On 2004.07.12, 15:36, busmanus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
O, yes, and rough transcriptions in brackets do no harm (e.g. at the first occurrence in the given text), at least if such are available. This would be (very roughly) something like "Benkà (pron. Benkoh)" and "BenkŠ(pron. Benkur)" for the above examples in US English.
I absolutely concur. Additional info may be the traditional assimilated form, if any, and transliteration details, when crossing script boundaries. Ex.
ÂSoviet official ÐÑÑÑÑÐ (QruxÑv, pron. Hrueshawf, a.s.a. Krushchov etc.)
I had a feeling that someone would misunderstand it... Anyway:
1.) The original form of Khrushchov's name is in a
different script, and it should consequently appear
in non-specialized texts in transcription _only_. 2.) There should strictly be only _one_ transcription used
consistently for each single name in the given text. 3.) The whole thing does not apply if there is a uniquely
identifiable traditional form available, in common
use by the target language community (in this case
the English).I just wanted to avoid to get entangled in such complicated if-s and how-s, because I thought it was all implied in the context.
I know rough transcriptions are annoying to the pedantic (so are
they to me), but it's a better compromise to give them in addition
to the original form of the name (only _once_ in the text) than
actually making that original form unidentifiable by stripping diacritics of key importance.
Regards,
bushmanush
____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol. Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu
