113bC4l

onunciation and Orthographic uid
he pronunciation of Sanskrit should provide few problems, except
that even authorities on some of the Buddhist systems continue to
pronounce the names incorrectly. Generally, a long mark over a
vowel should be treated as equivalent to a stress mark, and inappropriate stress
is surely the greatest failing in Sanskrit pronunciation in the United States
today (e.g., Madhyamaka continues to be incorrectly pronounced in the
United States as Madhyamaka, although it is never spelled that way). There is
also the general problem is differentiating $ from s (both sounding to us like
“sh”) or differentiating the various retroflex (t, th, d, dh, and n) from their corresponding
dentals (t, th, d, dh, and n). Americans tend to pronounce our
sounds between these, not quite retroflex (which sends the tongue farther
back) and not quite dental (requiring the tongue farther forward).
Out of consideration for general readers, I have rendered Tibetan into a semblance
of English pronunciation, and the correct orthography is found in the
notes or in the bibliography, except in the case of some well-known names (e.g.,
Trisong Detsen). However, I intended this book as a tool for access to India, and
I certainly hope that Indian students will be stimulated to learn Tibetan and to
seek out Tibetan references. The romanization system for Tibetan orthography
is the now-standard “modified Wylie,” although David Snellgrove appears to actually
be the first to have proposed the system. The reader will also notice that I
have used the somewhat out of date Wade-Giles romanization system as well,
rather than the more modern Pinyin. I have done so for one primary reason. The
standard Pinyin system runs all the words in a title together, so that the I tsu fo
ting lun wang ching would be romanized Yizifodinglunwangjing, a linguistic catastrophe
for the neophyte. Until an acceptable alternative occurs, I have elected
to retain the more accessible form.