Jon,

I am not sure we are getting anywhere, but I do wish you would read my comments more
carefully and not attribute to me things I never said, and therefore cannot be claimed to
believe.

> In general, including local script is important for
> people who want to do more accurate work and that
> includes Pali-Burmese local script.

There is no reason to think that using 'local scripts', either alone or in combination with
other scripts, however helpful they may be to those who know them, has any effect on
accuracy.

> Local script inclusion doesn't make a work "useless"
> as can be seen from the examples below.

I never said it did. What I said was that 'local scripts' are indecipherable to those who
don't know them.

> Local script facsimile versions are even more
> important in light of Veidlinger's "medium is the
> message" thesis in Spreading the Dharma (2006).

This thesis is no more impressive in a Buddhist context than when McLuhan originally
propounded it.

> Transliterating and the editing that goes with it
> loses information (is lossy).

Any editing risks losing information. It has nothing to do with which script is being used.

> Example 1: In 1999 Grabowsky included the original Tai
> script in his wonderful BEFEO article:
>
> http://www.persee.fr/showPage.do?urn=befeo_0336-1519_1999_num_86_1_3413
>
> Example 2: In the case of Shan Sao Saimong Mangrai's
> 1981 Wat Padaeng Chronicle the inclusion of facsimile
> images with his translation is extremely valuable
> because the manuscript was lost after his death
> shortly thereafter.

I can't comment on these works since I haven't seen them, but I am not opposed to 'local
scripts' or facsimile images per se, but only to the idea that there is something special
about local scripts versus romanization.

> A good example of the confusing proliferation of
> different encodings that transliterations produce over
> time, because everyone has their idea of the "most
> accurate" transliteration, is DuPont's edited version
> and translation of the Mon Narada Jataka which
> introduces yet another Mon transliteration. Almost as
> many as transliterations as there are published Mon
> texts. Mon script would have been more appropriate.

Proliferating romanizations are a problem. But however confusing they might be I would
find them preferable to Mon script, and so would most non-Mons.

> Most scripts can be learned fairly quickly. Language
> pedagogy itself has gone from transliteration to doing
> things in the script from the start.

PTS romanization can also be learned fairly quickly. I think you are simply wrong that
language pedagogy 'has gone ... to doing things in the script from the start.' There have
always been texts that introduce the script from the beginning, but the majority have used
romanization to start.

> GDBell: "If so, I would think that this is grounds to
> replace them with a more accurate script, rather than
> cling to them."
>
> This is the real difference between our approaches.
>
> You assume that there **could be** one, most accurate
> and universal script and text. I would not assume
> that. and I would suspect the motive behind any such
> legitimising claim.

I assume no such thing. The sound system of Pali has been well known for centuries and
all scripts which represent that system (including Burmese script and PTS romanization)
are equally accurate.

> Some things get edited out of texts for various
> reasons. Like Upagupta's fight with Mara and Asoka's
> self-immolation in U Kala's Mahayazwingyi which came
> from the Pali Lokapa~n~natti. More often the editing
> only occurs at sermon preparation time by Bhikku
> textual gatekeepers or rather bookchest keepers.

What has such editing got to do with the script?

> More likely, is a historical multiplicity of localised
> texts and textual practices that are continually
> changing, sometimes because of power relations within
> the Sangha like when the Mahavihara eliminated the
> Abhaya-giri Vihara. Parts of the Abhaya-giri texts can
> only be found in the Mahavamsa Tika. Aggavamsa's
> Saddaniti supposedly misquotes the Tipitaka but this
> could actually be from lost recensions (or perhaps a
> faulty memory while quoting). The Sangha had a
> remarkably efficient mechanism for maintaining textual
> integrity over long periods of time though, a
> mechanism worth studying.

I agree. But I think if you study this and figure out what went on you can write your paper
romanizing the examples. I hope you do, because otherwise I won't be able to read it. If
you want to include Burmese script for your Burmese readers, fine.

> The norm is for a Sangha reform or purification to
> claim to be a return to the most accurate, universal
> etc, including the changes that the advent of the Pali
> Text Society, "protestant Buddhism," and the
> transliteration that you believe to be most "accurate"
> brought about.

Again, I never said (and do not believe) PTS romanization is more accurate than other
scripts. If the PTS is guilty of 'protestant Buddhism', this has nothing to do with their
romanization.

> Southeast Asian sovereigns made a big step from the
> local to more universal religion when they adopted
> Buddhism, either voluntarily or through force, but the
> local has always remained, and local scripts are an
> important part of that worth preserving.

I have not advocated abolishing local scripts. And I don't necessarily think them not worth
preserving. But there is reason to doubt their Buddhist credentials. The Buddha is on
record as having told his followers to preach the dhamma in the local languages
(presumably North Indian vernaculars of his time). So far as I know, he didn't comment on
what script to use, perhaps because no writing system was in general use at the time. But
surely he would have said that the important thing is the message and not the medium.
Pali in Buddhism represents the universal rather than the local.

> [BTW: The Sima Qian reference to "Burma" is
> to the Burma area which is easier than Irrawaddy River
> basin. I'll have to dig up the reference. It's at the
> Chinese Historical Forum where we translated it.]

If you check your Burmese history, I think you will find that during Sima Qian's lifetime,
the Burmese had not yet migrated into the Ayerawadi basin, and therefore had no script
for their language and were not yet converted to Buddhism.

George Bedell