None

[E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC]

I'm frankly not sure what Ken means about devolution of the discussion,
but anyway, the points seem to me to be:
I)  In favor of Nagari:
a)  Misprints can probably be reduced significantly.
b)  Scholars not familiar with romanization can use the work.
c)  It is traditional and classicists do it (mutatis mutandis).
d)  It looks "cool."
II)  Against Nagari:
a)  Data is perhaps  / probably not fully transferable.
b)  Non-specialists cannot read it (e.g., historians, linguists).
c)  Not all have the capacity to produce it, or produce it in a lovely
    way.
d)  Journals will cause an uproar if so requested.  (trivial if we
    unite to insist; it is importatnt to note in this regard that
    most Asianist journal still do not print even Japanese or
    Chinese (which cannot bemeaninfully romanized) in the body of
    articles!!!
>>  So, It seems we might provisionally conclude that editions of texts
which we think will be of minimal or no interest to those who do not
make the investment to learn Nagari can and should be printed in the
latter.  Texts in which some non-specialists (like Jamie, a specialist
in East Asian Buddhism) might take an interest and want to check a
word or phrase (does it say, e.g., stuupa, or does the extant Skt
have caitya?) should perhaps be printed in roman.  Words and
phrases - isn't it a little pedantic to put these into nagari?
I hope Ken does not consider this "forum-ish" and I wonder what he
thinks of the summary.
Jonathan Silk.