Dear Dominik,
I have been transcribing what I take to be the same sign with a daṇḍa. It
only seems to be used when the scribe has a bit of space to fill at the end
of the line (or before the string hole).
[image: image.png]
It's visually indistinguishable from a daṇḍa, at least in this manuscript,
so I haven't worried about distinguishing the two functions. But if you are
transcribing the daṇḍa as <pc/> in TEI, as some people do, then you can
certainly add distinguishing information, e.g. <pc type="danda"
subtype="hyphen"/> or (probably better) <pc type="danda" force="weak">
(indicating that it is not a word-separator according to the TEI
https://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-pc.html). Does
anyone else do this?
Andrew
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:43 PM Dominik Wujastyk
I've got some manuscripts that use a line-ending filler, a bit like the Roman-script hyphen. In one case, I think it explains a false reading in an apograph.
My B witness (pṛṣṭhamātra but undated) reads
[image: image.png] That's yasya with a line-filling character that looks like a daṇḍa. But it isn't a daṇḍa. The nearest thing I can call it is a scribe's hyphen. The line below, pra- is the same. The full word is pra-bhākaraḥ. It wouldn't be right to transcribe as daṇḍa. But more to the point, I want to record that this Devanāgarī "hyphen" suggests that the reading yasyā in witness U is a crux showing U to be an apograph of B. I've inserted an explanatory <note> into the transcription of B at this point:
yasya|<note anchored="true" type="comment on reading">This end-of-line daṇḍa may show that the yasyā reading in U proves U to be an apograph.</note><lb/>
But there must be a better way of expressing all this. Any ideas?
Best, Dominik
_______________________________________________ Indic-texts mailing list Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts
