From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 07 2007 - 02:29:03 CDT
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:01 AM, William J Poser wrote:
> I've never seen the first problematic glyph-complex, but I can
> say with some confidence that it is a mistake since it ends with
> a virama which is followed by a vowel sign, which is impossible.
> Something is wrong.
> The second one looks like a jn (both palatal), but the word is
> peculiar. I think that the word is intended to be manovaijna:nik
> "psychological", but it has guna rather than vrddhi and is
> actually written manovijna:nik. My knoweldge of Hindi is not
> sufficient to know if this is a reasonable variant.
> Indeed, this text doesn't seem to make sense in general, even
> given my poor Hindi. What, for example, is the second sentence
> supposed to say? The words all make sense individually except
> for the penultimate one, which seems to be sba:gat, which neither
> I nor my Hindi dictionary know. If the diagonal stroke is omitted
> it would be sva:gat "welcome, acceptance, reception".
Yeah, I wondered about that one, but I don't really speak Hindi at
all, and my spotty knowledge of Sanskrit is not usually helpful...
-- मर्नेन् लेबो-कोज़र् firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 07 2007 - 02:30:15 CDT