search

sanskrit-lexicon / CORRECTIONS

Correction history for Cologne Sanskrit Lexicon
8 stars 5 forks source link

`o` vs `O` Corrections in PWG, Part 1 #130

Closed zaaf2 closed 8 years ago

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

This issue is about an analysis of the data contained in the file http://drdhaval2785.github.io/o_vs_O/output1/PWG.html, generated by the o_vs_O method of highest probability (one dictionary in first word and more dictionaries in second word), as applied to PWG.

OCR error.

image

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

@Shalu411 need your help in 46. http://namami.org/pdatabase.aspx did not help.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

47. लवणकर → लवणाकर OCR error. image

48. वनकण्डुल ― वनकण्डूल No change. The form was marked as an extraordinary one (!) by PWG, meaning probably that the author found it written so. कण्डुल and कण्डूल have the same meaning. image PW: image The mentioned work is in a manuscript edition: image MW: वन-कण्डूल [p= 917] : m. a kind of bulbous plant L. [L=185737] कण्-°डू*ल a [p= 1323] : mfn. itching, ardently desiring, (…) कण्डुल [p= 246] : mfn. itching Car. [L=42579]

49. वारणकेशर ― वारणकेसर No change. केशर and केसर are alternative forms of the same word (cf. cases 7, 16, 45). MW: केशर [p= 310] : &c » केसर. [L=56028]

50. विक्रमकेशरिन् ― विक्रमकेसरिन् No change. केशरिन् and केसरिन् are alternative forms of the same word (v. case 7 and cases 16, 45, 49). MW: केशरिन् [p= 311] : mfn. having a mane MBh. i, iii [L=56139]; m. (ई) a lion MBh. Suṡr. Bhartṛ. &c [L=56140] केसरिन् [p= 311] : mfn. having a mane MBh. i, iii [L=56151] m. a lion MBh. Suṡr. Bhartṛ. &c [L=56152]

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

51. विचित्वरा ― विचित्वारा No change. Alternative form. Perhaps विचित्वारा should be added as a headword. PWG: विचित्वरा [L=91170] [p= 6-1014] (विचित्वारा) s. u. विजित्वर. MW: विचित्वारा [p= 959] : (prob.) w.r. for विजित्वरा.

52. वीरकेशरिन् ― वीरकेसरिन् No change. केशरिन् and केसरिन् are alternative forms of the same word (v. cases 7, 35, 36, 50 and cases 16, 45, 49).

53. वैदेहिबन्धु ― वैदेहीबन्धु No change. A form defended by PWG: वैदेहिबन्धु [L=95752] [p= 6-1399] (वैदेहि = वैदेही; vgl. P. 6, 3, 63) m. Freund --, Gatte der Sîtâ d. i. Râma Ragh. 14, 33. MW: वैदेही-बन्धु [p= 1022] : m. " friend or husband of the princess of विदेह (सीता) ", N. of राम Ragh. [L=207057]

54. शंभर ― शाम्भर No change. Different words. Different orthographic convention for म् before labial. PWG: शंभर [L=97967] [p= 7-0082] m. N. pr. eines Mannes; vgl. शांभर. शांभर [L=98893] [p= 7-0147] m. patron. von शंभर Pravarâdhj. in Verz. d. B. H. 55, 40. MW: शम्-भर [p= 1054] : m. N. of a man (cf. शाम्भर). [L=213064] A factual error in MW: image शम्बर → शम्भर

55. शाफक्षि → शाफाक्षि OCR error. image

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

48 maybe not only ? is needed, but also ! - for writing wrong reading words the author was aware of. I wanted to check the Rajanighantu coprora at http://kjc-fs-cluster.kjc.uni-heidelberg.de/dcs/index.php?contents=dictionary&FirstLetter=v, but all I found was vanakanda (m), so no use.

@funderburkjim 1) How many PWG entries have identical headwords (that means they contain Nactrage as well)? 2) How many PWG entries, that have identical headwords, have a variation (fuzzy match) of the same (word) within the article?

