MWE spellings with 'v' instead of 'b'

[funderburkjim]

A user (vaibhav.niku) suggested that in MWE, वाढं should be changed to बाढं.
In this case, I found that MW does have वाढ as an alternate spelling to बाढ; furthermore in MWE the 'vAQa' (slp1) spelling occurs 12 times, but the 'bAQa' spelling does not occur at all. Thus, I decided to leave the 'vAQa' spellings unchanged in MWE, even though the 'bAQa' spelling appears to be the more usual one.

Question: Agree with this choice?

[funderburkjim]

Vaibhav's comment made be think of checking other words. I found these cases where 'vahu' needs to be changed to 'bahu' (much), and 'vAhu' needs to be changed to 'bAhu' (arm).

; vahuH -> bahuH
; vAhulyaM -> bAhulyaM
; vahuranDravAn -> bahuranDravAn
; vahuvistIrRaH -> bahuvistIrRaH
; vahulaH -> bahulaH
; vahusamunnayavAn -> bahusamunnayavAn
; vahuBiH -> bahuBiH
; udvAhuH -> udbAhuH
; vahuSirAH -> bahuSirAH
; vahupaMktiH -> bahupaMktiH
; vahuH -> bahuH
; vahuSo -> bahuSo
; vAhuyudDasambanDI -> bAhuyudDasambanDI
; vahumAnaM -> bahumAnaM
; vahuDanaH -> vahuDanaH
; vahuDA -> bahuDA
; vahurasaH -> bahurasaH
; suvahuH -> subahuH

These changes are needed since

• 'vahu' and 'vAhu' are not alternates of 'bahu','bAhu', at least according to MW
• There are many (700+) instances of the 'bahu','bAhu' spellings in MWE.

[funderburkjim]

Other changes?

I couldn't think of other things to check for in this 'v/b' study of MWE.

Any suggestions?

[Sonnetag]

Jim I agree. Leave it as it is.

If search for वाढ, you get: (H1)[Cologne record ID=190550][Printed book page 939 https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/2014/web/webtc/servepdf.php?page=939,2] वाढ See बाढ So people who encountered वाढ will be directed to बाढ.

However, if you change it to बाढ, then people who look up वाढ will not find anything, because nothing will come up when you look up for वाढ. Youngsinn

On 1/16/2019 4:13 PM, funderburkjim wrote:

A user (vaibhav.niku) suggested that in MWE, वाढं should be changed to बाढं. In this case, I found that MW does have वाढ as an alternate spelling to बाढ; furthermore in MWE the 'vaQa' (slp1) spelling occurs 12 times, but the 'bAQa' spelling does not occur at all. Thus, I decided to leave the 'vAQa' spellings unchanged in MWE, even though the 'bAQa' spelling appears to be the more usual one.

Question: Agree with this choice?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgcP__fH_yMuFPog3-sW9LnUr3N7eks5vD5YXgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[Sonnetag]

Jim, As I responded, leave them alone.

We should not arbitrarily change someone's book or dictionary. Leave it as Monier-Willimas originally compiled. Just because someone think this or that is correct or better, we are going to change the whole dictionary? In my opinion, it is terrible and nonsensical idea.

Youngsinn

On 1/16/2019 4:18 PM, funderburkjim wrote:

  Other changes?

I couldn't think of other things to check for in this 'v/b' study of MWE.

Any suggestions?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-454945485, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgaryyiVKlGJ4bYI-pFQ2Ai3ePI9Nks5vD5cRgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[Sonnetag]

Dear Jim and All, All we should do to MW is correcting digitizing errors. What I am finding is that MW's Sanskrit English Dictionary is the most valuable asset we inherited.

If someone ask to make a change to MW just because they think they know better, tell him/her to compile their own dictionary and publish it. Leave MW alone as Monier-Williams originally compiled. Please.

Youngsinn

On 1/16/2019 4:18 PM, funderburkjim wrote:

  Other changes?

I couldn't think of other things to check for in this 'v/b' study of MWE.

Any suggestions?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-454945485, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgaryyiVKlGJ4bYI-pFQ2Ai3ePI9Nks5vD5cRgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[ghost]

Hi

I was hoping that some obvious explanation for the discrepancy would be found (typesetting trouble or scanning error). I did check MWE's Preface (as I had promised!) and found nothing about it. And this seems to be no scanning error, for another scan (at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.553776 ) shows 'v's too.

