From: David Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 18 2009 - 20:00:27 CDT
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Jonathan Rosenne<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Of course the translator should translate Unicode according the habits and needs of his language. For example, in Hebrew it would be יוניקוד or יוּנִיקוׁד rather than Unicode (http://unicode.org/standard/translations/hebrew.html).
> I don't see why translations into languages that use the Latin script should be disadvantaged.
Because adopting local names as is is a consistent easy rule that
usually avoids the questions of pronunciation and correct spelling of
that pronunciation. I can talk about Petäjävesi, Finland and no one
has to wonder about my transliteration or have trouble searching for
that name in English text or identifying which city we're talking
about. Do you write Reading, Kansas differently from Reading,
Massachusetts in Hebrew? I'd lay good money that they're pronounced
differently, but only a Kansan familiar with Massachusetts would know
-- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 18 2009 - 20:30:27 CDT