Dear Andrew, Is this really a punctuation character? What's its function? I think it doesn't fulfil the same function as a danda, it's a simple line filler and thus has a simple decorative function, so to say. We discussed about it at length during the project and we decided to tag it with <g> for several reasons. If you are interested, I can explain it in more detail. Best wishes, Camillo Sent from my Xperia by Sony smartphone ---- Andrew Ollett wrote ---- 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.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 TEIhttps://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 mailto:wujastyk@gmail.com> wrote: 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.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.orgmailto:Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts

On Tue, Nov 12 2019, Camillo Formigatti wrote:

Dear Andrew,

Is this really a punctuation character? What's its function? I think it doesn't fulfil the same function as a danda, it's a simple line filler and thus has a simple decorative function, so to say. We discussed about it at length during the project and we decided to tag it with <g> for several reasons. If you are interested, I can explain it in more detail.

Dear list, I also tag these as tei:pc. But I suppose Camillo does have a point that it isn’t actually a punctuation character. Seems I’ll prefer tei:g from now on. And probably everyone is aware of this, but anyway: Einicke 2009 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1014639410), pp. 290ff., heads a section with these signs “Randausgleich (oder Worttrenner am Zeilenende?)”. This describes their function, roughly: “Margin-equalizer (or a word-separator at the end of the line?)” I couldn’t find the reason she suspects it might be a word-separator. I’ve started to refer to her functional classifications quite a lot (usually with @ana attributes). 1+ for coordination of efforts: the TEI council uses github nowadays, so we could too. For academic efforts, it used to be possible to get a free (=gratis, not really free) group account. Best wishes, -- Patrick McAllister long-term email: pma@rdorte.org

Dear Patrick and Dominik, I was thinking precisely of Einicke's Randausgleich when I wrote earlier. I'm relieved to read that you also haven't the impression that it's a word-divider, I was never convinced that it has this function too. As to the terminology, I'm not really satisfied with line-filler and I think that hyphen is better - although in my perception as a non-native speaker, the two terms are synonymous, so I'm waiting for the jury of native speakers to decide. Best wishes, Camillo Sent from my Xperia by Sony smartphone ---- Dominik Wujastyk wrote ---- Thanks everyone. I'm using Charles's Saktumiva, and the convention there (as Charles pointed out to me; I should RTFM) is to use the broken pipe character, "¦". So that's what I'm doing now. For my purposes, I do need to distinguish this char from a daṇḍa, because it's functionally different, and because I want it to show up in my apparatus in places where I don't want the daṇḍa to show up. It's even written slightly differently in some MSS, with a little bottom-serif/flourish. Like Patrick, I don't see a word-separation function in my MSS usage. It's really a line-filler or Randausgleich "margin-equalizer". So is a hyphen, though. So is there any good reason not to think of these as hyphens? NB hyphenation practices differ greatly between languages and even between UK and USA English, so the fact that these line-fillers are not being used as etymologically-determined word- or syllable-separators isn't a reason not to call them hyphens. Best, Dominik

