Hello!
Please help me to compile a complete list of characters used to
transliterate (scholarly and popular) the Middle Eastern languages; include
both encoded and not-as-of-yet-encoded characters. Thank You!
Robert Lloyd Wheelock
Augusta, ME U.S.A.
Hi.
From: Robert Wheelock
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:27:01 -0400
> Hello!
> Please help me to compile a complete list of characters used to
> transliterate (scholarly and popular) the Middle Eastern languages; include
> both encoded and not-as-of-yet-encoded characters. Thank You!
> Robert Ll
Hi once more.
From: cewcat...@hotmail.com
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Compiling a list of Semitic transliteration characters
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:03:14 -0400
> Hi.
> From: Robert Wheelock
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:27:01 -0400
>> Hello!
>> Please help me
> I assume you mean "Romanization," when you say "transliteration."
Well, isn't "Romanization" a special case of "transliteration"?
Petr Tomasek
I assume you mean "Romanization," when you say "transliteration."
Well, isn't "Romanization" a special case of "transliteration"?
Sometimes a transliteration-transcription distinction is made, raising
the question of whether "transcription" is a hypernym of
"transliteration" and "non-transl
It is also at least logically possible for there to be transliterations
from Semitic writing systems to non-Roman writing systems. I'm not aware of
such a thing, but one can imagine, for example, Russian work using a
Cyrillic-based transliteration. Even if such things are not in scholarly
use, I be
On 2012/9/5 Bill Poser wrote:
> It is also at least logically possible for there to be transliterations
> from Semitic writing systems to non-Roman writing systems. I'm not aware of
> such a thing, but one can imagine, for example, Russian work using a
> Cyrillic-based transliteration. Even if su
It is also at least logically possible for there to be
transliterations from Semitic writing systems to non-Roman writing
systems.
I recall reading that replacing the Hebrew writing system by one based
on the Greek alphabet was once discussed in the academic community
there, due to very simil
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.
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 particul
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
The distinction between "transliteration" and "transcription" is
limited to a few people. It is far better to use unambiguous terms,
like "lossy" vs "lossless".
Actually I agree on both counts. "lossless" or "reversible" are the
words I should have used; there are many ways of not being 1-to
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.merria
2012-09-07 0:59, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
They might be distinct in Finnish, but in English only in specialized
contexts,
This is not about everyday language (which is irrelevant in this
context) but about the language used in national standards.
Best to use terms that will be understood by the
This is not about everyday language (which is irrelevant in this
context) but about the language used in national standards.
[...]
Wouldn't you say that "lossy" and "lossless" are jargon terms? I think
I would find it easier to explain to Joe Q. Public what
"transliteration" and "transcript
but about the language used in national standards.
The topic of this thread is:
Compiling a list of Semitic transliteration characters
This might come off as a bit snarky, but do you *really* think the author
and every one of the commentators on the thread all really meant the
following
2012-09-07 1:54, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
This might come off as a bit snarky, but do you /really/ think the
author and every one of the commentators on the thread all really meant
the following?
Compiling a list of Semitic transliteration characters/, but
restricted to only those
mico del bene —*
**
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-09-07 1:54, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>
> This might come off as a bit snarky, but do you /really/ think the
>>
>> author and every one of the commentators on the thread all really meant
>&
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:03:14 -0400
CE Whitehead wrote:
> For Romanization (conversion to Latin characters) of Arabic, see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic
Likewise, a reasonable list for Hebrew can be picked up from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Hebrew .
Sho
Petr Tomasek, Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:35:25 +0200:
>> I assume you mean "Romanization," when you say "transliteration."
>
> Well, isn't "Romanization" a special case of "transliteration"?
I think that Catherine meant to say that she believe to understand what
kind of transliteration he probably was a
Bill Poser, Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:15:37 -0700:
> It is also at least logically possible for there to be transliterations
> from Semitic writing systems to non-Roman writing systems. I'm not aware of
> such a thing, but one can imagine, for example, Russian work using a
> Cyrillic-based transliteration
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
2012/9/7 Leif Halvard Silli :
> The word "Roman", can also refer to "Greek". So it is best to avoid
> that term. ;-)
The Roman empire was speaking a large set of languages (and writing in
various scripts) from Europe to Asia and Africa, even if Latin was
used in Rome, and written in the Latin scri
Transliteration or Romanizing
My first advice is not to embark on making solutions for languages that you
do not know. Unicode ruined Indic and Singhala by making 'solutions' for
them by not doing any meaningful research and ignoring well-known Sanskrit
grammar and previous solutions for Indic.
I
Thank you Phillip, so, what did you say?
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2012/9/7 Leif Halvard Silli :
> > The word "Roman", can also refer to "Greek". So it is best to avoid
> > that term. ;-)
>
> The Roman empire was speaking a large set of languages (and writing in
> v
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:43:59 -0500
Naena Guru wrote:
> Transliteration or Romanizing
>
> My first advice is not to embark on making solutions for languages
> that you do not know. Unicode ruined Indic and Singhala by making
> 'solutions' for them by not doing any meaningful research and
> ignorin
2012-09-07 21:16, Richard Wordingham wrote:
Some reasons for romanizing:
3. Make the language accessible to those who are not familiar with the
script
The rest of the post is irrelevant. Transliterations from Semitic
languages have been established for this reason, and possibly because
of
There is another reason for romanizing, namely where it is desired to
represent constituents below the level of analysis of the native writing
system, e.g. individual segments when the native system is suprasegmental.
For example, many Japanese verbs have stems that end in consonants that are
not p
Hi.
From: Mark Davis ☕
Date: 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 i
—A Reply To: Compiling A List Of Semitic Transliteration Characters—
Although slightly on a different tangent, mention MUST be made about the
transcription of Indic languages into Hebrew script (a very rare area of
linguistic studies)—inhabitants in Israel and Palestine MUST use some
system (or
{Sorry for this delayed response. I had it in he drafts box]
INDIC:
Speculation is one, doing is another. I have *successfully* transliterated
Singhala. Devanagari is perhaps less complicated. I haven't had the time
and money to do it. The difference between the two is not even as much as
between
ence of an ohm symbol.
> I agree that following ISCII, whatever it is, might be the problem.
ISCII = Indian Stand Code for Information Interchange.
> It is presumptuous to say, "the rest of the post is irrelevant".
It was irrelevant to compiling a list of Semitic transliteration
chara
32 matches
Mail list logo
