From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 04:57:37 CDT
On 13/07/2004 00:37, busmanus wrote:
> Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
>> «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_.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 04:59:08 CDT