominik Wujastyk
<[email protected]> wrote:
Quite. In the Suśruta Project
<https://saktumiva.org/wiki/wujastyk/susrutasamhita/start>'s
edition we've gone with geminated consonants (karmma, karttā)
and some other odd sandhi choices (evaṅ guṇam) because they
are sanctioned by Pāṇini. It's going to make our edition a
bit odd for readers who are used to smoothed-out Sanskrit.
But it's grammatically correct. And that's another editorial
assumption: we assume that our author(s) know grammar. That
can also be tricky, if we think there are maybe some
dialectical features appearing. Luckily, the SS is a good
example of classical Sanskrit. Separating error from dialect
or language drift, the BHS problem, is extra challenging.
Best,
Dominik
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 21:39, Harry Spier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Point taken Dominik. You wrote:
One has /two/ files. The first is the diplomatic
transcription (karmma, vindu, adhiṣṭāna). The second
is whatever one wants it to be, but it's
interpretative or normalized.
I think another reason, in addition to all the reasons you
gave for what you suggest. I.e. "first is the diplomatic
transcription" and only then to create a "normalized"
file, is that deciding whats normal is sometimes a
judgement call . There may be more than one norm. For example:
Monier-Williams dictionary has pattra and chattra but
Apte's dictionary has patra and chatra .
Harry Spier
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
