Towards a machine-readable Mahābhārata
The following text documents the first stage in my work on the electronic
text of the Mahābhārata: the techniques described were employed during
the mid-1990s to produce a usable but still very flawed text. Subsequently that
text became the basis of a project, conducted from 1997 to 2001 in association
with the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune, and with generous
funding from the British Academy and the Society for South Asian Studies, to
employ a team of assistants to correct the entire electronic Mahābhārata
“by hand”. The text available from this website is the result of that
Professor Muneo Tokunaga of Kyoto has typed up the complete Sanskrit text of
both the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, and has made these
electronic texts available via the Internet. In principle, this means that
certain highly intensive tasks (for example, metrical analysis, analysis of
diction, or the building of concordances), which would previously have been
almost unthinkable for such enormous works, are now much more feasible. And at
a smaller scale, it also becomes possible to check through the texts for usage
of particular words or phrases, and to manipulate them in other ways — such as
printing them in high-quality Devanagari
A number of problems arise for users who wish to use the these texts for
purposes other than those which Prof. Tokunaga had in mind. There are
inconsistencies in format or spelling; the transliteration used is hard to read
and often ambiguous; the form in which the texts are presented differs markedly
from “normal” Sanskrit; there are frequent typographic errors; and, in the case
of the Mahābhārata, it suffers from the consequences of a policy
decision which essentially results in all compounds being split up
into apparently separate “words”.
Despite such problems, these electronic texts are potentially so
valuable that I have tried to convert them into a more generally
usable form. This has meant the following broad objectives:
As far as possible, I have tried to tackle these problems by means of
automatic procedures, rather than by hand: I have written numbers of
Perl programs to carry out particular emendations or check for
particular problems (the directory where I store these currently
contains 21 such programs). The greater part of objectives 1-4 is met
by a single program named mconv,
while a suite of programs seeks to address objective 5. However, a
huge amount of “hands on” work has also been necessary.
- the format in
which the texts are stored should be standardised;
- a “legible”
should replace Tokunaga's seven-bit system, in which long vowels
are represented by doubled characters and retroflexes by
capitalised characters (so that the heroes of
the Mahābhārata are the paaNDavas);
- the text should be a simple transcription —
compounds should not be split up, sandhi should not be undone;
errors should be corrected;
- the broken
compounds resulting from Tokunaga's use (in his version of
the Mahābhārata only) of a single character to represent
both “end of word” and “end of compound member” should be mended.
Using these methods to improve the Mahābhārata text to the
point where it could be made public took me about a year; thereafter
I continued to make specific improvements on an occasional basis —
i.e. when I noticed some particularly annoying problem.
As far as format is concerned, I have followed Tokunaga's general
policy but tried to introduce consistency.
In attempting to get this format standardised, I have checked
mechanically to make sure
- Comments are introduced by the “%” sign; I have used these only
at the top of each file to allow me to detail its history and
- Normal text lines begin with a line number, which is slightly
different in the MBh and the R:
- In the MBh, the line number 123456781 would mean
“book 12, chapter 345, stanza 678, pādas 1 [and 2]”. If the
pada number is replaced by a capital letter, it signifies a
section of prose. If it is replaced by a space, it signifies
an X uvāca line.
- In the R, where there are fewer than ten books, no
prose and no X uvācas, 12345671 would mean “book 1,
chapter 234, stanza 567, pādas 1 [and 2]”.
- In both texts, anuṣṭubh lines are printed with two pādas on each
line (as is normal in Devanagari editions); triṣṭubh and other metres
also have two pādas per line, but separated by a semicolon. This
caused a major problem in the MBh, because Tokunaga uses
“;” both for that purpose and to indicate hiatus between vowels.
The problem did not really arise in the R, where he
indicates triṣṭubhs by the device of repeating their pādas.
There may well still be mistakes in this general area, but I think
they must be few in number.
- that all lines begin with a valid line number containing the
right number of digits/capital letters in the right positions;
- that every line number can legitimately follow the line number
- that all “long” lines in both the MBh and the R do
contain one and only one semicolon.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Tokunaga's seven-bit ASCII system of
transcription, but it is difficult to read and therefore prone to errors. I
have converted his texts into the
eight-bit CSX encoding. I chose this not
for its inherent merits (it has few) or because it is well suited to the Unix
environment in which I work (it is very badly suited) but because it is the
only attempt at a standard eight-bit encoding known to me, and standards are
precious things. In converting the texts I have done my best to resolve the
ambiguities in Tokunaga's original material, where “m” may be the labial nasal
or anusvara, “h” may be the voiced breathing or visarga, and “n” may be the
dental, palatal or velar nasal.
The only area where it is likely that errors may remain is the conversion of
“n” to velar “ṅ”, which has to be largely done on a case-by-case basis. If
errors do remain here, they are certainly not numerous.
