[INDOLOGY] Anusvara in IAST transliteration

[Tieken, H.J.H. (Herman)]

Dear List Members, as to the question of whether the dot of the anusvāra should be on top of or below the m, see F.B.J. Kuiper, Gopālakelicandrikā, A Kr̥ṣṇa-Play by Rāmakr̥ṣṇa. Amsterdam (1987), pp. 6-7, where he writes:

The only reason why the IXth International Congress of Orientalists at Geneva (1897) voted in favour of ṃ was the circumstance that German scholars at that time used to transcribe Devanāgarī (with a pen!) into so-called Frakturschrift. As Bruno Liebich, Kṣīrataraṅgiṇī (1939), p. 240f., rightly pointed out, this is now no longer a valid argument for maintaining the anomalous spelling ṃ.

My problem with the anomality of ṃ is that I do not know where I can find the m with the dot on top on my Keyman/Gāndhārī.

Herman

Herman Tieken
's-Herenstraat 66
3155 SL Maasland
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)10 7617502
00 (0)6 14652798
website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/>

The Aśoka Inscriptions: Analysing a corpus, New Delhi: Primus Books, 2023.
https://primusbooks.com/ancient/the-asoka-inscriptions-analysing-a-corpus-by-herman-tieken/


________________________________
Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> namens Dániel Balogh via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
Verzonden: maandag 2 maart 2026 09:01
Aan: Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier at gmail.com>
CC: indology at list.indology.info <indology at list.indology.info>
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] Anusvara in IAST transliteration

Dear Harry,

IAST is not an absolute standard in the way ISO-15919 is; it's more like a set of conventions, without a definitive document and hence malleable at the edges. There is, for example, no definite provision in IAST for the upadhmānīya and jihvāmūlīya (the transliterations listed on the Wikipedia page for IAST are just one of the options in use), nor for the Vedic retroflex l, much less for Dravidian retroflexes and alveolars. The same Wikipedia page gives ḻ for the retroflex l, which I have never seen before and which clashes with the convention of using ḻ for the sound in e.g. Tamiḻ.
I personally have never heard of a flavour of IAST that uses an overdot for the anusvāra and agree with you that the IAST anusvāra is with an underdot. The first of two random Google hits agree: https://www.omniglot.com/writing/sanskrit.htm and https://fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/education/translation/guide_to_sanskrit_transliteration_and_pronunciation.pdf
I dare say that as far as IAST can be considered a standard, the "correct" IAST anusvāra is ṃ, while ṁ is an informal alternative. So, put in so many words, yes, Wikipedia is wrong.
See also the stub on the discussion page for the IAST article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration#Anusvara

All the best,
Daniel

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 at 02:10, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
Dear list members,

I had always thought that anusvara in IAST was m with underdot (thats what GRETIL, SARIT and U ot Texas Etexts have and what I've always used) but just now looking at the wikipedia articles: Devanagari Transliteration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari_transliteration
and  IAST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration
Both these articles have IAST anusvara as m overdot. Are these wikipedia articles wrong or have we all (GRETIL,SARIT, Uof Texas, me) not been using correct IAST transliteration?

Thanks,
Harry Spier

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY at list.indology.info<mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20260302/136993c5/attachment.htm>