I was going to stay out of this, but since I think some of the observations are not headed in a one might say 'user friendly' direction, I dare to add, for what it's worth, a few observations.

First, regarding long quotations in nagari (look, you know what that is, right? no diacritical marks though...), take a look at https://ia902205.us.archive.org/7/items/systemsofbuddhis029771mbp/systemsofbuddhis029771mbp.pdf

This is a book printed long ago mixing romanization and nagari; I think it makes a bizzare impression.

Second, the idea of diacritics and/or nagari seems to overlook --although it has been mentioned, certainly--the idea that there are those who might be interested to read what we write who nevertheless do not know Sanskrit. The appeal to grammatical markers like iṭ seems to me entirely beside the point. No one is going to be confused by prajna or karuna, and if there is a reason to do so one can easily add, for instance (fem.) if the point is that a word is grammatically feminine, etc.
I have great respect for Andrew Ollett but I confess that his comments about Chinese puzzle me: romanizing Chinese with tone marks does not help appreciably in looking up a word; if you don't have the Chinese character, you're almost certainly out of luck (assuming we are not talking about multi-syllabic words, and even then) except for very common words, and even then.... The point about Hebrew is also I think instructive: many people read romanized Hebrew all the time in a very simplified system, without much trouble at all, and without significant ambiguity.
I think that the discussion needs some focus: we are not talking about a thesis on Sanskrit grammar, I suppose (I think we all understand that the initial question was as clear as it could be without breaking confidence), and certainly one would argue, or I would argue, that a linguist writing for (non-Sanskrit knowing) linguists should stick to a scientific method, but for an audience of philosophers, it should be different. 
Something we have not mentioned at all in this discussion is the incredible difficulty all of us have had, and our forebears had, in getting 'philosophers' to take non-Western philosophy seriously. Perhaps a little consideration for the 'fear factor' of diacritical marks would not be out of place?

sorry, my 2¢ seems to have grown, with inflation.... ;)

very best, Jonathan

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:24 AM, victor davella 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: victor davella <vbd203@googlemail.com>
To: "indology@list.indology.info" <indology@list.indology.info>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 09:24:01 +0200
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on Diacritical Marks
I mistakenly did not send this to the whole list last night, although it seems it is  mostly paunarutka at this point.  I would, however, repeat that there are simply many places where the lack of diacritics obscures the meaning entirely. For example, it and iṭ in Sanskrit grammatical terminology. 

Regarding the use of the original script, if I were to have my druthers, all longer quotations would be in the original script. Anyone who can read the language can read the script, and many of the people who can read it best, cannot read transliteration or only with difficulty. It's also worth noting that despite the typographic difficulties, many earlier publications were printed with Devanāgarī instead of transliteration. Kielhorn, for example, published many studies (Kâtyâyana and Patanjali (sic!), his translation of the Paribhāṣenduśekhara, etc.) with minimal transliteration, mostly for proper names.  The two scripts blend rather elegantly even in the same line.

Inline image 2

All the Best,
Victor

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:39 PM, victor davella <vbd203@googlemail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

I never understood the rational behind dropping diacritics, especially for Indian languages. For Classical Sanskrit there are but three diacritical marks: (the macron (ā), the under dot (ṣ), and the acute accent (ś)), none of which obscures the original shape of a roman letter and all of which are used consistently to indicate a specific point of articulation or the length of a vowel. The only oddity is vocalic r.  The macron may very well be known to many readers already. Other notes on pronunciation are of course necessary, lest the reader pronounce candra as kandra, but a simple list or table takes care of this within a page. 

Usually the author who decides to dispense with them adds a note intended to placate those who would wish to have them, and asks for dispensation because a more general or non-specialist public will find diacritics overwhelming, confusing, distracting or the like. Is this true? If one wishes to read a book about Indian philosophy, literature etc., why is it assumed  that the reader would NOT want to have information about the language's pronunciation and that the reader would be so put off by presence of diacritics. If some readers do in fact think in this manner, why should they be the ones to determine which information is suppressed?  In any case, I don't believe that there is actually any harm in having them, only benefit.

I am pro-diacritics and have yet to see a convincing reason for leaving them out in the transliteration of Sanskrit terms in the realm of scholarly publications. 

All the Best,
Victor


On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:13 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)








--
J. Silk
Leiden University
Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, LIAS
Matthias de Vrieshof 3, Room 0.05b
2311 BZ Leiden
The Netherlands

copies of my publications may be found at