Dear colleagues,
Two of us at DHARMA are preparing a digital edition of the Sārasamuccaya, a compendium of Sanskrit stanzas with Old Javanese parapphase. Please take a look at these cases from our file:
<p n="29"> <quote type="basetext" xml:lang="san-Latn" source="MBh05,039.053"> <lg n="28"
met="anuṣṭubh">
<l>kāntāravanadurgeṣu kr̥cchreṣv āpatsu sambhrame |</l>
<l>udyateṣu ca śastreṣu nāsti dharmavatāṁ bhayam ॥28॥</l>
</lg></quote>lavan ta vaneh, riṅ hlət, riṅ alas, riṅ priṅga, riṅ laya, salvirniṅ duhkhahetu, ri papraṅan kunəṅ, tar tka juga ikaṅ bhaya, ri saṅ
dhārmika, apan ikaṅ śubhakarma rumakṣa sira. </p>
<p n="32"> <quote type="basetext" xml:lang="san-Latn" source="bibl:Boehtlingk1870_01-94/32"> <lg n="31"
met="anuṣṭubh">
<l>arjayej jñānam arthāṁś ca vidvān amaravat sthitaḥ |</l>
<l>keśeṣv iva gr̥hītaḥ san mr̥tyunā dharmam ācaret ॥31॥</l>
</lg></quote>mataṅnya deyanika saṅ meṅət, apagəh kadi tan kneṅ pāti, lviraniran paṅarjana jñāna, artha, kunaṅ yan paṅarjana dharma, kadi katona
rumaṅgut mastakanira, ta pva ikaṅ mr̥tyu denira, ahosanā palayvana juga sira.</p>
Please let me know if you’d structure such dyads of stanzas + paraphrase differently.
Regarding my use of @source, let me explain that in most cases, as in the first example shown here, the content of @source is a passage in a Sanskrit text which transmits the same stanza — as in this example, it is generally the Mahābhārata. I
am making use of the loci as they are represented in the GRETIL file, and will use simple prefixes like MBh to establish proper links at a later stage. In the second case, the contents is a bibliographic source (here Indische Sprüche vol. I), in other words
it is not itself a ‘text’. The presence of bibl: is meant to help distinguish between the two types of cases.
Now to the specific problem on which I need your help: the correspondence with the reading of the @source is often not precise. In other words, even though a relationship with the @source is affirmed, we do not affirm that the reading of @source
is identical to that of our text. In fact, I’d like to have a means of encoding that the correspondence is precise, which is rare, and maybe also that the correspondence is remote, which is also rare — the remoter the correspondence, the less likely that I’d
want to cite the include a reference to the that source at all.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Arlo