The MWE dictionary was published in 1851, and the MW dictionaries were published much later (1872 and 1899). It would then seems that Monier-Williams thought that वाढं was the canonical spelling upto 1851, and changed his opinion sometime later. (Same for a lot many v words.)

I have no opinion on what should be done in this case! Youngsinn's point makes sense too. (Besides, for scholarly work, another thing to worry about: Where do you stop? A thought exercise: what if future scholarship shows that the 'v' words are to be preferred?)

Probably, some sort of footnote asking to check the corresponding 'b' words too would be the best.

If I come across more information, I will inform! If I can think of some way of identifying the suspicious words, I will also inform.

Many thanks for all the work to everyone involved! Works like these are the best thing about the internet!

[ghost]

Probably, some sort of footnote asking to check the corresponding 'b' words too would be the best.

Better: When the 'v' word is missing in MW, the MWE's entry could put the corresponding 'b' word in brackets. So: Much: वहु [बहु], ...

This should satisfy both the purists (like Youngsinn above), and those who are using the dictionary for work.

[Sonnetag]

Dear All, Regardless, we are NOT supposed to change someone's book or dictionary arbitrarily even if there are original errors (not digitization errors). Whether it is variant spelling or not, _which is canonical spelling of a certain word_s, etc. should be addressed in academic articles.

Variant spelling is exactly that. Different way of spelling. I do not care who think a certain word is canonical spelling or not. If certain spellings were found in the literature, it should included in the dictionary to help readers. That's exactly what MW did when he compiled it. Which scholar is qualified to make a judgement about which Vedic spelling is canonical or not? Does any Vedic Seer still around today? In my opinion, even Panini was not qualified to determine it.

MW or MWE, please leave them as it was originally compiled by the author at the time of publishing.

I did not aware until I started to study Rgveda that the 'classical Sanskrit' and 'Vedic Sanskrit' are very different. I originally started reading Sanskrit literature with Gita and Mahabharata. Later when I started Rgveda, I realized that Vedic Sanskrit is much more rich in grammatical variations and sophisticated, unlike classical Sanskrit. And importantly, completely different vocabulary than the classical Sanskrit. Also you have to deal with more variant spellings.

With the study of Rgveda, I have realized the true value of MW and Macdonell's Vedic Grammar. Also MW is much more than just dictionary, which I will not elaborate here. Think about why no one has translated Vedas correctly yet.

Also I've noticed there are prejudices against the Vedic Sanskrit amongst Panini's worshipers (No disrespect of Panini is intended here).

You will not remove 'ye' from the Oxford English dictionary just because nobody uses it anymore, will you? Which is a 'canonical' spelling? 'Color' or 'Colour?' Ionization or Ionisation? Burnt or burned?

Please leave MW's dictionay as it was compiled by MW.

Thank you for your understanding. Youngsinn

On 1/16/2019 11:52 PM, vniku wrote:

Probably, some sort of footnote asking to check the corresponding
'b' words too would be the best.

Better: When the 'v' word is missing in MW, the MWE's entry could put the corresponding 'b' word in brackets. So: /Much: वहु [बहु], .../

This should satisfy both the purists (like Youngsinn) above, and those whose are using the dictionary for work.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455041900, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgZm6rs8k56a7h_eaELZRPJeqU2pNks5vEAGNgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[gasyoun]

Question: Agree with this choice?

Yes.

we are NOT supposed to change someone's book or dictionary arbitrarily even if there are original errors (not digitization errors). Whether it is variant spelling or not, _which is canonical spelling of a certain word_s, etc. should be addressed in academic articles.

Disagree. But we document everything. No change is ever done just so.

[ghost]

It is likely an issue with what is to be taken as the canonical spelling.

For 'exterior', MWE says:

EXTERIOR , a. वाह्यः -ह्या -ह्यं, ETC. -- all with 'v'.

MW72 lists "being outside" as meanings for both vAhya and bAhya, and it further adds in bAhya:

बाह्य bāhya, as, ā, am (fr. bahis, q. v. In classical Sanskrit this word is more usually written vāhya, but in the Veda bahis and bāhya are the usual forms, the nom. pl. bāhye following the pronominal declension), being outside, ETC.

[Please specially note "the usual forms" in the Vedas, i.e., vahis and vāhya are also present!]

