Translation from Russian needed

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by Nortaneous »

shinkarom wrote:1. Competing systems. I created this version because all of existing transcriptions are innacurate.
How so?
3. Phonemes. Yes, you may say that Turkish Latin was introduced because Arabic script did not fit. You may say the same about hangeul. I could say that French orthography or Swedish is barbarian too from the first sight. I have no more arguments to say.
French at least has some sense to it. A better example would be English, which really is a complete and utter bastardization.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

User avatar
Zhen Lin
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:59 am

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by Zhen Lin »

schwhatever wrote:1. Competing systems. Romaji has a single, particular form that has been endorsed (at least somewhat) by the Japanese government (or rather, that's why there's a single mainstream approach, because the government has favored a particular method). There have been various historical attempts to represent Japanese using Roman lettering, but there's a particular form (or, technically speaking two closely related forms) that are so incredibly popular that it doesn't make any sense anymore to use the now archaic romanizations.
I'll point out the irony that rōmaji is in fact not the correct spelling under the government-endorsed kunrei-shiki romanisation. (It would be rômazi and kunrei-siki, respectively.) For further irony, kunrei-shiki is not the romanisation system used on government-installed signage on roads, highways, etc.
書不盡言、言不盡意

shinkarom
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:06 am

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by shinkarom »

Nortaneous wrote:
shinkarom wrote:1. Competing systems. I created this version because all of existing transcriptions are innacurate.
How so?
They can suit basic tasks, but not for lossless rendition of spelling of words and orthography details.
For example, former head of Israeli Izhak Rabin. If you transliterate it Ichak, it will be Ичак, if you transliterate it Itshak, it will be Итшак and not Ицхак. If you leave it as it is, it will be Изхак. Only standartization with diacritic symbols can remove ambiguities.

User avatar
Mecislau
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by Mecislau »

shinkarom wrote:
Nortaneous wrote:
shinkarom wrote:1. Competing systems. I created this version because all of existing transcriptions are innacurate.
How so?
They can suit basic tasks, but not for lossless rendition of spelling of words and orthography details.
For example, former head of Israeli Izhak Rabin. If you transliterate it Ichak, it will be Ичак, if you transliterate it Itshak, it will be Итшак and not Ицхак. If you leave it as it is, it will be Изхак. Only standartization with diacritic symbols can remove ambiguities.
No one spells it "Izhak" in English. The most common spelling is "Yitzhak".

And you won't exactly prove your case by choosing the worst possible example of transliteration. Plenty of existing transcription systems are lossless, albeit ugly. Purely for the sake of transliterating Ицхак, what's wrong with "Icxak", "Ickhak", or "Itskhak"?

tezcatlip0ca
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by tezcatlip0ca »

Mecislau wrote:"Yitzhak"
That's Итжак.
The Conlanger Formerly Known As Aiďos

shinkarom
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:06 am

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by shinkarom »

Canepari, not Итжак, but Йитжак.
My next example is an Hebrew word too. Passover, or Pesach, is Пасха.
If you write it Pasha, it will be Паша. Only if you get sh an own letter, you can remove ambiguities.
Or, the word жадный can be zhadnyi (зхадный). You can argue that such words would be rare, but you may never predict what words will exist and what words will not. So the maximal flexibility is the noble goal.
Schwatever, what if I say thatI'm not claiming my Russian Latinic version as the best. Only unum e pluribus(one from many).
And maybe we'll close this discussion, because it has much derailed from the original topic:
Translation from Russian needed
We have already translated this sentence.
If you need to discuss this matter, maybe to open a new topic is more appropriate.

tezcatlip0ca
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Translation from Russian needed

Post by tezcatlip0ca »

shinkarom wrote:Canepari, not Итжак, but Йитжак.
My next example is an Hebrew word too. Passover, or Pesach, is Пасха.
If you write it Pasha, it will be Паша. Only if you get sh an own letter, you can remove ambiguities.
Or, the word жадный can be zhadnyi (зхадный). You can argue that such words would be rare, but you may never predict what words will exist and what words will not. So the maximal flexibility is the noble goal.
As far as I know, there is no йи in Russian, and I would transliterate that as pasxa.
Even all my langs have the same boring old transliteration, a Slavic Americanist variant, without the use of any letters outside the BMLA, except diacritics.
The Conlanger Formerly Known As Aiďos

Post Reply