WIL — Wilson A Dictionary in Sanscrit and English (1832, 2nd edn)

Chapter authored per Decision 29 Tier B. Position 7 in the atlas ordering — the base from which the European Sanskrit-lexicography tradition departs; no systematic hedge convention.

Trust Block

Evidence: CDSL v02 wil.txt, src/data/cross-dict.json, and linked dictionary-profile/audit notes.
Limitations: narrative atlas profile; counts summarize committed/generated artifacts and do not replace source edition inspection.
Validation: checked by npm run build; chapter consistency is tracked in _consistency_audit.
Owner repo: csl-atlas.
Next use: use this dictionary profile as context, then open source-linked records or compare the lemma in Reader Lookup.

Horace Hayman Wilson's A Dictionary in Sanscrit and English; translated, amended, and enlarged, from an original compilation prepared by learned natives for the College of Fort William, 2nd edition Calcutta 1832 (the first dictionary in Devanāgarī printed in India; 1st edn 1819, also Calcutta). The earliest CDSL dictionary and the base from which the European Sanskrit-lexicography tradition departs. Wilson's compilation rests on an indigenous-Indian word list prepared by Calcutta College paṇḍits (chiefly an Amarakośa-derived inventory) which Wilson then translated, annotated, and supplemented with citations from the Roxburgh botanical catalogue. The structural-features story is therefore inverted compared to MW: where MW has 18 blocks and a 6-block kernel, WIL has effectively one citation source (Roxburgh) and otherwise relies on bare glosses. WIL is what comes before the European editorial apparatus is layered on.


Records	44,577
Volumes	1 (single-volume)
Year	1832 (2nd edn); 1819 (1st edn, also Calcutta)
Editor	H. H. Wilson (with the Calcutta College paṇḍits)
Publisher	Education Press, Calcutta
Source language	Sanskrit
Target language	English
Genre	Structured bilingual scholarly dictionary (earliest CDSL)
`<ls>` citations total	230 (essentially no apparatus)
`<ls>` citations/record	0.005
`<ls>L.</ls>` hedges	0 (no systematic convention attested in print or digital record)
License	CC-BY-SA-4.0
Repo	sanskrit-lexicon/WIL
Source file	`csl-orig/v02/wil/wil.txt`

2. Structural features (Tier B: in place of profile table)

WIL has <lex> tagged grammar (the gender / part-of-speech apparatus) but essentially no <ls> source citations — 230 tags total across 44,577 records, of which 224 are <ls>Rox.</ls> (Roxburgh's Hortus Bengalensis / Flora Indica botanical catalogue). The full table of <ls> markers (analysis/LS_HEDGE_CHECK.md):

`<ls>` siglum	Source	Count
`<ls>Rox.</ls>`	Roxburgh's botanical catalogue	224
`<ls>Rox. Catalogue</ls>`	(longer form)	1
`<ls>Roxburgh's Catalogue</ls>`	(full form)	1
`<ls>ROXBURGH'S catalogue</ls>`	(caps variant)	1
`<ls>Rox.'s {%Catalogue%}</ls>`	(italic variant)	1
`<ls>Rox.'s Cata.</ls>`	(abbrev variant)	1
`<ls>{%As. R.%} {%Vol.%} viii. p. 442</ls>`	Asiatic Researches vol. VIII	1

This is the base case of Sanskrit-English lexicography: a dictionary with a defined word list (the Amarakośa-derived Calcutta inventory), translation glosses, and one specialised citation apparatus (Roxburgh for botany). Everything else — the philological scholarly apparatus, the kosha-tradition naming, the lexicographer hedge — is added by later editors (Böhtlingk-Roth in PWG, Monier-Williams in MW).

Block-presence by name:

3. Citation strategy — single-source

WIL's apparatus is single-source (Roxburgh). Every entry of botanical character carries <ls>Rox.</ls> (or one of the formatting variants above); other entries carry no <ls> citation at all. This is not a sign of poor scholarship — Wilson's design choice was to publish the Calcutta College's Amarakośa-derived inventory + English glosses as a working reference for Company Bahadur officers and missionaries, not to compete with the European philological tradition. The detailed apparatus came later: PWG (1855–75) is the first European Sanskrit dictionary with a systematic citation discipline.

