Of course, that's true about KÃln. My point was that after all this time, the use of Dvorak or Tchaikovsky are *now* the English names for what originated in a different language.
âMark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jony Rosenne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 22:12 Subject: RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration standards latin- >arabic > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Davis > > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:43 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Everson > > Subject: Re: Looking for transcription or transliteration > > standards latin- >arabic > > > > > > ... > > > > > In one sense, the using "Dvorak" in English for "DvoÅÃk" is > > little different than using "Cologne" in English for "KÃln". > > Both are transcriptions into a form that has become more or > > less customary. > > Cologne is not a transliteration of KÃln but the English name of the city, just as Munich, Rome, Moscow, The Hague, Longhorn, Venice, Jaffa and Jerusalem. > > Why a foreign city should have an English name is an interesting philosophical question, but not directly concerned with Unicode. This is however common in many languages. > > The transliteration of KÃln would be Koln. > .... > > Jony > > > > > âMark > > > > > >
