The only reason why someone who has taken the trouble of learning the languages would dispense with a lossless transliteration schema is fear that the "general reader" will be frightened, or put off, by diacritical marks. Now for a doctoral dissertation, I think it's probably more important to show that one knows, e.g., the difference between śāstra and śastra, or rāma and ramā, than to placate this mythical "general reader."

Speaking for myself, I think using diacritical marks is the optimal balance between addressing the needs of a readership that doesn't necessarily know the script but might nevertheless be interested in what the words "actually" are. I know, e.g., that Chinese scholars often dispense with marking tones in their transliterations, and specialist readers know what the tones are, but this makes it hard for me to look up words in a dictionary. Similarly with non-scholarly transcriptions of Tibetan, Arabic, and so on. As a non-specialist in those languages, I would much prefer a lossless transliteration. It only takes about fifteen minutes on Wikipedia to familiarize yourself with a transliteration scheme anyway. Of course, I can't speak for the "general reader" who probably exists only in the board rooms of publishing firms, but I'd imagine that at the worst this person is indifferent to diacritics, whereas people like me are positively put off by the lack of diacritics. 

I consider the use of diacritics on a par, in terms of scholarly discipline, with proper references: just like saying "according to scholars of the 1890s" doesn't allow interested readers to follow up and raises doubts (at least in my mind) about whether the author is writing from first-hand knowledge, writing without diacritics makes it difficult for non-specialist interested readers to follow up, or to know how it's pronounced, and makes specialist readers more skeptical of the author's first-hand knowledge of the language.


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi <c.ram-prasad@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Speaking of undergraduates, here is the view of a real live one (of languages and classics), admittedly not unrelated to me.

By the way, very funny and telling, Adheesh!

Ram

Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad
Professor of Comparative Philosophy and Religion
Lancaster University
U.K.

______________________________
From: Krishnan Ram-Prasad [kjr50@cam.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 6:59 PM
To: Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on Diacritical Marks

My opinion is that diacritics should always be used except in proper nouns (with a key to explain what they mean at the front of the book). This parallels the classicists' practice of referring to people generally by anglicised names (Ovid, Livy, Mark Anthony etc.) but using actual Latin for other nouns eg. Ovid's 'Amores', Cicero 'in Verrem'. 

Obviously when Sanskrit is quoted at length, full diacritics must be used, proper nouns included. 


Begin forwarded message:

From: Adheesh Sathaye <adheesh1@gmail.com>
Date: 5 September 2016 at 18:12:35 BST
Cc: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on Diacritical Marks

Dear Jeffery,

In general, regardless of audience, I would feel that it’s acceptable, and sometimes even preferable to do away with diacritic marks and go with commonly observable Roman-script spellings for Sanskrit terms, or Tamil or Arabic or any language X terms for that matter, if these are isolated terms within what is otherwise a complete English sentence (or German or French or any language Y sentence). If you make mistakes in diacritics, for example, it can lead to serious errors, say if you were to make claims about Rāma’s bāla instead of his bala.

But if one encounters an entire phrase, sentence, or passage that is without diacritics, then trying to read it becomes a total train wreck.

Just consider what would happen the other way around—

अगर आप हिंदि पढते-पढते दूसरी भाषा के  एक-दो वर्ड्स देखतें, तो कोई बाद नहि ना ?
लेकिन, इफ यू हॅव टू रीड ए होल सेण्टन्स लाइक धिस, ऑर मेबी इवन ए फुल पॅसेज, यू विल प्रोबाब्ली गो क्रेझी ।

How’s that for candid?
cheers,
Adheesh




—
Dr. Adheesh Sathaye
Dept. of Asian Studies
University of British Columbia
408-1871 West Mall
Vancouver BC CANADA V6T1Z2
adheesh@mail.ubc.ca
+1.604.822.5188

http://www.ubcsanskrit.ca
http://www.asianfolklore.ca

On Sep 5, 2016, at 09.13, Jeffery Long via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:


From: Jeffery Long <dharmaprof108@yahoo.com>
Subject: Question on Diacritical Marks
Date: September 5, 2016 at 09.12.54 PDT
To: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Reply-To: Jeffery Long <dharmaprof108@yahoo.com>


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

https://etown.academia.edu/JefferyLong

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)



_______________________________________________
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)





_______________________________________________
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)

_______________________________________________
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)