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Re 4. आतीषादीय → आतीषादीय

I think you meant the wrong form to be 4. आतीषदीय → आतीषादीय

Here is PWG: image

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that a short 'a' is used twice, in the headword and in the phrase.

Do you suggest the phrase be changed also?

Your discussion is strong argument in favor of changing to long a.

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Re 9. उत्पलवती ― उत्पलावती

If there were a way to associate all records to both spellings, that would probably be an enhancement, since (acc. to definitions), both appear to be alternate spellings of the same object in the world. Some future synthesis of the dictionaries will no doubt address this.

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Re # 10: उपदेशसहस्री → उपदेशसाहस्री

ACC provides another confirmation image

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Question re 14. ऐन्द्रवरुण → ऐन्द्रावारुण

This is just a side question. I'm not disagreeing with conclusion.

The underlying names are indra and varuRa, vAruRa means 'relating to varuRa', first 'a' is strengthed by vfdDi. Fine.

MW says EndrAvAruRa = EndrAvaruRa (relating to i & v), so I won't worry too much about the long 'A' in vAruRa in EndrAvAruRa

And I'm not surprized by the i->E in EndrAvAruRa ,

But why is the final 'a' of indra also lengthened? EndrAvAruRa . Is there a definite grammatical reason for that A ?

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim Yes: 4.आतीषदीय→ आतीषादीय I suggest the correction both of the headword and of the entry text. PWG, PW and MW refer to the same work. The Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa is just another name for the Tandya Mahabrahmana (v. Wikipedia). The other source mentioned by PWG (Indische Studien, herausg. von A. Weber) is a secondary one, being only an index of names in Roman transliteration: Vol.3, pag. 205: image

Vol.3, pag. 224: image

By the way, the PWG has wrong links in the Preface: link to pag.6 results in the image of pag.8; pag.8 → pag.9, pag.9 → pag.10 and so on.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim Re. 9. उत्पलवती ― उत्पलावती In the edition of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa which I have (with H.H. Wilson’s translation, enlarged and edited by Nag Sharan Singh, Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1980) I find in N.80, pag. 271: image And in the index: image I conclude these passages are secondary sources, without much authority. The word does not seem to be used in the text of the VP itself. As to the MBh. passage, I could not find it, due to how it is referred to in PW: उत्पलावती [L=18409] [p= 1225-1] f. N.pr. eines Flusses Mbh.6,342. = ताम्रपर्णी Gal. image So I am still in the dark.But since the PW has abandoned the VP source, it is a strong evidence that the right reading is उत्पलावती. The ideal so far would be to preserve the alternate readings with a link to the most recommended one, as already discussed.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

Re. 9 उत्पलवती → उत्पलावती Factual error. Now I find that MBh 6.342 = 6.10.33, confirming that the correct form is उत्पलावती: image

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

MBh 6.342 = 6.10.33, the BORI comparison is very fine indeed.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim Question re 14. ऐन्द्रवरुण → ऐन्द्रावारुण I posed the same question while I was working on this case, but could not find an answer. Now, eureka! The Dvandva compounds in the Vedic language have the dual ending in each of its members. The Vedic nominative dual of words in -a is commonly in -ā, instead of -au. MacDonell, A Vedic Grammar for Students p. 78, fn. 13: image Whithey: image In the present case the word is an adjective (mfn. "relating to इन्द्र and वरुण"), formed from a Dvandva compound with the secondary suffix -a. Each member of the compound presents vṛddhi-strengthening of the first syllable: इन्द्र→ऐन्द्रा (dual), वरुण→वारुण (adjective ending -a). Whithey 1208: image

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Re 4. आतीषदीय → आतीषादीय Seeing the Indische Studien reference that you tracked down suggests a plausible theory for the PWG entry. Namely, that the author was essentially copying from Indische Studien; thereby propagating the error in Indische Studien.

