devanagari ligatures and half-forms when writing pali

[Paññāsikhara]

Yes, of course the idea of accuracy or authenticity is not applicable at all. I would just like to know what conventions are for academia, so I can decide what ligatures I need to learn to write!

Unless one is actually doing paleography, then most academic work simply does not use Devanagari, but uses the Romanized scripts.
Well, assuming that the academics is European language based, that is. Would be different in India, Thailand, Sri Lanka or the like.

[echalon]

Unless one is actually doing paleography, then most academic work simply does not use Devanagari, but uses the Romanized scripts.
Well, assuming that the academics is European language based, that is. Would be different in India, Thailand, Sri Lanka or the like.

I knew this was true for Pali, but scholarship on Sanskrit often uses Devanagari, no?

[Kare]

To find out this could be a quite time-consuming task. Are there specific ligatures and specific words you want checked?

I also have the Dhammapada, the Abhidhammavatara and a few suttas in Devanagari. The easiest and best reference system would be the Dhammapada. Could you please search out words in the Dhammapada and then give the verses? Then it should be easy to take a look at them.

Sure, I can provide a few Dhammapada examples for you to check. In the versions I'm looking at (http://www.tipitaka.org/deva/) each verse has 2 or 3 lines, and the verse numbering continues through chapters. Let me know if you need more help locating the words in question. Thanks!

• Chapter 1, Verse 1, Line 3: चक्कंव or चक्‍कंव?
• Chapter 1, Verse 2, Line 2: पसन्नेन or पसन्‍नेन?
• Chapter 1, Verse 7, Line 2: चामत्तञ्ञुं or चामत्तञ्‍ञुं?
• Chapter 1, Verse 9, Line 2: दमसच्चेन or दमसच्‍चेन?
• Chapter 3, Verse 38, Line 2: परिप्लवपसादस्स or परिप्‍लवपसादस्स?
• Chapter 4, Verse 54, Line 1: तगरमल्लिका or तगरमल्‍लिका?

Thanks so much for your help!

This edition of the Dhammapada is published by Motilal Banarsidas in Varanasi 1983, reprint Delhi 1993, 1999. It is in Pali, with translations to Sanskrit and Hindi by Bhikshu Dharmarakshita - all in Devanagari. In all the examples you give, this edition has the second of the two alternatives, that is चक्‍कंव and not चक्कंव, and so on.

[echalon]

This edition of the Dhammapada is published by Motilal Banarsidas in Varanasi 1983, reprint Delhi 1993, 1999. It is in Pali, with translations to Sanskrit and Hindi by Bhikshu Dharmarakshita - all in Devanagari. In all the examples you give, this edition has the second of the two alternatives, that is चक्‍कंव and not चक्कंव, and so on.

Thanks so much for your help! I guess the use of half-forms instead of full ligatures isn't restricted to computers and computer fonts.

Anyone else have some Devanagari sources they wouldn't mind checking?

[seanpdx]

itmanual2003.pdf: Section 3.5, Ligatures of "Sanskrit 2003"

In brief, all ligatures included are attested in classical and/or vedic sanskrit. Those which are in pali or hindi, but NOT in sanskrit, are so noted. Anything not attested to in sanskrit or pali, I won't use. Which hasn't yet happened, because let's face it, if the ligature is hindi-only, the conjunct likely doesn't exist in pali. =D

Looking at that section, I don't see any indication of where the ligature forms themselves came from. They mention that the ligatures are based on "conjunct consonants attested by quotations from the original texts", and in the chart they indicate the frequency of the conjunct consonants within the text, but there's no mention of how those conjunct consonants are written in whatever manuscripts we have. Which in a way makes sense, since we have Sanskrit manuscripts in a lot of scripts. So at least to my reading, it seems like the fact if there was ever a certain combination of consonants (written in any script, in any form) in a Sanskrit text, this font would have a ligature for it. But which form of a ligature is used must be from some kind of tradition specific to Devanagari, rather than Sanskrit or Pali literature in general. Am I getting this all wrong? I wish I could get my hands on that German work.

Different scripts work in different ways. Devanagari ligatures are specific to devanagari. They can differ from region to region, and from individual to individual (ugh -- yay india). Conjunct consonants can be formed in basically one of three ways: horizontal ligatures, vertical ligatures, or a "new" character. Alas, I've come across some conjuncts that were written either horizontally or vertically depending on the particular publisher/typesetter/person/whatever. Try to hunt down some sanskrit works online (scans of actual books would probably be ideal) to get an idea of how people write various conjuncts. Or go to an indian grocer and read some packaging. *grin*

[karuna_murti]

http://www.codewallah.com/diCrunch/diCrunch.php
usually i use this tool to convert from csx to unicode, but you can convert csx/velthuis/unicode to devanagari script too