RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration standards latin- >arabic

From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 13:14:56 CDT

  • Next message: Chris Harvey: "RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration standards latin- >arabic"

    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.

    Jony

    -----Original Message-----
    From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
    Behalf Of Mike Ayers
    Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:24 PM
    To: 'Mark Davis'; unicode@unicode.org
    Subject: RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration standards latin-
    >arabic

    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.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:
            Vietnamese English
                      ------>
            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?

    /|/|ike
    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