Timeline for What is the purpose of transliteration?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2019 at 21:36 | comment | added | LjL | Even though I may not necessarily read a sequence of Latin characters correctly, I will still be able to read it and remember it, because Latin is a script I know well, compared to the same thing written in a script I don't know at all. The transliteration may still be very much based on preserving the graphemes, not pronunciation, but that doesn't take away from the fact that my brain will have much less trouble with it. | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 14:00 | history | edited | Vladimir F Героям слава | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 131 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2019 at 12:09 | comment | added | Lance Pollard | "(Note that even if theoretically a transliteration system is supposed to be reversible, in source standards it is often not specified in sufficient detail in the edge cases to actually be reversible.) A non-reversible transliteration is often called a transcription, or called a lossy or ambiguous transcription." cldr.unicode.org/index/cldr-spec/transliteration-guidelines | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 11:15 | comment | added | Vladimir F Героям слава | Mixing it up? No, how mixing? You ar making it easier to read the words. You may not even know how the language sounded. But you are preserving the grapheme information and transforming it to easier to read character set. You are not mixing it with anything. Do not confuse transliteration and transcription. | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 11:05 | comment | added | Lance Pollard | That is the thing, you can't have both perfect pronunciation and perfect sequence of graphemes. It's one or the other and you're mixing it up. | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 10:54 | comment | added | Vladimir F Героям слава | The exact transliteration should keep pronunciation rules for the sequences of graphemes. If the transliterated text of Tibetan has some ambiguity, I assume the original has the same. Note that standard English is also very ambiguous. Transliteration changes one character set to a different one, transcription, on the other hand, will often make the text easier to pronounce in some target language. | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 10:50 | comment | added | Vladimir F Героям слава | You transform one set of letters to which your eyes and brain is not that much used to to a different set of characters that are more familiar or convenient. It is not that hard to learn to slowly read a text like [Ⱌ]ⱑⱄⰰⱃⱐⱄⱅⰲⱑ ⱀⰰⱎⰵⰿⱐ ⰳ҃ⰹ ⰿⰹⰾⱁⱄⱅⱐⱙ ⱅⰲⱁⰵⱙ ⱂⱃⰹⰸⱐⱃⰹ̑ but it will remain a slow process for most people. This is equivalent [Ц]ѣсарьствѣ нашемь г҃і мілостьѭ твоеѭ пріӡьрі̑ but much easier to go through for most people. You can much more efficiently search for the words that are interesting to you, look and work with meaning of the words, with the morphology, changes to usual forms... | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 10:46 | comment | added | Lance Pollard |
What do you mean by "read" the text? On one of the Wylie transliteration pages it said you cannot read the Tibetan words (maybe just as a layman?) because the pronunciation can't be discerned from the transliteration, for example c is pronounced ch not k. Maybe as an expert you learn to map the sounds to the (somewhat arbitrary) letters? I don't know what you mean (given the transliteration doesn't exactly capture the pronunciation).
|
|
| Sep 28, 2019 at 10:37 | history | edited | Vladimir F Героям слава | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2019 at 10:27 | history | answered | Vladimir F Героям слава | CC BY-SA 4.0 |