Glossary entry (derived from question below)
May 29, 2011 21:40
13 yrs ago
French term
âçrama
French to English
Other
Archaeology
Angkor site
Les âçrama. À la fois gîtes d’étape et lieux de retraite spirituelle, ces fondations religieuses étaient également dédiées à l’enseignement. Leur nombre – une centaine selon l’épigraphie – témoigne du statut privilégié des âçrama au sein de la civilisation khmère.
Is it the same in English, âçrama?
Is it the same in English, âçrama?
Proposed translations
(English)
5 +3 | ashram | Graham macLachlan |
References
It's Vedic | Yolanda Broad |
reference sources | Martin Cassell |
Proposed translations
+3
9 hrs
Selected
ashram
The English word for this is "ashram" (pl. ashrams), a word any reader would find in a good dictionary. The only good reason I can think of for keeping the Sanskrit would be if the subject of the piece were the language itself. If you really can't bear to dump the Sanskrit, write it in italics and follow it with the English word enclosed in brackets. Avoid being a slave to the source text when the opportunity arises for you to do the reader a favour.
Note that the OED gives the original Sanskrit as "aṡrama", the final "a" denoting direction like the French preposition "à" and thus not a mark of plural.
ashram
In India, a place of religious retreat, sanctuary, or hermitage. Hence "ashramite", an occupant of an ashram.
OED
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2011-05-30 14:29:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Martin refers to "standard academic format". In my answer "aṡrama" should have been aśrama", an error caused by some incompatibility between the OED and Firefox. According to the Oxford Style Manual in the tortuous extract below, the English-speaking academic community prefers "ś" and considers "ç" obsolete:
"The transliteration system for Sanskrit adopted by the Geneva Congress is more widely accepted ... Other systems are now generally considered obsolete in the English-speaking world and elsewhere: these can usually be spotted by such conventions as "ç" rather than "ś" (still found on the continent) ..."
Oxford Style Manual
Note that the OED gives the original Sanskrit as "aṡrama", the final "a" denoting direction like the French preposition "à" and thus not a mark of plural.
ashram
In India, a place of religious retreat, sanctuary, or hermitage. Hence "ashramite", an occupant of an ashram.
OED
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2011-05-30 14:29:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Martin refers to "standard academic format". In my answer "aṡrama" should have been aśrama", an error caused by some incompatibility between the OED and Firefox. According to the Oxford Style Manual in the tortuous extract below, the English-speaking academic community prefers "ś" and considers "ç" obsolete:
"The transliteration system for Sanskrit adopted by the Geneva Congress is more widely accepted ... Other systems are now generally considered obsolete in the English-speaking world and elsewhere: these can usually be spotted by such conventions as "ç" rather than "ś" (still found on the continent) ..."
Oxford Style Manual
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Bourth (X)
: Oummmmm!
1 hr
|
:-)
|
|
agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: of course it is, agree with your point about English rather than Sanscrit being used.
2 hrs
|
thanks
|
|
agree |
Martin Cassell
: qualification: the final -a is not an inflection, just nom. sing.; it is shown when transcribing sanskrit, but normally not for modern north Indian langs, as it is not pronounced. And the OED's transcription is not standard academic format//see discussn
2 hrs
|
thanks, please see my note about format
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you!"
Reference comments
5 mins
Reference:
It's Vedic
See http://tinyurl.com/3ohsq6e
If the Vedic is being used in French, it should also be used in English. Not even the diacritics change in English.
If the Vedic is being used in French, it should also be used in English. Not even the diacritics change in English.
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
33 mins
|
Thank you.
|
|
agree |
Martin Cassell
: agree with a couple of qualifications (see discussion). I would hesitate to keep a 19th-century transliteration except if required by context
59 mins
|
You're right, of course. The only reason for retaining the spelling would be to stay in synch with the source text.
|
|
neutral |
Graham macLachlan
: you're not wrong, Vedic is an early form of Sanskrit according to my beloved OED
16 hrs
|
1 hr
Reference:
reference sources
see standard transcription in use here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/आश्रम
and here, in Monier Williams' authoritative 1899 dictionary: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin//monier/ser...
and here, in Monier Williams' authoritative 1899 dictionary: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin//monier/ser...
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree |
Yolanda Broad
: Maybe it's time to get them out and dust them off? Beloved books shouldn't be left to moulder away.
2 hrs
|
thanks yolanda. my Sanskrit textbooks don't often come off the shelf nowadays...
|
Discussion
The word is derived, as I understand it, from the stem श्रम् śram, which has forms meaning meaning "hard work", "exertion", "act of austerity", "spiritual exercise", so an āśrama is a hermitage or retreat, a place for spiritual devotion, particularly through austerity. (see http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/monier/serv... , bottom of 1st column: see also श्रमण śramaṇa, middle of 2nd column.)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sansk...
phonetic: the transliteration used in your French doc. is not common in English. the sanskrit word आश्रम is standardly transliterated āśrama.
ā (a-macron) represents long a
ś (s-acute) represents palatal s (roughly, "sh" in English).
@yolanda:
two qualifications to your answer:
- the language is Sanskrit (Vedic refers to a specific variety used in the scriptures)
- the dictionary you link to is a good reference but 150 years old. 19C transliteration was very unsystematic. I wouldn't retain that transliteration except for very specific contextual reasons.