MW [1899] does not list exterior as a meaning for vAhya, but does ask the reader to refer to bAhya too. In bAhya, he says: बाह्य mf(आ)n. (fr. बहिस्; in later language also written वाह्य q.v.; m. nom. pl. बाह्ये, ŚBr. ) being outside, ETC.

As with MW [1899], PWG [1855] lists "being outside" only for bAhya. And unlike MW, PWG's vAhya does not refer the reader to bAhya.

By the way, the v-b interchange is quite common in Hindi too. (Many people pronouce my name as Baibhab -- though I suppose the interchange is considered a bit uncultured now.)

[gasyoun]

interchange is considered a bit uncultured now

No, it's about regions. Same as it was in Vedic - it's a different region than Classical Sanskrit. MW is a remake of PWG.

[Sonnetag]

All, Whether I am considered uncultured or not, I do not care that labeling. It is not matter of you are "purest" or not. It is called common sense among academicians. You just do NOT arbitrarily change someone's book or dictionary no matter.

If you do not agree with someone's view or find something that is a mistake or untrue in your opinion, you publish your own view by writing articles about it. You never attempt to change someone's book or dictionary. --> It is just unthinkable. So I had to respond to keep these dictionaries intact.

Just leave all those dictionaries as they are compiled by the authors at the time of publishing.

"No, it's about regions. Same as it was in Vedic - it's a different region than Classical Sanskrit." --> Vedic Sanskrit vs. Classical Sanskrit is not matter of each used in different regions. I will not elaborate it here but please do some research.

"MW is a remake of PWG." --> True. Since my German so rustic (I have not touched German and French for more than 40yrs), I do not use PWG. So I did not mention in my discussion. I should have said that these two dictionaries are just more than dictionaries. Since these are the most comprehensive compilations.

I did not have a chance to compare PWG and MW entry by entry yet. I bookmarked PWG and I will compare some critical entries (keywards) between MW and PWG for my own satisfaction.

And any of you want to discuss more or clarify certain views, please email me personally. So we can exchange our views and learn from each other.

Thanks, Youngsinn

On 1/19/2019 8:27 AM, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

interchange is considered a bit uncultured now

No, it's about regions. Same as it was in Vedic - it's a different region than Classical Sanskrit. MW is a remake of PWG.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455780308, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgdMrZnM6p0Jib5MTeZzPgA9t6Uceks5vEx00gaJpZM4aD9y_.

[drdhaval2785]

I am of the view that b and v should be left as they are.

For the record, there have been plenty of print errors corrected in MW over the past 8 years. https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/blob/master/dictionaries/MW/mw_printchange.txt.

Just bringing it to the notice, because it is not the case that we have not corrected print errors before.

[Sonnetag]

All, It seems that I misunderstood part of Mārcis's comment. My correct response should have been "Yes it (variant spellings) may very well be caused by usages in different regions in English/Vedic Sanskrit/Classical Sanskrit (especially in the cases of color/colour, ionization/ionisation, even though burned/burnt may not be)."

When we read old (15th, 16th centuries) English literature/writings, it gives on impression that the English spellings are not really fixed for many words in older days.

After reading many old/ancient literature (esp. English and Vedic Sanskrit), I personally do not agree with the debates on canonical spelling subjects. However this is my personal opinion and I do not entirely disregard the scholars' debates about which are canonical spelling. They have every right to have different opinions and discuss about it as long as they do not attempt to change the existing dictionaries compiled by others to make it conform to their opinion/bias.

I thank you Jim and others who are working hard to maintain the integrity of these on-line dictionaries. I use MW and some other on-line dictionaries and tools almost every day. I cannot imagine how my project would be like when I have to filp through hard-copy dictionaries and grammar books. My project will be slowed down to the crawling speed and unbearable.

Seeing Jim's solid common sense judgement, I know I am in good hands. Thank you again. These on-line dictionaries will be my reliable companions for the next 30 yrs or more.

Thank you all. Youngsinn

On 1/19/2019 8:27 AM, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

interchange is considered a bit uncultured now

No, it's about regions. Same as it was in Vedic - it's a different region than Classical Sanskrit. MW is a remake of PWG.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455780308, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgdMrZnM6p0Jib5MTeZzPgA9t6Uceks5vEx00gaJpZM4aD9y_.

[funderburkjim]

One difficulty especially pertinent to MWE is the quality of the scanned image of the original edition. Namely, it is not very good. Thus it is often difficult to determine exactly what the printed spelling is. For instance, the difference between devanagari 'b' and 'v' is quite small. Take a look at this from 'much' in MWE.

