
:''In Antiquity, Romanization describes the spread of culture of Ancient Rome''. In linguistics, romanization or latinization is a system for representing a word or language with the Latin alphabet, where the original word or language used a different writing system. Methods of romanization include transliteration, representing written text, and transcription (linguistics), representing the spoken word. The latter can be subdivided into ''phonological transcription'', which records the phonemes or units of semantic meaning in speech, and more strict ''phonetic transcription'', which records speech sounds with precision. Each romanization has its own set of rules for pronunciation of the romanized words. To romanize is to transliterate or transcribe a language into the Roman alphabet. This process is most commonly associated with the Chinese language, Japanese language and Korean language languages (CJK). Cyrillization is the similar process of representing a language using the Cyrillic alphabet. Also spelled romanisation and latinisation. == Methods of romanization == === Transliteration === If the romanization attempts to transliteration the original script, the guiding principle is a one-to-one mapping of characters in the source language into the target script, with less emphasis on how the result sounds when pronounced according to the reader's language. For example, the Nihon-shiki romanization of Japanese language allows the informed reader to reconstruct the original Japanese kana syllables with 100% accuracy, but is not readable without prior study. === Transcription === ==== Phonological ==== However, most romanizations are intended for the casual reader, who is unfamiliar with the intricacies of the original script and is more interested in pronouncing the source language. Such romanizations follow the principle of phonological transcription and attempt to render the significant sounds (phonemes) of the original as faithfully as possible in the target language. The popular Hepburn romanization of Japanese is an example of a transcriptive romanization designed for English speakers. ==== Phonetic ==== A phonetic conversion goes one step further and attempts to depict all phones in the source language, sacrificing legibility if necessary by using characters or conventions not found in the target script. The International Phonetic Alphabet is the most common system of phonetic transcription. === Tradeoffs === For most language pairs, building a usable romanization involves tradeoffs between the two extremes. Pure transcriptions are generally not possible, as the source language usually contains sounds and distinctions not found in the target language, but which must be shown to for the romanized form to be comprehensible. In general, outside a limited audience of scholars, romanizations tend to lean more towards transcription. As an example, consider the Japanese martial art 柔術: the Nihon-shiki romanization ''zyūzyutu'' may allow someone who knows Japanese to reconstruct the kana syllables じゅうじゅつ, but most people would find it easier to guess the pronunciation from the Hepburn version, ''jujutsu''. == Romanization of specific writing systems == === Arabic === The Arabic alphabet is used to write Arabic language , Persian language , and Urdu language . Romanization standards include: * Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (1936): [http://www.dmg-web.de/] Adopted by the International Convention of Orientalist Scholars in Rome. Is the basis for the very influential Hans Wehr dictionary (ISBN 0879500034) * BS 4280 (1968): Developed by the British Standards Institute [http://www.bsi-global.com/index.xalter] * SATTS (1970s): Developed by US military * UNGEGN (1972): [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ar.pdf] * DIN-31635 (1982): Developed by the Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization) * ISO 233 (1984). Transliteration. * Qalam (1985): A system that focuses upon preserving the spelling, rather than the pronunciation, and uses mixed case [http://eserver.org/langs/qalam.txt] * ISO 233-2 (1993). Simplified transliteration. * Buckwalter Transliteration (1990s): Developed at Xerox by Tim Buckwalter [http://www.qamus.org/transliteration.htm]; doesn't require unusual diacritic [http://www.xrce.xerox.com/competencies/content-analysis/arabic/info/buckwalter-about.html] * ALA-LC (1997): [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf] A table comparing romanizations using DIN 31635, ISO 233, ISO/R 233, UN, ALA-LC, and Encyclopaedia of Islam systems is available here: [http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Arabic.pdf]. === Hebrew === ''For more details, see Hebrew alphabet and Romanization of Hebrew.'' * ANSI Z39.25 (1975): * UNGEGN (1977): [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_he.pdf] * ISO 259 (1984): Transliteration. * ISO 259-2 (1994): Simplified transliteration. * ISO/DIS 