tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074476096730461911.post9188406944785171156..comments2024-03-07T23:17:00.748-08:00Comments on Philologia Tibetica: མནར་མེད།Dorji Wangchuk (Kuliśeśvara)http://www.blogger.com/profile/02042613761261634658noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074476096730461911.post-7278213595673914182015-12-28T03:04:43.225-08:002015-12-28T03:04:43.225-08:00It's true that the Sanskrit word v¥ci is suppo...It's true that the Sanskrit word v¥ci is supposed to likely derive from vi+2.añc, and have the meaning of going or leading aside or astray, aberration deceit, seduction, etc. according to Monier-Williams. He also notes it can mean a wave or a ripple. So, no problem in the Sanskrit side. Like you I can't honestly puzzle out what was going on in the minds of the Tibetan translators, and what mnar-ba meant back in the day when they 'invented' the Tibetan equivalent for the Sanskrit... Aw to hell with it!Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.com