Poverty -Reply

[James L. Fitzgerald]

Since I guess it was my posting that occasioned these two questions, I'll
respond as to my own use of z for the palatal sibilant.  I am simply
mimicking the usage of Prof. Tokunaga's transliteration in his electronic
version of the MBh.  It is simply one way to make regular expression searches
of the electronic text easier.  His version of the Arthazaastra carries
the scheme out more fully.  I employ it in e-mail, etc., simply as an inter-
mediate, pragmatic solution to an annoying technological discrepancy.
For my own written work I either use a cobbled together set of characters
and macros in Word Perfect 6.1 or, more satisfactory in terms of the final
product, a set of specially designed diacritical characters for the
HPLaserjetIII that I access through the ancient post-processor in FinalWordII
(a beloved old friend that is aging gracefully, in spite of GUIs, SVGA, etc.)
If and when the Indological world arrives at some convenient standard for all
these script-issues I'll join up too as soon as it's easy.

Jim Fitzgerald


On Wed, 23 Aug 1995 21:44:04 BST Henry Groover said:
>I'm also curious about this.  I thought CSX encoding used sh for the first
>and shh for the second.  The only table I've seen for 7-bit ICSS encoding
>comes from itrans documentation by Avinash Chopde.
>
>- Henry Groover
>HGroover at Qualitas.com
>
>>>> Mani Varadarajan <mani at srirangam.esd.sgi.com> 08/23/95
>09:28pm >>>
>As an aside, since when has it become standard to use "Z" for the first
>"sha" (I forget its technical name) in  transliteration when diacritics are
>not available? It is a most confusing convention.  Why not use "S" for
>the first
>"sha" and "sh" for the second? This is what I have always done, and it
>has the advantage of not being visually jarring to the reader.
>
>Mani
>
>
>
>