Also the explanation that there are two names for the same work (MW using Tandya and PWG using Panchavimsha ) confirms that the two dictionaries are referring to the same work. :+1:

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 Re re 14. ऐन्द्रवरुण → ऐन्द्रावारुण

With no irreverence intended, I feel like the happy recipient of an 'ask and ye shall receive' incident.

Thank you for the explanation of that pesky A !

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

56. शुद्धायु → शुद्धायू Factual error. Although the etymology of the second part of the word is unclear to me, the form शुद्धायुवः (Taittiriya Samhita 1.3.8.2 ) is a f. nom/voc/acc. pl. (with देवीः), following the declension of radical words ending in -ū, such as भू “earth”, sg. nom. भूस्, abl./gen, भुवः (buvás), pl. nom./acc. भुवः (búvas).

PWG image

MW: शुद्धायू [p= 1082] : mfn. striving after purity TS. [L=219493]

Taittiriya Samhita 1.3.8.2: image

Translation Come forward, irresistible, along the stream of ghee, with offspring, with increase of wealth. O ye waters, goddesses, purifying and pure, do ye bring the gods; may we, pure and served (by you), be servers upon you.

Taittiriya Samhita 6.3.8.4 { PDF pag. 176}: image

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

57. श्लिष्टक्षेप → श्लिष्टाक्षेप OCR error. image

58. श्वेताम्लि ― श्वेताम्ली No change. PWG has श्वेताम्ली as a possible reading: श्वेताम्लि [L=102378] [p= 7-0429] (श्वेताम्ली?) f. = अम्लिका Tamarindus indica Râǵan. im Çkdr. PW: *श्वेताम्ली [L=116055] [p= 6287-2] f. ®Tamarindus_indica Râǵan.4,178 The mentioned work is in a manuscript edition: image {the sign ® in PW is an OCR error}

59. संवद्य ― संवाद्य No change. Different words. image MW: सं-°वाद्य [p= 1114] : ind. (fr. Caus.) having declared truly or accurately Mn. viii, 31. [L=226065]

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 ® is a markup for plants in PW.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@gasyoun :thumbsup:

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

61. सनाजु ― सनाजू I am unable to reach a conclusion, but since PWG apparently tries to justify the form सनाजु, I think it should remain unchanged (perhaps the same could be said of 56 शुद्धायु ― शुद्धायू). PWG/PW and MW give different senses. PWG: image सनायु (von सनाय्) adj. alt Ṛv. 1, 62, 11. vgl. auch unter सनाजु सनाजुर् (सना + जुर्) adj. altersschwach: जिव्री पितरा सनाजुरा Ṛv. 4, 36, 3. [Page07.0622]

PW: सनाजू Adj. f. सनाजुवस् Ṛv.1,144,5 vielleicht fehlerhaft für सनाजुरस् oder सनायुवस्.

ṚV. 1, 141, 5: image Translation: 5 Then also entered he the Mothers, and in them pure and uninjured he increased in magnitude. As to the first he rose, the vigorous from of old, so now he runs among the younger lowest ones.

“vigorous from of old” corresponds to the sense in MW: सना-जू mfn. nimble or active from of old RV. √जू1 to press forwards, hurry on, be quick. जू2 mfn. quick, speedy; inciting, driving सना-जुर् mfn. weak from age (or " long since aged ") RV. सना a [p= 1141] : ind. (g. स्वर्-आदि) from of old RV. ṠBr.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

62.` समावज्जामि ― समावज्जामी Insufficient elements to reach a conclusion. image MW: समावज्-जामी [p= 1153] : mfn. uniform AitBr. [L=233291] MD: image

63. सूलिक ― सूलीक Insufficient elements to reach a conclusion. PWG image शूलिक 1) adj. (von शूल) am Spiess gebraten Çabdaḱ. im Çkdr — 2) m. — a) Hase H. 1296. — b) pl. N. pr. eines Volkes Varâh. Bṛh. S. 9, 15. 21. 10, 7. 14, 8, v. l. 23. 16, 35. Mârk. P. 57, 41. Die v. l. in Varâh. Bṛh. S. hat fast überall मूलिक, was auf सूलिक führen würde.