When I look at it, and try to say which is a printed 'b' and which a printed 'v', my eyes get crossed and I cannot really say for sure.

So in such cases, we must use other methods to decide what the digitization should contain. I term these ill-defined 'other methods' common sense, but there will surely be differences of opinion there. For me, these common sense arguments are sufficient to make a change to the digitization for the list starting with vahuH -> bahuH.

Do others agree for this list?

@Sonnetag and @vniku . Thanks for discussion points.

In general, our aim in making corrections is consistent with the strong view expressed by Youngsinn.

Also, when we knowingly make a change to the printed digitization, I try to be vigilant in making a reference to that change in a 'printchange' file. These printchange files are kept in this repository. For instance, here is link to mw_printchange.txt. [Addendum: @drdhaval2785 already mentioned this above. No harm in repeating.]

Other interested people ( I think @zaaf2 ) have suggested that somehow the information in these print change files should be incorporated into the displays; this is similar to the suggestion by @vniku above.

[ghost]

Largely offtopic:

interchange is considered a bit uncultured now

No, it's about regions.

Probably true. I realized that the people who pronounce my name as Baibhab systematically use b's for all v's.

The "uncultured" part is an interesting debate, and I'll add a few comments because @Sonnetag objected to it. In India, the Bengalis, never switched / switched back from b to v, even in literature. If I remember correctly, a century back they had a debate about whether to make the switch to bring it in line with Sanskrit (classical Sanskrit), and they decided against it.

So, for at least the Bangla words, they just use b, and nobody objects to it! So, the previous President of India was named 'Pranab Mukherjee' -- प्रणब for Hindi/Sanskrit प्रणव. (They didn't 'correct' any word. A prominent reporter is named 'Barkha Dutta' -- बरखा for Sanskrit वर्षा.)

So, I suppose things become "uncultured" when the local (regional) high culture does not support it! (b is considered "cultured" in Bengal, but "uncultured" in the neighbouring Bihar.)

[Sonnetag]

This response is also off-topic. While learning Sanskrit in the beginning, I had instructors from different parts of India. I never met a single Bengalis who could pronounce Sanskrit words correctly. The best teachers were all from Southern India. I never had a Sanskrit teacher from Gujarat or Kashmir so I do not know those part. I asked one person from Bengal what is the reason. The reply was: Bengalis are notorious for not pronouncing Sanskrit correctly.

I speak English with a bit of accent and when I hear people speaking English with, say, French (or other) accent, it does not bother me that much.

For some unknown reason, when I hear someone pronouncing Sanskrit words incorrectly, it is just unbearable to the degree of becoming torture. I had to stop attending the class twice due to that problem. When my best teacher moved to Arizona, I stopped taking Sanskrit classes altogether. Now I study on my own using grammar books and through translation of select Rgveda stanzas from the all ten Mandalas. I was going to translate Mahabharata but once I started Rgveda, I am hooked and no turning back now. I just hope that I can finish the ten Mandalas before I leave this planet. (I am a retired so called scientist)

Someday, I would like to resume the study with a good teacher to be able to speak beautiful Sanskrit.

Sorry for crowding your mail box with off-topic message.

On 1/19/2019 9:16 PM, vniku wrote:

Largely offtopic:

|interchange is considered a bit uncultured now |

No, it's about regions. Same as it was in Vedic - it's a different
region than Classical Sanskrit.

Probably true. I realized that the people who pronounce my name as Baibhab systematically use b for all v.

The "uncultured" part is an interesting debate, and I'll add a few comments because @Sonnetag https://github.com/Sonnetag objected to it. In India, the Bengalis, never switched back from b to v, even in literature. If I remember correctly, a century back they had a debate about whether to make the switch to bring it in line with Sanskrit (classical Sanskrit), and they decided against it.

So, for at least the Bangla words, they just use b, and nobody objects to it! So, the previous President of India was named 'Pranab Mukherjee' -- प्रणब for Hindi/Sanskrit प्रणव. (They didn't 'correct' any word. A prominent reporter is named 'Barkha Dutta' -- बरखा for Sanskrit वर्षा.)

