# Transliteration / Transcription



## ShakeyX

Quick question with an example.
"Laurie"
Using what I have learnt from the wiki page on transliteration/transcription... Laurie in Russian transliteration; Лаурие but transcribe it to; Лори. Is this correct?

I am just unsure of the difference of the two terms and wondered if anyone could fill me in.


----------



## Maroseika

Transliteration is conversion of a one language script to another according with some system. So whether Лаурие is correct transliteration of Laurie or not, depends on what language this word Laurie is written. If it is English, I'd say transliteration whould be Лаурайе, but if it is French, then Лауриё.
As for the transcription, this is reproduction of pronunciation, therefore Russian trasncription of Laurie depends on how it is pronounced in the original language. If  it is [Lori], it really is Лори for Russian.
For example, transliteration of Maugham is Маугхам and transcription is Мом.


----------



## ShakeyX

So lets go with a Russian word to english.. Машина... transliteration "Mashina"... transcription.. "Mashina"? Right. Can you think of any example where this differs in a real word from russian just so I can see. Or does cyrillic and latin work pretty well together between Russian and English?


----------



## rusita preciosa

I think the better example is when a word's spelling and pronounciation are different
Tough
Transliteration: тоугх 
Transcription: таф


----------



## ShakeyX

rusita preciosa said:


> I think the better example is when a word's spelling and pronounciation are different
> Tough
> Transcription: тоугх
> Transliteration: таф



Shoudlnt that be the other way around?


----------



## Maroseika

ShakeyX said:


> So lets go with a Russian word to english.. Машина... transliteration "Mashina"... transcription.. "Mashina"?


Shouldn't "mashina" be pronounced in English as [məʃaɪnə] or [məʃi:nə] rather than [maʃina]?



rusita preciosa said:


> I think the better example is when a word's spelling and pronounciation are different
> Tough
> Transcription: тоугх
> Transliteration: таф



Isn't it vice versa?


----------



## ShakeyX

Maroseika said:


> Shouldn't "mashina" be pronounced in English as [məʃaɪnə] or [məʃi:nə] rather than [maʃina]?



So given you know the IPA for the word what letters would you then use to convey its pronunciation (which to clarify is called transcription... right?)  Muhsheenuh?


----------



## rusita preciosa

ShakeyX said:


> Shoudlnt that be the other way around?





Maroseika said:


> Isn't it vice versa?



Yes sorry - I fixed my post


----------



## Maroseika

ShakeyX said:


> So given you know the IPA for the word what letters would you then use to convey its pronunciation (which to clarify is called transcription... right?)  Muhsheenuh?


Yes, transcription reproduces pronunciation.
However what you wrote has nothing to do with IPA and probably represents some other system (wher uh is spelled a). Anyway for the word машина IPA transcription is [mɐˈʂɨnə].


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> So whether Лаурие is correct transliteration of Laurie or not, depends on what language this word Laurie is written. If it is English, I'd say transliteration whould be Лаурайе, but if it is French, then Лауриё.


  Just to add: there are lots of transliteration systems (especially for English), and you can always make up your own as well. So, in a sense, every transliteration is correct; that's as long as many transliterations in one series are consistent with one another.


----------



## ShakeyX

Maroseika said:


> Yes, transcription reproduces pronunciation.
> However what you wrote has nothing to do with IPA and probably represents some other system (wher uh is spelled a). Anyway for the word машина IPA transcription is [mɐˈʂɨnə].




Here you are simply transcribing into IPA though which has nothing to do with English. I was querying what the english Transcription + Transliteration of the Russian word Машина would look like. So I can further wrap my head around what that means.

And I know there are many transliteration systems as in.. ж is said to sometimes equal z... or zh... or z with a curved flick ontop. But surely there is only one possible transcription...? Am I right?


----------



## Real_

ShakeyX said:


> Quick question with an example.
> "Laurie"
> Using what I have learnt from the wiki page on transliteration/transcription... Laurie in Russian transliteration; Лаурие but transcribe it to; Лори. Is this correct?
> 
> I am just unsure of the difference of the two terms and wondered if anyone could fill me in.


 Yes, you are right. 
Laurie - транслит. Лаурие; транскрипция Лори.
But.
Машина - translit. Mashina; transcr. Mashyna.
ы - y. (ы sounds like in word -s*y*stem)

ps: transliteration - it's just spelling, almost charming. 
but trascription - it's doubled charming, because of sounding.


----------



## Maroseika

ShakeyX said:


> Here you are simply transcribing into IPA though which has nothing to do with English. I was querying what the english Transcription + Transliteration of the Russian word Машина would look like. So I can further wrap my head around what that means.


Transcription is to represent sounds, for example IPA for машина is [mɐ'ʂɨnə]. Transliteration is to represent letters, it depends on the system you are using to transliterate Russian letters. It would be easier to translitereate it in Spanish where each letter is spelled unambiguously, but with English it's much more difficult, of course. But you may use a system describing each sign like "as in the word X".



> And I know there are many transliteration systems as in.. ж is said to sometimes equal z... or zh... or z with a curved flick ontop. But surely there is only one possible transcription...? Am I right?


