Re: Importance of diacritics

From: busmanus (
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 10:52:21 CDT

  • Next message: Christopher Fynn: "Re: Changing UCA primary weights (bad idea)"

    Peter Kirk wrote:
    > 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.

    Yes, unfortunately :-(

    >> ...
    >> 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?

    It's not diacritics this time. Hungarian uses plain "s" for what is
    "sh" like in "shirt" in English and "sz" for what would be "s" like in
    "silk". And "busmanus" is not real Hungarian anyway, as you might guess
    yourself, it comes from merging the English word "bushman" and the
    Romany (Gipsy) word "manush" /manˈuʃ/ (man in a general sense,
    human being), to express in a way my fascination with "exotic"
    languages. So either form is "original".



    Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol.
    Probald ki most!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 10:42:34 CDT