Re: Unicode transliterations (and other operations)

[John Cowan]

James Kass scripsit:

> Does the vocabulary make things clearer or cause confusion?
> If we need to distinguish between reversible script conversion
> and irreversible script conversion, could we not simply say
> "reversible script conversion" and so forth?

No, that does not capture the distinction.  In transliteration, we
are mapping one script to another in a language-independent way.
In transcription, we are mapping the writing conventions of one
language to those of another.

Handy example:  the name of the country written "Myanmar" (in
transliteration) is pronounced ['b@m@].  This was transcribed
into (British) English as "Burma".

Of course, to represent the pronunciation I am using an ASCII
transliteration of IPA!


-- 
John Cowan                                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
        --Douglas Hofstadter