Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, Ëzhiki, this is the way to go.

This sort of system is used by a lot of publications and web sites for Slavic names in English, although in practice it has so many exceptions that it isn't strictly a transliteration system. Such publications often simply cite "a modified BGN/PCGN system", or feature a simple table plus a list of simplifications (eg, -ський: -s’kiy→-sky) and exceptions (eg, personal names are anglicized: Piotr→Peter). I've tried to describe such a system in those terms at Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names. Starting with a standardized system, and summarizing the modifications with their rationale seems clearer and more concise to me than such a complex table with so many unexplained exceptions.

Academic publications may also use one or more strict transliteration systems to present Slavic words, as opposed to simply naming people or places in English text. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 19:06 Z

Thanks, I've been studying the Ukrainian portion for some time now—there are plenty of good ideas there. I'll be commenting at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as more ideas come to mind.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Streamlined 2 Hard sign 3 –ий endings 4 WT, Ь as Y??? 5 Eduard or Edward 6 Romanization of Russian

[edit] Streamlined

I've streamlined the table, so it looks a bit more like a transliteration table, instead of a summary of all possible transliteration systems. Much of the redundant clutter is replaced by a note at the top that says "use conventional names". Exceptions are also summarized in the note with examples. I simply removed items with no example (this table has been around for quite a while). —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 23:07 Z

[edit] Hard sign

ъ (твёрдый знак) | Omitted | When followed by a vowel <!-- In modern Russian, is it ever not followed by a vowel? -->

Харьков→Kharkov—the hard sign seems to be omitted here, so should the note "When followed by a vowel" be removed from the table? If it strictly followed BGN/PCGN then it would be Khar”kov.

We will have to transliterate old Russian too, in some cases, so pre-reform letters should be added to this table (І і, Ѣ ѣ, Ѳ ѳ, Ѵ ѵ). —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 23:21 Z

[edit] –ий endings

–ий endings | -y or -iy

Can we not pick one or the other? It's just not transliteration if the editor can choose according to his whim. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 00:57 Z

My suggestion: let's always transliterate -ий as -iy. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 01:08 Z

• It will no longer be an exception to normal letter-for-letter BGN/PCGN transliteration
• It will be distinct from -ый endings which become -y (normal BGN/PCGN: -yy)

In theory, it's a good suggestion, which I totally support; however, cases with "-ий" being transliterated as "-y" are all too common to be ignored, which is why I mentioned this exception in the first place. Still, let's add this suggestion to the "new translit system" proposal when we are ready to draft it. The only problem I see is that while we will get rid of the currently too complicated "-iy/yy/y rule", we'll still need to add a clause about "common English usage" for cases when "-ий" is traditionally transliterated as "-y".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm hoping the one "common English usage" note at the top of the article will suffice. We can certainly offer more examples to support or encourage such usage.

What do you think of the rather radical reorganization I've done to the table? I'm confident I haven't changed any of the technical features, but I think its nature is much clearer now, for either novices or editors who are already familiar with transliteration. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 17:08 Z

Somehow I missed your massive update before posting my previous comment. I think it looks splendid—nothing is lost, and the structure makes the table oh so much more readable. Thanks for your hard work—I am sure if it was not for you, little would be done to improve this table.

Re-addressing your concern regarding "-(i)y"—since intro now mentions common English usage, I think it perfectly covers the cases when "-ий" is transliterated as "-y".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yer makin' me blush! Thanks for the comment. Please have a look at it carefully when you have a chance—to make sure I haven't screwed up the details. I did add the rule for е after й straight out of the BGN/PCGN standard, which still needs an example—was that one omitted for a reason? —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 17:42 Z

You do deserve the compliments, because in almost two years you've been the only person who actually contributed anything useful to this article/policy instead of blindly criticizing it.

