Talk:Siddhaṃ script

Is this nāgarī spelling correct?

Is this nāgarī spelling correct? With the virama instead of anusvāra?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not correct. It is siddhaṃ. The Japanese sometimes have siddhāṃ as well, but John Stevens suggests that the former is more grammatically correct. So... anyone know how to change it? mahaabaala 09:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

fixed using Transliterate to Sanskrit. mahaabaala 10:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Siddhaṃ (r)astu

According to the article, "the name arose from the practice of writing the word Siddhaṃ, or Siddhaṃ rastu (may there be perfection) at the head of documents." If it's in Sanskrit, then shouldn't it rather be Siddhamastu?--Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting comment/question. Because the meaning clearly comes from astu 3rd person singular imperative of √as 'to be'. Whence then rastu? The story of "siddhāṃrastu" appears in John Steven's book Sacred Calligraphy (p. 33) where he also spells the script as siddhāṃ (with an incorrect long 'a'). The long 'a' is clearly a corruption, probably introduced by the Chinese. I haven't seen anything other than siddhaṃ on actual manuscripts. I'll keep an eye out for more info mahaabaala (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I tried to put in a citation where the text says, " though Siddhaṃ is correct..." and a 'citation needed' note appeared as a superscript. I plan to return to this to get the thing formatted correctly, as a superscript leading to the reference list or list of citations. But the information I gave should suffice. Savitr108 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a question. It says the Japanese is name is 梵字 but I thought this was just the word for Sanskrit or the language in general. I think in Japanese, they also use 悉曇 pronounced shittan to refer to a Siddham character. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.247.30 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Siddhaṃ

I note that someone has replaced the earlier image of the word siddhaṃ in the Siddhaṃ script. It now says siddhāṃ which is a spelling mistake. The word is siddhaṃ - short 'a'. mahaabaala (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• the earlier image is . is it siddhaṃ? Mhss (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

yes Mhss. That is Siddhaṃ. I note now that the image has again been replaced, this time with some of the ugliest Siddhaṃ I've ever seen. mahaabaala (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the ugly one with the one above. Tengu800 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Taisho

Is it worth mentioning that the Siddhaṃ mantras in the Taisho canon are often corrupt? Perhaps more often than not. mahaabaala (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

The image of the palm leaf manuscript on this page is the Heart Sūtra - or at least the first page and the first line of the last page. The rest of the text is the Uṣniṣavijaya Dhāraṇī. While the last line contains a complete siddhaṃ syllabary beginning with the word 'siddhaṃ'.

I wonder if anyone else has spotted this? I'd love to get a high resolution copy! mahaabaala (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

This character is claimed to be a Siddham character, but I can't identify it. It appears here, where it says it is pronounced in Japanese as "Un". Can anyone identify this character? If you can, please message me here. Thanks!208.249.136.187 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes this is hūṃ - there are two ways of writing the ū diacritic. See my hūṃ page for another example. And yes in Japan it is pronounced as Un. See for instance Hakeda, Y. Kūkai: Major Works (Ungi gi: 'The meanings of the Word hūṃ'; p.246ff); see also Stevens, John. Sacred Calligraphy of the East, p.58. mahaabaala (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Grazie.24.13.125.86 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Conjuncts?

It would be nice if someone wrote a bit of text to clarify the conjuncts section, which is so far just a set of tables without context. I can glean that conjuncts are the equivalent of Latin ligatures, but it probably wouldn't hurt to write a paragraph or two about the kinds of conjuncts are possible, and how that complicates the computer rendering of the font... --Wtrmute (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And isn't there like 60 of them missing from the listing? A complete list would help a lot, but I'm a beginner and I don't know for sure. Thank you.--Acewolf359 (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Siddhaṃ script → Siddham script – title must have only ASCII characters. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is that an official Wikipedia policy?? If so, please link to the page where it's defined... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Not really, per WP:DIACRITICS:

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources.

Thibaut (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

ṃ is an iso transliteration letter which isn't the official writing script of any language; it isnt even used by most people, no one spells something like 'Mysuru' as 'Maisūru'. The sources either dont use iso (like this one) or use it everywhere AleksiB 1945 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close, since when? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose without a better rationale. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.