July 08, 2014

ཝའི་ལི་དང་འབྲེལ་བའི་དཀའ་ངལ།


It just occurs to me that according to the Wylie system, we cannot distinguish between (a) sho (as in bka’ shog) anda sho as in rdzogs sho ||. So sho and s.ho (as in gyu and g.yu)? A food for thought!

2 comments:

  1. Dear D,
    But I think you just fixed that small deficiency by putting that dot in there, didn't you? I know that's how I handle it, too.
    But as someone likes to remind me, now that Tibetan is in unicode there is really no good reason to torture anyone with Wylie ever again. Just type it all in Tibetan ཡི་གེ་ (or in phonetic representation when that's more appropriate) and forget about it. I hope that somebody at Virginia or somewhere has developed a foolproof way to make "standard" (I'm sure you won't like me to use that term) and easily pronounceable phoneticizations of Tibetan using a digital tool of some kind. That would not only be very cool, but would make life so much easier for the Tibet-connected world, for publishing and so on. Wylie has served its purpose in the past, but it's no longer relevant (that goes for all transliteration systems for representing Tibetan letters). Why don't we just agree to toss it in the ditch?
    Yours, D

    ReplyDelete