From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 08:55:06 CDT
Of course, that's true about Köln. My point was that after all this time,
the use of Dvorak or Tchaikovsky are *now* the English names for what
originated in a different language.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 22:12
Subject: RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration standards latin-
>arabic
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> > [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:43 AM
> > To: unicode@unicode.org; Michael Everson
> > Subject: Re: Looking for transcription or transliteration
> > standards latin- >arabic
> >
> >
>
> ...
>
> >
> > In one sense, the using "Dvorak" in English for "Dvořák" is
> > little different than using "Cologne" in English for "Köln".
> > Both are transcriptions into a form that has become more or
> > less customary.
>
> Cologne is not a transliteration of Köln but the English name of the city,
just as Munich, Rome, Moscow, The Hague, Longhorn, Venice, Jaffa and
Jerusalem.
>
> Why a foreign city should have an English name is an interesting
philosophical question, but not directly concerned with Unicode. This is
however common in many languages.
>
> The transliteration of Köln would be Koln.
> ....
>
> Jony
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 08:55:44 CDT