Re: Niggahiita in IPA? Bee in bonnet

G. Bedell wrote:

> Eisel has a bee in his bonnet about western Pali scholarship in general
> and the PTS in particular.  The 'problem' he refers to (when to apply
> sandhi and when not) arises no matter what orthography is used.  No
> doubt the influence of western scholarship has had some negative
> effects.  But I cannot imagine what Pali studies would be like today
> without the legacy of the PTS.  Certainly it would be closed to me.
> The PTS standard is a transliteration of standard Pali orthographies in
> the Indic tradition.

You say that I have a bee in my bonnet, but do not actually point out
any respect in which the points raised in my prior e-mail are
unreasonable; the issue of breaking down euphonic combinations into
separate words is a salient and reasonable point to raise in a
discussion of different systems of transliterating (and different
phonetic explanations of) the anuswara.  I really did not write
anything to deserve this stray insult.

George, it is touching that you feel so indebted to the PTS; I have
met many in the world of Buddhist studies who feel similar admiration
for whatever master or elder monk tutored them, etc., and there seems
to be something in human nature that tends to flatter whatever one
cannot do without.  As I have explained on this list before, it so
happens that I am not one of those who feel this debt to the PTS.  I
work with asian editions, asian manuscripts, and asian epigraphy, in
asian scripts; I do not believe I have ever used or relied upon a PTS
edition of any Pali text at any time in my life.  Many Asian editions
are problematic; the PTS editions are also problematic; however, I
find the problems in Asian editions to be "worth solving".

George, I know that you have read the lengthy quotation from K.R.
Norman in my introduction --he was the former head of the PTS, and he
was able to make an honest statement about the limited value of their
current editions.  I have not said that these books are worthless, but
I think I am within my rights (and within the limits of my expertise)
to agree with Norman in calling attention to the limited value/use of
those editions (too many ignore serious problems with those sources,
as Norman said himself in that quotation).

> Pace Eisel, it is a very good orthography, easy
> to learn and easy to use (for westerners at least). Compare it with
> standard Chinese or English orthography.

However, those are *spurious* comparisons.  The PTS system does not
compare so favourably with the systems of orthography used to display
Pali for circa 2,000 years.  A comparison of the PTS system to 9th
century Pallava script might be more meaningful.

E.M.