None

[Dominik Wujastyk]

Jonathan says,
\begin{quotation}
 
 > Dominik's recent remarks made me think more about the problem of
 > Romanization, and one of the ways he put things made me sit up
 > and think:  What does it mean so separate the -what was the expression?
 > something anyway equivalent to the men from the boys (but less sexist)?
 > Here's one thing it means: any colleages who are not Indologists will
 > not be able to read our articles!!
 
\end{quotation}
 
It is a very important point, I agree.  But whenever I read a serious
book about ancient Greece, say, I have to manage the Greek script.  No
quarter is given by the classicists!
 
Perhaps it could be argued that proper names should be transliterated
as well as being in script.
 
The audience for a piece of writing must be an important consideration.  For
example, Thieme's seminal _Panini and the Veda_, published in Allahabad in
1935 had all the Skt. in Devanagari, and a reprint should keep it so, in
my view.  Anyone reading about subjects like Panini, Veda, Kavya, and so
on must be able to cope with Devanagari, if they are serious.  There is
just too much important stuff written on such subjects in Devanagari script
(Sanskrit, Hindi, Thieme-like, etc.) for progress to be possible without
the script (and the language).
 
Cardona's more recent book on Panini is odder in its conventions.  It's
a pity George isn't here on INDOLOGY, because he has obviously thought
about some of these issues, and I would be interested in his ideas.  In
his book, done on a Mac, he has used romanization throughout, but
actual Paninian sutras (and citations from other grammarians) are
duplicated in Devanagari.  We are used to grammar primers, like
Macdonnell, duplicating words in script and romanization, and it makes
sense in a pedagogical work.  But I don't see the point in Cardona's
book.
 
Dominik