- satthahāraka (italic error)
- the inclusion of a footnote
Yes, I started this thread to talk about just this very issue. Perhaps it could be discussed there since this thread is for errors and typos.
Ah yes, the expansion thread!
Actually the recommended change here is to preserve the ellipses but simply add an introductory phrase so that the mind knows the repetition. I was listening mindfully yesterday to this and still could not hear the third repetition because what I heard was this:
They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … rejoicing
And my mind keeps hearing it as “compassion rejoicing” as a single unit. Therefore I think this is an accessibility bug, an audio typo for the visually impaired.
The proposed fix would be to do the following and keep the ellipses:
They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion …
They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …
Part of the problem is that Pali has “pe” which is spoken. English speakers don’t say “ellipsis”. Ellipses are silent, and the customary practice is to retain a repeated phrase to trigger the repetition.
In AN 9.12 English and Pali are interchanged.
sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti … pe … This is the fourth person …
Sorry for continuing this off topic conversation, but I didn’t know where else to post.
English speakers do say “and so on.” While not graceful, it is clear. I think that saying that is far more helpful than a long pause. A pause doesn’t really convey anything. And if ones internet is bad, there may be many pauses in a streaming signal.
I’ve added your comment toIssue 114. Others can chime in on that Github issue as well.
I will definitely take these things on board. One problem is that there isn’t a single solution to apply in every case. However, by reading the suttas out loud I will eventually, I hope, find an acceptable way of handling each case so that it works both in reading and in listening.
(In case you’re wondering, the reading project has been on hold for a few weeks as we are making changes to the texts and back end, we should be starting again soon!)
Here is MN44 with the Amy voice using a 1 second pause for each ellipsis.
The following is spoken starting at 3:30. Interestingly, the 1 second pause does actually work fine with the existing translations. My ear hears “a new thing to be attended to”. In fact, listening to this, I’d be inclined to retract my suggestion of altering the translations.
They regard feeling …
Sounds good this way to me too!
Just noticed an inconsistency:
To my understanding the both are not quite the same.
Interestingly, the two translations, taken together, span the nuances of understanding “fuel for the lack of faith.” In other words, I think the concept being translated is something like “not discerning the truth or fallacy of a teaching,” which is a bit too esoteric in expression. Yet words failed me in trying to think up a simple phrase that combines both translations.
Do let me know if I’m being overly meticulous.
No, this is great stuff, please keep it coming. Both of the things you mention here are significant errors, and I am glad to get them sorted out. There is no such thing as too meticulous in my book.
Also throughout the permutations it reads:
“build one whose site”
“build one which” – this flows better. “build one whose” – feels a bit awkward.
Not so much an error just a feeling I get when reading. Perhaps, “build one on whose site is approved” might flow better.
Thanks so much. I have incorporated most of it, but in a few cases I have had to disagree.
This is actually meant to be a flow-on sentence.
The singular verb agrees with “flock”: “A flock of birds feed …”
To get a bit of context, here is a fuller extract from the text:
A monk appoints someone to build him a hut. If they build one whose site has not been approved, where harm will be done, and which lacks a space on all sides, he commits one offense entailing suspension and two offenses of wrong conduct. …
It doesn’t seem all that problematic to me, but perhaps I am just blind to this! What about merely substituting “a hut” for “one”:
A monk appoints someone to build him a hut. If they build a hut whose site has not been approved, where harm will be done, and which lacks a space on all sides, he commits one offense entailing suspension and two offenses of wrong conduct. …
If anyone else has an opinion on this issue, I would appreciate hearing from you!
Yes this reads much better. Certainly not all that problematic it just stumped me at times when reading through. Particularly when the prior sentence didn’t directly mention “a hut”. I read again using the alteration you mentioned above and there was no confusion.
Blurb for DN 17 Mahāsudassana Sutta
“An elaborate story of a past life of the Buddha as a legendary king how renounced all to practice meditation.”
… a legendary king who renounced all…
Blurb to DN 25 Udumbarika Sutta
“This discourse gives a specially good example of dialog between religions The Buddha insists that he is not interested to make anyone give up their teacher or practices, but only to help people let go of suffering.”
Add a period after “religions”.