pramāṇato 'rthapratipattau pravṛttisāmarthyād arthavat pramāṇam || NS 1.1.1 ||
Interestingly enough, however, transcriptions still widely differ as for the word-boundaries. Personally, I tend to separate as much as possible, since this procedure seems to me reader-friendlier. Other authors, prefer instead to reproduce in the Roman alphabet the scriptum continuum typical of Devanagari and other Indian alphabets. For instance,
What are the advantages of this usage? I can easily imagine some textual-critical advantages:
- 1. it makes readers aware of the text as it looked like in the manuscript,
- 2. it avoids influencing readers with the editor's understanding of the text.
In many cases, for instance when a neutrum term could be considered as part of a compound or as a nominative/accusative, the difference might be significant. For instance:
arthe 'nupalabdhe tatpramāṇam bādārāyanasya anapekṣatvāt
is quite different than:
arthe 'nupalabdhe tat pramāṇam bādārāyanasya anapekṣatvāt (end of MS 1.1.5)
What do readers think? Are there further reasons for the scriptum continuum also in Roman transcriptions I am missing?