It may not always be clear how Tibetan translators came to translate Umā as “dKa’ bzlog ma.” But if we consider the explanation of the derivation of the name found, for example, in MW (s.v. umā)—“Oh, do not (practice austerities)!”—then, it should become clear that Tibetan translators presupposed such an etymology and thus translated, so to speak, ad sensum. The name “dKa’ bzlog ma” may be thus rendered as “One who was barred/prevented from the practice of austerities (dka’ thub: tapas) [by her mother].” It has not been clear to Johannes Schneider (i.e. Schneider 1993: 308, 89) what the exact Sanskrit correspondence of the Tibetan translation, dKa’ bzlog ma, could have been, that is, despite citing an explanation of the name found in the Devātiśayastotraṭīkā (Schneider 1993: 89, n. 4): dka’ bzlog ni dka’ thub bzlog pa ste | lha mo u ma’o ||. Schneider seems to suggest (with a question mark) that “dKa’ bzlog ma” could be a rendering of Durgā. The Tibetan translation of the name Umā is actually recorded in the Mahāvyutpatti but Schneider does not seem to refer to it. To be sure, Durgā has been translated as into Tibetan as “dGrod dka’ ma” by Tibetan translators and Durgādevī as “rDzong gi lha mo” (Mahāvyutpatti, no. 3171).