Thou, Hero, art a warrior, thou art giver of abundant spoil. Strengthening e'en the feeble, thou aidest the sacrificer, thou givest the offerer ample wealth.
For, Hero, thou art like a host, art giver of abundant prey. Strengthening even the feeble, thou aidest the sacrificer, thou givest the worshipper ample wealth.
Ralph T. H. Griffith
The surface that matched
Both passages fold to the same comparison surface. Accents, word breaks and sandhi are removed before comparison, so this string is not how either text reads.
asi hi vīra senyo si bhūri parādadiḥ asi dabhrasya cid vṛdho yajamānāya śikṣasi sunvate bhūri te vasu
Thou, Hero, art a warrior, thou art giver of abundant spoil. Strengthening e'en the feeble, thou aidest the sacrificer, thou givest the offerer ample wealth.
असि हि वीर सेन्योऽसि भूरि पराददिः । असि दभ्रस्य चिद्वृधो यजमानाय शिक्षसि सुन्वते भूरि ते वसु
No English rendering is linked to this passage.
The surface that matched
Both passages fold to the same comparison surface. Accents, word breaks and sandhi are removed before comparison, so this string is not how either text reads.
These links are derived by comparing normalised Sanskrit surfaces. They show that two collections carry the same wording. They are not, by themselves, a demonstrated line of transmission between them, and the direction stored on an edge is a property of how it was built.
Rigveda is one of four collections held here. Cross-corpus comparison bottoms out at the weakest shared surface, because a Devanagari text and a romanised text share no code points.
How these were derived2
Parallelism is symmetric and this graph stores it as a directed edge, so these relations are traversed in both directions and each row states which way the stored edge ran. All 1,684 REUSES_TEXT_FROM edges point Samaveda-to-Rigveda, and 1,421 Rigvedic passages have reuse edges only inbound; following the arrow would show those 1,421 verses no reuse at all.
measured
SHARES_ENTITY_VOCABULARY_WITH is not textual parallelism. It means two passages name some of the same registry concepts and says nothing about shared wording, so it is reported with relation_kind=ENTITY_VOCABULARY_OVERLAP and is excluded from textual_total.