Dear list members,

Dominik said:

each SARIT file notes that the encoding is IAST, and notes where that differs from the ISO standard. 

. . . . .. . .

(The International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration). IAST differs in small ways from ISO 15919, but is preferred by most working Sanskrit scholars. 


The link given on the SARIT page  is to the Wikipedia IAST page .  This wikipedia  IAST page lists the differences between ISO 15919 and IAST but it has major errors.  It says ISO 15919 uses e and o with macron over it where IAST uses e and o.  This is incorrect.  ISO 15919 agrees with IAST in usage of e and o in transliterating devanagari.

Note the ISO 15919 wikipedia also has this error.  It says to use e and o with macron where the actual ISO document says to use e and o without macron. 

I've checked the actual ISO 15919 document.

Thanks,
Harry Spier


​
--
Professor Dominik Wujastyk
​,​

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity
​,​

University of Alberta, Canada
​.​

South Asia at the U of A:
 
​sas.ualberta.ca​
​​


On 18 November 2016 at 18:23, Harry Spier <hspier.muktabodha@gmail.com> wrote:
I've just looked at the Sanskrit Library, SARIT and GRETIL texts and I see that these use IAST transliteration for anusvara (dot under m) while Muktabodha digital library uses ISO15919 for anusvara (dot on top of m).

Harry Spier

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Peter Scharf <scharfpm7@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear list members,
The Sanskrit Library transcoding facility on line at http://sanskritlibrary.org/transcodeText.html does indeed transcode to Romanization using the preferred Unicode composites of characters plus diacritics.  Our off-line transcoding software 
 which is downloadable from http://sanskritlibrary.org/downloads.html has a large array of transcoders one of which transcodes to Romanization using precomposed Unicode characters that include diacritics.  The problem with searching that Harry Spier mentions is just one of a number of reasons why Malcolm Hyman and I designed the Sanskrit Library phonetic encoding for all our linguistic programming, including both the encoding of texts and searching, and use Unicode only for display, and data input if desired (though for the latter purpose SLP and most other meta-encodings are preferable).  Our book Linguistic Issues in Encoding Sanskrit available at http://sanskritlibrary.org/publications.html discusses the issues comprehensively.

Yours,
Peter

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Harry Spier <hspier.muktabodha@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear list members,

In unicode you can write characters with diacriticals with either a single glyph or you can combine the character with the diacritical writing it in two glyphs.

This is a problem when one searchs sanskrit etexts.

For example, the letters with diacriticals in the Muktabodha digital library are written with one glyph and as far as I can see GRETIL does the same thing.  But the transcoding utility at  "The Sanskrit Library"  http://sanskritlibrary.org/transcodeText.html
combines letters with their diacriticals in two glyphs.
 So if you used the Sanskrit Library utility to create a transliterated word such as for example: śākti and then searched texts from either GRETIL or Muktabodha for that word your search wouldn't find anything.

Thanks,
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)



--
*******************
Peter M. Scharf
*******************


_______________________________________________
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)