User talk:134.2.147.103

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there, I welcome your edits across the Tibetan areas of wikipedia. You really should register - it's not invasive, and gives you lots of advantages, such as having a watchlist.

I personally would prefer that you ADD as much copy as you remove in future. Keep well, (20040302 17:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

Nathan,

Hi. The policy that I have been tentatively following on Tibet-related articles is inspired by what has been standard practice on Chinese-related ones: the reader should have access to the original form of the word (Tibetan characters and/or Wylie in the case of Tibetan; Chinese characters in the case of Chinese) with no more than one click. That is, if a given word does not have its own article, the Tibetan or Wyle transliteration should be listed in parentheses, but if it does have its own article, the reader can click the link and see the Tibetan or Wylie there. However, I'm not sure whether or not this is the best style in the case of Tibetan.

As for how to write phonetic Tibetan, this is a subject I've been thinking about quite a bit lately, although I'm hampered by the fact that I don't really know very much about Tibetan to begin with. Generally, I favour trying to find "common spellings" for Tibetan words where it is remotely possible (especially in cases where the group or person still exists and spells his/her/its own name with some regularity: for instance, 'Bri-khung seems to call itself Drikung in its own English writings), and having a system only as a fallback. I'm not sure how I feel about the Tournadre system—my understanding is that it is not purely phonetic but combines some elements of Wylie spelling with some phonetic elements—one might argue that this does neither well. However, I'm not aware of many other viable options. I don't like the official Chinese system very much. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Wylie

By the way, Nathan, next time you come around, I was hoping you could advise me on a stylistic point regarding Wylie transliteration. Reading the original paper in which Wylie proposes it, I got the impression that Wylie wants us to capitalise the first letter in each "word" and separate the syllables inside a word with hyphens (leaving spaces between the words). Thus, I've been writing names in the format of ’Jam-mgon Kong-sprul. However, after reading a bit about the extended Wylie system, the authors of that seem to imply that it would be better never to use any capital letters (except for Sanskrit words) or hyphens, which would produce a format like ’jam mgon kong sprul. Which do you think is more appropriate, i.e. more commonly used or better regarded in modern scholarship? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/3/4/User_talk%7E134.2.147.103.html"