They might be distinct in Finnish, but in English only in specialized contexts, among consenting adults, can you depend on their being distinct (and depend on that distinction corresponding to lossless/lossy). Cf
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transliteration - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcription Best to use terms that will be understood by the people you are communicating with (unless you don't want them to understand ;-). It is too easy to use jargon terms; I fall prey to that myself. It is especially unfortunate to use terms that readers *think* they understand, but which are being used with a specialized, non-customary meaning. Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012-09-06 23:47, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > > The distinction between "transliteration" and "transcription" is limited >> to a few people. >> > > Maybe, but I see that distinction clearly made in Finnish national > standards, for example, and it is a useful one. > > > It is far better to use unambiguous terms, like "lossy" >> vs "lossless". >> > > I see nothing unambiguous about them. Unambiguity can be achieved via > exact definitions. I don't think such terms have been defined in relevant > contexts. > > Yucca > > > >