MW: सूलीक [p= 1244] : » शूलीक, [p= 1087,1]. [L=251830] शूलीक [p= 1087] : m. pl. N. of a people (v.l. सूलीक) Car. [L=220482]

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Re 3. आच्यदोह → आच्यादोह

Upon re-reading the explanations above, I now suspect that either of the two forms Acyadoha or AcyAdoha is correct. If this suspicion is correct, then the 'factual error' designation would not be accepted, and no change would be made in the PWG entry.

Here is the reasoning.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim Re 3. आच्यदोह → आच्यादोह If you look carefully, the highlighted form with -yă is actually tasmAdAjyadohAnAM: image This form is mentioned as a varia lectio (v.l.), with ā or ă by MW: image

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 Ah, I missed that it was 'j' instead of 'c'.

So you still think only AcyA is right form , and we should ignore MacDonell in this case?

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Regarding 39. बाध्योगायन ― बाध्यौगायन .. I wish I understood the structure of PWG - since I don't read German, I can't discover this structure on my own. My impression is that some later volume or volumes of PWG are, at least in part, corrections to earlier volumes. If this is so, then it would be better to consider as a whole how to integrate the later corrections, rather then to make changes piecemeal.

In the case of MW, the approach taken with the Supplement was to integrate the supplement into the body of the dictionary. This was Peter's idea. I don't know enough about PWG even to speculate whether this approach makes sense for PWG.

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

Re: ज्यैष्ठसामिक in the cited work goBila-SrAdDa-kalpa
I find 'jyezWa-sAmagaH' in a verse 13 at pdf page 290 (internal page 193)., Haven't found 'sAmika' yet.

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

@gasyoun Regarding your classification of 'fehlerhaft' - Sounds like a interesting preliminary step to a research project.

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

re (1) the o-o pwg list http://drdhaval2785.github.io/o_vs_O/output1/PWG.html and (2) @gasyoun 's fehlerhaft list.

It should be possible to write a program to coordinate these two sources and, for instance, to generate a list (1a) which would include those words from list (1) EXCEPT those appearing in list (2).

The hardest part of this would be understanding the structure of Dhaval's file. Possibly it would be easier to work from some precursor of Dhaval's file -- do we know where is the code that created that file?

@zaaf2 If you think it prudent to do this filtering, perhaps you should stop analyzing entries manually and work with me to design the filtering, then start a new issue based on the (hopefully smaller) list of non-fehlerhaft items.

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

Re 3 - MacDonell is using the same convention as MW, it's international and always only one meaning, the one you documented.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim Re 3. आच्यदोह ― आच्यादोह I think it should not be changed. I proposed the change only considering the precedent established in our discussion at #127 (dyOSaMsita -> dyOsaMSita). My opinion then was that one should avoid changes in such cases, but I was overruled. So I understood that a change should be proposed when the printed text of the quoted source confirmed the form adopted by the other dictionaries.

I will try to make my case again. One should establish as a principle that a change should only be made when it is clear beyond doubt that the dictionary text does not correspond to what was intended by the lexicographer, be it due to a mere typographical error or to a mistaken copy of the quoted source. That excludes in principle changes where (a) both forms are etymologically or grammatically defensible (as here), and (b) where it is clear that the lexicographer considered it to be the correct form, even if he was mistaken, due to insufficient knowledge or to the quality of the texts available (e.g. case 4). Mistakes such as these are in themselves historical testimonies that should be preserved.

Confirming that -yă is an acceptable gerund form of the root अच् ‘to bend’, besides [आ]-अच्या of the quoted passage, MacDonell's A Vedic Grammar for Students has in its List of Verbs (Appendix I) the gerund (GD) form -अच्य : image

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 your principles sound logical.

@funderburkjim stop analyzing entries manually is a bad idea. The fehlerhaft rate is not that high at all and is more intended for making some Lexnorm kind of presentation of PWG data. The entries I found need further classification which itself is a task bigger, than all the possibly wrong entries in Dhaval's o vs. O list total.

