Mark Davis ☕, Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:47:58 -0700: > The distinction between "transliteration" and "transcription" is limited to > a few people. It is far better to use unambiguous terms, like "lossy" vs > "lossless". > > Romanization (a transliteration/transcription into Latin script) in general > can be either. Romanization of Chinese ideographs is particularly lossy, > but romanization of many other scripts can be lossless.
I do really like the lossless (transliteration)/lossy (transcription) word pair. However, it is a language mostly for computer geeks. I would not call it "unambigious", at least. But it is a helpful explanation of the terms, I think. The word "Roman", can also refer to "Greek". So it is best to avoid that term. ;-) -- leif halvard silli