259-3: Phonemic transcription. * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/hebrew.pdf] === Brahmic scripts === The Brahmic family of abugidas is used for languages of the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia. There is a long tradition in the west to study Sanskrit and other Indic texts in Latin transliteration. Various transliteration conventions have been used for Indic scripts since the time of Sir William Jones. A comparison of some of them is provided here: [http://www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit/sanskrit3part2.html] * ISO 15919 (2001): A standard transliteration convention was codified in the ISO 15919 standard. It uses diacritics to map the much larger set of Brahmic consonants and vowels to the Latin script. See also [http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/trind.htm Transliteration of Indic scripts: how to use ISO 15919]. The Devanagari-specific portion is identical to the academic standard, IAST: "International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration", and to the United States Library of Congress standard, ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/hindi.pdf] * Harvard-Kyoto: Uses upper and lower case and doubling of letters, to avoid the use of diacritics, and to restrict the range to 7-bit ASCII. * ITRANS: a transliteration scheme into 7-bit ASCII created by Avinash Chopde that used to be prevalent on Usenet. * ASTHA: "Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration for HTML", made in Argentina, also into 7-bit ASCII [http://www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit/sanskrit3.html] See also ISCII (1988). === Chinese === Romanization of Chinese language, in particular, has proved a very difficult problem, although the issue is further complicated by political considerations. Another complication is the fact that Mandarin is not written phonetically, but rather written as ideograms. Because of this, most romanization tables convert not directly from the Chinese characters but from the underlying Zhuyin pronunciation. See also: [http://www.iqchina.com/going/PinYin2.asp] [http://www.romanization.com/] ==== Standard Mandarin ==== * ALA-LC: Used to be similar to Wade-Giles [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/chinese.pdf], but converted to Hanyu Pinyin since 2000 [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin/romcover.html] * EFEO. Developed by Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient in 19th century, used mainly in France. * Latinxua Sinwenz (1926): Omitted tone sounds. Used mainly in the Soviet Union. * Lessing-Othmer: Used mainly in Germany. * Postal System Pinyin (1906): Early standard for international addresses * Wade-Giles (1912): Transliteration. Very popular before World War II. * Yale Romanization#Mandarin (1942): Created by the U.S. for battlefield communication. ===== Mainland China ===== * Hanyu Pinyin (1958): In Mainland China, Hanyu Pinyin has been used officially to romanize Mandarin Chinese for decades, primarily as a linguistic tool for teaching Standard Mandarin (the standardized Chinese spoken language) to students whose mother tongue is not Standard Mandarin, and has been adopted by much of the international community as a standard for writing Chinese words and names in the Roman alphabet. The value of Hanyu Pinyin in education in China lies in the fact that China, like any other populated area with comparable area and population, has literally thousands of distinct Chinese dialect, though there is just one common written language and one common standardized spoken form. * ISO 7098 (1991): Very similar to Hanyu Pinyin. =====Taiwan (Republic of China)===== * Gwoyeu Romatzyh: (1926): Used in mainland China before the communist Chinese civil war in 1949. Primarily used in Taiwan. Replaced by Mandarin Phonetic Symbols II and no longer commonly used. * Mandarin Phonetic Symbols II (1984): Primarily used in Taiwan. Replaced by Tongyong Pinyin and no longer commonly used. * Tongyong Pinyin (2000): Primarily used in Taiwan. Literally means "Universal Spell Sound". Very similar to Hanyu Pinyin. Differences between the two are noted [http://research.chtsai.org/papers/pinyin-xref.html here]. ==== Standard Cantonese ==== * Barnett-Chao * Guangdong Romanization#Cantonese (1960) * Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation * Jyutping * Meyer-Wempe * Sidney Lau * Yale Romanization#Cantonese (1942) ==== Min Nan ==== * Guangdong Romanization#Teochew (1960) * Taiwanese_language#Scripts_and_orthographies === Japanese === Romanization (or, more strictly, Roman letters) in Japanese language is called "romaji". The most common systems are: * Hepburn (1867): transcription * Nihon-shiki (1885): transliteration. Also adopted as (ISO 3602 Strict) in 1989. * Kunrei-shiki (1937): transliteration. Also dopted as (ISO 3602). * JSL (1987) * ALA-LC: Similar