Since you are quoting the Sanskrit as Sanskrit, you should consistently preserve the final schwas instead of often deleting them as one does in Hindi (e.g. śauca, rāga, mahāvrata, svādhyāya, etc.).
Thanks so much for the feedback! This is something I was debating before beginning this series, and would be curious about your opinion. The choice was between using the Devanagari text itself, the diacritical marks, using normal roman text to approximate the proper pronunciation, or some combination thereof.
The word śauca is actually a great example. In this example, I’ve found that for folks who are not familiar with Sanskrit, or with the conventional diacritics, they would pronounce it saw-ka. For this same group, they would not know how to read the Devanagari, and so either of these choices would exclude a large percentage of readers. As a result, I made the choice to go with roman text without diacritics, but approximating the pronunciation (e.g. Shauch), since one of the goals of the series is inclusivity, regardless of background, and a focus on the underlying concepts and practice rather than the words. Not sure if this is the “right” choice by any means, and it may change as I get more feedback.
Again - really appreciate the feedback, and I hope you find the series meaningful 🙏🏽
If there’s confusion about the sibilants, use s/sh/šh or something like that (although people tend to fricativize š anyway, for whatever reason).
I would recommend diacritics over doubling for long vowels, since it will make any random instances of gunation much more intuitive (sūtra > sautra is much more straightforward that sootra > sautra). It’ll also help if Pali forms arise (you can easiky get both gunated Skt. taikṣṇa and tikkha from a base tīkṣṇa; less so with “teekshna” or whatever, let alone “teekshn”. Of course, people are more likely to run long and short verbs together this way...
That’s probably the most important part — don’t drop the schwas. The old Manosollasa (now Manamtaringini) idiosyncratically solved the issue by appending -s to roots (so “skandha-s, etc.” — easily generalized for greater precision by appending -m or whatever where necessary (“dāna-m”, etc.)
Note: missing url links in ishvarpranidhaan (sp?) section
In the first paragraph
Thanks Bobby! Just updated :)
Since you are quoting the Sanskrit as Sanskrit, you should consistently preserve the final schwas instead of often deleting them as one does in Hindi (e.g. śauca, rāga, mahāvrata, svādhyāya, etc.).
Thanks so much for the feedback! This is something I was debating before beginning this series, and would be curious about your opinion. The choice was between using the Devanagari text itself, the diacritical marks, using normal roman text to approximate the proper pronunciation, or some combination thereof.
The word śauca is actually a great example. In this example, I’ve found that for folks who are not familiar with Sanskrit, or with the conventional diacritics, they would pronounce it saw-ka. For this same group, they would not know how to read the Devanagari, and so either of these choices would exclude a large percentage of readers. As a result, I made the choice to go with roman text without diacritics, but approximating the pronunciation (e.g. Shauch), since one of the goals of the series is inclusivity, regardless of background, and a focus on the underlying concepts and practice rather than the words. Not sure if this is the “right” choice by any means, and it may change as I get more feedback.
Again - really appreciate the feedback, and I hope you find the series meaningful 🙏🏽
If there’s confusion about the sibilants, use s/sh/šh or something like that (although people tend to fricativize š anyway, for whatever reason).
I would recommend diacritics over doubling for long vowels, since it will make any random instances of gunation much more intuitive (sūtra > sautra is much more straightforward that sootra > sautra). It’ll also help if Pali forms arise (you can easiky get both gunated Skt. taikṣṇa and tikkha from a base tīkṣṇa; less so with “teekshna” or whatever, let alone “teekshn”. Of course, people are more likely to run long and short verbs together this way...
That’s probably the most important part — don’t drop the schwas. The old Manosollasa (now Manamtaringini) idiosyncratically solved the issue by appending -s to roots (so “skandha-s, etc.” — easily generalized for greater precision by appending -m or whatever where necessary (“dāna-m”, etc.)