Typing Sanskrit
Peter J. Claus
pclaus at haywire.csuhayward.edu
Mon Aug 26 15:03:04 UTC 1996
Although I, too, am not a Sanskritist and I try to avoid the task of
writing ANY SA language in Romanized script (for the languages I work in,
if the reader knows the language, they know the script), it seems to me
that a strong advantage of a transcription method for computers that uses as
few 'search and replace' variables is preferable over one which requires
many. Someone else mentioned using macros. A macros devised to search
and replace, say, '@' throughout the text could rely on a simple 'case
statement' to change a@, i@, u@ ... d@ t@ (retroflexes) ... etc. The
addition of only one or two others could be used to handle languages with
three or four variants of an ascii character (eg. s, s@ [sh], s# [sya]).
Furthermore, making a number of variant transcription styles using the
same simple macro, changing only a couple of line, also would be
facilitated.
Eg., in editing contributions to an encyclopedia, I have found it
necessary to send the press one form of transcription
(K<r/.bl><s/.bl><n/.bl>a is how they want Kr at s@n at a) and to send the
contributors their edited copy in hardcopy with the diacritics in place,
above or below the line. The two different versions of an entire
manuscript with 100 transliterated terms can be done in a matter of two or
three seconds.
Finally, with the same set of @s, #s, and maybe ~s, one can do all SA and
Middle Eastern scripts (given, say, LC equivalency charts).
The system is not particularly pretty, but can be done on a typewriter,
too. It is not, however, MY system, but one some body has already
suggested to the LIST.
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list