As per "MW, the approach taken with the Supplement was to integrate the supplement into the body of the dictionary. This was Peter's idea. I don't know enough about PWG even to speculate whether this approach makes sense for PWG" - it's similar and the approach makes sense. But it's a matter of months, not weeks, so I would prefer to do what we can actually do - update the headwords and do not touch the content. Otherwise SCH should be integrated as well.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim My initial intention is to work just the 182 cases in which the PWG disagree with two or more other dictionaries. This is manually feasible. As to the remaining almost 3.000 cases of the io/o_vs_O/output1/PWG list, I observe now that many of them are cases in which the headword1 is contained in PWG and one or more dictionaries but the headword2 is contained in just one other dictionary. I understand that these last cases are to be worked manually from the corresponding reverse list, i.e. one x two or more dictionaries. There should be a separate list of two or more dictionaries x two or more others. This list should be put at the lowest priority level. In conclusion, I agree with @gasyoun that those lists should be worked manually.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

A complete integration of the PWG supplements would be a huge task. One is in vol.5 and contains 740 columns of printed text (2 columns = one page). The other is in vol.7, containing 136 columns. But I think it is indispensable at least to integrate the correct form of the headword so that a search by the correct form will link both to the wrong and to the corrected entries. For example, a search by आषाढी (case 5) should result in the two entries for आषाडी, the original one and the corrected one in the supplement section.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

64. स्वब्रह्मण्या ― स्वब्राह्मण्या No change. A factual error in PW transcribed by MW? (see below)
PWG: image

The sense of सुब्रह्मण्य (from: ब्रह्मन् n.), as in PWG, justifies the ă: सुब्रह्मण्य 1) adj. den Brahmanen sehr hold: Vishṇu Pańḱar. 4, 3, 78. Çiva Çiv. Kârttikeja (vgl. ब्रह्मण्य) Verz. d. oxf. H. 254,a,4. — 2) m. N. eines der drei Gehilfen des Udgâtar Çat. Br. 3, 3, 4, 9. Pańḱav. Br. 25, 4, 6. 18, 4. Âçv. Çr. 4, 1, 6. Lâṭj. 1, 1, 13. 9, 2, 3. Mbh. 5, 4790. — 3) f. आ eine von diesem Priester zu sprechende Einladung zum Soma an die Götter, beginnend mit den Worten इन्द्रागच्छ हरिव आगच्छ। °ण्यामाह्वयन्ति Ait. Br. 6, 3. Shaḍv. Br. 1, 1. Tbr. 3, 8, 1, 2. Âçv. Gṛhj. 8, 13, 28. 12, 4, 19. Çâñkh. Br. 27, 6. P. 1, 2, 37. der Priester selbst heisst nach seiner Rolle °ण्या, z. B. अजः (…)

MW: ब्रह्मण्य 2 [p= 741] : mfn. relating to ब्रह्म or ब्रह्मा, devoted to sacred knowledge or friendly to Brahmans, religious, pious MBh. Kāv. &c [L=147246]

The question is complicated by the fact that PW and MW has as the correct form सुब्राह्मण्या, a form not found in the consulted Manusmṛti edition: image

Another edition with translation: image

PW: image

MW: image

सुब्राह्मण्य [a form not found]

सु-ब्रह्मण्य a [p= 1229] : mfn. very kind or dear to Brahmans (said of विष्णु) Pañcar. [L=247948]; m. N. of one of the three assistants of the उद्गातृ priest Br. ṠrS. MBh. [L=247949]; (…) सु-ब्रह्मण्या : f. a partic. recitation of certain मन्त्रs by the उद्गातृ priests (sometimes also the priest himself) Br. ṠrS. [L=247953]

ब्राह्मण्य [p= 742] : mfn. (fr. ब्राह्मण) fit for Brahmans MBh.

