Doug Kerr
Well-known member
We have a very wide membership and a wide range of topics come before us. Often in these we encounter names of persons and places that are "natively" presented in writing systems other than that used by most "western" languages. We often hear discussions about the "proper form" or "proper spelling" of these names. What might that mean?
Involved here are three related but separate concepts: transliteration, transcription, and translation. In fact, these rather complex concepts overlap considerably, and common simplistic definitions of each are beset by troubling inconsistencies.
I'm not a trained linguist, but my work and interests have long made linguistic matters of concern to me. I thought I would give my best insight into these three processes.
Some specific examples are taken from the Wikipedia article on "Transliteration".
Transliteration refers to taking a word rendered in one alphabet or syllabary (the concept does not apply directly to other kinds of writing system, such as Chinese or the kanji form of Japanese) and rendering it in a different alphabet (or syllabary) by a systematic mapping of the symbols of the source alphabet onto symbols (or groups of symbols) in the destination alphabet. (For simplicity, I will say only "alphabet" in the rest of this note.)
We are perhaps most familiar with the situation where the destination alphabet is the Latin alphabet. What is that?
In this context, that actually means the alphabet used to write the English language! (Various alphabets were used throughout history to write the Latin language. The alphabet eventually came to contain the letters used today to write English.)
This alphabet is often called the Roman alphabet. However, typologists prefer to speak of the alphabet as the Latin alphabet, reserving the adjective Roman to mean one form of the letter glyphs, that is the not-italic form.
In fact, many standardized schemes of transliteration, and of transcription, are spoken of as "Romanization" schemes.
An example of transliteration is where the Greek word Ελευθερία (written, not surprisingly, in the modern Greek alphabet) is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "Eleutheria".
There are often many "recognized" systems of transliteration (devised by different scholars or institutions) for the characters of various alphabets into another alphabet. Often different ones are used depending on the source language.
Transliteration is not expected to (under the pronunciation rules of some language) represent or even approximate the pronunciation of the source word. Nevertheless, most accepted transliteration systems do work on the premise of approximating the typical sound of a letter of the source language (and again this must presume "under the pronunciation rules of some language" using the destination alphabet).
For example, in most transliteration systems, the Greek letter θ is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "th". That is because the sound of the letter θ in most Greek words is similar to the pronunciation of "th" in English and some other western languages, but not for example in Spanish nor German. In most transliteration systems, the Cyrillic letter с in Russian words is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "s". That is because the sound of the letter с in most Russian words is similar to the pronunciation of "s" in English and some other western languages, but not for example (exactly) in German and certainly not in Hungarian.
Note that notwithstanding the implicit role played by the English language in formulating there transliteration schemes, the result is not "in English". It is "in the Latin alphabet".
In fact, the description of transliteration into the Latin alphabet as mapping the characters of the word onto symbols (or groups of symbols) from the Latin alphabet is not really precise. For example, under one system of transliteration, Greek phrase υιών is transliterated as "uiōn". Now "ō" is not a symbol of the Latin alphabet. It can be looked at as a symbol of the Latin alphabet augmented by a diacritical mark (macron in this case).
This is done in the case of this particular Greek transliteration scheme so as to distinguish the transliteration of the Greek letter ω (omega) into the "Latin" "ō", from the transliteration of the Greek letter ο (omicron) into the Latin "o".
Transcription refers to refers to taking a word rendered in one alphabet and rendering it in a different alphabet so that the pronunciation implied by the new form (under the pronunciation rules of some specific language using that alphabet) will approximate the pronunciation of the source word. Again, in general there are multiple schemes that have come into common use.
An example of transcription (under one scheme) is where the Greek word Ελευθερία is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "Eleftheria". In this case, it is assumed that the pronunciation will be that implied under English rules of pronunciation.
Note that notwithstanding the implicit role played by the English language in formulating these transcription schemes (more powerfully than in the case of transliteration), the result is not "in English". It is again "in the Latin alphabet".
Translation is where we take a word in one language (written in the alphabet normally used for that language) and convert it to a word of the same meaning in another language (written in the alphabet normally used for that language).
An example is where the Greek word Ευαγγέλιο (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, under one scheme, as "Euaggelio", and transcribed into the Latin alphabet, under one scheme, as "Evangelio") is translated into English as "Gospel".
Proper names
So keep in mind that when we often hear about "proper spelling" (as in "what is the proper spelling of the family name of the leader of Libya - is it Gaddafi, or Khaddafi, or [Al] Gathafi, or [el-]Qaddafi, etc."), almost always it is a transliteration or transcription that is asked about. The actual spelling of this guy's family name is القَذَّافِي.
Names of cities
There are additional complication regarding the names of cities that are natively in a language using a non-Latin alphabet. The authorities of the city (or the nation) may promulgate a "preferred" rendering into the Latin alphabet, which may or may not be said to be "in the English language". If it is considered to be in the English language, then there may well be perfectly legitimate renderings of the name into other languages (just as for city names that are natively in a language using the Latin Alphabet).
For example, the Russian capital, Москва, is known in English as "Moscow", but also as Maskava (Latvian), Maskva (Lithuanian),, Mosca (Italian), Moscau (Romansh), Moscó (Irish), Moscou (Catalan, French, Brazilian Portuguese), Moscova (Romanian), Moscovo (European Portuguese), Moscú (Spanish), Mosgo (Scottish Gaelic), Moska (Maltese), Mosekao (Hawaiian), Moskau (German), Móskha - Μόσχα (Greek), Moskou (Afrikaans, Dutch), Moskova (Finnish, Turkish), Moskva (Azeri, Bosnian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Hebrew, Icelandic, Norwegian, Slovak, Slovene, Swedish), and so forth (plus by other names in languages not using the Latin alphabet).