So, I suppose things become "uncultured" when the local (regional) high culture does not support it! (b is considered "cultured" in Bengal, but "uncultured" in the neighbouring Bihar.)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455831595, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgStE86CGXbtXtWBBO4RoaF1qnxknks5vE9GbgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[Sonnetag]

Whether you provide file that includes list and explanation about the technical issues involved in scanning of the low quality scanned image in the header (?) of the MWE on-line dictionary should be ok, as long as those are listed or linked in a way that they can never be confused with the original dictionary entries by the author.

Can you provide a click button that says Must Read (or Read Before Use) button along with Help, Corrections buttons? When people click on it, they can read the list and issues involved in digitization.

I am not a computer person. But just a suggestion as a user. If someone has better idea and suggestions, take that of course. It would be too much work to provide link for every relevant entries, I guess?

Youngsinn

On 1/19/2019 5:30 PM, funderburkjim wrote:

One difficulty especially pertinent to MWE is the quality of the scanned image of the original edition. Namely, it is not very good. Thus it is often difficult to determine exactly what the printed spelling is. For instance, the difference between devanagari 'b' and 'v' is quite small. Take a look at this from 'much' in MWE. image https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6393033/51432912-d5e1ac00-1c0d-11e9-9940-c22792d14ca7.png

When I look at it, and try to say which is a printed 'b' and which a printed 'v', my eyes get crossed and I cannot really say for sure.

So in such cases, we must use other methods to decide what the digitization should contain. I term these ill-defined 'other methods' /common sense/, but there will surely be differences of opinion there. For me, these common sense arguments are sufficient to make a change to the digitization for the list starting with vahuH -> bahuH https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-454945198.

Do others agree for this list?

@Sonnetag https://github.com/Sonnetag and @vniku https://github.com/vniku . Thanks for discussion points.

In general, our aim in making corrections is consistent with the strong view expressed by Youngsinn.

Also, when we knowingly make a change to the printed digitization, I try to be vigilant in making a reference to that change in a 'printchange' file. These printchange files are kept in this repository. For instance, here is link to mw_printchange.txt https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/blob/master/dictionaries/MW/mw_printchange.txt.

Other interested people ( I think @zaaf2 https://github.com/zaaf2 ) have suggested that somehow the information in these print change files should be incorporated into the displays; this is similar to the suggestion by @vniku https://github.com/vniku above.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455820622, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgSEHwkNFo_86FC_WY79O96vrQUOrks5vE5xwgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[ghost]

Sonnetag's suggestion about a prominent link to the page listing the corrections, on the dictionary's homepage is fine. Another suggestion for corrections:

I like the way nietzschesource.org handles original corrections. The word/phrase is corrected, but the word's background is coloured. On clicking the word, you can read what the originally printed word/phrase was. If you print the page, you'd just get the corrected word (no original word, no colour).

E.g. check the page for Also Sprach Zarathustra, Erster Teil. The printed sentence reads, "Einsamer, du gehst den Weg des Liebenden: dich selber liebst du ...". 'Selber' is coloured, and on clicking it, you learn, "Erratum:selbst lies:selber [and there's a link to the page listing the basis for corrections]".

@Sonnetag: Interesting comments about pronunciation! Good luck for your planned translation of the Rigveda! I like the book too.

[Sonnetag]

Vaibhav, "Good luck for your planned translation of the Rigveda!" Thank you. Youngsinn

On 1/20/2019 9:10 AM, vniku wrote:

Sonnetag's suggestion about a prominent link to the page listing the corrections, on the /dictionary/'s homepage is fine. Another suggestion for corrections:

I like the way nietzschesource.org handles original corrections. The word/phrase is corrected, but the word's background is coloured. On clicking the word, you can read what the originally printed word/phrase was. If you print the page, you'd just get the corrected word (no original word, no colour).

E.g. check the page for Also Sprach Zarathustra, Erster Teil http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/Za-I. The printed sentence reads, "Einsamer, du gehst den Weg des Liebenden: dich selber liebst du ...". 'Selber' is coloured, and on clicking it, you learn, "Erratum:selbst lies:selber [and there's a link to the page listing the basis for corrections]".

@Sonnetag https://github.com/Sonnetag: Interesting comments about pronunciation! Good luck for your planned translation of the Rigveda! I like the book too.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455869583, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgTKVDnb67RqLEgGqiycNdfcN6qrTks5vFHjTgaJpZM4aD9y_.

[gasyoun]

When I look at it, and try to say which is a printed 'b' and which a printed 'v', my eyes get crossed and I cannot really say for sure.

Right.

For me, these common sense arguments are sufficient to make a change to the digitization for the list starting with vahuH -> bahuH.

