From: Jony Rosenne (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 13:14:56 CDT
Transcription does not require roundtrip. It is intended in this case for
the English speaker to be able to deliver an approximate pronunciation
adapted to his native vocal capabilities.
And with the availability of Unicode, I think the need for transliteration
is fading. It seems that these schemes can only be used by people who know
the transliterated script.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Mike Ayers
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:24 PM
To: 'Mark Davis'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration standards latin-
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:36 AM
> Note: I am still speaking of transliterations (e.g.
> transformations that
> 'roundtrip'), not transcriptions (which try to match the
> pronunciation more
> precisely, and may lose information).
OK, just because I do so love monkey wrenches, please explain what I
found in my atlas:
HaĢ TiŽnh Ha Tinh
In which we have a trancription/transliteration/taxonomy problem
between Latin and Latin. Since this does not remotely roundtrip (Ha, for
instance, has 18 Vietnamese equivalents), and no attempt is made to match
pronunciation, how do we refer to it?
Trivia question: Which Vietnamese city does my atlas spell correctly, much
to the chagrin of the Vietnamese?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 02 2004 - 13:16:52 CDT