Best regards,
Doug
Involved here are three related but separate concepts: transliteration, transcription, and translation. In fact, these rather complex concepts overlap considerably, and common simplistic definitions of each are beset by troubling inconsistencies.
I'm not a trained linguist, but my work and interests have long made linguistic matters of concern to me. I thought I would give my best insight into these three processes.
Some specific examples are taken from the Wikipedia article on "Transliteration".
Transliteration refers to taking a word rendered in one alphabet or syllabary (the concept does not apply directly to other kinds of writing system, such as Chinese or the kanji form of Japanese) and rendering it in a different alphabet (or syllabary) by a systematic mapping of the symbols of the source alphabet onto symbols (or groups of symbols) in the destination alphabet. (For simplicity, I will say only "alphabet" in the rest of this note.)
We are perhaps most familiar with the situation where the destination alphabet is the Latin alphabet. What is that?
In this context, that actually means the alphabet used to write the English language! (Various alphabets were used throughout history to write the Latin language. The alphabet eventually came to contain the letters used today to write English.)
This alphabet is often called the Roman alphabet. However, typologists prefer to speak of the alphabet as the Latin alphabet, reserving the adjective Roman to mean one form of the letter glyphs, that is the not-italic form.
In fact, many standardized schemes of transliteration, and of transcription, are spoken of as "Romanization" schemes.
An example of transliteration is where the Greek word Ελευθερία (written, not surprisingly, in the modern Greek alphabet) is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "Eleutheria".
There are often many "recognized" systems of transliteration (devised by different scholars or institutions) for the characters of various alphabets into another alphabet. Often different ones are used depending on the source language.
Transliteration is not expected to (under the pronunciation rules of some language) represent or even approximate the pronunciation of the source word. Nevertheless, most accepted transliteration systems do work on the premise of approximating the typical sound of a letter of the source language (and again this must presume "under the pronunciation rules of some language" using the destination alphabet).
For example, in most transliteration systems, the Greek letter θ is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "th". That is because the sound of the letter θ in most Greek words is similar to the pronunciation of "th" in English and some other western languages, but not for example in Spanish nor German. In most transliteration systems, the Cyrillic letter с in Russian words is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "s". That is because the sound of the letter с in most Russian words is similar to the pronunciation of "s" in English and some other western languages, but not for example (exactly) in German and certainly not in Hungarian.
Note that notwithstanding the implicit role played by the English language in formulating there transliteration schemes, the result is not "in English". It is "in the Latin alphabet".
In fact, the description of transliteration into the Latin alphabet as mapping the characters of the word onto symbols (or groups of symbols) from the Latin alphabet is not really precise. For example, under one system of transliteration, Greek phrase υιών is transliterated as "uiōn". Now "ō" is not a symbol of the Latin alphabet. It can be looked at as a symbol of the Latin alphabet augmented by a diacritical mark (macron in this case).
This is done in the case of this particular Greek transliteration scheme so as to distinguish the transliteration of the Greek letter ω (omega) into the "Latin" "ō", from the transliteration of the Greek letter ο (omicron) into the Latin "o".
Transcription refers to refers to taking a word rendered in one alphabet and rendering it in a different alphabet so that the pronunciation implied by the new form (under the pronunciation rules of some specific language using that alphabet) will approximate the pronunciation of the source word. Again, in general there are multiple schemes that have come into common use.
An example of transcription (under one scheme) is where the Greek word Ελευθερία is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "Eleftheria". In this case, it is assumed that the pronunciation will be that implied under English rules of pronunciation.
Note that notwithstanding the implicit role played by the English language in formulating these transcription schemes (more powerfully than in the case of transliteration), the result is not "in English". It is again "in the Latin alphabet".
Translation is where we take a word in one language (written in the alphabet normally used for that language) and convert it to a word of the same meaning in another language (written in the alphabet normally used for that language).
An example is where the Greek word Ευαγγέλιο (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, under one scheme, as "Euaggelio", and transcribed into the Latin alphabet, under one scheme, as "Evangelio") is translated into English as "Gospel".
Proper names
So keep in mind that when we often hear about "proper spelling" (as in "what is the proper spelling of the family name of the leader of Libya - is it Gaddafi, or Khaddafi, or [Al] Gathafi, or [el-]Qaddafi, etc."), almost always it is a transliteration or transcription that is asked about. The actual spelling of this guy's family name is القَذَّافِي.
Names of cities
There are additional complication regarding the names of cities that are natively in a language using a non-Latin alphabet. The authorities of the city (or the nation) may promulgate a "preferred" rendering into the Latin alphabet, which may or may not be said to be "in the English language". If it is considered to be in the English language, then there may well be perfectly legitimate renderings of the name into other languages (just as for city names that are natively in a language using the Latin Alphabet).
For example, the Russian capital, Москва, is known in English as "Moscow", but also as Maskava (Latvian), Maskva (Lithuanian),, Mosca (Italian), Moscau (Romansh), Moscó (Irish), Moscou (Catalan, French, Brazilian Portuguese), Moscova (Romanian), Moscovo (European Portuguese), Moscú (Spanish), Mosgo (Scottish Gaelic), Moska (Maltese), Mosekao (Hawaiian), Moskau (German), Móskha - Μόσχα (Greek), Moskou (Afrikaans, Dutch), Moskova (Finnish, Turkish), Moskva (Azeri, Bosnian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Hebrew, Icelandic, Norwegian, Slovak, Slovene, Swedish), and so forth (plus by other names in languages not using the Latin alphabet).
Best regards,
Doug