some Sanskrit-related desiderata

[wujastyk]

Dear Maïeul,

I have been trying out your valuable biblatex-manuscripts-philology package with a view to a small project. I deal with Sanskrit manuscripts mainly, and I would like to add a few details and options to your package. But biblatex programming is complex, and I have not spent enough time to do what I want easily.

Here are some features I'd like to add:

1. A field for script (to include Devanāgarī, Śāradā, Bengali, and others)
2. Additional support types, including palm-leaf and birch-bark.
3. The inclusion of the field Contents in the output format of the MS description. I would like to express some of the content of the MS (e.g., 'Contains such-and-such text, chapter 3, verses 2-5') separately from the Annotations.

These are the main changes at present, though if you are willing to contemplate new features, I would maybe have a few more. Many thanks, Dominik

[maieul]

Dear Dominik,

I think it should be quite easy to implement that. However I need some precision

1. We are ok that script are different than alphabet. For example, in latin world, we have latin alphabet, but "Carolin" and "Gothic" script (and other ones)?
2. In any case, in which position do you want to print the script
3. Should we define any key value
4. For additionnal support script, it should be ok with key-value.
5. Idem, for contents field, I suppose it would be only for env=details bibliography.

[maieul]

By the way : please next time open one "issue" by problem.

[wujastyk]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 02:07, Maïeul Rouquette notifications@github.com wrote:

Dear Dominik,

I think it should be quite easy to implement that. However I need some precision

1. We are ok that script are different than alphabet. For example, in latin world, we have latin alphabet, but "Carolin" and "Gothic" script (and other ones)?

I meant different "writing systems." E.g., Greek and Cyrillic. I think this is what you mean by alphabet, although in India most scripts are syllabic, not alphabetic. In the Indian case, there are about fourteen major writing systems used on the subcontinent, and more if you include derived scripts of South East Asia. See these lists and charts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmic_scripts#List_of_Brahmic_scripts. I do not mean script.

1. In any case, in which position do you want to print the script

Hmm. Probably next to the other elements of physical description, like support and foliation.

1. Should we define any key value

I think not. Users will only complain that the key list isn't quite right, or doesn't include their particular writing system, etc. I think a simple text string field is best.

1. For additionnal support script, it should be ok with key-value.

Yes, for India, in addition to "paper", the most common supports include "birch bark" and "palm leaf."

1. Idem, for contents field, I suppose it would be only for env=details bibliography.

Yes, env=details only.

Thanks!

[maieul]

So, you think script would be to good term? And what about the subset of script like in my case Caroline vs Gothic.

I key system could be implemented with some commands to allow user to create their own keys. The advantage would be in terme of automatic abbreviation, uniformization and so on.

[wujastyk]

The palaeographical study of Indian writing systems is not yet developed enough to have a standard set of names for different writing styles. And if we leave the "writing system" field as plain text, without key value, people can always make up their own mind (e.g., "Jaina Nāgarī," "Nandi Nāgarī," etc.)

But if the key system can be easily extended as you say, then yes, I think it would be very helpful and would help with standardization. So, yes! :-)

-- Professor Dominik Wujastyk http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk ,

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity ,

Department of History and Classics http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/ , University of Alberta, Canada .

South Asia at the U of A:

sas.ualberta.ca

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 at 02:18, Maïeul Rouquette notifications@github.com wrote:

So, you think script would be to good term? And what about the subset of script like in my case Caroline vs Gothic.

I key system could be implemented with some commands to allow user to create their own keys. The advantage would be in terme of automatic abbreviation, uniformization and so on.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/issues/5#issuecomment-419007030, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuhhoFPvHtKUSBHkyhTA0x4Tu3MBY8zks5uYNpBgaJpZM4WYFTS .

[maieul]

@Doc73 I will need italien translation for:

• "Content"
  • "Remark"
  • "palm-leaf"
  • "birch-bark"

Could you provide it?

[maieul]

@doc73 : for "palm-leaf" and "bich-bark", I need also abbreviated form.

[maieul]

• [x] Additionnal Support
• [x] Script
• [x] Content

[Doc73]

• content = contenuto
• remark = osservazione (plur. osservazioni)

I think "birch-bark" is "carta cinese", according to M. Maniaci, Terminologia del libro manoscritto, Préface di Denis Muzerelle, Roma 1996, p. 42. As for "Palm leaf", Ead. p. 22 records "palma" between "organical supports". Therefore, I would translate it as "foglia di palma". Maniaci doesn't record abbreviations for these words, but later I'll look for it in AA. VV., Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction, Hamburg 2015.

