paleographic remarks

[arlogriffiths]

Dear @chhomkunthea and @salomepichon,

Thank for your responses on this point.

• Kunthea said: "For the palaeographic remark, I’m wondering if we can say that “The akṣaras are characteristic of the tenth century CE.”"
• Salomé said: "In my XML file, I note the paleographic remarks inside a <p> within the <handDesc>. Is it the information you're looking for? Personally I would write something along the line of "The scribe has made a use of a cursive script"."

Kunthea's response corresponds to what I had asked you to do some time ago, though I would now prefer to write "lettering" instead of "akṣaras". I don't remember at the momen t why I asked you to put such remarks in your XML files and in the present display, they are no longer shown, though this might change as @michaelnmmeyer's work on the database and display of metadata advances.

In any case, please gradually revise all your files using a sentence with the pattern <p>The lettering is characteristic of the tenth century CE.</p> Don't hesitate to ask if you encounter problems.

I am sending a copy to @chloechollet and @danbalogh for their information and for any input they may wish to give.

[salomepichon]

Dully noted, thanks! Is it still advised to elaborate a bit more if we have things to say? For instance, in the file of the inscription K. 444 (https://dharmalekha.info/texts/DHARMA_INSCIK00444), that I studied in my Master's thesis, I made the following remarks:

• (Freshly added)

  The lettering is characteristic of the tenth century CE.

• The scribe has made a use of a cursive script, caracterised by its irregularities. Single-downstroked ra alternate with double-downstroked ra. Likewise, both complete and abbreviated ña were engraved.
• The text of the inscription contains a lot of glyphs signs separating segments of the text, mostly middle dot.
• The inscription was chiselled on face B, making its reading more difficult.

Should I stick to a more simple observation, or can I keep the rest?

Best,

[arlogriffiths]

absolutely no problem to have more elaborate comments like that. the little sentence I was asking to insert were (when i came up with the idea) a strict minimum. alas I don't remember why I thought we needed them ... but now that we have them in many files, let's try to be a bit consistent.

[chhomkunthea]

Dear Arlo and Salomé,

If I remember well, in one of our virtual meetings (Salomé, Chloé and me), we mentioned that the little sentence (“The lettering is characteristic of … century CE”) should be in the and that further palaeographic observations should be added in the commentary.

I have applied this “rule” to several files. Can I keep the additional observations in the commentary or move them back to the , with the little sentence?

Best, Kunthea

On 9 Apr 2024, at 18:41, arlogriffiths @.***> wrote:

absolutely no problem to have more elaborate comments like that. the little sentence I was asking to insert were (when i came up with the idea) a strict minimum. alas I don't remember why I thought we needed them ... but now that we have them in many files, let's try to be a bit consistent.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/issues/280#issuecomment-2044884862, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM4GVN65PH3OV3SE63NDDGTY4PHYDAVCNFSM6AAAAABF6FNCJOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANBUHA4DIOBWGI. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[arlogriffiths]

There is no hard rule forbidding such remarks in the commentary, Kunthea, but I think in principle remarks that touch on Paleography should be assembled in <handDes>. See EGD 11.2.1 ("The hand description"). It is rather unlikely that I ever recommended you to make palaeographic observations in any other part of an XML file, so it may have been a misunderstanding on your part.

[chhomkunthea]

Well noted with thanks! I will put the palaeographic remarks in the .

Best, Kunthea

On 11 Apr 2024, at 11:57, arlogriffiths @.***> wrote:

There is no hard rule forbidding such remarks in the commentary, Kunthea, but I think in principle remarks that touch on Paleography should be assembled in . See EGD 11.2.1 ("The hand description"). It is rather unlikely that I ever recommended you to make palaeographic observations in any other part of an XML file, so it may have been a misunderstanding on your part.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/issues/280#issuecomment-2048927002, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM4GVN73BHI2YRUVWI5IXVDY4YJ5NAVCNFSM6AAAAABF6FNCJOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANBYHEZDOMBQGI. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.