Talk:Buddhalochana: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "How come the Tibetan script is missing the མ་ syllable at the end, compared to the phonetic transliteration and Wylie transliteration? Are both terms—Sangyé Chen and Sa...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
How come the Tibetan script is missing the མ་ syllable at the end, compared to the phonetic transliteration and Wylie transliteration? Are both terms—Sangyé Chen and Sangyé Chenma—accepted in Tibetan? Is there a mistake?--[[User:Sébastien|Sébastien]] ([[User talk:Sébastien|talk]]) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) | How come the Tibetan script is missing the མ་ syllable at the end, compared to the phonetic transliteration and Wylie transliteration? Are both terms—Sangyé Chen and Sangyé Chenma—accepted in Tibetan? Is there a mistake?--[[User:Sébastien|Sébastien]] ([[User talk:Sébastien|talk]]) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) | ||
I've seen both used so I guess both are OK. But in this case because both the phonetics and wylie are given as Sangyé Chenma it probably is good to add the 'ma' syllable in the Tibetan. Tsöndru. | |||
Revision as of 08:29, 23 February 2019
How come the Tibetan script is missing the མ་ syllable at the end, compared to the phonetic transliteration and Wylie transliteration? Are both terms—Sangyé Chen and Sangyé Chenma—accepted in Tibetan? Is there a mistake?--Sébastien (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've seen both used so I guess both are OK. But in this case because both the phonetics and wylie are given as Sangyé Chenma it probably is good to add the 'ma' syllable in the Tibetan. Tsöndru.