[wujastyk]

Dear Maieul,

I'm not sure what you mean by "is," when you say "birch-bark" is "carta cinese." Why are we talking Italian? Same question for "contenuto" and "osservazione." If this is an Italian localization file, of course, that's appropriate. But if you are thinking about terminology for Anglophone users, then there is no reason I can think of for coining new terms in Italian. If we want to use a different language, we should (but why?) we should use the well-established Sanskrit terms. "Birch bark" in Sanskrit is "bhūrjapattra" ("भूर्जपत्त्रम्"). "Palm leaf" is "tālapattra" ("तालपत्त्रम्"). Contemporary authors writing about Indian manuscripts for an international audience use "Birch bark" and "palm leaf." See, e.g., attached articles.

Best, Dominik

-- Professor Dominik Wujastyk http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk ,

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity ,

Department of History and Classics http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/ , University of Alberta, Canada .

South Asia at the U of A:

sas.ualberta.ca

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 05:12, Domenico Cufalo notifications@github.com wrote:

• contenuto
• osservazione (plur. osservazioni)

I think "birch-bark" is "carta cinese", according to M. Maniaci, Terminologia del libro manoscritto, Préface di Denis Muzerelle, Toma 1996, p. 42. As for "Palm leaf", Ead. p. 22 record "palma" between "organical supports". Therefore, I would translate it as "foglia di palma". Maniace doesn't record abbreviations for these words, but later I'll look for it in AA. VV., Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction, Hamburg 2015.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/issues/5#issuecomment-421326540, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuhhtzybT9xk4rVkZAuwwoMnZ_5Qgtcks5ua48egaJpZM4WYFTS .

[Doc73]

I think that Maieul refers to this file (italian localization): https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/blob/master/italian-manuscripts.lbx

I don't know exactly what is "birch-bark", but Marilena Maniaci uses the terms "carta orientale". If "birch-bark" is "carta orientale", it's well, otherwise please explain me better what "birch-bark" is and the I'll try to find some words for italian localization, according to the habits of classifications in Italian libraries codified by Marilena Maniaci, a very well-known Italian palaeographer and codicologist whom I had the honor to know.

[wujastyk]

Did the articles by me and by Sathaye that I attached to the last email get through? They explain birch bark and palm leaf, and Sathaye has a nice photo of birch bark. Neither can be "carta orientale". Birch bark is literally sheets of the bark of the birch tree. It was also used extensively for early Russian manuscripts. Plenty of photos an notes in this Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=birch+bark+manuscript. Here is a poorly-preserved birch bark MS at archive.org https://archive.org/details/BirchBarkVedicCommentariesSharadaRSktSJammuNo40 .

-- Professor Dominik Wujastyk http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk ,

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity ,

Department of History and Classics http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/ , University of Alberta, Canada .

South Asia at the U of A:

sas.ualberta.ca

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 at 10:32, Domenico Cufalo notifications@github.com wrote:

I think that Maieul refers to this file (italian localization): https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/blob/master/italian-manuscripts.lbx

I don't know exactly what is "birch-bark", but Marilena Maniaci uses the terms "carta orientale". If "birch-bark" is "carta orientale", it's well, otherwise please explain me better what "birch-bark" is and the I'll try to find some words for italian localization, according to the habits of classifications in Italian libraries codified by Marilena Maniaci, a very well-known Italian palaeographer and codicologist whom I had the honor to know.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/issues/5#issuecomment-421595767, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuhhh1U2PYWFWser7n8UtmoJHjW2plKks5ubSuAgaJpZM4WYFTS .

[Doc73]

@wujastyk Ah, ok! Then we can translate it "carta di corteccia di betulla" or "carta di betulla"? Do you think it's okay?

[wujastyk]

Domenico,

May I connect you with my friend Dr Alessandro Graheli, who is both a native Italian speaker and an expert in Indian manuscripts? He will be able to say whether Italian codicologists writing about India have developed standard terminology for "birch bark" and "palm leaf."

Best, Dominik

-- Professor Dominik Wujastyk http://ualberta.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk ,

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity ,

Department of History and Classics http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/ , University of Alberta, Canada .

South Asia at the U of A:

sas.ualberta.ca

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 at 11:27, Domenico Cufalo notifications@github.com wrote:

@wujastyk https://github.com/wujastyk Ah, ok! Then we can translate it "carta di corteccia di betulla" or "carta di betulla"? Do you think it's okay?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/issues/5#issuecomment-421603528, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuhhuR1N54GME5ZATrsy-z4xqffnqcYks5ubThogaJpZM4WYFTS .