It's not about changing the entry. But changing the ways we get there, maybe even adding ghost-words, that are purely for getting there.

previous President of India was named 'Pranab Mukherjee' -- प्रणब for Hindi/Sanskrit प्रणव.

Interesting case.

b is considered "cultured" in Bengal, but "uncultured" in the neighbouring Bihar

Fun to read.

Whether you provide file that includes list and explanation about the technical issues involved in scanning of the low quality scanned image in the header (?) of the MWE on-line dictionary should be ok, as long as those are listed or linked in a way that they can never be confused with the original dictionary entries by the author.

@Sonnetag the scans are as they are. No explanation other than here, no need to put more attention to it. It's just about that proofing is harder.

Can you provide a click button that says Must Read

Are you ready to write it?

It would be too much work to provide link for every relevant entries, I guess?

No, technically it's an easy one. The question remains who will write it.

I like the way nietzschesource.org handles original corrections.

Indeed, not bad at all. But we have had quite many headword issues in the past, right @funderburkjim ? So not all cases are easy. And anyway there is only Jim in the backend. Are you eager to learn coding or to go through lists of suspected words, @Sonnetag and @vniku ? One day all everyday users should become contributors, right?

[ghost]

For the corrections, I volunteer to write the code (whatever is decided here). (I can code.)

For the b-v issue specifically, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to this:

MW72 says that both bAhya and vAhya are used in the literature. (And the same must be the case with all the words in Jim's list in the second post -- M-W would not have used the v-words in MWE unless they appeared somewhere in literature.)

Böhtlingk and Roth and Monier-Williams (and everyone else who worked on the dictionaries) must have cared at least as much for consistency and completion as we do. So, why does PWG does not even refer to bAhya in the vAhya entry? (And similarly, in Jim's list above, why does MW-1899 does not even refer the readers to the b-words under the v-words? -- these v words were "his own words"!)

I found the discrepancy because when I didn't find a v-word, I checked for the word with a b (for this interchange seems "natural" in Hindi). Here's what I'm wondering: do B. and R. and M-W assume that Sanskrit scholars not finding v-words would think of checking b-words too, without any prompting? And if true, wouldn't just a note on the home page about this be not sufficient? I mean, we don't want to be holier than the pope! (On MWE's homepage, something like, "Some words which are listed with a v in MWE will probably be found with a b in other dictionaries".)

Finding the suspicious words Is technically easy enough: just find all MWE words with v, and then query MW for all these words one-by-one.

[Sonnetag]

I checked PWG and compared to MW using some Vedic vocabulary. Even though I did not check extensively, I found the following: (Please do not take this as I am disparaging PWG. Just cursory review revealed the followings to me)

1. It seems PWG lacks critical Vedic vocabulary.
2. MW list much more relevant and practical definitions than PWG for each entries. After checking just several entries, I have ralized that PWG may not be complete as far as the Vedic vocabulary goes and I can not rely on PWG to translate Rgveda.
3. PWG lists too many example sentences/phrases of where that word occurs without any explanations/translation wasting valuable dictionary pages. No wonder he has to publish so many volumes.
4. It seems that the theory or speculation that MW is the remake of PWG may not be true at all.
5. Since I started translation of Rgveda, I learned that you have to deal with variant spellings much more often than when you deal with literature in classical Sanskrit.

As I told Jim, I do not have much space in my mind and brain to be distracted due to my project. I am just reaponding because maintaining the integrity of the dictionaries are important.

Regardless, please leave MW or any other dictionary as they are when they were published by the authors. @vniku: If I knew ahead of time that someone would argue about b, v variant spelling, I could have compiled to show you the cariant spelling examples. I do not have time go go through my entire work to find example for @vniku.

Also please do not compare Vedic Sanskrit directly to Classical Sanskrit and to Hindi. I am telling you at the risk of being called "uncultured": Hindi is lesser, really uncultured language compared to the Vedic Sanskrit and even to the Classical Sanskrit. Just because something is that way in Hindi, should it be that way in the Vedic Sanskrit?

Do you think if MW listed v, b variant spellings without any examples of existence in Sanskrit literature, the Vedic Pundits and his adversaries would have left him alone without crying out and criticizing him?

@vniku: I suggest you to do research deeper on this issue through reading Rgveda, if you think b,v variant spelling issue is that important, and write an academic paper and publish it instead of bringing up this issue again and again.

