,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Reading Bibek Debroy's Harivamsha
I found it odd that he consciously chose not to use diacritics in order to make his books accessible (as declared in the Preface)
Why this condescension?
Its a shame that vasudeva and vAsudeva are spelt the same way in Debroy's Harivamsha
I found it odd that he consciously chose not to use diacritics in order to make his books accessible (as declared in the Preface)
Why this condescension?
Its a shame that vasudeva and vAsudeva are spelt the same way in Debroy's Harivamsha
Another interesting tidbit about Harivamsha
The vulgate edition has around 16K shlokas. But the so-called "Critical edition" on which Debroy's translation is based has only around 6K shlokas
That's a huge cut down
The vulgate edition has around 16K shlokas. But the so-called "Critical edition" on which Debroy's translation is based has only around 6K shlokas
That's a huge cut down
This is a much steeper drop than the overall Mahabharata text where again the vulgate edition of 100K+ shlokas was cut down to some 60K+ shlokas in the Critical Edition
This really does beg the question - what are we missing out on by reading Critical edition based translations
This really does beg the question - what are we missing out on by reading Critical edition based translations
I think translators would do well to translate the union of all recensions instead of focusing on the Critical edition - which is closer to an intersection than a union.
If you really feel strongly about the antiquity or authenticity of the CE verses, call out the CE portion
If you really feel strongly about the antiquity or authenticity of the CE verses, call out the CE portion
There is no need to cut out the non CE portion altogether
Just because these verses are not present in recensions across the country
Just because these verses are not present in recensions across the country
