Apologies you are correct. See attachment (the first sign is avagraha, the second sharada sandhi mark
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:47 PM Jan Kučera <[email protected]> wrote: > *> 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 <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Harry > Spier via INDOLOGY > *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2023 8:36 PM > *To:* Dominik Wujastyk <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Indology Indology listserve <[email protected]> > *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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]>: > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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: > > dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṁhitā > > ऋषिऽस्याद्दक्षिणामूर्तिर्गायत्रीछंद उच्यते ।। 4 ।। folio 21a > > अंते जीवऽशिवस्या तु विद्या वरुण पूजिता ।। 43 ।। folio 55b > > > > kaulārcanadīpikā > > लोकोयंऽजुगुप्सिति folio 43b > > निःसंग एव मोक्षऽस्याद्दोषाः सर्वे च संगजाः । folio 57a > > > > mudrāprakāśaḥ > > शिखयागालिनीं मुद्रामऽर्धस्यो परिचालयेत् । folio 11a > > अनामा मध्यमे अंगुष्टेन स्पृशेदित्यऽपानमुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 18a > > स्यादऽपानहुतौ मुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 21a > > मध्यापृष्टेंऽगुष्टौ मध्या क्रोडे स्थितौ कामः काम इति काममुद्रेत्यर्थः ।। 19 > ।। folio 30a > > Any 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 ५ > > Anirban Dash (and several others pointed out that this should be > > संन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेऽत्रसमासतः ५ > > As 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 > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology > > > > Elliot M. Stern > > 552 South 48th Street > > Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029 > > [email protected] > > 267-240-8418 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology > >
sharad-example.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
