On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Patrick Andries wrote: > John Cowan wrote: > >Patrick Andries scripsit: > >>Let's assume I want to "transliterate" a large Wade-Giles database into > >>pinyin. It this a purely algorithmic process? For all nouns ? Common and > >>proper (cf. Chiang Kai-Shek vs Jiang Jeshi )? Even for "dialectal" words? > > > >"Chiang Kai-Shek" isn't Wade-Giles; it isn't even Mandarin. > > I did mention "dialectal" forms (I believe final -k does no longer occur > in Mandarin), I just wondered whether I would find such nouns (proper or > common) in dictionary edited in Taiwan. I asked because I could see no > algorithmic way of converting this name using traditional Wade to Pinyin > tables. > > Incidentally, if this is not Wade-Giles applied to a "dialectal" > pronunciation, what is it? Geniously interested.
It should be noted that "Wade-Giles" is commonly misused as a cover term for many old, ad hoc, non-Mandarin-based, or non-Pinyin romanization systems. "Chiang Kai-shek" is a mixture of what looks like Wade-Giles (surname "CHIANG") and some kind of archaic romanization based on Cantonese (given name "Kai-shek"). For placenames, there are many "postal" romanizations that are often erroneously considered to be Wade-Giles, e.g., the city Nanking (postal)/Nan-ching (Wade-Giles)/Nanjing (Pinyin). In any case, one should also beware of degenerate Wade-Giles forms where details such as apostrophes (denoting aspiration) are omitted, e.g., the city "Changchun" (degenerate Wade-Giles)/"Ch'ang-ch'un" (Wade-Giles)/Changchun (Pinyin). If "Changchun" were accepted as proper Wade-Giles input, then a corrupt *Zhangzhun pinyin form would be generated. Thomas Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
