tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074476096730461911.post4921435097158069454..comments2024-03-07T23:17:00.748-08:00Comments on Philologia Tibetica: ས་ཕུད་བླ་མ། ས་གཅོད་བླ་མ།Dorji Wangchuk (Kuliśeśvara)http://www.blogger.com/profile/02042613761261634658noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074476096730461911.post-76832712306705709392013-02-08T05:41:25.977-08:002013-02-08T05:41:25.977-08:00One leopard! One leopard! This sheep is a leopard...One leopard! One leopard! This sheep is a leopard for two.<br /><br />Or<br /><br />Leopard is one! Leopard is one! A leopard for these two sheep!<br /><br /><br />Sorry, I couldn't resist risking a translation or two (two translations for the price of one, what a deal!)Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074476096730461911.post-4077834899863373672012-09-05T08:09:27.706-07:002012-09-05T08:09:27.706-07:00Dear Dan,
Apologies for the delay. And as always,...Dear Dan,<br /><br />Apologies for the delay. And as always, thank you for the reference. I think, too, he must be the same Nor-bu-bstan-’dzin mentioned by Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung. Yes, I do think that people like Mi-pham saw it as a misguided attempt to reform the orthography. His Sa mtha’ rnam ’byed clearly shows the necessity of sa mtha’. <br /><br />gzigs shig gzigs shig lugs ’di gnyis la gzigs ||<br />gzig gcig gzig gcig lug ’di gnyis la gzig ||<br /><br />Greetings from Korea!<br /><br />Dorji<br /><br /> Dorji Wangchuk (Kuliśeśvara)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02042613761261634658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074476096730461911.post-48744021548816969442012-09-01T13:36:42.759-07:002012-09-01T13:36:42.759-07:00Dear D,
Do you think your SA-subtracting Lama is ...Dear D,<br /><br />Do you think your SA-subtracting Lama is the same as this author?<br /><br /><br />Tshogs shul Bla ma Nor bu bstan 'dzin (b. 1835)<br /> — <i>Yi ge'i dag sdeb skor</i>, Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Chengdu 1987).<br /><br />Actually, I'm sure it is. There is a reference to Tshogs-shul Bla-ma Nor-bu-bstan-'dzin's work <i>Yi ge'i dag sdeb</i> in Acarya Sangye T. Naga, On the Function of Tibetan Letters, <i>The Tibet Journal</i>, vol. 24, no. 3 (Autumn 1999), pp. 57-76, at p. 66.<br /><br />It says there he actually spelled like 'Jam-dpal-dbyang, and leg-bshad!<br /><br />Another misguided attempt at language reform, you think?<br /><br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.com