Talk:BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

[edit] Apostrophes vs. primes

Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this. The BGN/PCGN publication is mum on that subject. Could be either. Most likely, they did not even bother about such a minor detail.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell how they were printed if you look really closely? I based the change on Pederson's Russian.pdf, which seems to pay careful attention to such things. This is usually an esoteric detail, and the exact execution will depend on who is typing the transliteration or setting the type, but it does at least matter in the case of ISO 9, which specifies a prime ( ′ ) for ь and a typographic apostrophe ( ’ ) for the uk/be apostrof. —Michael Z. 2006-02-15 00:17 Z

When compared against Russian.pdf, they indeed look like apostrophes. The symbols in the Russian romanization table also look exactly like apostrophes used elsewhere in the publication, so it's probably a safe bet to say that BGN/PCGN does not use primes. But I still can't say for sure if they are using double apostrophes or quotes (unlikely, but possible) for the hard sign. The publication does not seem to contain actual quote marks in the text descriptions, but I'll re-read it again to see if I missed anything.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking that back. In the section on Hebrew, they refer to "strong" and "weak" dagesh, and the quotation marks they use in the text look nothing like what the Russian romanization table contains, so hard sign is definitely represented by double apostrophes, not quotation marks. Of course, written proof of that would have been better, but for now this should suffice.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that they use one font in the text and another in tables, or a different one with Cyrillic text.

In most fonts apostrophes are identical to closing quotation marks (“ ” ‘ ’ ). The straight typewriter quotation marks and apostrophes are interchangeable too (" ' ). Primes are usually straight slanted tick-marks (″ ′ ). There are also the modifier letter equivalents (mentioned here), which are technically better, but not well-enough supported in common fonts for us to use. Excuse me if I'm repeating something you already know. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-02-15 18:59 Z

I am not a specialist on fonts, but those used in the main text and in the romanization tables look quite identical. The quotation marks used in the text are definitely straight, while the hard sign symbols in the romanization table are "curly". Single apostrophes are "curly" both in the text and in the romanization tables. None of the symbols look like primes at all. Logically, my conclusions above should be correct.

No problem with repeating things. Even though I knew most of them, it's still a good refresher. By the way, can you check if you have that book in your local library? Perhaps if you looked at it yourself, it would be more productive. I am also quite curious (and I don't know if you can help me) as to what convention Canadian government uses for romanization purposes. Would they adhere to PCGN conventions, or is there a separate Canadian body that regulates these issues?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. One of the university libraries in town has the ALA-LC Romanization tables. I'll have another look specifically for BGN/PCGN, but I haven't found it when searching before.

The Geographical Names Board of Canada seems to concern itself mostly with Canadian place names, in French and English, but I found this: Guidelines for names outside Canada for official Canadian use—it essentially says to "use an appropriate Romanization system". —Michael Z. 2006-02-15 22:18 Z