Per your request, I reviewed the article one more time and made some minor corrections. I commented the е after й rule out, because I am not really sure what it is supposed to mean. The only example that comes to mind is "Йемен" (the Russian name of Yemen), which, according to this particular BGN/PCGN rule, would be rendered as "Yyemen" (and, of course, it does not make much sense to transliterate the name of this country from Russian). I do not remember omitting this rule on purpose, but I guess I did so because it is pretty much useless since there are virtually no Russian words that utilize the "йе" combination (although I would imagine that some Russian geographic locations may bear names from native languages that would employ "йе"). Anyway, I will uncomment it back if I (or someone else) find a good example.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How about representing "-ий" simply as "-i"? i.e. Yuri Dolgoruki, Alexander Nevski, Yuryev-Polski, etc.
Kazak 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The tradition to transliterate '-ий' as '-y' came from rules of transliteration of Polish surnames and does not represent neither Russian pronounciation, nor Russian spelling.Nixer 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And the proof of that is?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof of what? That it does not represent neither Russian pronounciation, nor spelling? If you speak Russian, you know it without "proof".Nixer 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do, but please cite something regarding the other portion of your statement. How do you know that the rule comes from Polish and not, say, from Mongolian? Irregardless of where it comes from, why is it a problem if it is used? This transliteration rule is commonly used in English-language publications; if it works for Anglophones, it's all that matters. So far no single English-speaking editor complained; you seem to be inventing a problem and doing all complaining for them.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

iy or y are well established transliterations and i isn't. Why tamper with it?--Spartaz 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do people ask for citations and yet not provide them, themselves? I'm sick of one-sided debates. Kazak's and Nixer's comments are valid and should be met by citations NOT requests for citation. M-72 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

M-72, note that unlike this, this page is not an encyclopedic article, but a Wikipedia guideline, hence the attribution requirements are not the same. Also note that the existing convention is largely based on very common BGN/PCGN romanization system (documented in this book), while the systems Kazak and Nixer suggested were pure original research (otherwise they would have been able to refer to something similar to the BGN/PCGN document). If you read the rest of the discussions on this page, as well as at WP:CYR, you'll see that the general consensus is to create a Wikipedia romanization guideline based on (or using) one of the existing romanization methods, not to create one from scratch. It seems rather obvious to me that despite some discrepancies WP:RUS meets that consensus. What point of this discussion do you want us to provide a citation for? If it's regarding the "-ий" and "-ый" endings being rendered as "-y" instead of something else, I am afraid there is no direct citation. A quick look at the English-language reference materials, media, etc. should, however, be sufficient to see that "-y" is indeed widely used ("Oktyabrsky" in Britannica, "Leninsky Prospekt" in Washington Post, "Krasny Vostok" in Forbes, etc., etc.). This isn't to say there are no other variants, or that this one is the only one correct, but you should remember that since it's a Wikipedia guideline we are talking about, we should standardize on something. It makes all the sense to standardize on what is already being widely used.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WT, Ь as Y???

It makes it hard sign, not soft! Elk Salmon 14:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The use is traditional.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Traditional use is '. Elk Salmon 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not traditional, it's conventional :) We, however, do not use apostrophes in Wikipedia when transliterating Russian, unless absolutely necessary. Please note that for Anglophones y works better. Also, if you haven't already, take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), where problems with the current Russian transliteration convention are discussed among other things.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is traditional and conventional :) y makes sound hard. It is incorrect. Even, I see such interpretation first time in my life in this article. It is always ', except of documents (what is wrong). Илья - Ilya(=Иля). Should be Il'ya or more correct Ilia(от русского Илия), but this is not about transliteration.Elk Salmon 08:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your points, but they have been debated (many times) before. Please go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) and add your concerns there. For now, the romanization guidelines stays as it is.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduard or Edward

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but which is the correct one to use, for example for Эдуард Успенский? Esn 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eduard Uspenskiy Elk Salmon 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Eduard Uspensky is equally correct.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Eduard if the transliteration is important, but in many cases it can just be translated as Edward for the sake of smooth reading (like Aleksandr→Alexander, Yosif→Joseph, etc.). —Michael Z. 2006-06-06 17:34 Z

True. With human names, however, it doesn't really matter at the moment. It would, however, be practical to include a clause into WP:CYR regarding this. We should either be always transliterating Russian names, or always translate them (when they are translatable; it wouldn't apply to a name such as Yegor, of course), or set criteria determining the notability factor/common English usage (i.e., if criteria are passed, then translate, otherwise transliterate). I am not overcomplicating this, am I?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the notes about "conventional names" at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian#Use conventional names should be moved up to WP:CYR, as they should probably apply to all of the languages. —Michael Z. 2006-06-06 19:51 Z

