Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Tags:

Seperate each tag by a comma
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: apk, doc, docx, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, xls, 3gpp, mp2, mp3, wav, odt, ods, html, mp4, amr, apk, m4a, jpeg
Restrictions: 50 per post, maximum total size 150000KB, maximum individual size 150000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Anti-spam: complete the task

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Johann
« on: September 19, 2019, 12:56:19 PM »

In which way would be Venerable prefer their heritage be rendered, independent from possible preasures in regard of the common issues in the worlds of trade, productivity and livelihoods, so that it would be of long term benefit for the Sublime Sangha as carrier of the Gems in this world? My person trust that he does not possible disturb on useless ground.

Maybe, aside of Bhante Varado ,  Bhante Nyanadassana , Bhante Ariyadhammika , Bhante Indaññāno , Bhante Hasapanno , Bhante Khematto , Bhante Thanuttamo ,  Bhante Bodhi  , community of Wat metta ( Dhammatalks  ), to adress only some (please may all Venerables feel main part of it) of the Venerables direct, would like to share their wisdom and preferences here, so that others could follow and possible arrange things joyfully.
Posted by: Johann
« on: September 19, 2019, 11:59:33 AM »

ŋ is carefully used for Pali by PTS in works comparing different languages, like in their dictionary, to avoid confusion with the Sanskrit m-dot letter. It's actually a very common character, U+014B, having not really a serious Uppercase. The Problem is that the character causes easy confusion with , the fifth letter, last of the first row

deprives from the "Latin Extended Additional", U+1E41 upper case U+1E40 (certain browsers do not support it, my Person does not see it in Chrome- Android, for example)

U+1E43, upper case U+1E40. Even near the above most browser and scripts support it.

Reading a little, the modern use of dot-under is seemingly a ISTA-convention and not really originated in older traditions:

In the Devanagari script, anusvara is represented with a dot (bindu) above the letter (e.g. मं). In the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST), the corresponding symbol is ṃ (m with an underdot). Some transcriptions render notation of phonetic variants used in some Vedic shakhas with variant transcription (ṁ).

In writing Sanskrit, the anusvara is often used as an alternative representation of the nasal stop with the same place of articulation as the following plosive. For example, [əŋɡə] 'limb (of the body)' may be written with either a conjunct, अङ्ग aṅga, or with an anusvara, अंग aṃga. A variant of the anusvara, the anunāsika or 'candrabindu', was used more explicitly for nasalized vowels, as in अँश aṃśa for [ə̃ɕə] 'portion'.[7]

Underdot has actually a total different pronouncing:

In Inari Sami, an underdot denotes a half-long voiced consonant: đ̣, j̣, ḷ, ṃ, ṇ, ṇj, ŋ̣, ṛ, and ṿ. The underdot is used in dictionaries, textbooks, and linguistic publications only....

The underdot is also used in the Devanagari script, where it is called nukta.

ISTA:

The International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST) is a transliteration scheme that allows the lossless romanization of Indic scripts as employed by Sanskrit and related Indic languages. It is based on a scheme that emerged during the nineteenth century from suggestions by Charles Trevelyan, William Jones, Monier Monier-Williams and other scholars, and formalised by the Transliteration Committee of the Geneva Oriental Congress, in September 1894.[1] IAST makes it possible for the reader to read the Indic text unambiguously, exactly as if it were in the original Indic script. It is this faithfulness to the original scripts that accounts for its continuing popularity amongst scholars.

As thought this usual deprives from Hindi, Brahmic, Mahayana and norther traditions, later, prefering also the "am" spelling rather then the in the Pali Tradition used "ang" spelling. Of which first usually is not understood in traditional countries when citing Pali.

It's a matter of nature that "on-householding"-traditions are most influent global.

Nobody, so serious it is, in the west, would understand when one says "Sangsara" instead of "Samsara". Thats a sample of the two worlds. The use of the Sanskrik m with dot below, simply puts into the decay of traditional Pali pronouncing. Who would think much only some years ago after change. In ten years, with the decay of citing traditions, with the missing of differences, it would be simply gone.

