Index talk:Kopal-Kundala.djvu

Kopal-Kundala or Kapalkundula?
Can anyone explain the difference between this text and Kapalkundala? Just a different translation? Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , Yes, it's a different translation, that's all. Kapalkundala is spelled as per the original spelling; Kopal-Kundala is spelled as per pronunciation. The original is here. The Wikipedia article is here. Another point, I have restored your deletion of Google books citation at this page. Both translations are defective at this point. Kopal-Kundala uses the word "flung", whereas Kapalkundala uses the word "dropped". The original Bengali version, available at Bengali Wikisource, clearly uses the term "santan visarjan" (child sacrifice), which leaves no room for any ambiguity. This is a historical novel in the background of sixteenth century India, and contains many references to real-time old events and customs. Both translators have shied away from translating this particular item properly, maybe because of its sensitive nature. Because of apparent unbelievability of this crime in the name of religion, the reader on reading the word flung or dropped, is unlikely to think of sacrificed without an appropriate pointer; so I have linked it to an authoritative source. Another point. This novel's importance lies in the fact that this still stands as the finest novel in Bengali literature in matters of linguistic grace, and has few parallels in world literature in that aspect. In linguistic grace, even Tagore could not supersede it. Naturally, this grace of language cannot be carried over to a translation. Moreover, this novel is supposedly an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest; for detailed discussion, see here. The character of the heroine, however, differs from either Miranda or Kālidāsa's Shakuntala, as explained in the Foreword of Kapalkundala. Hrishikes (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Old spelling
Do we think it is necessary to use "sic", every time there is an old spelling, like "sate" on page 52? Please give your opinions. Dick Bos (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use sic at all, then yes, use it for archaic spellings as well as misspelt words. My 2¢. Moondyne (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not really the proper template to use for archaic spellings: "The word should actually be a typo. The purpose of the template is not for indicating a different or obsolete spelling, nor for attaching definitions, synonyms, commentary etc. to a word" (Template:SIC). For archaic spellings, we should be using Template:Tooltip, linking to wiktionary, or leaving the text un-marked.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True, the template SIC is for typos and errors, but sic can be used in a text where it is felt that an editor might think to change a perceived error. The latter template leaves no visible trace in the displayed text, and would be better than SIC in the specified instance, since it is not in fact an error.  However, as Doug has pointed out, either tooltip or a Wiktionary link would also work in a situation such as this, where an archaic word or word form is used, and which might confuse the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)