Chhi'mčd Künzang wrote:
1) I feel that 're-transliteration' is at best a confusing title for your piece. I like to see words used according to their meanings in a way that is minimally confusing. Maybe this is, as you indicate, because I am "very much into doxa and/or the various economies and types of cultural capital that go hand in hand with determining what is authoritative and what is not." On the other hand, I won't pretend to understand exactly what you mean by that, so: I admit nothing!
I'll leave the rest without comment, although I disagree. On this definitional debate, however, my disagreement is more pointed.
Wikipedia defines the troublesome word: "Transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing into another." Furthermore, it says that "Transliterations in the narrow sense are used in situations where the original script is not available to write down a word in that script, while still high precision is required." Since the original was itself translated from a transcription of verbal speech into Japanese writing, "re-transliteration" may be awkward or a tad stilted, but is not an unfair description of David's method, if not his purpose in doing it. The purpose is plain in the notes. The very unfamiliarity of the term is a caution against over-reliance on the text revisions in an authoriatative sense.
David's description in the title of the was not inaccurate, although its purpose was to serve as the basis for the larger criticism of the ENGLISH text, which was his point.