sanskrit
sanskrit copied to clipboard
shreevatsa
Doesn't handle upadhmAnIya (and probably jihvAmUlIya)
मूर्खोऽसाविति तर्जनेन न हि तद्-वृत्तिᳶपरामृश्यते is not recognized as a shArdUlavikrIDita line.
It would be a 1-line change to treat it as visarga. But before that:
Looks like U+1CF6 VEDIC SIGN UPADHMANIYA is in the block "Vedic Extensions": http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1CD0.pdf
Apart from yourself using it, is there any evidence of usage of this character in typesetting classical Sanskrit? I have myself never seen it in print, even in Nirnaya Sagara Press books. Many Devanagari fonts don't contain a glyph for this character (indeed I see it as a box on my system right now).
The codechart does mention a character ᳲ (1CF2 VEDIC SIGN ARDHAVISARGA = vaidika jihvaamuuliiya upadhmaaniiya) of which it says "Its use is not limited to Vedic". This is a character I have seen in print, and going by the description seems something worth adding.
Else, it is not clear that U+1CF6 VEDIC SIGN UPADHMANIYA has any occurrence outside of Vedic (handling which is a much bigger project anyhow), and more importantly it is not even intended to be used except for Vedic.
I don't have any citations off-hand for the use of these characters in printed books (I'd expect to find them in vyAkaraNa books), but...
- Panini intended for upadhmAnIya-s and ardhavisarga-s to be present in non-vedic language also - so I feel that if users want to make that distinction, and if the script allows them to, they should be able to.
- Also, note that Tibetan and Kannada have attested uses of the corresponding symbols in their scripts (see notes in http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1CD0.pdf ) - the former wouldn't have vedic AFAIK. So, that shows that non-vedic Sanskrit orthography used them.
- At the very least, verses wanting to communicate vyAkaraNa nuances by example would certainly find them useful.
I think it'd be a good idea to add both the ardhavisarga and the so-called vedic signs.
Looks like there is some confusion here between speech and writing. Panini was describing sounds. Devanagari is a system for representing them.
A visarga preceding ka or pa will pronounced by those who know in the correct way, without needing special representation. E.g. when visarga precedes sa/śa/ṣa it is pronounced differently from when it is at the end (say), but the convention of Devanagari is not to encode this.
I will add them, but I think it is very wrong to go against convention (and reader convenience) and use them in Devanagari.
Panini's recommendations pertain to speech - no confusion about that here. For the benefit of those who do not know the "correct way", it may be desirable to explicitly show it in script (if the writer cares). Plenty of people mispronounce the anunAsika (represented by an anusvAra) before vargIya consonants because they don't know better. The convention in Hindi devanAgarI is to even forsake that distinction. So, I don't think it is wrong to go against the convention of omitting information.
The vedic extension is mostly meant for use with devanAgarI, isn't it?
Regarding fonts, I waited to use these symbols until more fonts support them (many do now). Besides, it is a chicken and egg problem - font developers wont incldue glyphs if there is no evidence of use, and users won't use a glyph unless font developers include the glyph.
@gasyoun "Where is the source? " -> As you've gathered by now, it's my own composition [ https://vishvasvasuki.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/what-an-idiot-vs-he-does-that-because-in-his-view/ ].
PS reg. : "when visarga precedes sa/śa/ṣa it is pronounced differently from when it is at the end" <-- Panini never claims such a thing. I suppose you're going by the (presently dominant) aha ihi uhu - type apANinIya pronunciation of the visarga. pANini just says: अन्तः शनैः will optionally be pronounced as अन्तश् शनैः। [ http://i.imgur.com/X50svLD.png ] In the former case, the visarga is pronounced as usual.
I meant अन्तश् शनैः, similarly the visarga becomes स-like before स, etc. Let me look up where I read this.
Sorry think I forgot to deploy (so the fix is only in the code and not on the website). Will do it soon (meanwhile code has gotten into a very experimental state; should have been doing this work on a separate branch... will see).
Will leave this bug open till it's on the website.
Many Indians (even traditional paNDita-s) do pronounce the visarga in the aha ihi uhu way (which many other people think is wrong).
What is the source of the aha ihi uhu way? Is there a book where it is stated? Never heard an Indian pronouncing it otherwise.
Apart from yourself using it, is there any evidence of usage of this character in typesetting classical Sanskrit? I have myself never seen it in print, even in Nirnaya Sagara Press books.
@shreevatsa I too had this doubt, hence I researched a bit on these characters http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17095-vedic-sign-glyph-change.pdf http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17319-vedic-jihv-upadh.pdf
Thank you @sridatta1! Very informative. Excellent work by both of you, as always.
My question was actually very pedestrian: outside of grammatical discussions, in common cases where a visarga precedes क or प (as in the वृत्तिᳶपरामृश्यते in the question), has it been ever common to use the special symbols? I think figures 4–6, 9–10 in your L2/17-095 are examples of this, but they are all by Burgess and Führer and it's not clear to me whether the symbols were only used by them in their transcription (a decision of the two authors), or were actually present in the original inscriptions. Probably they were present in the inscriptions, what do you think? Interestingly Figure 6 which uses upadhmaniya has a visarga preceding ka printed as such (verse 1), rather than as jihvamuliya. (Some of the examples in L2/17-319 seem to use the jihvamuliya after ka… or am I reading them wrong?)
Anyway I'll make the change here in this code soon. :-)
In Indic scripts the sounds Jihvamuliya and Upadhmaniya are represented by
- Script-specific distinct signs for Jihvamuliya and Upadhmaniya.
- Ardhavisarga sign.
- Rarely a rotated ardhavisarga sign to distinguish from ardhavisarga. The distinct signs for Jihvamuliya/Upadhmaniya are commonly seen in Inscriptions at least up to 11-12 century CE ( and surviving manuscripts of that time )
In Sharada Manuscripts signs for Jihvamuliya/Upadhmaniya are commonly seen in normal texts as well.
or were actually present in the original inscriptions.
Yes, they are present in original inscriptions. See fig 11 from the original Inscription
For ardhavisarga see pg 15 of L2/17-182 in Tigalari In Telugu pg 14 of L2/17-098 Nandinagari pg 30 of L2/17-162