No, there are various transcription systems, in particular - narrow transcription or phonetic (IPA, APA, others) and broad transcriptions - phonemic (disregarding allophones) and practical. 

Maybe it will be easier to answer your question if you explain exactly what for you need all this stuff.


----------



## Real_

I think that he means a transliteration using as transcription. It's much easy to understand pronunciation.

(if you write letter with latin keyboard only, for instance, you will never use simply transliteration, but transliteration as transcription).

(and for transcription they use just thier alphabet, as below from wiki) :



Greek wordTransliterationTranscriptionEnglish translationΕλληνική ΔημοκρατίαHellēnikē DēmokratiaEliniki DhimokratiaHellenic RepublicΕλευθερίαEleutheriaEleftheriaFreedomΕυαγγέλιοEuaggelioEvangelioGospelτων υιώνtōn uiōnton ionof the sons


That's why he asked. I think so. 

ps: for english-italian, for example, the Langenscheidt uses some punctuation marks to the latin alphabet, but only for vowels and diphthongs. And have no any scribbles...


----------



## ShakeyX

Maroseika said:


> Transcription is to represent sounds, for example IPA for машина is [mɐ'ʂɨnə]. Transliteration is to represent letters, it depends on the system you are using to transliterate Russian letters. It would be easier to translitereate it in Spanish where each letter is spelled unambiguously, but with English it's much more difficult, of course. But you may use a system describing each sign like "as in the word X".
> 
> 
> No, there are various transcription systems, in particular - narrow transcription or phonetic (IPA, APA, others) and broad transcriptions - phonemic (disregarding allophones) and practical.
> 
> Maybe it will be easier to answer your question if you explain exactly what for you need all this stuff.



You keep relating transcription to IPA, and while yes IPA should be your step one, as transcription deals with replicating the SOUND and not a Letter for Letter "swap", but then what are you going to do in ENGLISH to replicate that sound...

Say хорошо is xərɐˈʂo in IPA, then I believe transcription deals with making that SAME sound but using the target language. So there must be only a finite number of ways to recreate this, obviously not just one as some sounds can be made in several ways in english (I, eye, aye...) but still a finite number of ways, one way I would propose (in order to make an english perosn who doesnt know IPA or RUSSIAN make the same sounds) is.. HuhRaSho. Whereas the transliteration would be.. Horosho.

But then again they only really transcribe things such as names which is why Дмитрий rather than being Dmitrij (or Dmitrii depending on the transliteraton system), transcribed becomes Dmitry/Dimitry as this form both fits in with the values of spelling in english and allows us to create a close enough sound.

So I reiterate... is there such thing as a transcription in english of хорошо as my attempt looks pretty dodgey, is there any rules I can follow?


----------



## Maroseika

ShakeyX said:


> Say хорошо is xərɐˈʂo in IPA, then I believe transcription deals with making that SAME sound but using the target language. So there must be only a finite number of ways to recreate this, obviously not just one as some sounds can be made in several ways in english (I, eye, aye...) but still a finite number of ways, one way I would propose (in order to make an english perosn who doesnt know IPA or RUSSIAN make the same sounds) is.. HuhRaSho. Whereas the transliteration would be.. Horosho.


No. HuhRaSho has nothing to do with transcription and can hardly help anyone to know how to read the Russian word, it can only confuse and delude.




> But then again they only really transcribe things such as names which is why Дмитрий rather than being Dmitrij (or Dmitrii depending on the transliteraton system), transcribed becomes Dmitry/Dimitry as this form both fits in with the values of spelling in english and allows us to create a close enough sound.



Dmitry represents Russian Дмитрий only approximately (Dimitry has nothing to do with it at all), because it substitutes two final Russian sounds with only one. Dmitrij gives two sounds for two, but who knows what to do with 'j' here?



> So I reiterate... is there such thing as a transcription in english of хорошо as my attempt looks pretty dodgey, is there any rules I can follow?



If "a transcription in English" means trasncription that uses only symbols of English alphabeth - no, there is no such a system, at least I've never heard of one, but you can create it yourself. I doubt it would be convinient, as it must take several English letters for one Russian sound, but still you can make it. Particularly, HuhRaSho represents хорошо only if you strictly define uh as ə, R as r (but not ɹ like in English 'run'), Sh as ʂ (but not as English ʃ like in 'shine') and so on. The work looks quite senseless, I dare say... If you mean to elaborate a simple method to transcribe Russian words by use of Latin symbols, you are on the wrong way.


----------



## Real_

ShakeyX said:


> ... is there such thing as a transcription in english of хорошо ..., is there any rules I can follow?




ps: all next lessons are around. (you just should write out the transliteration of all sounds for further using).

pps: this is correct way for well enough pronunciation.


----------



## everdimension

Wikipedia says that "direct" transliteration is rarely used because it can confuse the word's pronunciation too much. I quote:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Так, например, французская фамилия Daudet транслитерируется по-русски Додэ (или Доде), то есть учитывается, что [сочетание] au по-французски обозначает o, а конечное t не произносится. В чистой транслитерации пришлось бы эту фамилию писать Даудэт (или Даудет), что едва ли было бы рационально, так как слишком оторвало бы ее в звуковом отношении от оригинала.