Good idea.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here ever given a thought about the rights of the individual? My first name can be transliterated about 12 ways into Russian Cyrillic. My surname two. I have a preferred way for both. The reverse also applies. I frequently "massage" translations from Russian into English, when names are involved I always try and check as to the preferred spellings in "latin script" of the individual. Invariably it depends on whether German or English was their school second language. To do otherwise is an insult to the individual. Names are important! Forget rules and look to the person. M-72 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my point as well (and also one of my proposals for WP:CYR)—the variant an individual prefers and uses is the variant we should be using. However, when individual's preference is unknown or when an individual simply has no preference, we must make a choice as to how that individual's name should be romanized. That's where the romanization guidelines kick in. In any case, spelling can always be changed later when/if more information comes to light. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization of Russian

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a sytem of Russian romanisation that could be used which would allow readers to determine the Russian pronunciation unambiguously? Can we work on something like that?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nat, first of all, do you mean pronunciation or spelling? You can use IPA for pronunciation; it's the only accepted way, really. If you meant spelling, then both ALA-LC romanization for Russian and scientific transliteration provide means for unambiguous transliteration. Unfortunately, they are poorly suited for use in Wikipedia (especially in titles) due to heavy use of diacritics. As for developing a system of our own, it would not be acceptable due to no original research policy. Current system is already customized (it was adopted well before anyone was concerned with OR), and the fact that this customization was arbitrary was (and continues to be) a subject of numerous disputes. Imagine the fires around an uncommon system built from scratch—it would be a complete disaster! Finally, there is nothing preventing us from including the names in original Russian, so whatever ambiguities the transliteration system introduces, they can easily be bypassed by just looking at the Russian spelling. In any case, if this subject interests you, you might find WP:CYR (and its discussion page) worth reading.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant pronunciation. It seems to me that the goals of a system of romanisation in our circumstances should be 1) that it be suitable for use inside standard text and titles (which IPA is not, due to the large number of non-English characters); 2) that it contain accurate phonetic information about the word being recorded; and 3) that, if possible, it should imply approximately correct pronunciation to speakers of the target language (in this case, English). I don't think making alterations to the system we are currently employing constitutes original research at all. NOR is an important rule, but one that refers to statements of facts and opinions appearing in our articles. The spelling of a word is never going to constitute original research—it's purely an issue of style. Seeing as there is already a modified system ostensibly in place, this seems like even less of an issue.•Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nat, even putting the problem of original research aside, WP:RUS's main purpose is to deal with transliteration, not with transcription. I am not very well versed in whether or not anything besides IPA is acceptable to show pronunciation, but I was under impression that it is not. One can always use that silly "system" many American dictionaries use (OO-glitch for Uglich, for example), but it's hardly unambiguous and is too tied to the English pronunciation to be truly useful. I believe the proper place to raise this point is on pages revolving around IPA usage and its alternatives, not here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the purpose of a system of romanisation (or Cyrillicisation, etc.), if one is going to bother being at all systematic about it, is to accurately represent either native spelling or phonemic pronunciation (or both). It's true that we can accomplish this with the original Cyrillic letters in the first case or with IPA in the second case; however, if that's what we're going to do, then we don't require a system of romanisation. On the other hand, if we have a system for romanisation that clearly shows Russian pronunciation, then we don't need to include IPA, and we have a name that can be used in normal text, as well.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not exactly the purpose of romanization. Take a look at BGN/PCGN romanization, on which WP:RUS is largely based. That system (as stated in the source) is used "primarily for the purpose of establishing standardized Roman script-spellings of those foreign geographic names that are written in non-Roman scripts or in Roman alphabets that contain special letters". Note that neither "accurately" nor "phonemic pronunciation" are present in that definition. Accuracy is somewhat sacrificed in BGN/PCGN because there is no way to provide accurate romanization without having to use special characters; those the system tries so hard to do away with. Still, as it's not accuracy that is the goal, but standardization, the system works fairly well, and since it is an established and commonly used system, Wikipedia uses it as well. The result is the system that combines elements of both transliteration and (in much lesser degree) transcription, and which serves a purpose different from that of those two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) plays both ends against the middle! I'll not enter the discussion, but there is Transliteration. Transcriptioin and Translation! All hail Ëzhiki.!

If you have a point, then please make it. Talk pages are there for discussion, not trolling.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)