In this case it’s just punctuation, so I guess fixing it would be sensible.
I’ve had a closer look at your suggestion to divide the Pali into < term > and < gloss >, and I now think your point is a good one. It should really look like this: < term >Bean curry< /term >: < gloss >there are two kinds of bean curry: mung-bean curry and black-gram curry, to be taken with the hand.< /gloss >< /p >
Then there should be a < hr >, and the earlier < hr >should deleted.
I have already tried to implement these changes myself, but it probably would be good if you had a look at it to ensure I haven’t messed up your system.
I am glad you have such a sharp eye for details!
It doesn’t look like messed up, Bhante, as much as I can judge. However, I don’t know what this part of the code exactly stands for:
<a class="wt-pa">1827</a> in Sk 29 or
<a class="wt-pa">1852</a>respectively in Sk 34.
And what does
<hr> mean? I’m just assuming you are getting that right.
Then I still leave the “needs work” button ticked in Sk 29, segments 12, 13 in order for Bhante @sujato to fix the segmentation.
To my understanding this is what applies here. Hatthahāriyo (
to be taken with the hand.</gloss></p>) shoud be moved from segment 13 to segment 12.
And I also tick “needs work” for the “term” segments in both 29 and 34: Shouldn’t there be a tag
<h2 id="pada">Definitions</h2>added? And that would go into an extra segment then.
I hope I am not the one who is messing things up here…
Another question: Who did the segmentation initially? I mean, is it a human, or some magic script, or what?
There was another case in the Sekhiyas (I don’t remember which rule but ticked it “needs work”) where in the origin story a new segment started after just one word, Tena, and the rest continued in a separate segment, samayena buddho bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. (or whatever monastery it was).
My thought was that it should go together in one segment.
This was already there in the previous segment, and I just moved into the right place. It’s a reference to the Mahāsaṅgīti Pali.
This creates a line on the page and is handy for showing breaks in the text.
It would be great if this could be done.
Oh, I see—it’s “horizontal rule”!
The only thing left now are the changes in the segmentation. This is Bhante @sujato’s department.
Exactly! Semantically, it allows us to separate sections of a text that do not have headings.
I have to take a break of a week from this work as I am going to Tilorien monastery tomorrow for the sake of the Open Day on Sunday, and will stay on a few days after that. I will hardly have any internet connection, so can’t continue with my work.
I had hoped to finish the Sekhiya rules by now, but unfortunately didn’t manage. Due to several unexpected things coming in between the “lightning pace” of my work, as Ajahn @brahmali called it, has considerably diminished for the moment.
So I guess I am handing the Sekhiya rules back to you, Ajahn. They are done until rule 40. In case you make any changes in the meantime, please send Sk 41–75 to me again for next week’s Friday. Thank you!
(If I don’t find a new portion of rules on Friday I’ll just assume there are no changes and continue with what I have.)
Thanks for letting me know. Have fun at Tilorien!
Sk 69 segemnt 47:
“Others beings will do the cooking”
“Other beings will do the cooking”
Done are Sekhiya 1–75.
Could you now send me the Adhikaranasamatha, Ajahn @brahmali?—Thank you!
The Adhikaranasamathas are—almost—exactly nothing at all… so they are already finished, and I am jobless again (not quite, however; there is still a few updates to make on the Tilorien website after the official opening, and an article to be written about the Open Day… )
I don’t know how many changes you have made on the Khandakas since I last worked on them; maybe you just send me your latest version, beginning with the Mahavagga, of as big a portion as you may miss for a while. (The Culavagga belongs to Tara’s department.)
Sorry to send you such a short section! I’ve been rather busy in Hong Kong, and I’ve had almost no internet connection for the last 5 days. Thus my tardiness in responding. But, as always, I am very happy you are making such swift progress.
I am not sure what is happening with @greenTara. I’ve not heard anything from her for 3 or 4 weeks. I know she has been on a retreat, but that’s a couple of weeks ago now. It would be nice to finish off the Bhikkhu-vibhaṅga before moving on to the rest of the Vinaya. Do you think Tara would mind if I give the last 10 bhikkhu-pācittiya rules to you? She could then perhaps focus on the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga when she resurfaces. Tara, if you are reading this, would that be ok with you?
You don’t need to apologise for sending me a short section. That was just the amount I could manage yesterday. It only took me a while to understand that it is really not more…
I have no idea what’s the matter with green Tara; I haven’t seen her anywhere on this forum for the last weeks (not that I am reading everything… ). I don’t know if she would mind or not if I go on with the rest of the Bhikkhu Vibhanga. In the end, it is your translation project; and as we don’t work locally any more the original attribution might not matter that much any more now.
Hi -Since my retreat, I have been occupied with preparing my mother’s memorial service, which was held on Saturday. It went well, but was emotionally draining. I am ready to start working on this task again, although not at the pace I was going before the retreat. I’m fine with sharing the work however you choose. We were working collaboratively on the bhikkhu-pācittiya anyway, so I don’t feel any ownership of that.
Great to have you both here! I am truly grateful for all the work you are doing and the last thing I want is to be insensitive to your preferences. But since you are both flexible, here is my suggestion.
I would suggest for you, Sabbamitta, to finish off the bhikkhu-pācittiyas. You are now well acquainted with the bhikkhu rules.
I would then propose to divide the bhikkhunī rules between the two of you. I prefer to do it this way since I would like to wait as long as possible with the Khandhakas. I am now revising them and it’s just easier if they can wait. So Tara, I will email you the bhikkhunī-pārājika rules.
If I don’t hear from either of you, I will assume you are ok with this.
Fine with me!
Edit: Only now I realise: Pc 51–60 seem to have been done already?
Yes, Pc 51–60 is what I did earlier.
I see bi-pj 5-8 in pootle, but not 1-4
Yes, 1-4 are practically identical to those of the monks and so I have not included them. This is standard practice. However, should we decide to have a complete bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga, it is just a matter of cutting and pasting from the monks’ rules. I would suggest focusing on the new material for now.