Guest guest Posted October 20, 2002 Report Share Posted October 20, 2002 On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, jiva das wrote: > What could be simpler than that? Um, for example, R instead of eR (which obscures the fact that R is a vowel); e and ai instead of ai and AI (what could be less simple than the latter); ca and cha instead of cha and chha; and so on. > Why can we not unify to a single transliteration of > sanskrit? Because we love to bicker over such trivialities, as your reply will demonstrate. But really, Jiva, there is already more or less of a working consensus on systems of transliteration. I don't think it is regarded by most Sanskritists as a serious problem. With all due respect, your proposed system, idiosyncratic and awkward, is not much of a help. Glad to see you onlist. There is a lot to talk about. P. Ernest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 During discussions under the Indology group not only Sanskrit but also other Indian languages get involved. The transliteration scheme best suited for such a case is the 7-bit scheme of Dr Stone and may be downloaded from the site: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/tr7.htm This is based on the ISO 15919 (Transliteration of Indian scripts into Latin characters with diacritics) which was finalized in August 2001 or so after a long discussion of Indologists for four years. Regards. Narayan Prasad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.