Until we truly understand the Vedic Sanskrit and translate Vedas correctly, humanity cannot really move forward and come out of thickets of superstitions to clear our heads. If you think I am bluffing, wait for a year please.

Youngsinn

On 1/21/2019 8:27 PM, vniku wrote:

For the corrections, I volunteer to write the code (whatever is decided here). (I can code.)

For the b-v issue specifically, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to this:

MW72 says https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-455748243 that both bAhya and vAhya are used in the literature. (And the same must be the case with all the words in Jim's list in the second post -- M-W would not have used the v-words in MWE unless they appeared somewhere in literature.)

Böhtlingk and Roth and Monier-Williams (and everyone else who worked on the dictionaries) must have cared at least as much for consistency and completion as we do. So, why does PWG does not even refer to bAhya in the vAhya entry? (And similarly, in Jim's list above, why does MW-1899 does not even refer the readers to the b-words under the v-words? -- these v words were "his own words"!)

I found the discrepancy because when I didn't find a v-word, I checked for the word with a b (for this interchange seems "natural" in Hindi). Here's what I'm wondering: do B. and R. and M-W assume that Sanskrit scholars not finding v-words would think of checking b-words too, without any prompting? And if true, wouldn't just a note on the home page about this be not sufficient? I mean, we don't want to be holier than the pope! (On MWE's homepage, something like, "Some words which are listed with a v in MWE will probably be found with a b in other dictionaries".)

Finding the suspicious words Is technically easy enough: just find all MWE words with v, and then query MW for all these words one-by-one.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-456240055, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgchOahPKM82YoXiSrTLDBS_rX0WHks5vFmj8gaJpZM4aD9y_.

[ghost]

About MWE, the meat of the Preface is page 4.

@Sonnetag, I don't understand what you are objecting about. I am not asking for an edit of MWE -- my last post was specifically about why leaving them unchanged may make ample sense. In general, that MWE and MW are not consistent is a real issue.

Hindi obviously has not much to say about how things are in Sanskrit. I brought up the issue to merely add an extra piece of information, namely, that the modern Indian languages too show the same inconsitency (between b and v). I am not a Sanskrit scholar.

(A bit lesser hostility, please!)

[Sonnetag]

@vniku, Understood. I was just too afraid that you are bringing up the same issue again and again to eventually try to persuade people to make some changes to MW. I know I am a bit too protective of MW. Now knowing what you really meant is comforting. Not real hostility towards you personally was intended. I thought you are Sanskrit scholar (one of the classical Sanskrit scholars who have bias against the Vedic Sanskrit like I encountered several times before).

If MW lived 10 yrs more after finishing his MW 1899, he probably would have worked on MWE to improve it. There is not much we can do about it until someone takes up the project and compile a better English-Sanskrit Dictionary based on the MW 1899 dictionary.

Since you and Marcis mentioned PWG, I am attaching the following. Just check out the following to see the differences between MW and PWG: (I cannot make the font same for some reason)

The following few examples show that PWG is incomplete and not well planned and organized. I can check and show many more Vedic vocabulary that are not included in PWG but I do not want to waste more time on this.

(Please note that, to see the complete listing under the key-word of MW, you have to check the scanned image due to the display setting difference. In PWG, all the compounded words with the key word show up under the key word. But in MW, the compounded words are not displayed under the key word. So, you have to check the scanned page to see the complete listing under the key word.)

1. मृळ् or मृड् (the same word, different spelling) both entries not found in PWG

2. अरिष्यत् not found in PWG

3. अनुचर् not found in PWG even though listed under चर्

4. इळा or इडा (the same word, different spelling) In PWG the entry इडा shows the content. Even though इळा is listed under इडा, when you enter इळा, nothing shows up. The user who is trying to find इळा in PWG, he/she will be extremely frustrated unless the user is sufficiently knowledgeable to know इळा can be written as इडा. In the Ṛgveda, मृळ् and इळा are common spellings. In MW both entries are found.

5. ओषधिलोकIn both MW and PWG, this is listed under ओषधि. In MW with definition, in PWG without definition. So if you enter ओषधिलोक in PWG, nothing comes up. In MW if you enter ओषधिलोक, it shows you what it means.

Also compare certain words on both MW and PWG to see the differences in provided definitions and see which one provides more practical and useful definitions.

Youngsinn

On 1/21/2019 11:12 PM, vniku wrote:

About MWE, the meat of the Preface is page 4 https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/csldev/csldoc/build/dictionaries/prefaces/mwepref/mwepref07.html.

