From: busmanus (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 18:37:59 CDT
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
> On 2004.07.12, 15:36, busmanus <email@example.com> wrote:
>>O, yes, and rough transcriptions in brackets do no harm (e.g. at the
>>first occurrence in the given text), at least if such are available.
>>This would be (very roughly) something like "Benkó (pron. Benkoh)"
>>and "Benkő (pron. Benkur)" for the above examples in US English.
> I absolutely concur. Additional info may be the traditional
> assimilated form, if any, and transliteration details, when crossing
> script boundaries. Ex.
> «Soviet official Хрущёв (Qruxёv, pron. Hrueshawf, a.s.a. Krushchov
I had a feeling that someone would misunderstand it...
1.) The original form of Khrushchov's name is in a
different script, and it should consequently appear
in non-specialized texts in transcription _only_.
2.) There should strictly be only _one_ transcription used
consistently for each single name in the given text.
3.) The whole thing does not apply if there is a uniquely
identifiable traditional form available, in common
use by the target language community (in this case
I just wanted to avoid to get entangled in such complicated if-s and
how-s, because I thought it was all implied in the context.
I know rough transcriptions are annoying to the pedantic (so are
they to me), but it's a better compromise to give them in addition
to the original form of the name (only _once_ in the text) than
actually making that original form unidentifiable by stripping
diacritics of key importance.
Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol.
Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 12 2004 - 18:26:08 CDT