Re: Importance of diacritics

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 04:57:37 CDT

  • Next message: Marian P Saldanha: "unsubscribe"

    On 13/07/2004 00:37, busmanus wrote:

    > Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
    >> ...
    >> «Soviet official Хрущёв (Qruxёv, pron. Hrueshawf, a.s.a. Krushchov
    >> etc.)
    > I had a feeling that someone would misunderstand it...
    > Anyway:
    > 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_.

    In the original Russian, the two dots would appear over the Cyrillic e
    only in rather specialised circumstances or in texts marked up
    beginners. For in Russian these dots are considered highly optional, and
    e with dots (pronounced o or yo - a spelling rule prescribes this
    instead of o after certain letters when stressed) is not a separate
    letter of the alphabet (contrast i kratkoe, Cyrillic i with breve, which
    is a fully separate letter from i). And indeed the dotless e is
    reflected in the commonest English transcription, Khrushchev (and
    similarly Gorbachev etc).

    > ...
    > 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.
    So how does this relate to "bushmanush" vs. "busmanus" (with diacritics
    stripped?)? What is actually the original form?

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 04:59:08 CDT