सु-ब्राह्मण [p= 1229] : (सु-) m. a good Brahman AV. [L=247964]

Possible correction in MW (and PW), Headword स्वब्राह्मण्या [L=258031]:

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 let me clearly state my understanding of the issue. Out of 182 cases 100-120 will be real or OCR mistakes in PWG. Out of the other 3.000 cases - 30% will be mistakes (a very high rate, actually, if compared with other techniques developed before). Most of them not in PWG but in the other dictionaries. Fixing them once will lessen the amount of mistakes in all the other dictionary possible error lists. That's valuable. So we should not stop and continue cleaning up the mess on a regularly basis. This work is hard only if you want to finish in one week. If you spend half an hour every day after a year of labor the hardest and simplest, but most fruitful part will be over. As per PWG supplements - I fully agree. 740 + 136 columns means something I'll not handle on my own. And, as said before, it would require to make some SCH integration as well, as it is supplements to supplements.

funderburkjim commented 8 years ago

This is a further comment re '3. आच्यदोह ― आच्यादोह'

The only definite and unambiguous situation where a change to the Cologne digitization should be made is one which we are labeling either a 'typo' (my preferred term) or an 'OCR' error (Marcis preferred term). In this case, the scan definitely shows something different than the digitized version, and it is proper to correct the digitized version so that it agrees with the scanned version.

One could argue that such changes are the ONLY ones that should be made to the digitization.

It is almost always complicated to justify any other change.

So why do we engage in such changes?

I guess the reason stems from a desire to make the digital editions more useful. According to this view, there are cases where there seems to be a clear error in the print edition (for whatever reason we can likely never know for certain). And part of our duty is to correct these clear errors.

Further, the only mechanism available to us to make such corrections is by changing the digitization so that it disagrees with the printed page, and conforms to our view of what the printed page should have been. We have also (for MW only thus far) instituted the corrections_factual file to document these intentional deviations of the the digitization from the printed page.

At the moment, I am inclined to revert to the more conservative action of changing the digitization ONLY for typo/OCR type errors. For the other errors (print error/factual error), I am inclined to gather them in a 'potential factual corrections' file, but NOT to change the digitization (pwg.txt, for instance is the digitization for PWG.) I think some extension of the digitization needs to be developed as a more proper receptacle for the print/factual errors. I don't currently have a clear view of the details of such an extension, although various suggestions by @zaaf2 seem relevant.

Comments?

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@funderburkjim One need not be so drastic, OCR error or nothing. There are other cases where it is advisable to make an immediate correction.

I propose the following classification of errors and of the respective actions involved:

1. Errors to be immediately corrected:

2. Errors (or possible errors) to be referred to in notes later to be integrated to the digital edition:

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 as I said in a call to Jim yesterday - I agree. Every change, when documented, is better implemented, than left just in a list. List is for documenting what we have changed. Most of the errors we gather are obvious. But even the non-obvious but logical should be corrected. If we are aware the source for some word form is bad - this is the only case I would not touch the word and leave as is, noting in a separate list. But when MW takes for granted PWG and copypastes his errors - both should be denied. I wonder if even the Zgusta's discussed cases of plagiarism have been corrected.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

65. अमृतमती ― अमृतमति No change. Insufficient elements to reach a conclusion. image MW: अ-मृत-मति [p= 82] : f. (= -गति q.v.) N. of a metre. [L=14239]

66. अयाथतथ्य → अयथातथ्य Typographical error in the printed edition. अ + यथातथ + suffix य could not result in अयाथतथ्य image SHS: अयथातथ्य n. (-थ्यं) Unprofitableness, unsuitableness, incompatibility. E. अयथातथ and ष्यञ् aff.

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

66 makes sense. Cases like these I would correct without a question. Maybe even introduce a new entitity - ghost words. Words that are in the printed edition, are printed wrong, but link to the right form. What do you think @funderburkjim @zaaf2 ?

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@gasyoun I think its a good idea, but there should appear at the same time a “redirected from” warning.

