To clarify, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use underdotted ṃ for the anusvāra and I fully agree that there are valid reasons for preferring overdotted ṁ (so the underdot can have a stronger association with retroflexion). In fact, I personally use ṁ in accordance with the ISO standard and with the DHARMA project's transliteration scheme based on ISO-15919. The DHARMA transliteration's old documentation is available here <https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02272407>, and right now I'm working on a revised and greatly expanded version, to be published later this year.
All I said was that the IAST standard for anusvāra was ṃ, as far as IAST can be called a standard, with the anusvāra being a case in point why it can't really be called one. Best, Daniel On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 at 09:15, Jonathan Silk <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that this ship has sailed, but for what it's worth: ṃ does > not indicate a retroflex, which is what all other under-dots indicate in > Skt transcription (most: we can argue about ṛ, but for this I use r̥ > anyway, also for similar reasons!). Therefore it is most logical to use ṁ. > (I started doing this when we used to use underlines, when all underdots > disappeared unless one skipped an underline in one particular place, which > was always a mess). > So maybe it's only "old man yells at cloud" but I think ṁ is the logical > way to go (as is r̥), and will continue to use it / them…. > > Jonathan > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:03 AM Dániel Balogh via INDOLOGY < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Harry, >> >> IAST is not an absolute standard in the way ISO-15919 is; it's more like >> a set of conventions, without a definitive document and hence malleable at >> the edges. There is, for example, no definite provision in IAST for the >> upadhmānīya and jihvāmūlīya (the transliterations listed on the Wikipedia >> page for IAST are just one of the options in use), nor for the Vedic >> retroflex l, much less for Dravidian retroflexes and alveolars. The same >> Wikipedia page gives ḻ for the retroflex l, which I have never seen before >> and which clashes with the convention of using ḻ for the sound in e.g. >> Tamiḻ. >> I personally have never heard of a flavour of IAST that uses an overdot >> for the anusvāra and agree with you that the IAST anusvāra is with an >> underdot. The first of two random Google hits agree: >> https://www.omniglot.com/writing/sanskrit.htm and >> https://fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/education/translation/guide_to_sanskrit_transliteration_and_pronunciation.pdf >> I dare say that as far as IAST can be considered a standard, the >> "correct" IAST anusvāra is ṃ, while ṁ is an informal alternative. So, put >> in so many words, yes, Wikipedia is wrong. >> See also the stub on the discussion page for the IAST article: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration#Anusvara >> >> All the best, >> Daniel >> >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 at 02:10, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear list members, >>> >>> I had always thought that anusvara in IAST was m with underdot (thats >>> what GRETIL, SARIT and U ot Texas Etexts have and what I've always used) >>> but just now looking at the wikipedia articles: Devanagari Transliteration >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari_transliteration >>> and IAST >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration >>> Both these articles have IAST anusvara as m overdot. Are these wikipedia >>> articles wrong or have we all (GRETIL,SARIT, Uof Texas, me) not been using >>> correct IAST transliteration? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Harry Spier >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> INDOLOGY mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >> > > > -- > Prof. dr. J.A. Silk > Professor in the study of Buddhism > Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, LIAS > Herta Mohr building 2.142 > Witte Singel 27A > 2311 BG Leiden > The Netherlands > > Guest Professor, PI of ERC-Project BEST > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München > Department für Asienstudien, Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie > Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 > 80539 München > Deutschland > > website: www.OpenPhilology.eu > copies of my publications may be found at > https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/JASilk >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
