dbhattacharya200498 at YAHOO.COM
Tue Jun 29 02:55:58 EDT 2010
The necessity for some strict conventions is often felt. The components should not be detached from one another but there is a convention of putting a hyphen and beginning the second member with a capital letter when two categories of ‘signified’ are placed one after another, e.g., individual and class, in, say, Mādhyandina-Saṃhitā, Ācā(or yā)rāṅga-Sutta, Kālacakra-Tantra. The upper case in the second member is just a convention meant, perhaps, for clarity. But what about Ṛgveda that is RV in abridgement? Abhijñānaśakuntalam is ok but Pravrajyāvastu? Hanumannāṭaka?
It is not only names of books but proper names should be uniformly transliterated. All scholars, at least most of them, will cite विश्वामित्रो जमदग्निर्वसिष्ठः occurring in a verse as Viśvāmitro Jamadagnir Vasiṣṭhaḥ. But are the upper cases necessary?
Any further thought?
More information about the INDOLOGY