[INDOLOGY] Anusvara in IAST transliteration

[Walter Slaje]

Ultimately, every transliteration is a convention, and once you understand
it, there are no problems. Neither ṃ nor ṁ causes any misunderstanding on
the part of the reader. As far as system logic is concerned, we all use ḥ
for visarga, even though it is not a retroflex sound. If this were a valid
argument, one would also have to consistently demand that the dot be placed
above the h, creating the character ḣ.
In truth, the dotted ṁ imitates the anusvāra in Indian scripts graphically.
Everyone should proceed with the transcription of the anusvāra as they are
accustomed to and deem appropriate. I believe that whether one uses ṃ or ṁ,
there will be no undesirable consequences.

Best, WS


Am Mo., 2. März 2026 um 09:17 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Silk via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info>:

> I'm pretty sure that this ship has sailed, but for what it's worth: ṃ does
> not indicate a retroflex, which is what all other under-dots indicate in
> Skt transcription (most: we can argue about ṛ, but for this I use r̥
> anyway, also for similar reasons!). Therefore it is most logical to use ṁ.
> (I started doing this when we used to use underlines, when all underdots
> disappeared unless one skipped an underline in one particular place, which
> was always a mess).
> So maybe it's only "old man yells at cloud" but I think ṁ is the logical
> way to go (as is r̥), and will continue to use it / them….
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:03 AM Dániel Balogh via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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
>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>
>
>
> --
> Prof. dr. J.A. Silk
> Professor in the study of Buddhism
> Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, LIAS
> Herta Mohr building 2.142
> Witte Singel 27A
> 2311 BG Leiden
> The Netherlands
>
> Guest Professor, PI of ERC-Project BEST
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> Department für Asienstudien, Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie
> Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
> 80539 München
> Deutschland
>
> website: www.OpenPhilology.eu
> copies of my publications may be found at
> https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/JASilk
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> 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/20260302/0eedcfa6/attachment.htm>