Talk:Sanskrit Grammar (Whitney)

formatting the table of contents
In the original the subchapter subject things are lined up behind the chapter number (their left most characters are at the same place as the leftmost characters of the chapter title) making a quite agreeable arrangement. How could this be done on wikisource? 130.85.169.197 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Figured this out on my own 130.85.249.236 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

and the numbers of ordered lists reset when there's a break between them? Anyway to force the numbering so it'll be right even with breaks? 130.85.249.236 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * figured this out too :D 130.85.249.236 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * anything else you need to figure out ? :-) If you are using Google Books "Full View", maybe you will benefit from User:Jayvdb/google books scrape text. John Vandenberg 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite nifty. Thank you! Prosody 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Scans
Would it be possible for someone to upload the scans from Google Books either locally to Wikisource or to Commons? Google Books scans aren't available for view everywhere (I can't see them here in Germany, for instance). Angr/Talk 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have Google Books' scan in PDF and I guess I can change it to any arbitrary image filetype. How do I go about bulk-uploading to Wikisource or Commons though? Prosody 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The way to do mass uploads (whether here, to Commons, or to some other Wikimedia project) is with Commonist. However, it looks like there are already scans (and possibly readable TXT files, though I haven't seen them yet myself) available at, , and . Angr/Talk 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Used/mentioned dichotomy
in Whitney's book both mentioned Sanskrit lexemes and Sanskritisms used in English are boldened, and their mentioned meanings are italicized. AFAICS, this digitisation only follows latter approach, leaving pre-IAST Sanskrit lexemes and Sanskritisms (like devanāgarī) to appear normally as used English words. This mixing makes them harder to distinguish, which makes the text harder to read IMHO. Perhaps boldening is too conspicuous; how about using , or adopting italicaztion leaving apostrophes (single or double) for the translated meanings? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd given some thought to that a while ago (if you look through the histories, you can see the pages start with the transcriptions in bold before I came to the same conclusions with regard to the appearance of boldened words). In the text, the Clarendon typeface, which is heavier than the standard typeface, is used for this.  I agree that  would approximate it well without being overly cumbersome. Prosody (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)