Diskussion:Yuga
Letzter Kommentar: vor 3 Jahren von WolfgangRieger in Abschnitt Jahre der Götter
Jahre der Götter
Bearbeiten@Jroberson108: Was in einer Übersetzung (aus dem dem 19. Jhdt.) in Klammern erscheint, steht nicht im Originaltext, sondern wurde vom Übersetzer ergänzt. Dem muss durch Einschränkung entsprechend Rechnung getragen werden, was im folgenden Absatz auch geschieht ("Man setzt allerdings meist entsprechend …"). -- Wolfgang Rieger (Diskussion) 09:05, 2. Mär. 2021 (CET)
@WolfgangRieger, Itti: Wolfgang Rieger, your interpretation is the problem. As an editor, you should just quote the scholars. Here are three scholars that agree that they are divine years or years of the gods.
Sir William Jones (1807): "years of the Gods", "divine years".[1]
G. Bühler (1886), F. Max Müller: "of the gods", "of their years".[2]
Patrick Olivelle (2005):[3]
- (p. 240: 1.61) "This roughly translates into 12,000 divine years or 4,320,000 human years"
- (p. 241: 1.71) "These four ... of the gods" Jroberson108 (Diskussion) 13:46, 2. Mär. 2021 (CET)
- ↑ Sir William Jones (1807) [1st ed. 1794]. "The Laws of Menu, Son of Brahma - Chapter The First: On the Creation; with a Summary of the Contents". The Works of Sir William Jones in thirteen volumes. Vol. VII. pp. 102–105 (1.67–79). [1].
- ↑ G. Bühler (1886). "Ch. 1, The Creation". In F. Max Müller (ed.). The Laws of Manu: translated with extracts from seven commentaries. Sacred Books of the East. Vol. XXV. Oxford University Press. pp. 20–22 (1.67–79). [2].
- ↑ Patrick Olivelle (2005). Manu's Code of Law. Oxford University Press. pp. 240–241 (1.61, 1.71). ISBN 0-19-517146-2. [3].
- Does the article say that the interpretation as years of the gods is false? No. You should not start an EW with an insufficient understanding of the (german) article text. BTW, you are citing Olivelle from the notes section, not from his translation. -- Wolfgang Rieger (Diskussion) 14:01, 2. Mär. 2021 (CET)
- The way the article is written and the use of the word "however" to separate the Manusmriti's and Purana's details implies a contradiction between the two. The description about "years of the gods" exists in both texts, and the article should reflect that. In their Sanskrit, neither text has it converted to human years. The conversion from divine to human years is a calculation done by the commentators and readers based on information provided in both texts, not just the Purana. (nicht signierter Beitrag von Jroberson108 (Diskussion | Beiträge) 14:48, 2. Mär. 2021 (CET))
- There is no "however" in the article text. If your criticism is based on Google Translate, let it be. -- Wolfgang Rieger (Diskussion) 15:21, 2. Mär. 2021 (CET)
- The way the article is written and the use of the word "however" to separate the Manusmriti's and Purana's details implies a contradiction between the two. The description about "years of the gods" exists in both texts, and the article should reflect that. In their Sanskrit, neither text has it converted to human years. The conversion from divine to human years is a calculation done by the commentators and readers based on information provided in both texts, not just the Purana. (nicht signierter Beitrag von Jroberson108 (Diskussion | Beiträge) 14:48, 2. Mär. 2021 (CET))