typing Sanskrit

[MDSAAA48 at GIASMD01.VSNL.NET.IN]

This is fine for classical Sanskrit. But, wouldn't the problem get
compounded when there is a demand to include vedic accents and the typical
(1) Mundarica, (2) Tamil or (3) Persian sounds such (absorbed into later-day
repertoire of the  languages) as the following required for comparative
linguistic or Praakrt studies: (1) ng; (2) n and n- (vallina na-karam); Z
(ZZHA); L; R; (3) f? Regards. Kalyanaraman.

>Thank you all for taking interest in BO.
>
>Pullat Devadas Das have asked for the actual rendering of the whole sequence
>of marks in BO. Here you are:
> 
>a, aa, i, ii,   u,  uu,  r_,  r_r_, l_, l_l_, e, ai, o, au,
>k, kh, g, gh, n-, 
>c, ch, j, jh, n~, 
>t, th, d, dh, n, 
>t_, t_h, d_, d_h, n_, 
>p, ph, b, bh, m,  
>y, r, l, v, 
>s-, s_, s, 
>h, h_ (visarga), 
>m- (anusvara),  [if necessary: m=  (anunaasika), l-] .
>
>
>In response to Jacob Cejka' letter:
> 
>> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Leslaw Borowski wrote:
>> 
>> > I don't quite understand. 1) You don't have to put diacritical marks BEFORE
>> > writing a letter (which goes against normal practice)
>> 
>> I wonder what means "normal practice here". My native tongue is one of 
>> those which use the latin alphabet with various diacritics. On the 
>> typewriter
> 
>> I wonder how one can say it is unnatural. In handwritten Czech we put 
>> diacritics afterwards and in typed before and no one complains about 
>> either way being unnatural.  
>Well, most of man's activity is not purely "natural". What I mean by natural
>way of writing is the order of marking diacritics in the handwritten form.
>Why I call it "normal practice"? For 1) I compare number of people who can
>write with a pencil with number of people who can type; 2) I notice people
>who can type with no exception can write with a pencil. So, all people (with
>possible few exceptions) start with writing diacritics after a given letter
>that need it. For them to get accustomed to mark diacritical mark  the way 
>typewriter demands is not natural. You may call it "second nature" etc. but the
>fact seems to be it is not convenient for most people (maybe for you or a
>few other natural talents this is not true).
>
>> Not only the diacritics, note that the Indian scripts write even the 
>> vowel signs of the syllable-letters (which are somewhat analogical to 
>> diacritics in fonological scripts) before the consonant sign (short i 
>> everywhere and e in the East and South). Is that unnatural? 
>If you are interested in my humble opinion - YES, it is unnatural. For that
>simple reason the way people speak is different from the way they write. Shall
>I elaborate?
> 
>> And in music most of the auxiliary or modificatory signs are written 
>> before the actual note sign ...  
>Composers rather don't type their compositions while composing them. And I
>don't say you cannot learn all those systems. I say they very often go
>against your earlier customs (in that sense they are unnatural) which makes
>them inconvenient.
>		Regards,		
>			Leslaw Borowski
>PS Polish also has diacritical marks as many other languages and if I
>remember it right one either uses separate fonts or writes the way you
>described it.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>> Mr. Jakub Cejka
>> Dept. of Sanskrit, University of Pune
>> Ganeshkhind, Pune, India  411 007
>> 
>> e-mail:  jakub at unipune.ernet.in   (till July 97 the latest)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>