Dear All, to expand on what Arlo has said, in the DHARMA project we’re planning to encode these as <g type=”filler”/> (no content). I still rather like the idea of using <space/> with @rend=”filled” or suchlike to capture the idea that these signs are not part of the text per se, but then again, <g> is a more explicit indication that there are in fact glyphs present in the original; it also lends itself easily to classification with @subtype, should someone desire to create a typology of these marks. The § sign in our Transliteration Guide is essentially shorthand that will be auto-converted to this tag. We have only just started considering display details, but if the broken bar is on the way to becoming a convention, then we can use that to display these <g> elements. All the best, Dan Feladó: Arlo Griffiths Elküldve: 2019. november 13., szerda 1:50 Címzett: INDIC-TEXTS Tárgy: Re: [Indic-texts] Devanagari hyphen Dear Dominik and other colleagues, Thanks for bringing up this fun detail of Indic writing. I will happily adopt Steinkellner’s ‘broken pipe’ if that is what everyone votes for.  However, I have for a number of years been using § to represent this sign, which is not limited to Devanagari, and not only used at line-end, but also found around binding-holes, and sometimes in other positions and functions. My former student Andrea Acri has published this convention in his Dharma Pātañjala book (2011). See p. 85: ‘I have reproduced the line-filler sign [image] as §. This sign is used to fill any extra space before the gap reserved around the binding hole or before the right margin of a leaf.’ Examples can be found passim in Andrea’s diplomatic edition of a ca. 15th-c. Javanese manuscript. The sign is also found passim in copper-plate inscriptions from Java. In the attached example, we the sign both in its normal function, as line-filler, at the and of line 4, but also at the opening among the symbols that enclose namostu sarvvabuddhāya. In these Javanese contexts, and in the (non-Devanagari) Indian manuscripts where I have seen the sign (notably in manuscripts from Eastern Indian and Nepal in the 10th/11th-centuries), it is clearly different visually from daṇḍa. As it is also functionally different from daṇḍa, I see some advantage in my convention as against the interrupted bar, besides that the § is also easier to type for most people. (Naturally I am happiest with the only convention that I am used to...) We have so far retained § in the Transliteration Guide for the DHARMA project (https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02272407/document). In our discussions, Daniel Balogh has made an argument for encoding the sign as a @type of <space>, but I have so far resisted and preferred marking it up as a @type of <g>. Note to Daniel (and to others for amusement): at the end of line 3 in the attached photo, I now find the same words that we have decided to represent as Umiṅsor= I (repha on top of initial i) in a stone inscription that was brought to our attention. Question to Dominik: could you explain the meaning of the underlined bits, obscure to me: « I'm using Charles's Saktumiva, and the convention there (as Charles pointed out to me; I should RTFM) … »? Best wishes to all, from Dhaka (where the Bangladesh National Museum has recently published two hefty volumes of catalogues of its Sanskrit and Bengali manuscripts — alas too heavy for me to carry back home), Arlo Le 13 nov. 2019 à 03:17, Dominik Wujastyk a écrit : Thanks everyone.  I'm using Charles's Saktumiva, and the convention there (as Charles pointed out to me; I should RTFM) is to use the broken pipe character, "¦".  So that's what I'm doing now.   For my purposes, I do need to distinguish this char from a daṇḍa, because it's functionally different, and because I want it to show up in my apparatus in places where I don't want the daṇḍa to show up.  It's even written slightly differently in some MSS, with a little bottom-serif/flourish. Like Patrick, I don't see a word-separation function in my MSS usage.  It's really a line-filler or Randausgleich "margin-equalizer".  So is a hyphen, though.  So is there any good reason not to think of these as hyphens?  NB hyphenation practices differ greatly between languages and even between UK and USA English, so the fact that these line-fillers are not being used as etymologically-determined word- or syllable-separators isn't a reason not to call them hyphens. Best, Dominik _______________________________________________ Indic-texts mailing list Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts

Unicode includes two filler characters for other scripts. We might consider proposing the character be added to an additional Devanagari extensions page (the Devanagari Extension page is already full). In the meantime, th g-element @type solution appears to be good to me. In our markup of Harvard mss. we ignored the character but always noted whether the next line began a new word or not, the latter with a break=“no” attribute added to the lb-element: <lb break=“no”>. Yours, Peter FILL SPACE, IDEOGRAPHIC HALF 303F http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U3000.pdf FILLER, HANGUL 3164 http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U3130.pdf ****************************** Peter M. Scharf, President The Sanskrit Library scharf@sanskritlibrary.org https://sanskritlibrary.org ******************************

On 13 Nov 2019, at 4:22 PM, Camillo Formigatti wrote:

Dear all,

I'm amazed at the liveliness of our discussion about this sign. If I take a step back and reflect on the whole situation, I almost come to the conclusion that maybe we ought to reconsider our life priorities. Only maybe... 🤣

Yours faithfully,

Camillo

Sent from my Xperia by Sony smartphone

---- Philipp Maas wrote ----

Dear Dominik and all, The sign that you are referring to is widely used already in the oldest dated manuscript that we are using for digital critical edition of the Nyāyabhāṣya in Leipzig, a paper manuscript from Jaisalmer in Devanagari, datable to 1222. We decided to transcribe it as a hyphen (-), since it is mostly (though not exclusively) used to separate akṣaras within a word at the end of the line and before virtual string holes. The hyphen sign suggested itself to us intuitively, because its usage in the manuscript corresponds roughly to the usage of a hyphen in our modern practice of writing in Latin script. In the case of this manuscript, the interpretation of this sign as a line filler is not the most obvious choice, because the sign is used frequently in cases where the line would already be filled completely without the use of this special sign, like here:

Quite frequently, when the end of the line coincides with the end of a word, the scribe left some space without using the hyphenation sign :

I have not fully investigate the matter, because it is not of central importance for the creation of the documentation of variant readings in our project (not to speak of the critical edition), but apparently the scribe was not absolutely consistent in his usage of this sign.

With best wishes,

Philipp __________________________

Dr. Philipp A. Maas Research Associate Institut für Indologie und Zentralasienwissenschaften Universität Leipzig ___________________________

https://spp1448.academia.edu/PhilippMaas https://spp1448.academia.edu/PhilippMaas

Am Di., 12. Nov. 2019 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Dominik Wujastyk mailto:wujastyk@gmail.com>: 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

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 mailto:Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts _______________________________________________ Indic-texts mailing list Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts