Draft transliteration scheme on the Web
Palaniappa at AOL.COM
Thu Jun 18 03:17:21 UTC 1998
In a message dated 98-06-17 08:05:07 EDT, stone_catend at COMPUSERVE.COM writes:
<< "Tamil" is a well established form in English. One may see "Tamizh"
already, but there would be no real need for "Tamiz" to come in. (The
standard is not going to suggest a simplified transliteration with the
diacritics simply omitted. Without diacritics, Tamil .t usually becomes
t and t becomes th. Also .s usually becomes sh and "s becomes either sh
or s.) >>
But there is one context of relevance to scholars where this will happen. I am
talking about the computerized catalogs of libraries in US libraries and
possibly other countries using similar systems. For instance, I am listing an
item from the University of Texas at Austin's on-line library catalog.
Tiruvaymoli. / Nammalvar / Kancipuram / 1975-
BL 1226.3 N24 1975 V.1 PCL Stacks IN COLLECTIONS DEPOSIT LIB - ASK AT
Please note that here no diacritic marks are possible. Dental "t" is just "t",
not "th". (In fact retroflex "T" will also be "t".) The l_macr-b letter is
just "l". In fact, most of existing collections with titles with this letter
will be listed in the catalogs like this. If, according to the new standard,
they become z_dot-b, then the newer acquisitions will end up with lists
showing "-z-", while the old books will have -l-. Unless, the libraries modify
the software to automatically list both varieties, every time one searches for
an item with this letter in title (or even author) one will have to go through
twice as many steps. One has to search for items once with a title with -l-
and once with -z-. Allen Thrasher can probably add more to this.
Generally, life will be a lot simpler if we just continue with l_macr-b.
More information about the INDOLOGY