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

Sure a warning should be. Actually the redirect would be a manual one - click here. No javascript redirect.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

I mean, if one searches for the wrong form found in the printed text, then he will be automatically redirected to the correct one. With the warning “redirected from” the user will understand that the divergence between the printed and the digital edition is not an OCR problem. If the search is done by the correct form (as is more probable), then there is no problem, the result will be the correct one.

But, regardless whether one searches by the correct or the incorrect headword, the best solution would be to mention in the corrected entry the incorrect form found in the printed edition. For example, a search for अयथातथ्य (case 66, अयाथतथ्य → अयथातथ्य) will result in अयथातथ्य {अयाथतथ्य} (von 3. अ + यथातथ) = आयथातथ्य P. 7, 3, 31. Nach dem Sch. adv. The {x} could be a clickable link to a text explaining the reasons for the change, or simply a pop-up saying for example: “Wrong form found in the printed edition. Typographical error”. This should be done even in cases of internal errors (in contradistinction to headword errors).

Another reason for adopting this method is that there is always the possibility that the proposed correction may be wrong. Alerted to the divergence, a reader may discover that it is so, and may contribute to redress the situation.

Speculating further, this crowdsourcing may be a good idea to work @drdhaval2785's lists. At the end of the screen display of entries included in those lists the reader would be informed of possible divergences, with links to the respective dictionaries. He would be enticed to check, and I bet would get addicted to contributing his suggestions.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

67. अराढ ― अराड No change. Different words. PWG: image image

MW: अराड [p= 87] : mf(ई)n. (= उच्छ्रित-शृङ्ग) having high horns MaitrS. [L=15241] CAE: अराड [L=2778] [p= 040] अराड ·a. ­ long-horned.

68. अष्टापाद् ― अष्टपद् No change. Different orthography. image

image MW:

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

A case discussed at #131: भ्रूकुटि und भ्रूकुटि → भ्रूकुटि und भ्रूकुटी Typographical error in the printed text. image

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

69 अष्टापाद् ― अष्टापद् No change. Different orthography. See case 68.

70. आछ् ― आच् No change. Different words. PWG: image

MW:

71. आज्ञाप्ति ― आज्ञप्ति No change. OCR error. image

72. उत्तरकामाख्यातन्त्र ― उत्तरकामाख्यतन्त्र No change. उत्तरकामाख्यातन्त्र was the form intended by the author. image

image

MW: उत्तर-कामा*ख्य-तन्त्र [p= 178] : n. N. of wk. [L=31183]

73. उरसा ― उरशा No change. Variants.

74. ऊर्ध्वदंष्ट्राकेश ― ऊर्ध्वदंष्ट्रकेश No change. Variants. image

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

best solution would be to mention in the corrected entry the incorrect form found in the printed edition - exactly, because if I'll open the scan and will not find it, I will spend time and get mad. I will thank bad about the creator of this website.

68 Different orthography - I disagree. I would say different standards, bud it's not equal to orthography. We deal with orthography when in Indian books we have cch for ch, or rtt instead of tt, but I guess the documented issue goes deeper. It's about if one uses guna or vrddhi in headwords - it's a matter of taste. It's important to note it down, but is the word orthography the right one, @zaaf2 ?

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

@gasyoun You are right. Variant forms, I should say. अष्टापाद् is the correct nominative form of अष्टापद् as one may conclude by the quoted MW entries.

zaaf2 commented 8 years ago

Re. 68. and 69 - To put it better: those are different ways to present the same word: in the undeclined form in MW (अष्टापद्), in the nominative in PWG (अष्टापाद्).

MW:

gasyoun commented 8 years ago

@zaaf2 variant forms - maybe, but it's fishy. I could think about form inside one and the same dictionary. But it's about two different dictionaries. When you write variants - I understand that they are inside 1 dictionary. But variant forms? Unsure, 1 or 2. As per different ways to present the same word - sure I understand what you mean. Let's coin a term. I call it Western / Indian approach, but in this case unsure which is more indian, so I call it different standards.