The distinction between "transliteration" and "transcription" is limited to
a few people. It is far better to use unambiguous terms, like "lossy" vs
"lossless".
Romanization (a transliteration/transcription into Latin script) in general
can be either. Romanization of Chinese ideographs is particularly lossy,
but romanization of many other scripts can be lossless.
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Andreas Prilop <prilop4321_at_trashmail.net>wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Petr Tomasek wrote:
>
> > Well, isn't "Romanization" a special case of "transliteration"?
>
> Romanization of Chinese is certainly not a transliteration.
> This holds for other scripts listed under
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html
> as well.
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 06 2012 - 15:49:57 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Sep 06 2012 - 15:49:57 CDT