3. Transcription method
Tokunaga's texts are entered with vowel sandhi undone and compounds broken up,
ostensibly to facilitate word searches. I do not believe that this is
desirable, since the texts ought to be usable for other purposes (printing
high-quality copy in Devanagari, metrical analysis, analysis of diction, etc.), and
since there is not in fact any real difficulty in performing word searches on
normal Sanskrit texts — with care, even a “difficult” word like api can
be isolated and searched for. I have therefore normalised the sandhi and
attempted to rejoin the compounds.
In the MBh, consonant sandhi was handled by Tokunaga in such a way as to
necessitate undoing and then redoing it all. (For example, final “c” in a word
might represent the form after sandhi, as in
tac ca, or it might represent an idealised pre-sandhi form,
as in vāc.)
Reapplying vowel sandhi automatically rejoins many compound members. Other
compounds pose no problem in the R, where Tokunaga distinguishes between
“.” (= hyphen between compound members) and “..” (= space between words). In
the MBh there are extremely difficult problems in this area
(see section 5 below).
4. Correction of typographic errors
The MBh text appears to me less carefully typed up than the
R. I have not done a great deal in the way of textual
correction of the R. In the MBh, I have
- made global changes to certain commonly misspelt words (e.g.
cest- for ceST-, i.e. ceṣṭ-);
- searched out and eliminated all “impossible” letters (f, q etc.);
- searched out and eliminated all “impossible” 2-letter sequences
(ao, bk etc.);
- made an attempt to correct spellings in the second half of the
Śāntiparvan, where Tokunaga did not distinguish retroflexes from
dentals, and also in a smaller section of the
Āraṇyakaparvan, where a less extreme version of the same
problem was found. This last exercise has certainly not
eliminated all the errors in these two sections of the
- made corrections by hand wherever I have noticed specific errors.
5. Eliminating spaces from within
In the MBh, Tokunaga uses “.” to indicate both end of word and
end of compound member. When this is translated into the standardised
system I am aiming at, the result is that compounds are broken up by
spaces. Eliminating these “false spaces” is a very serious difficulty.
I believe that I have so far managed to remove about 75% of them by
the semi-automatic process described below.
The method that I have used attempts to teach the computer how to
distinguish “false spaces” from genuine spaces by comparing sections
of Tokunaga text with corrected equivalents.
It was only after I had gone through this process with the first
four sections of Mahābhārata text mentioned above that I
looked for the first time at Tokunaga's Rāmāyaṇa. I then
realised that his use of “.” and “..” in the R allowed me to
create (so to speak) deliberately incorrect versions of every
kāṇḍa, as well as “corrected” versions. I did this, and fed
the results into mkmconv in just the same way as with
sections of MBh text, since there was likely to be
significant overlap between the two epics. This produced large
numbers of further improvements.
- First, I correct a section of text by hand, choosing passages
which I know well enough to be able to do fairly quickly and
easily; so far these have been the Gītā, Nala,
the Ambopākhyāna at the end of the Udyogaparvan,
chapters 66-68 of the Sabhāparvan, and 13 chapters from
the battle narrative of the Bhīṣmaparvan.
- Next, I feed the uncorrected and corrected versions of this
passage into a Perl program
named mkmconv, which
isolates all cases where the difference between the two is simply
the presence/absence of a space.
- Mkmconv ends by
which presents me with these cases one at a time, after first
eliminating ones it already knows about, and asks me whether (a)
the form preceding the false space can always be assumed
to be a stem forming part of a compound, as in e.g. ratna
dhanāni, or whether (b) it might be able to stand on its own
as a word, as in e.g. bhīma parākramaḥ.
- If I tell it that the form is an (a) type, the program constructs
a command meaning “remove all spaces immediately following the
- If I tell it that the form is a (b) type, the program constructs
a command meaning “remove all spaces occurring between
bhīma and parākram”, stripping obvious
case-inflections off the second word in order to make the command
apply as generally as possible. (This has its dangers, which the
program tries to be alert to.)
- The resulting collections of commands are then added to the
ready to be applied to the rest of the MBh text. (Also,
obviously, the corrected section of text is inserted in its
This method has been very successful, but it has intrinsic
limitations, and I think it may be nearing the end of its usefulness
— the graph of corrections achieved against effort expended is
levelling off, and there are a lot of cases that it simply cannot
handle properly. A major example is proper names. My system cannot
close up spaces after all occurrences of (e.g.) bhīma because
bhīma may be a vocative; it is restricted to closing up
specific cases that happen to have been drawn to its attention, such
as bhīma parākram. The next task must be to deal with all
cases of bhīma<space> etc. by means of “sweeps”
through the entire Mahābhārata using an editor interactively.
Unfortunately the MBh has a large cast of characters, many of
them known by numerous
different names; in addition
there are many other words
that require similar treatment because they cannot always be assumed
to be stems.
Back to home page