Joe, responding to Mark J. Reed: > > ś (LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH ACUTE) > s-acute = [C] Eh? I've always been under the impression it was [S] (though Hindi may not be the same as Sanskrit....) > > > ṛ (LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH DOT BELOW) > > [r=] I do believe this is the syllabic /r/, in Skt. at least by convention pronounced [ri] or [rI]-- "r.s.i" [r(iI)Si] 'sage, wise man' note the Anglicized "rishi". That must actually be a quite old pronunciation, as Skt. loans in Javanese and other SEAsian langs. also have it. Whether it was trilled in Skt. I know not; nor do I know about Hindi. "h with subscr.dot" is indeed a slight aspiration-- in Skt. only in final position, where it represent the -s of various endings. Root raj- > raj-a-s written rajah. 'king (nom.) My Skt. teacher (who'd studied in India) said to pronounce it with a slight echo-vowel offset, ['radZah(a)]. He also said that the cluster jñ- as in jñana 'wisdom' is pronounced [Nñ...], but when we asked where that [N] came from, he just replied "Because." A real nice guy; one day he reduced a foreign student to tears. Further to Mark's other queries-- t d n s with a subscr.dot are _retroflex_. Unlike Mark, I don't find Skt/Hindi over-diacritiized at all (certainly less so than Schmampa....) and on the whole it's quite reasonable and elegant. And much of it simply sanctified by tradition (like the n-overdot for N-- a transcription probably devised early on, before anyone had thought of IPA-- indeed, many 19th C. "phonetic" renderings follow this usage).