[Doc73]

Yes, sure! But consider I'm not the developer of Italian translation. However, I think that all suggestions of other people are welcome, especially in fields that are not mine. 😊

[maieul]

@wujastyk I have completed all your request. Could you please try the branch "issue 5".

Attached is the prototype of the new version of handbook. Especially, it explains how to add your own pairs of key-value. Could you look into it, also for the presentation of script field? biblatex-manuscripts-philology.pdf

I have translated into French "birch-bark" and "palm-leaf" for the french language file. But if you have an french speaker expert in Indian manuscripts, it could be better

@Doc73 and @wujastyk I wait for a definitive translation before adding it to italian. However, I would like to release with the translation.

@wujastyk if you answer by email, you can't send files. You need to use github web interface to do it.

[wujastyk]

Here are links to the articles I mentioned in an email reply a day ago, that didn't get through:

• https://www.dropbox.com/s/4fuexnvhgt2ppy8/2013%20Indian%20Manuscripts.pdf?dl=0
• https://www.dropbox.com/s/8fnk2chw0aqnguq/2016%20The%20public%20life%20of%20manuscripts.pdf?dl=0

[wujastyk]

I've tried to test the issue5 release but I'm stuck because I'm too ignorant :-)

1. I can't compile biblatex-manuscripts-philology.tex; although I installed Pigments, which was the first problem, I still can't get a PDF because dvipdfmx throws an error.

xdvipdfmx:fatal: This font using the "seac" command for accented characters...

Output file removed. (see the transcript file for additional information) Error 256 (driver return code) generating output; file biblatex-manuscripts-philology.pdf may not be valid. Transcript written on biblatex-manuscripts-philology.log.

biblatex-manuscripts-philology.log

2. I don't know how to get JabRef to "see" the new fields available for support.

I have run texhash.

See attached log file.

[maieul]

1. You don't need to run the .tex file, it is only to produce the PDF and I send it to you. When I will send it to the CTAN, the handbook will be available. I don't know exactly where comes your problem, it is strange but priority. Just put the biblatex-manuscripts-philology directory in your personal texmf directory.
2. https://help.jabref.org/en/CustomEntryTypes. Also for tests, you can edit your .bib manually...

[wujastyk]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 13:55, Maïeul Rouquette notifications@github.com wrote:

1. ... Just put the biblatex-manuscripts-philology directory in your personal texmf directory.

Yes, I already did that, and remembered to run texhash. Don't worry, I'll work out the JabRef issue.

The manual says one can use Content instead of Annotation. Can one use both?

I think all is well now. Best, Dominik

[maieul]

yes, it is cumulative. Do you think I should rewrite the handbook?

[wujastyk]

Dear Maïeul, I've forked the repo and I'll make some edits to the manual and issue a pull request. If you wish, you can consider my edits for the main release.

Best, Dominik

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 03:34, Maïeul Rouquette notifications@github.com wrote:

yes, it is cumulative. Do you think I should rewrite the handbook?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/maieul/biblatex-manuscripts-philology/issues/5#issuecomment-421944261, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuhhlQ5DHS8bnq8XyCLC8ARufVup-tIks5ub2yogaJpZM4WYFTS .

[wujastyk]

"Contents" is the normal expression in current English for items in a book or manuscript. So, also, "The Contents Page" etc. etc.

[maieul]

I have just change to contents in branch 2.0

[maieul]

So @wujastyk after your correction, all should be ok. Could you please check a last time on branch 2.0 before I make the release? @wujastyk and @Doc73 for release, I just need final terms for the two new supports.

[wujastyk]

The English versions of the new supports should not be hyphenated: the correct forms are "palm leaf" and "birch bark" (not palm-leaf, birch-bark or palmleaf, birchbark).

[wujastyk]

I say publish 2.0. Thanks!

[maieul]

As it is a key-value system, the key is hyphenated, but not the value

[maieul]

so, before releasing, I need @Doc73 italian translation for palmleaf and birchbark.

[Doc73]

I can only suggest:

• birch bark: carta di corteccia <di betulla?>
• palmleaf: carta di foglia di palma or foglia di palma

But I think it is better to hear the opinion of an expert in this field.

[wujastyk]

I may be the wrong person, but may I suggest

• palm leaf = foglia di palma (see, e.g., this usage)

• birch bark = corteccia di betulla (see, e.g., this usage)

Addition - sorry @Doc73, I didn't see you had already answered as I was writing!

[maieul]

Ok. So in this case, I will publish like this, and if someone need a translation, (s)he will add it.

[maieul]

I didn't see @wujastyk link. So I will add these form,as @doc73 agree with them

[maieul]

Send to CTAN. Thanks you both @wujastyk and @Doc73.

[Doc73]

Many thanks to you, @maieul !