animals

[jkirk]

I should have begun this by saying i was focused on bird an dplant/flower
names in Meghaduta--to save learned listmembers the trouble of sending me so
many referecnes, but still grateful for all tiose too and they are being
added to my list. I should be able to get a copy of Dave on ILL. The medical
treatises, I'd suspect, treat of birds plants etc in reference to dieases
and treatments, and so they might not be that helpful for elucidating
literary references?
Joanna

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominik Wujastyk" <ucgadkw at UCL.AC.UK>
To: <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: animals


> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Arlo Griffiths wrote:
>
> > All these works make clear that identifications commonly used by
Indologists
> > can in many cases already be rejected for the simple reason that the
> > supposed animal does not exist in India. Regarding Dave's book on birds,
we
> > should indeed, as Karttunen just hinted, not forget R.P. Das' words
> > ("Studies in Indian Medical History", ed. by Meulenbeld and Wujastyk,
> > Groningen 1987, p. 27 n. 36): "... Dave seems on the whole far too sure
of
> > his identifications and has moreover more or less neglected other
studies on
> > the subject."
>
> The more I've used Dave, the less I would agree with Das's caveat.  Dave
> really had an excellent personal knowledge of Indian ornithology, which
> makes his book uniquely useful, and his opinions far more valuable than if
> they were merely based on secondary academic sources alone.  (Of course,
> he is very widely and usefully read in Sanskrit sources.)  If Dave appears
> sure, it is often because he does actually know what he's talking about.
> :-)
>
> Obviously, there is never any excuse for not thinking for oneself.  I'm
> not saying Dave is perfect, just very, very good, and perhaps unfairly
> criticised by Das.  Also, unfortunately, out of print.
>
> Dominik
>
>