In substandard transliteration of Sanskrit, the difference
between short (hrasva, e.g: a, i, u) and long (diirgha, e.g:
aa, ii, uu) is almost always, (actually, by definition?) ignored,
so to speak.

There are several ways to indicate the long vowels, for instance

A, I, U; aa, ii, uu; (favored by linguists?:) a: , i: , u: ; a_ , i_ , u_, etc.

Lets take as an example, YS I 11:

anubhUtaviSayAsampramoSaH smRtiH .. 11..

(anubhuuta-viSaya-asampramoSaH smRtiH) .. 11..

A typical substandard transliteration might be:

anubhutavishayasampramoshaH smritih .. 11..

How would that affect the translation?

Word-for-word of the correct transliteration might be:

Experienced (anubhuuta) object (viSaya) not-letting-drop
([from memory] asaMpramoSaH) [is] memory (smRtiH).

The substandard:

anubhuta: no such word in Sanskrit as per CDSL; object (vishaya:
ignoring the difference between a retroflex [S] and a palatal
[in H-K: z] sibilant)  loss (sampramosha) [is] memory (smritih).

So, ignoring the long 'u' (U, uu) makes that word meaningless
in Sanskrit, and ignoring the long 'a'(A, aa: viSaya+asaMpramoSaH,
read without hiatus between those two words: viSayaasaMpramoSaH)
turns the meaning upside down, if you will!

Reply via email to