Ramayana prakshipta link target

[funderburkjim]

In cdsl text for pwg, 180 matches for "R. [0-9]+, [0-9]+, [0-9]+, [0-9]+.?".

@Andhrabharati has commented on these

• R. 7, 37, 1, 1. and 45. 50. 52. are all from the 1st प्रक्षिप्त sarga after 37th sarga of Vol.7 : [see](https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/PWG/issues/74#issuecomment-2351900537).

• possible link target described here

• Further comment: I was https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/PWG/issues/60#issuecomment-2241261890 of late, if the 'actual' source used by PWG is to be given-out; the earlier extracts posted for these प्रक्षिप्त sargas were from a different edition (as I already mentioned there), and do not always reflect what PWG cites!

• With this, not only the प्रक्षिप्त sarga citations (~180) but the entire Vol.7 citations (~2000) of PWG [from the Bomb. ed. Rāmāyaṇa] could also be linked up.

[funderburkjim]

If there is an 'actual source' pwg for these extra references, I think this source should be used.

If not, then we can use the extract-n.pdf from the 'possible link target' mentioned above.

Currently, the vol 7 citations for R. in pwg lead to the Gorressio edition. Example: Under AcCAdana, <ls>R. 7, 37, 11.</ls> links to https://sanskrit-lexicon-scans.github.io/ramayanagorr/?7,37,11

• 1282 matches for "<ls>R\. 7,"
• 112 matches in 96 lines for "<ls n="R. 7,""

Should these vol. 7 links be going to a 'bombay' edition of R., instead of to Gorressio's edition?

[Andhrabharati]

Should these vol. 7 links be going to a 'bombay' edition of R., instead of to Gorressio's edition?

Surprised to see this query now, after so much of discussion about "R. 7" citations in PWG all these days!!

we can use the extract-n.pdf from the 'possible link target' mentioned above.

As I had already mentioned, these extracts were from a different Bombay print [Kumbhakonam ed., Nirnayasagar Press] (not from Gujarati Press which is the one used in PWG), and at many places the citations in PWG would not be matching with the matter in this edition.

However, the Parab ed. (Nirnayasagar Press) does match the PWG citations at majority of places, which is why I had suggested it being used instead (if not the actual Gujarati Press ed. as cited in PWG).

Though I don't need to prove to anyone that I do possess the Gujarati Press volumes, here is a snippet from my collection--

[funderburkjim]

from Gujarati Press which is the one used in PWG

So this has the prakzipta sutras which would match best with PWG?

[Andhrabharati]

Not simply "best matching", the Gujarati Press ed. (1859) is THE one that PWG has used!!

[funderburkjim]

Shouldn't cdsl then use the Gujarati press edition (1859) as the link target for the prakzipta sutras?

[Andhrabharati]

It should; only point is that I haven't yet made up my mind to give those files (scans).

That's why I suggested (now) to use the easily available Parab ed. [1888] (as the "best" alternative, till I open up) that Marcis has (and using in the Russian transl project) and had proposed it earlier; but as I mentioned (those days) that it was NOT the one used in PWG, he did not pursue the matter any further.

[gasyoun]

It should; only point is that I haven't yet made up my mind to give those files (scans).

@Andhrabharati is there a real difference between Gujarati vs. Parab or only title pages differ?

[Andhrabharati]

Very good question from you, @gasyoun !

But I haven't checked fully for the differences between the two editions. (That was not at all my outlook, for the issue matter)!

You may approach Jim to provide you with a suitable interface (if you have no other means) to check at least the (R. 7) prakzipta sarga citations (which are about 180), to conclude the point. [You do have the Parab ed. (1888) scans, so checking the sequentially arranged entry words should be quite easy.]

[Andhrabharati]

@gasyoun There is absolutely no indication about the "source(s)" used for the Parab ed.; but we may recall what Herman Jacobi had mentioned about this edition (I have posted the same earlier).

[Andhrabharati]

It should; only point is that I haven't yet made up my mind to give those files (scans).

@Andhrabharati is there a real difference between Gujarati vs. Parab or only title pages differ?

Leaving the textual content aside, the "initial" Gujarati press editions came in "pothi format", without any punctuations or spaces (most probably for religious motifs), and were all lithographic prints [this is seen in all the 3 major texts R., MBh., and Bhag.P., from which I already posted snippets]

With Nirnayasagara's entry into printing, the scenario has changed drastically!

High quality Typefaces were cut afresh; letterpress printing mostly in portrait format (and having many punctuation marks, incl. spaces borrowed from Europeans) has become almost a de facto norm.

Even the later Gujarati press editions (after 1890) were following this new 'tradition'!!

Of course (even in the current times), some publications (from many corners in India) still come in the 'pothi format'.

[gasyoun]

without any punctuations or spaces (most probably for religious motifs)

religious, not economy of space?

[Andhrabharati]

I understand that those were the times when only 'pious' people were engaged/allowed in taking part in the printing process of this type of books!

[Andhrabharati]

Economy of space was THE major point in case of manuscripts prior to the paper usage, as the process was quite tedious to make/prepare the material to scribe upon; with the introduction of paper and printing process, it was not that much important.