Best, since its used as a diacritic also in other traditional scripts, would be to follow here with a diacritic also in roman script, possible making use of the most used ring above as well. Saំsar(a), Saំveg(a). Saំំgh(a) or Saṅgh(a)?

This is something my person would give the Venerables to consider wisely and it's never really of long term disadvantage to accept burdens and bear limited global acceptance.

It would be, as the occation seem proper to express, good if the Sangha and it's language would be given autonomous language recognition, incl. fonts, characters and unicode block. This matters actually many different scripts, and thinking on Khmer transliterations and ways in action, following "productivity" it destroys a lot and nobody will in 1 or two generation be able to trace origins any more.

Yet of course its something only those in worldly charge, if wise and attentive, could order and give, and not the result of "marxists" natural laws conducted by crowd work and flow.
Posted by: Johann
« on: September 19, 2019, 11:06:04 AM »

Aramika   *

Ein oder mehrer Beiträge wurden hier im Thema abgeschnitten und damit in neues Thema "Use of third part sources, share of heritage, taking on trust. " eröffnet, dem angehäng.
One or more posts have been cut out of this topic here. A new topic, based on it, has been created as "Use of third part sources, share of heritage, taking on trust. " or attached there.
Posted by: Johann
« on: September 18, 2019, 06:19:47 PM »

Quote from: Bhante via email
Dear Venerable Johann,

Which should we use: ṁ ṃ or ŋ?

Note that ṃ is favoured by the Pali Text Society in the latest Pali Dictionary by Margaret Cone, and also on the VRI Chatthaya Sangha ROM. For the sake of harmony, I recommend we follow their lead. The Pali Text Society has established itself as the world authority in terms of Roman lettering. VRI is likewise worthy of respect This can hardly be ignored.

... [splitt into new topic]

All best wishes,

Varado

Sadhu, Bhante Varado for the generosity of share some additional bases. It how ever, reflects a very "western", "householder-scholar" way and as usual total ignores the Sangha as actually authority.
ṁ was actually used by the Pali Text Sociaty at the beginnings, probably switched to ṃ since more common in computer systems, char-sets.
The Thai Sangha uses ṁ, so also the western Dhammayut order.
ṃ may cause future troubles in mixing it with the Sanskrik ṃ.
ŋ is often used by learned Monks from Sri Lanka.

My person does not think that it is "for the sake of productivity" proper to just follow "householder-tradition", yet surely more easy when tending to depend on "householders" and their means rather than of what the Sangha owns.

As not interested to produce GNU things, but dedicate for those having left home, my person thinks it's good to consider such well.

...[parts splitt off into new topic]

* Johann : Bhante could easier and given communicate direct. Just pushing replay bottom. If there are technical hindrances, may Bhante please let it be known. If other reasons, no problem to email either.

Of course those are just my persons thoughts, carring about proper ways and means first, and as not in a market-battle, just that of what is possible.
Posted by: Johann
« on: September 17, 2019, 10:59:46 AM »

My person, thinking that a single standard is very needed to easy handle all the scripts at ati.eu is still not sure which standard to follow.

(a) (ISO 15919) is actually my persons preference, since it reminds not only on the circle used in many traditional scripts above the letter but also on the position of the tongue. It's also used by the elders and those not depriving from modern scholars (found merely outwardly of the tradition). Disadvantages are that the letter is far not so common in certain char-sets and often not visible. Software is at large designed for the second version.

(a) (ALA-LC) is the broad used standard but it does not only easy lead toward a "sanskrit pronunciation" but can be easy mistaken with the Sanskrit letter "ṃ".

(a)ŋ is maybe even more pleasing in right distinction, yet it goes easy in conflict with which seems to be actually already a derived form of .

If it would be like traditional scripts, just a sign above: Sំ or Saំ not Saṁ, or Saṃ or Saŋ and it's special Saṅ, it would be somehow more easier: more សំ, united, bond together, so to speak.

Never found any deeper elaboration on the "mystic" sam vs. sang, yet pronouncing of certain kamma is made in two ways to get not the wrong, it remains possible for may a mystic.

Maybe Bhante Varado , out of compassion, might be willing and able to share liberating hints and advice here.