This list will be updated and I will add here links to other posts where I discuss parentheses, brackets, footnotes and so on.

1) On parentheses and brackets: https://elisafreschi.com/announcements/how-to-use-parentheses-and-brackets-in-your-translation-my-tips/#more-3372

2) On transcribing Sanskrit passages: https://elisafreschi.com/2018/05/28/dividing-words-in-transcription/

3) I am very much in favour of being more explicit in highlighting objections and replies, e.g.:

[Objection:]…

PARAGRAPH BREAK

[Reply:]…

PARAGRAPH BREAK

Just saying “you may object” is not enough, because it does not identify the end of the objection and often leaves the beginning of the reply unmarked. Moreover, adding specific markers forces us to be clear in identifying objections and replies, whereas just translating Sanskrit markers like “nanu” might leave ourselves and the readers in the dark about who is talking (“nanu” usually introduces an objector, but not necessarily so!).

4) How to cite Sanskrit words: https://elisafreschi.com/2020/01/20/how-to-deal-with-sanskrit-words-in-an-english-article/

5) Refer to specific sūtras, not just to page numbers (e.g. “TV ad 1.1.2”, not “TV 1929, p. 101”). In case of longer passages, adding the page number might be necessary, in which case using the most authoritative edition is the thing to do. For Kumārila’s TV and ṬṬ it has become customary to refer to Subbāśāstrī’s 1929 edition. For NM, Mysore edition (whenever there is not a critical edition available, such as Harikai or Graheli respectively).

6) Scholastic Sanskrit is primarily about nominal sentences, not so English. Hence, break up nominal sentences into verbs+nouns ones. Don’t say “because of the absence of the possibility of X” but “because X is impossible” (for X-upapatti-abhāvāt). Repeating the nominal structure of the Sanskrit in an English sentence is not “being faithful to the Sanskrit”, since the Sanskrit sentence did not sound awkward to its readers/listeners, whereas the allegedly faithful English translation that preserved its nominal style is unbearably cumbersome.

7) I disagree with experts completely prohibiting the use of passive sentences in English. Nonetheless, the use of the passive is not marked in Sanskrit (meaning: it is considered as absolutely normal by readers/listeners), whereas it is often marked in English. These cases of undesirably marked passive need to be rendered into active in English. For instance: “Who is reading the book?” rather than “By whom is the book being read?”. This also has the advantage of forcing us to reflect on the agent (is it the siddhāntin saying it? The pūrvapakṣin?). By contrast, unmarked passive can be rendered as passive.

8) As a rule of thumb, Sanskrit philosophers were smart guys. If your translation attributes them an inconsistent thought, you must rethink it.

Btw, unrequested advice on bibliography: https://elisafreschi.com/2025/04/15/unrequested-advice-on-bibliography/