@Sonnetag https://github.com/Sonnetag, I don't understand what you are objecting about. I am not asking for an edit of MWE -- my last post was specifically about why leaving them unchanged may make ample sense. In general, that MWE and MW are not consistent /is/ a real issue.

Hindi obviously has not much to say about how things are in Sanskrit. I brought up the issue to merely add an extra piece of information, namely, that the modern Indian languages too show the same inconsitency (between b and v). I am not a Sanskrit scholar.

(A bit lesser hostility, please!)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/CORRECTIONS/issues/421#issuecomment-456265404, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKVgXCsG4DFriINCh8Mz5MiL0xF_JzDks5vFo-3gaJpZM4aD9y_.

[gasyoun]

For the corrections, I volunteer to write the code (whatever is decided here). (I can code.)

You can Python @vniku ?

assume that Sanskrit scholars not finding v-words would think of checking b-words too, without any prompting?

Yes, that's what I assume as well.

And if true, wouldn't just a note on the home page about this be not sufficient?

No, because it's just one out of 100 of hard cases and by no way the most frequent one. It's place is in a FAQ.

Finding the suspicious words Is technically easy enough: just find all MWE words with v, and then query MW for all these words one-by-one.

Been done many years ago already.

http://gasyoun.github.io/ see my compilation of Rigveda. @Sonnetag I hardly understand why you do not use https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/GRAScan/2014/web/webtc/indexcaller.php

The following few examples show that PWG is incomplete and not well planned and organized.

Untrue.

But in MW, the compounded words are not displayed under the key word.

Untrue. It's so only in Basic search. Try List at least.

3. अनुचर् not found in PWG even though listed under चर्

Because @funderburkjim has not yet made the list. Jim, it's about time in 2019 to have dhatus with upasarga not only in MW, but PWG as well.

[ghost]

assume that Sanskrit scholars not finding v-words would think of checking b-words too, without any prompting?

"Yes, that's what I assume as well."

And if true, wouldn't just a note on the home page about this be not sufficient?

"No, because it's just one out of 100 of hard cases and by no way the most frequent one. Its place is in a FAQ."

Great. This is an important piece of information pertaining to Jim's second question above (whether others approve of the substitutions in his list). Given the above, I suppose you too are more unhappy than happy with Jim's changes above.

(Sonnetag and others: I have no opinion on the issue. I am not competent to have an opinion on the issue.)

@gasyoun:

You can Python vniku?

Only a bit. I am sure that I can "get the work done", but -- though dependent on the complexity of the work and the time I have to do it -- the result won't be pretty to look at! Nevertheless, I'd be happy to do it. I would be happier if someone guides me in doing it.

http://gasyoun.github.io/

This is great. I have a feature request though! A header to the page, naming the translators would be nice. (When others quote the translations, they'd like to name the translator too, apart from providing a link.)

@Sonnetag: Understood. You needn't worry. "In general, our aim in making corrections is consistent with the strong view expressed by Youngsinn." (Jim above.) Some corrections do exist, nevertheless (the link provided by drdhaval above), and gasyoun is wondering if the corrections can be made more visible and obvious. As I said, I too would like to see more visible corrections. And obviously, you would like to see more visible corrections.

[funderburkjim]

Regarding correction display of 'Selber' in Also Sprach Zarathustra

This is indeed a nice solution.

For the corrections, I volunteer to write the code (whatever is decided here)

@vniku -- If you are serious about this, we should open a new issue devoted just to such implementation. Or maybe it should be in a separate repository within the sanskrit-lexicon project?

There are lots of details that would be relevant. Here are some that come to mind at the moment. Probably Python would be used to create from mw_printchange.txt (and similar files) a sqlite database that could be consulted by dictionary displays.
The underlying digitizations (e.g. mw.txt) would also need additional markup (exact formats to be designed) to point to the mw_printchange.sqlite file. The actual display of such information would involve modifying the display programs (written in PHP) and probably adding some Javascript (to do the nice html tooltip of the Selber example; maybe we can reverse engineer the nietsche site (or even wikipedia) to accomplish this ).

[ghost]

If you are serious about this, we should open a new issue devoted just to such implementation. Or maybe it should be in a separate repository within the sanskrit-lexicon project?

Yes, please go ahead and give the issue a place of its own. I'll add my comments there.