My reply just went to Jeff; here it is.

Herman Tull


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Herman Tull <hermantull@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on Diacritical Marks
To: Jeffery Long <dharmaprof108@yahoo.com>


Hi, Jeff:

Long ago, I used to follow my former mentor Wendy Doniger on this.  To paraphrase her position, Indologists will know what the Sanskrit words really are, and non-specialists will not care. But, I no longer agree with this.  For one thing, with the advent of on-line dictionaries, even non-scholars (or non
​-​
Indological scholars) have the opportunity to look up terms (and without the diacriticals those without Sanskrit, or those who have lost their Sanskrit) are
​lost.
  For another, the ease with which diacriticals can be added
​using modern technology ​
makes it inexcusable to leave them out. (In the the 80s, using one of the first personal word processing systems, I still had to add them in by hand
​ for my dissertation​
.)

Last but not least Sanskrit words are not
​"​
Sanskrit
​"​
at all without the diacriticals.  E.g., the letters "ṭ" and "t" are really not the same
and
​mashing them up into 
a single "t"
​ is nothing more than a misrepresentation, and 
not using diacriticals turns the 48 sounds/letters of Sanskrit into something they are not.

So, yes.  It is distracting
​ not to have them​
, a
​n​
d
​I think a lot
 more. I would demand the
​employment of ​
diacriticals of any scholar who uses Sanskrit.
​ ​

best,

Herman

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jeffery Long via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
_______________________________________________
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)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffery Long <dharmaprof108@yahoo.com>
To: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Cc: 
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 16:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Question on Diacritical Marks
Dear Colleagues,

I have a somewhat delicate question on which I would appreciate your candid opinions.

Imagine a doctoral dissertation in the field of philosophy.  The primary audience for this dissertation is other philosophers, most of whom are likely to have little or no expertise in the field of Indology.  The dissertation does, however, engage quite extensively with Indic philosophical traditions and texts, and does so in a serious and responsible fashion.  Because the author him or herself is also, however, primarily a philosopher and not an Indologist, s/he does not deploy diacritical marks in presenting Sanskrit terms.

How would such a dissertation be regarded by most of you?  Would the non-use of diacritical marks alone disqualify this work from being taken seriously?  (My own reaction: I would personally find it distracting and irritating, but not disqualifying if the scholarship were otherwise sound.)  Your thoughts?

With thanks in advance,

Jeff
 
Dr. Jeffery D. Long
Professor of Religion and Asian Studies
Elizabethtown College
Elizabethtown, PA


Series Editor, Explorations in Indic Traditions: Theological, Ethical, and Philosophical
Lexington Books

Consulting Editor, Sutra Journal
http://www.sutrajournal.com

"One who makes a habit of prayer and meditation will easily overcome all difficulties and remain calm and unruffled in the midst of the trials of life."  (Holy Mother Sarada Devi)