> > Transliteration (not mentioned in this thread), the rewriting of words > into a different language using exact definitions or lettering. Not always > an accurate reflection of meaning. > Wrong. Transliteration is rewriting of words into a different alphabet, > essentially the same thing as transcription, KAK NAPRIMER VOT ETO (in > transliterated Russian).
Mea Culpa, that is what I meant. I should have said alphabet rather than language. But I beg to differ that it is the same as transcription. There are languages that can transliterated letter for letter, but still don't correspond letter for letter with the sounds of the target language. I know you don't think much of Celtic civiliation (and in fact have the impression that you think the pairing of those words is an oxymoron). I don't have the font on my computer to type the Celtic letters, but there are various rules of pronounciation (particularly paired consonants) that aren't clear when transliterated. The easiest examples are in proper name (as that way we don't get into the language itself). In the Celtic the character for "b" is pronounced as such, and the character for "h" is also (when hard, and beginning a word). The Tranliteration from the Celtic "font" for the name of the actress "Siobhan Mckenna" is just that - with the "bh", but the pronounciation of that pair is "v" (sort of). So she spells her name in "transliteration", but not as a "transcription". The transcription would be "Shivahn". (Yes, the "s" sound varies with the following letter "Sean" is pronounced "Shawn". (Annd my own last name, Murphy, some has been cross tranlitered and transcribed - in some way I can't figure yet from the alphabets - from "Mercou" to "Murphy"). > > I'll not be told by the late Stanley Sadie how I should use words, and I > > doubt that he would have disagreed. > Sadie was an excellent writer, and you > might learn a few things from him. I agree, and that was an unfortunately worded comment. The intent was not to deny Sadie but to emphasize that he might have been the first to acknowledge that not all definitions that are generally correct are perfect in all situations. In any dictionary one must address the audience and maintain brevity (which I haven't done here). Not all nuances can be addressed. I have been working for weeks on defining Force, and other things, for some things I'm writing. Easy, F=ma, but how do I define it in terms the general player can understand without offending the physicists. Technical definition: That which pushes, pulls, compresses, distends or distorts in any way; that which cahnges the state of rest or state of motion of a body. Get into the formulae for string calculations and you get into force as tension force, and some include the "force of gravity" - which seems irrelevant. Yet we mesure tension force in terms of pounds, kilos and Newtons. Each involves an acceleration component. No sweat, they cancel outin the math when we include the opposing force. My problem is to be complete without being windy for the book I'm working on. Sadie's problem with the musical dictionary was to be as complete as he could for the purpose of his dictionary (and the audience). My comment, that seemed to denigrate Sadie's work, was ill advised. But note that I said he wouldn't have disagreed with the idea that not all definitions (including his) are complete. JWM To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
