I already discussed in this post how to transcribe Sanskrit, and how to separate Sanskrit words in transcription. Here I would like to address a further problem many of my students appear to encounter, namely how to deal with Sanskrit words in an article.
First of all, how many Sanskrit words should you keep in your article? The answer depends on your audience. If you address an audience of non-Sanskritists, use as few Sanskrit words as possible. If you address a Sanskritist audience, use Sanskrit words in parentheses the first time you introduce a given translation, so that readers can understand what you mean by your translation, e.g.:
Authors of Dharmakīrti’s school think that linguistic communication (śabda) is not an independent instrument of knowledge (pramāṇa), but should rather be subsumed under inference (anumāna).Then, the next time you’ll speak of inference, etc., you will not need to explain which term you are translating. You do not need to use the Sanskrit words in case it is obvious or irrelevant. If, for instance, you want to discuss Dharmakīrti’s soteriology, it is probably not needed to say that when you speak of `word’ he used pada and so on. In other words, focus on just a few termini technici for which you want to give the Sanskrit equivalent. Sanskrit words are italicised and therefore attract the attention of the reader. Use them sparingly or your reader will be just confused.
A further connected issue is: In which form should you mention Sanskrit words? As usual, consistency is key. You can decide among of the following three options, but then stick to it:
- You mention the word’s stem (e.g., puruṣa, ātman, pratyakṣa).
- You mention the word in the nominative singular (e.g. puruṣaḥ, ātmā, pratyakṣam).
- You mention the word in the case in which it is mentioned in the sentence you are translating (e.g. “A person’s (puruṣasya) self (ātmā) cannot be grasped through sense-perception (pratyakṣena).
Now, you might think that these are all details and are not as important as the thesis you want to convey in your article. This is true, but your peer-reviewers will be disturbed by your sloppiness and annoyed. They might even be inclined to think that your translations are probably also sloppy, given that you are not even able to transcribe Sanskrit accurately. Don’t risk a rejection because of inaccuracy. What do experienced readers think? What annoys you as reader? What do you recommend to students?
I should have added my reason for being sceptical about the third method to refer to Sanskrit words (e.g., puruṣasya etc.): Unless you are addressing only Sanskritists, you run the risk that your readers will mistake the form you mention to be the stem of the word. See, e.g., this quote:
https://twitter.com/jehsmith/status/1218749172997853184
I always use the word’s stem, except ‘karma’, which is already so well known outside India that it has become an international word in that form (in the nominative; so I do not write ‘karman’).
Related to this: what annoys me to no end is the fashion to write ‘Jain’ instead of the Sanskrit word ‘Jaina’: an uncalled-for Hindification. (Do we write ‘Buddh’, ‘Shiv’, ‘Vaishnav’, ‘Ram’? No.) Not all modern Indian languages clip off the final short ‘a’ of Sanskrit words. Padmanabha Jaini titled his famous 1979 book “The Jaina Path of Purification”, and I follow his example.
Thanks! I will stick to that in the future.