Gurpreet Singh

This is strange. First I don't understand why sant is transliterated as sa(n)th, if I were to transliterate the Gurmukhi word it would be translaed exactly as 'sant,' or maybe 'sa(n)t' but definitely not 'th.'
Also the word is sant, the meaning of sant is saint (close to it anyway), so why is it translated as Guru?
It seems kind of like a distortion to me, which has me questioning what would be the reason?
 

Generally in transliterations, they use the 'h' after t's or d's to mark aspiration as this tata is not an aspirated letter, I wouldn't use the 'h.' I'd seen others use the 'h' before and I wondered why. I can understand because it is a softer 't,' with the tongue against the back of the teeth. However, if the 'h' is used for this tata then how do they transliterate the thatha that is used in the word panth?
 

SikhiToTheMax seems to have gone to the more 'missionary' / AKJ view. Where they believe no one is a sant other than Guru Sahib.

I would have preferred that they kept Sant as Sant, and leave the arth upto the reader, instead of imposing on the reader that the only Sant is Guru Sahib.

Does anyone know what SikhiToTheMax now transaltes Brahmgyani to? Would be interesting to look at.
 

I think they have changed it. You can view the same tapoban thread for more info