On 13/07/2004 00:37, busmanus wrote:
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
...
ÂSoviet official ÐÑÑÑÑÐ (QruxÑv, pron. Hrueshawf, a.s.a. Krushchov etc.)
I had a feeling that someone would misunderstand it... Anyway:
1.) The original form of Khrushchov's name is in a different script, and it should consequently appear in non-specialized texts in transcription _only_.
In the original Russian, the two dots would appear over the Cyrillic e only in rather specialised circumstances or in texts marked up beginners. For in Russian these dots are considered highly optional, and e with dots (pronounced o or yo - a spelling rule prescribes this instead of o after certain letters when stressed) is not a separate letter of the alphabet (contrast i kratkoe, Cyrillic i with breve, which is a fully separate letter from i). And indeed the dotless e is reflected in the commonest English transcription, Khrushchev (and similarly Gorbachev etc).
...So how does this relate to "bushmanush" vs. "busmanus" (with diacritics stripped?)? What is actually the original form?
I know rough transcriptions are annoying to the pedantic (so are
they to me), but it's a better compromise to give them in addition
to the original form of the name (only _once_ in the text) than
actually making that original form unidentifiable by stripping diacritics of key importance.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
