On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 1:51 PM, C.A. Formigatti <caf57@cam.ac.uk> wrote: I would use the ISO-15919 transliteration system only when I edit a text. Preparing a diplomatic transliteration of a manuscript is something different,

Harry Spier wrote:

To my mind the problem is that if you can't use a transliteration standard to prepare a diplomatic transliteration then there is something wrong with that transliteration standard.  Surely thats the purpose of a transliteration standard. Note that the  rule for normalizing anusvaras to class nasals is a "required rule" and not a recommendation or option.  As you pointed out the normalization of nasals is bad practice for transcribing manuscripts.  The normalization of nasals  was pointed out as a problem in editing manuscripts about 20 years ago on this list: 

see http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/1996-February/004161.html

But by making the normalization of nasals a required practice for sanskrit the standard is saying this is good practice.

Thanks,

Harry Spier

I have just been going through the ISO standard for transliteration of Devanagari and related Indic scripts ISO-15919 and I found something quite surpriseing.

Note the following rule quoted exactly  from the standard is a requirement not an option. The rule includes an example from Sanskrit.
---------------------

8.1 Special requirements
Rule 3.
a)

In modern vernaculars, anusvara before a stop or class nasal shall be transliterated as the corresponding class nasal; in other languages, anusvara before a stop or class nasal shall be transliterated as thecorresponding class nasal unless it arises from sandhi (euphonic combination) of final m with that consonant.

EXAMPLE 1 Sanskrit संग is transliterated as saṁga when it represents the noun formed from sam + root gam, but as saṅga when it represents the noun derived from the root sañj
------------------------------

That means in many cases  if you transliterated a manuscript exactly as it was keeping all anusvaras as anusvaras you would not be following the ISO standard for transliteration.  It also seems to me the standard is crossing the line from transliteration into "interpretation".

I'm somewhat surprised this found its way into the standard.

Harry Spier
.

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)