It is said here that although direct transliteration of the french name "Daudet" would be "Даудет", it is better to transliterate it using transcription: "Доде" или "Додэ".



But you are correct. The direct (letter for letter) transliteration of the name Laurie (assuming it is an english name, which may be not so) is "Лаурие" and the transcription is "Лори". But if somebody tells you that he had _transliterated_ 'Laurie' as "Лори" he wouldn't be wrong.



To go further on the subject I would like to suggest the transliteration and the transcription of the word "Машина" into english.
Transliteration: "Mashina"
Transcription: "Mah-shee-nah".
I have actually seen some dictionaries try to explain the word's pronunciation the way I just did with машина's transcription. But the transliteration is probably enough for people who are learning russian as they should already be familiar with the way that this transliterations work.


----------



## Real_

Jumble-jungle.


----------



## neonrider

Alternative transliteration of English: It was reported on September 26, 2011, that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation rejected an appeal brought by a family against a decision of the Court of Appeals that had refused to award them monetary damages after the contents of their safety-deposit box were stolen from the vault of their bank, Banco di Roma (now Unicredit Bank). vs. It wфz rypфted on Septemba 26, 2011, рддt рe Italian Saprym Kфt of Kesseision rydzekted an appyl brфt bai ei fдmily egeinst ei desizшn of рд Kфt of Appylz рддt hддd rifjьzd tь awфd рem moneteri dддmedziz .... etc.


----------



## Maroseika

In what sense this can be considered as translitereation? What language contains all these ð, ž, ä, ø? I suppose this is transcription.

By the way, why ei for a and Saprym for Supreme?


----------



## neonrider

Maroseika said:


> In what sense this can be considered as translitereation? What language contains all these ð, ž, ä, ø? I suppose this is transcription.
> 
> By the way, why ei for a and Saprym for Supreme?



It is an alternative way to spell English words matching the sounds with alternative letters for easy pronounciation. I would call it the Alternative Transliteration.

"By the way, why ei for a and Saprym for Supreme?" - it is obvious why, especially to someone from Continental Europe. It is exactly why VODKA is pronounced as vodka, and not as fodja. OK, how about Сапрйм for Supreme and eй for a.



Maroseika said:


> What language contains all these ð, ž, ä, ø? I suppose this is transcription.



Icelandic, Czech, Lithuanian, Danish, Finnish, German, Slovak languages contain these letters.


----------



## Maroseika

neonrider said:


> It is an alternative way to spell English words matching the sounds with alternative letters for easy pronounciation. I would call it the Alternative Transliteration.


I'm afraid this term is confusive. Transcription and transliteration serve different aims and what you propose is transcription rather than transliteration, because your system reproduces sounds rather than letters.





> Icelandic, Czech, Lithuanian, Danish, Finnish, German, Slovak languages contain these letters.


I meant that transliteration always uses one (and not two or three or mix of them) writing system to represent another system. But since your system is not transliteration, but transcription, it can use any symbols, of course.


----------



## neonrider

Understand. I just liked the mix of all kinds of letters to represent English as a change. I could've included kirillitsa letters as well. That would come closer to the term to not divide Europe into regions or political entities anymore. Europe has been divided long enough and the way to transcribe various European languages is to like each other more, but not to assimilate.

"Блäть" - was meant by me as "full stop; i said it all". Also, as a pan-european transcription. It is not a swear word, expletive in this case nor a curse. When good words go bad, sometimes bad words turn out well.

With all this I want to say that there are "cool" ways to spell and there unfortunately are "bad looking transcripted languages". Most won't admit that, but that's what it is. Germans are proud of their ä, ö, ü; Russians are proud of their я, ж, ы; French and Turks are proud of their ç; Lithuanians are proud of their ė, ū (although not so sure about the ą, ę, į, ų and č, š, ž); Scandinavians are proud of their æ, ø, å while Czechs are proud of their ů (to me it is the coolest letter ever) and there are so many different ways to pronounce x, j and even s.

So there are "ugly" letters that people would love to get rid of and there are "cool" letters that everyone seems to love. Yet linguists in some countries hold on to their "historical" and "beloved" letters for dear life.

There's another issue of duplication of vowels and especially consonants, for example: 

Belle, Appelation, Assassination, Petrutti, Morazzi, Terra 

Sometimes with necessity and sometimes because it looks "cool". I know, it maybe a "forbidden" topic, but it is what it is. The coolness of appearance of a transcription or transliteration of a language. It even affects commerce, sales, popularity of entire countries etc. You may be surprised, but that's what it is. People seem to pick out best looking letters (or weirdest) and leave out bland and not so attractive ones. It is called Image and Presentation. Superficial, but important factor.

Now can we make a *Coolest Letter Contest*?


----------



## Maroseika

I think all this has no relation to the topic theme. You may open the new thread in Cultural Cafе́.


----------

