Inline dots in Kāvyamālā Commentary Canto 5

[MAMMHOTH]

How should we understand and encode those dots (p. 61)? Should they be <metamark/>ed (e.g. <metamark place="inline">......</metamark> although the dots are rather at the top of the line not at the bottom)?

[ppasedach]

I suppose the editors were not able to read their manuscript there, or maybe already their manuscript had a marked lacuna. I would not worry too much about the position of the dots. It seems, however, that in both cases we have two groups of three dots. Encoding them the way you did should be fine.

[MAMMHOTH]

OK thanks a lot. I was also thinking that there were probably some problems with the source since there are also question marks popping up every now and then in the commentary:

Would those also have to be encoded as <metamark/> or something else btw?

[ppasedach]

Oh, that's a reference to Yogasūtra 3.4, "trayam ekatra saṃyamaḥ," the three being dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi, i.e. the upper three of the eight aṅgas, here in an odd order. Interesting. I'll have to see if there's more like that around there.

<metamark>(?)</metamark> should be okay, or, you could also transcribe it as it is. It apparently is an editorial insertion expressing doubt about their reading.