Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Ukrainian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has this new proposal been discussed anywhere? What is the reasoning behind the change? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 03:43 Z

This is a policy proposal, not a policy yet. You summarized transliteration systems of Ukrainian providing the set of existing transliteration systems, and, as a next step, I see it valuable to propose a single transliteration table which summarized the preferred transliteration rules of Ukrainian of this wikicommunity. The need for such clear policy is driven in part by permanent name flipping like "-iy" into "-y" into "-yy" into "-iy", which seems to be counterproductive. KPbIC 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we should discuss it some before making it look official.

I would propose a very minor change from the current status quo. With all of the usual exceptions (conventional English names, scientific transliteration for linguistics, etc):

1. Use the Ukrainian National system to reproduce the official romanized Ukrainian place names. We already do this.
2. Use the simplified BGN/PCGN system for other proper names in prose. This is familiar from many academic and popular books, intuitive for anglophones to read, and reasonably compatible with Russian and Belarusian transliterations in Wikipedia. It is a very minor change from what we do now, but our current practice conforms to no independent standard.
3. Use the full BGN/PCGN system for precise transliteration (e.g. first line of an article). Also a minor change, becoming standardized.

The two systems are very close. Adopting the national system across the board would have the advantage of internal consistency for all Ukrainian articles, but it has the odd-looking transliterations щ = sch, and зг = zgh. It could also transliterate precisely just as well as BGN/PCGN could, if we decide we need Zaporizhzhia, Luhans’k, and Sim”ia to show how words are spelt, in addition to just naming Zaporizhia, Luhansk, and Simia in the body of an article. On the other hand, the BGN/PCGN system has a very long tradition in English-language Ukrainian literature, and is also used for other languages in Wikipedia. I'm not even completely sure why, but my gut favours BGN/PCGN. —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 04:42 Z

It was not my intention to present this page as an approved policy. WP:CYR is still under discussion and I see this page as a part of WP:CYR.

My inclining toward the National system is driven by the desire to use a system easily recognized by native English speakers. Based on my experience, English speakers are more comfortable with “i” than “y” when facing such letters as “я”, “ю”, “є”. English speakers are also puzzled by a set of consonants, which are common in Cyrillic, like “zhzh”, “shch”, and the simplifications implemented in the simplified National system seems very reasonable to me. I also value the fact that the National system is the official system approved in the Ukraine, following the work of a Committee of professionals. Having in hands the BGN/PCGN system they still found preferable to agree on a slightly different transliteration system for contemporary Ukrainian language.

I recognize the long-standing use of BGN/PCGN in English-language Ukrainian literature. However, I don’t see valid reasons to stick with some custom-made modified BGN/PCGN system. If something has a well established name, regardless of whether it’s BGN/PCGN, or some modification of it, or something else, we agree to use that well established name. But we need a transliteration system for something which is not well established. And for this we should better use a well established system. KPbIC 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether understand your last point correctly. Simplified ALA-LC and BGN/PCGN systems have been used in academic literature for decades, giving us a well-established precedent. For example, Kubijovyč's two-volume Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopædia uses the modified ALA-LC system for Ukrainian and Russian names, and explains it in detail. —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 12:45 Z

In my view a well established system is a system (1) with clearly documented transliteration rules, and (2) with established presence in practice. BGN/PCGN, the National system, the simplified National system, ALA-LC, and Kubijovyč's system satisfy such criteria. But when you are writing about “simplified BGN/PCGN” I’m not sure which particular system you keep in mind.

In short, I'm advocating to nominate the National system as the preferred system of Ukrainian transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin. Somebody may say that it's too bold to call for one system for all purposes, but I see overwelming benefits of such recommendation. People say that "for every two Ukrainians there are three hetmans". Currently, there is similar situation with transliteration systems. I think we better fix it. KPbIC 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

For the sake of comparison (feel free to add more words):

Cyrillic	BGN/PCGN	BGN/PCGN simplified	National	National simplified
-ий	-yy	-y	-yi	-yi
-ій	-iy	-y	-ii	-ii
Україна	Ukrayina	Ukrayina	Ukraina	Ukraina
Київ	Kyyiv	Kyiv	Kyiv	Kyiv
Запоріжжя	Zaporizhzhya	Zaporizhya	Zaporizhzhia	Zaporizhia
згода	zhoda	zhoda	zghoda	zghoda
сім’я	sim”ya	simya	sim”ia	simia
сміється	smiyet’sya	smiyetsya	smiiet’sia	smiietsia
ювілей	yuviley	yuviley	yuvilei	yuvilei
яєшня	yayeshnya	yayeshnya	yaieshnia	yaieshnia

Ending "-iй" is not common; ending "-ий" is much more common (червона/червоний). The later is given as "-yi" is the National system, which is the best way to represent "-ий", as it looks to me. I may prefer "simya" over "simia", but, again, the idea of going according to personal tastes is very wrong. I’m strongly advocating for sticking with a professionally established system. KPbIC 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of the letter щ

The guideline for the transliteration of the letter "щ" as "sch" makes no sense, even in the light of an "attempt to make sense to English-speakers." In literary (official!) Ukrainian, "щ" is pronounced as "shch," NOT as "sch" (which implies the Russian pronounciation of "щ"). Yes, some Ukrainians pronounce it the Russian way, but why reflect dialectal or bad grammar in our spellings of Ukrainian words? Consequently, what is the point of simplifying the information for English-speakers if the information is false? I'm going to revise this policy. Cossack 00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at official Rada website about the official Ukrainian-English translation, they transliterate щ into sch and not into shch. See here. —dima/talk/ 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian government on this one, funny as that may sound. If you look at the Kiev metro map, the "transliteration system" used is utterly random, erratic, and basically "от балды." I'm also fairly certain the vast majority of materials will use "shch," including those on Wikipedia (see Viktor Yushchenko, Slobozhanshchyna). Maybe the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has better recommendations for the transliterations of geographic names? Cossack 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As this policy stands, it explicitly states that it is based on BGN/PCGN romanization system for Ukrainian, which uses "shch" for "щ". Unless someone wants to challenge that, there really is nothing to argue about.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The policy says that the system "matches the simplified National transliteration system". According to the system Cyrillic "щ" transliterates as "sch". It was reflected in the policy until Kazak unilaterally changed it to "shch" on April 22, 2007.

It should be noted that the transliteration system applies to Ukrainian establishments that lack traditional English name. Many establishments with traditional English names were historically transliterated according to BGN/PCGN or other systems, and it often results in transliteration of "щ" as "shch". (See Romanization of Ukrainian for details). However, for new establishments we are going in pair with the Ukrainian government which adopted the National transliteration system in 1996. --Novelbank 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Be it as it may, you (as well as Kazak) should bring this up at the Ukrainian portal for discussion. Neither of you should go around changing a guideline unilaterally. Remember, this is not an article, this is a guideline, so the one thing that matters above anything else is consensus. If there is no consensus, then discussion is in order. I personally don't care what you folks decide to use for romanization of Ukrainian; all I care about that one system is consistently used. Using BGN/PCGN for some things and National transliteration system for others is confusing to readers, inconsistent, and does not allow for standardization (which is of utmost importance in a project such as Wikipedia). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, if you want to take a look at the official transliteration, the people who take care of Ukrainian passports should answer your question. They have way more responsibility than the people who create websites, who can afford to screw up and not face any responsibility for it. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)