Re: Kacc 271

Dear George,

I was attempting to produce a text using only the single or double da.n.da
(and line spacing) to separate portions of the text. In dealing with the
question marks, I was uncertain as to whether I should use a single or a
double da.n.da. In my experience, I don't think the text loses in its
intelligibility with the exclusive use of a danda system of marking off
portions of a Pali text compared to the use of Roman punctuation or a
mixture of the two systems. Questions are easily recognized by the
interrogative words they contain. However, in the case of || ta.m yathaa ||,
I don't see it as a question so I will need to do a bit of research to find
out why it is considered a question by editors. I thought the phrase meant
"as follows, namely, i.e., e.g.".  I also wonder if the two words should be
separate and not compounded as in "ta.myathaa".

Best wishes,
Jim

> It is not entirely clear to me what Jim is trying to do in his
transcription of Kacc 271
> from the Burmese 1982 edition.  And in particular why he is concerned
about how to treat
> the question marks there.  It is true that there is no equivalent to a
question mark in most
> pre-modern Pali texts.  That makes it a little odd to ask if it is
'correct' to use double
> da.n.das in place of question marks.  Since a double da.n.da is not
equivalent to a question
> mark, it will lose information to replace them.


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]