Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Maybe not. This is the part I got wrong several weeks ago when we had this
> discussion, and I hope my understanding is better now.
>
> Transliteration is about building a reversible mapping between the original
> (in this case, Japanese) sounds and a set of (in this case, Latin)
> characters, with the focus on reversibility rather than legibility. You
> might even use numbers or other symbols to ensure that the transliterated
> version can be mapped unambiguously back to Japanese. The reader might have
> to go through a learning curve to equate your symbols with the desired sounds.
>
> Transcription is about optimizing the Latin-script version for, say, a
> Polish-language reader. A transcription has not only a target script but
> also a target language, and it might be different for each of Polish, German,
> French, English, etc. The goal is enabling the Polish reader to pronounce
> the Japanese text with a minimal learning curve.
>
<snip>
>
> Unfortunately, the terms "transcription" and "transliteration" are commonly
> mixed up by non-experts, causing much confusion.
>
> Please, somebody let me know if this is still not right.
Transliteration just means to write something using the characters
of another alphabet. Legibility is the focus, so numbers or
symbols shouldn't enter the picture.
A transcription is simply a copy (usually in the same
language/script as the source, otherwise it wouldn't be a copy).
An exception would be a typed transcript of something
originally written in shorthand.
This according to Webster's New World Dictionary (of English),
a recognized authority (on English).
Best regards,
James Kass.