WIL's type-citation profile is therefore mostly flat at zero. Where the citation rate is non-zero (botanical entries), it is 100 % <ls>Rox.</ls> — a single-source apparatus on a sub-population.

3a. Typography & precedent — no systematic hedge convention

Per the 2026-05-27 print-preface and digital-record read (analysis/LS_HEDGE_CHECK.md "Wilson 1832"):

The Wilson 1832 print preface (OCR-fetched in part) shows no systematic convention marking words attested only in indigenous lexicons. The Calcutta College compilation Wilson worked from is an Amarakośa-derived inventory; the distinction Wilson cared about was "the inventory" vs "additional Wilson material", not "kosha-only vs literary-attested".
The digital record carries 0 <ls>L.</ls> hedges and 0 typographic asterisks / daggers in the tagged data.
The closest thing to a hedge in WIL is the implicit fact that any entry without a citation is implicitly lexicographer-attested — but the dictionary does not mark this; the reader must infer it.

WIL is therefore not part of the three-stage hedge lineage (Benfey 1866 † → MW 1872 preface → Cappeller 1891 * → MW 1899 <ls>L.</ls>). WIL belongs to the pre-hedge tradition of Sanskrit lexicography — the base before the European typographic apparatus was added.

5. Lineage statement

WIL occupies the base position in the European-Sanskrit-lexicography lineage. It is the first English-Sanskrit dictionary printed in India and the earliest CDSL dictionary. Its word list comes from the Calcutta College's indigenous-paṇḍit compilation (essentially Amarakośa + Hemacandra material, the same indigenous-kosha tradition that PWG would later cite by name and MW would later compress into <ls>L.</ls>). The European Sanskrit-lexicography lineage that comes after — PWG 1855–75, PWK 1879–89, Benfey 1866, Cappeller 1891, MW 1872/1899, Apte 1890/1957 — all draw on Wilson directly (PWG cites <ls>WILS.</ls> 2,014×; MW cites <ls>W.</ls> 8,285×) and all add layers of apparatus that Wilson did not.

Full lineage in WIL/DICT_PROFILE.md.

6. Cross-references — divergence/convergence with adjacent chapters

Adjacent chapter	Convergence	Divergence
← prior: CAE	Both single-volume; both have effectively zero `<ls>` tagged apparatus	CAE has 1,370-instance systematic typographic hedge (`` for lexicographer-only); WIL has no systematic hedge convention at all. CAE is the systematic-precedent* node (1891), WIL is the base node (1832); 59 years and an entire methodology separate them
next →: SKD	Both 1820–30s compilations rooted in indigenous-Indian scholarship (WIL from Calcutta College, SKD from Bengal Sanskrit scholarship)	WIL is bilingual (Sanskrit → English); SKD is monolingual Sanskrit-Sanskrit (the kośa tradition itself, not a European reading of it); WIL is structured-bilingual genre, SKD is genre-bound `iti`-citation. The genre boundary in the atlas falls here: WIL is the last structured bilingual chapter, SKD is the first genre-bound chapter

7. Decisions log

Tier B template per Decision 29 (compact + typography slot optional). Since WIL has no systematic hedge convention, §3a is reduced to the negative finding (no marker found in print preface or digital record).
Single-source apparatus narrative is the chapter's structural centre: Roxburgh-botany only, 224 of 230 <ls> tags.
No participation in the three-stage hedge lineage — explicit per D21 resolution. WIL's word list is the kosha tradition; WIL just doesn't mark it as such.
Effect-size threshold (D19): numerical claims (224 of 230, 100 % botanical-<ls> rate) exceed the threshold trivially.

8. Data dictionary + reproducibility manifest

DATA_DICTIONARY.md — full tag inventory
Source file: csl-orig/v02/wil/wil.txt
Block-detector script: figures/scripts/export_data.py
Cross-dict aggregate JSON: src/data/cross-dict.json (includes WIL block matrix data)
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0