From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Mahabharata and other transcription problems
I changed "Over de oudjavavaanse vertaling van Mahâbhârata" to "Over de oudjavavaanse vertaling van Mahābhārata" during copyediting; if the circumflex is in fact correct and the macron is incorrect, feel free to change it back and leave a note here so other editors don't make the same mistake. --Quuxplusone 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right: the circumflex must have been a decrepit survival from an older bibliography. The macron is correct, where Sanskrit words are concerned. Thanks! Bessel Dekker 10:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- (BTW, to avoid future confusion, "oudja
vavaanse" should of course be "oudjavaanse", but that is a minor matter. Bessel Dekker 10:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC) )
- In keeping with modern practice, I have now (I hope) replaced all circumflexes by macrons (as in Pundarīka). Bessel Dekker 11:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Still pondering on transcription matters: for instance, Kern in his original 1862 title uses the transcription Çakuntalâ, whereas modern scholarship seems to prefer Śakuntalā. From a purist's point of view, then, the original titles in the Select Bibliography should be in the old-fashioned transcription, whereas the explanatory translations ought to be given in their modern spelling. However, for a general reader this might create more problems than it solves. For the moment, I am in favour of the use of macrons while leaving other diacritics, and letters, alone. Bessel Dekker 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (The more so since, on second thought, the Çakuntalā transcription is still used in modern scholarship, eliminating the above dilemma. Conclusion: circumflexes should become macrons, no other alterations are needed. Bessel Dekker 02:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC))
