Re: Compiling a list of Semitic transliteration characters

They might be distinct in Finnish, but in English only in specialized
contexts, among consenting adults, can you depend on their being distinct
(and depend on that distinction corresponding to lossless/lossy). Cf

   - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transliteration
   - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcription

Best to use terms that will be understood by the people you are
communicating with (unless you don't want them to understand ;-). It is too
easy to use jargon terms; I fall prey to that myself. It is especially
unfortunate to use terms that readers *think* they understand, but which
are being used with a specialized, non-customary meaning.

Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela_at_cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> 2012-09-06 23:47, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>
> The distinction between "transliteration" and "transcription" is limited
>> to a few people.
>>
>
> Maybe, but I see that distinction clearly made in Finnish national
> standards, for example, and it is a useful one.
>
>
> It is far better to use unambiguous terms, like "lossy"
>> vs "lossless".
>>
>
> I see nothing unambiguous about them. Unambiguity can be achieved via
> exact definitions. I don't think such terms have been defined in relevant
> contexts.
>
> Yucca
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 06 2012 - 17:01:59 CDT