Herman Tull hwtull at MSN.COM
Sat Sep 17 15:00:54 UTC 2011

Thanks for the reference to Scharf & Hyman; this is a fabulous work.

Unfortunately, two mysteries for the Harvard Kyoto transliteration 
convention remain, namely the long vowel "r" (ṝ / ॠ transliterated as "q" by 
Scharf and Hyman and also, Wujastyk, but as "RR" by others) and the short 
vowel "l" (ḷ /ऌ  transliterated as "L" by Scharf and Hyman and also, 
Wujastyk, but by others as "lR").

I realize that H-K has been superseded by other conventions, but it is 
useful (because of its simplicity) for student e-mails, and also because it 
is used in the on-line Monier Williams dictionary 
( and

Incidentally, the on-line MW uses the "RR" (long vowel "r"; ṝ / ॠ) and "lR" 
conventions (short vowel "l"; ḷ /ऌ).

Any further insights into this would be greatly appreciated.

Herman Tull

-----Original Message----- 
From: Daniel Stender
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] transliteration

Generally most comprehensive dealing with different transliteration schemes 
and recently available
online: Scharf/Hyman's "Linguistic issues encoding Sanskrit"

Daniel Stender

Am 12.09.2011 21:47, schrieb Herman Tull:
> I am doing some work with transliteration schemes, and I notice that in 
> some documentation of the
> Harvard Kyoto system the long vowel “r” is denoted as “q”; other sources 
> have it as “RR.”  Does
> anyone have any information on which is correct?
> Additionally, has anyone had the experience of choosing or being asked to 
> choose one of the non-IAST
> systems (e.g., Velthius, Harvard Kyoto, ITRANS) for traditionally 
> published works?
> Herman Tull
> Princeton, NJ

GPG key ID: 1654BD9C 

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list