Eszter Jakab | The Problem of Transliteration

After having discussed the question of carefully selecting resources, the next issue that arises is the problem of transliteration. In my case, it is even more crucial to scrutinize this matter since my research deals with a lot of languages. In addition to a very simple issue of caring about always putting foreign terms into italic, usually there are many other factors to be taken into consideration. So what should I keep in mind, what options do I have and which ones should I choose?

First of all, let me begin with defining the languages I will work with. This group can also be divided into two sub-groups: the languages which I am familiar with and those with which I am not, or just partly. In the first group there is English of course, Sanskrit (Saṃskṛṭa), Pali (PāỊi) and perhaps Hindi (Hindī). In the second group there is the language used by Emperor Ashok (Aśoka) which is Prakrit (Prākṛta) and in addition, there are the Chinese travelogues. Furthermore, Persian and Arabic names and words could also occur occasionally.

The question of target audience should be discussed at this very early point as it decides many further issues. At this moment, my thesis just started to shift from a nomination dossier to a more academic research oriented work. Currently the outlook points more to the hope that with my work I will be able to join the scholarly discourse of South Asian studies from the aspect of cultural heritage. Thus, my target audience will primarily consist of scholars from the field of philology, history, art history, archaeology, and social sciences, who are all somehow attached to this area and possibly many of them are familiar with at least one of the languages in question. This is something that has to be kept in mind when deciding on any of the followings.

In terms of the first group of languages, I am on familiar ground. The most common system used in Indology is the ‘International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration’ (IAST). Transliterating Devanagari (Devanāgarī) script is something which is done easily by me, and if I am uncertain about any phoneme, I know exactly which dictionary to look it up in or what root could the word be derived from. So I can rely on many support. Fortunately, all the inscriptions of Ashok have been transliterated in this system, thus I am able to track down any expression that I need to use.

However, when it comes to Chinese I become uncertain since I am not experienced in the phonology, the characters or the transliteration. The most frequent system used according to my knowledge is the Hanyu Pinyin (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn). In addition, I could use the Wade-Giles system or the English version of Pinyin, where they leave out the diacritic signs. Considering my lack of expertise in Sinology, using the latter seems obvious, but then the question of scholarly expectations arises. In terms of Persian and Arabic I am again on more familiar ground due to my ongoing studies in the former. At present, my opinion on this matter is to always opt for the most scholarly version made possible by my own background, accessible resources, and assistance asked from experts.

A further issue is that when it comes to English resources, usually they already contain some Romanized version of the terms and names found in primary sources. This could cause some difficulties for two reasons. On the one hand, in many works they simply Anglicize these words. On the other hand, especially in the case of old, maybe more than hundred-year-old documents, they use a very early version of transliteration, some of them considered completely incorrect by now. Therefore one has to be highly cautious regarding these dissimilar versions and has to strive to make the thesis consistent in this matter.

Moreover, having already decided which system will I use and having converted all the foreign expressions occurring in the thesis, a rule should be decided upon the means of usage. During my reading I have encountered at least three different methods, however, they were for different audiences – to which question we arrive again. There is the one, which uses only the foreign terms in italic, there is the one in which either the foreign or the English version is in brackets according to the logic on a case-by-case basis, and there is the one which uses scholarly transliteration once and then never again to make it more comprehensible for the reader. (Let us admit, some Sanskrit, Chinese or Persian word is really a tongue-twister even with simple pronunciation based transliteration, and someone not familiar with IAST for instance, will give up on the first page if using that only.)

Since I am writing to a scholarly audience, my rules should be developed correspondingly. Still, for the sake of better understanding, one has to be reasonable in this question. Using the foreign transliterated word in every possible case would make the text hard to absorb even for a Sanskritist deeply engaged in the field. Accordingly, my view on this issue is that if there is a word for it in English that fully covers the meaning of the one found in the original source, then after indicating the authentic version in brackets, one may leave using them subsequently. It is a different case of course if there is a legit intention for using the foreign words, as for instance it indicates a specific concept not found in the Western tradition. To give an example, in Indian architecture the Buddhist monastery is called vihāra. Yet it is unnecessary to always use this world, as the context of the thesis and the former explanation gives a clear understanding for ‘monastery’. Otherwise, if we talk about the curvilinear tower structure found in the Northern-Indian temple architecture, which is called ‘śikhara’, the latter should be used as it alludes to a specific element that cannot be substituted with an English term.

Additionally, it is also not obvious if I should use the original alphabets as well or not, especially in the cases of quotes from primary sources such as the Pali Canon. On this matter I mainly rely on the experience, that even the philological works of great Indolgists use the transliterated version of the text. However, when it comes to Hindi, it is not seldom to include the Devanagari script as well.

Last, but not least, I have to consider putting in an appendix of all what has been discussed above. This appendix may explain the different transliteration systems used and the phonology – at least partly –, and maybe the reasons why I follow certain rules in my thesis. This would certainly make the whole work more complete and at the same time more comprehensible.

Having read my second blogpost, I hope that it appears, that I have developed a rule already for this specific case which is that I have given the scholarly transliterated version in the beginning, and then used only the Anglicized version in favour of my target audience. Practice makes perfect.