From: Mike Ayers (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 15:18:07 CDT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of John H. Jenkins
> 於 Jul 2, 2004 11:17 AM 時，Chris Harvey 提到：
> > Perhaps one could think of "Ha Tinh" as the English word
> for the city,
> > like "Rome" (English) for "Roma" (Italian), or Tokyo (English) for
> > "Tōkyō" (English transliteration of Japanese), or Kahnawake
> > (English/French) for Kahnawà:ke (Mohawk).
> Or Peking for Beǐjīng. :-)
Or either of those for 北京? Hmmm - can't really transcribe 北京, now
can we? After all, it doesn't have a definitive pronunciation, various
government mandates aside. We can only transcribe pronunciation, not
spelling. And isn't that the real difference? I always thought it was.
Transcribing is making sounds readable, whereas transliteration is making
letters familiar, yes?
I think this is a bit of a Rorshach, though - I doubt any definition
or definitons would well cover all the available ground.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 02 2004 - 15:20:19 CDT