Re: Compiling a list of Semitic transliteration characters

From: Leif Halvard Silli <>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 05:25:31 +0200

Mark Davis ☕, Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:47:58 -0700:
> 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.

I do really like the lossless (transliteration)/lossy (transcription)
word pair. However, it is a language mostly for computer geeks. I would
not call it "unambigious", at least. But it is a helpful explanation
of the terms, I think.

The word "Roman", can also refer to "Greek". So it is best to avoid
that term. ;-)

leif halvard silli
Received on Thu Sep 06 2012 - 22:26:40 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Sep 06 2012 - 22:26:40 CDT