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 particularly lossy, but romanization of many other scripts can be lossless. Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Andreas Prilop <prilop4...@trashmail.net>wrote: > 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. > >
