1942 book : transliterated by Pt. Goswami ji

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

A few hours back I got the 1942 transliteration of Pt. Goswami ji. I

had just flipped through the book casually.

 

My first impressions are that Pt. Goswami ji has made great efforts

to keep the transliteration true to the original. Keeping the pages

same as in the original is a great help for those who cross check the

Hindi version with the original Urdu version before quoting from the

book.

 

But the book appears to be brought out in a great hurry. I do not

understand what was the hurry about; a hurry which spoiled the whole

pudding. It is a very shoddy presentation as compared to Pt.

Goswami’s previous two books : 1939 edition and the 1940 edition.

Printing, paper quality, get up, fonts are shoddy to say the least.

 

I do not think that the proof reading has been done carefully. Just

an example :

 

Mars house # 4 : page 165; line # 17

 

thanda us dam hi vah hoga, 8 nateeje jab chandra ho

 

The word ‘nateeje’ struck a bell. Since the word ‘nateeje’ does not

make sense in the context, it is quite possible that the reader, who

does not have access to the original Urdu edition, might take it to

mean as ‘na teeje’ [ not in third] thus taking the line to mean when

the moon is neither in 8th nor in the third.

 

When I checked in the Urdu edition the line is # 16 and it says :

 

thanda us dam hi voh hoga, 8 teeje jab chandra ho.

 

The meaning changes altogether. Now it means ‘when the moon is in the

8th or the 3rd.’

It is a mistake similar to the one in Arun Sanhita for Khana # 8.

 

Such mistakes, though very minor, but have a far reaching effect.

Therefore I suggest that a thorough proof reading should be done and

the lines should be aligned properly. At least I do not have the

confidence to quote from this book without having to confirm from the

original Urdu edition; where as I have the confidence while quoting

from shri Yograj Prabhakar’s 1941 edition.

 

On the whole very disappointing.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bhooshan Priya

[Guest guest]

Pt ji. you are very right, the misakes may appear to be minor but actually have far reaching consequences. especially when the publisher claims that it is the correct most transliteration and publication. second thing that i felt hard to digest is that goswamiji in his invitation presented and specifically printed on the publication as AUTHOR of 1939,40,41 and 42 edition. can't say whether this mistake was deliberate or on purpose.

regards

kulbir

On 12/26/08, < wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear members,A few hours back I got the 1942 transliteration of Pt. Goswami ji. I had just flipped through the book casually.My first impressions are that Pt. Goswami ji has made great efforts

to keep the transliteration true to the original. Keeping the pages same as in the original is a great help for those who cross check the Hindi version with the original Urdu version before quoting from the book.

But the book appears to be brought out in a great hurry. I do not understand what was the hurry about; a hurry which spoiled the whole pudding. It is a very shoddy presentation as compared to Pt. Goswami’s previous two books : 1939 edition and the 1940 edition.

Printing, paper quality, get up, fonts are shoddy to say the least. I do not think that the proof reading has been done carefully. Just an example :Mars house # 4 : page 165; line # 17thanda us dam hi vah hoga, 8 nateeje jab chandra ho

The word ‘nateeje’ struck a bell. Since the word ‘nateeje’ does not make sense in the context, it is quite possible that the reader, who does not have access to the original Urdu edition, might take it to

mean as ‘na teeje’ [ not in third] thus taking the line to mean when the moon is neither in 8th nor in the third.When I checked in the Urdu edition the line is # 16 and it says :thanda us dam hi voh hoga, 8 teeje jab chandra ho.

The meaning changes altogether. Now it means ‘when the moon is in the 8th or the 3rd.’It is a mistake similar to the one in Arun Sanhita for Khana # 8.Such mistakes, though very minor, but have a far reaching effect.

Therefore I suggest that a thorough proof reading should be done and the lines should be aligned properly. At least I do not have the confidence to quote from this book without having to confirm from the original Urdu edition; where as I have the confidence while quoting

from shri Yograj Prabhakar’s 1941 edition.On the whole very disappointing.Sincerely,Bhooshan Priya

[Guest guest]

Very dear Kulbir,

 

I too was taken aback by the audacity of claiming the authorship of

the 1939, 40, 41 and 42 Lal Kitab editions. He had made similar

claims in the transliteration of the 1939 and 1940 editions also.

 

His claim to have written Lal Kitab [English] is made even in his

1939 transliteration. This becomes all the more serious because some

well known Lal Kitab scholars have contributed in the introduction of

the book which might be taken as a tacit approval of what Pt. Goswami

ji has so cleverly claimed.

 

I do not think that it is inadvertent; any thing going into print is

always deliberate. That is a permanent record left behind for the

future generations.

 

And you know history doesn’t go by hearsay, it goes by documentary

evidence and the records would tell a different story.

 

God bless you,

 

Bhooshan Priya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " kulbir bance "

<kulbirbance wrote:

>

> Pt ji.

>

> You are very right, the misakes may appear to be minor but actually

> have far reaching consequences. especially when the publisher

claims that it

> is the correct most transliteration and publication. second thing

that i

> felt hard to digest is that goswamiji in his invitation presented

and

> specifically printed on the publication as AUTHOR of 1939,40,41 and

42

> edition. can't say whether this mistake was deliberate or on

purpose.

>

> regards

>

> kulbir

>

>

>

> On 12/26/08, < wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> >

> > A few hours back I got the 1942 transliteration of Pt. Goswami

ji. I

> > had just flipped through the book casually.

> >

> > My first impressions are that Pt. Goswami ji has made great

efforts

> > to keep the transliteration true to the original. Keeping the

pages

> > same as in the original is a great help for those who cross check

the

> > Hindi version with the original Urdu version before quoting from

the

> > book.

> >

> > But the book appears to be brought out in a great hurry. I do not

> > understand what was the hurry about; a hurry which spoiled the

whole

> > pudding. It is a very shoddy presentation as compared to Pt.

> > Goswami’s previous two books : 1939 edition and the 1940 edition.

> > Printing, paper quality, get up, fonts are shoddy to say the

least.

> >

> > I do not think that the proof reading has been done carefully.

Just

> > an example :

> >

> > Mars house # 4 : page 165; line # 17

> >

> > thanda us dam hi vah hoga, 8 nateeje jab chandra ho

> >

> > The word ‘nateeje’ struck a bell. Since the word ‘nateeje’ does

not

> >

> > make sense in the context, it is quite possible that the reader,

who

> > does not have access to the original Urdu edition, might take it

to

> > mean as ‘na teeje’ [ not in third] thus taking the line to mean

when

> > the moon is neither in 8th nor in the third.

> >

> > When I checked in the Urdu edition the line is # 16 and it says :

> >

> > thanda us dam hi voh hoga, 8 teeje jab chandra ho.

> >

> > The meaning changes altogether. Now it means ‘when the moon is in

the

> > 8th or the 3rd.’

> > It is a mistake similar to the one in Arun Sanhita for Khana # 8.

> >

> > Such mistakes, though very minor, but have a far reaching effect.

> > Therefore I suggest that a thorough proof reading should be done

and

> > the lines should be aligned properly. At least I do not have the

> > confidence to quote from this book without having to confirm from

the

> > original Urdu edition; where as I have the confidence while

quoting

> > from shri Yograj Prabhakar’s 1941 edition.

> >

> > On the whole very disappointing.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > Bhooshan Priya

> >

> >

> >

>