to Hepburn [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/japanese.pdf] * Wapuro romaji === Korean === ''Main article: Korean romanization'' * McCune-Reischauer (1937): Transcription. Until 2002, the official system for Korean language in South Korea was this system, which is still used in North Korea. * Revised Romanization of Korean (2000): As of 2005, South Korea officially uses this system, that was approved in 2000. Road signs and textbooks are required to follow these rules as soon as possible, at a cost estimated by the government to be at least US$20 million. Proper names are still left to personal preference, but the government encourages using the new system. * Yale Romanization#Korean (1942): This system is used mainly in academic literature. * ALA-LC: Follows McCune-Reischauer in most cases [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/korean.pdf] * ISO/TR 11941 (1996): This actually is two different standards under one name: one for North Korea (DPRK) and the other for South Korea (ROK). The initial submission to the ISO was a joint effort between both countries (and was based heavily on Yale), but they could not agree on the final draft. A comparison between the two is available here: [http://www.sori.org/hangul/romanizations.html#Roman_Intro] === Thai === Thai language , spoken in Thailand, is written with its own script, probably descended from Old Khmer, in the Brahmic family. Also see Thai alphabet. * Royal Thai General System of Transcription: * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/thai.pdf] * ISO 11940 (1998): Transliteration === Cyrillic === In linguistics, scientific transliteration is used for both Cyrillic alphabet and Glagolitic alphabets. This applies to Old Church Slavonic, as well as modern Slavic languages which use these alphabets. ==== Belarusian ==== The Belarusian language has been written with both Cyrillic and Latin scripts. Today the Latin script (''Lacinka ,'' or ''Łacinica'') is rarely used, although it has its advocates. Despite the existence of a native Latin alphabet, Belarusian names are usually transcribed similarly to the Russian language. {| |+ Examples |- ! align=left | Lacinka ! align=left | Transliterated |- | Homiel | Homyel' |- | Mahiloŭ | Mahilyow |- | Viciebsk | Vitsebsk |- | Baranavičy | Baranavichy |- | Žytkavičy | Zhytkavichy |} * Belarusian National System of Romanization * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/beloruss.pdf] * BGN/PCGN * ISO9 External link: [http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Belarusian.pdf Thomas T. Pederson's chart] (PDF). ==== Russian ==== There is no single universally accepted system of writing Russian language using the Latin script — in fact there are a huge number of such systems: some are adjusted for a particular target language (e.g. German or French), some are designed as a librarian's transliteration, some are prescribed for Russian traveller's passports; the transcription of some names is purely traditional. All this has resulted in great reduplication of names. E.g. the name of the great Russian composer Tchaikovsky may also be written as ''Tchaykovsky'', ''Tchajkovskij'', ''Tchaikowski'', ''Tschaikowski'', ''Czajkowski'', ''Čajkovskij'', ''Čajkovski'', ''Chajkovskij'', ''Chaykovsky'', ''Chaykovskiy'', ''Chaikovski'' etc. Systems include: * BGN/PCGN (1947): Transliteration system (United States Board on Geographic Names & Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use). [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/cyrillic.htm] * GOST 16876-71 (1983): From the Main Administration of Geodesy and Cartography of the former Soviet Union. Russian abbreviation of ''GOsudarstvenny STandart'', "the State Standard". [http://www.ccl.net/cca/software/SOURCES/C/translit/phg-koi8.shtml] * United Nations standard (1987): Based on GOST. Used in the Russian Federation and increasingly in international cartographic products. * ISO 9 (1995): Transliteration. From the International Organization for Standardization. * ALA-LC (1997): [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf] * Volapuk encoding (1990s): Slang term (it's not really Volapük language) for a writing method that's not truly a transliteration, but used for similar goals (see article). * Internal Wikipedia standard (2004): Derived from BGN/PCGN, documented at Transliteration of Russian into English, but essentially congruent with de-facto internet practices. ==== Ukrainian ==== Ukrainian personal names are usually transcribed phonetically; see the main article section Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names . The Ukrainian National system is used for geographic names in Ukraine. * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/ukrainia.pdf (PDF)]. * ISO 9 * Ukrainian National transliteration: [http://www.hostmaster.net.ua/docs/translit/tab_01.jpg (JPEG, in Ukrainian)]. * Ukrainian National and BGN/PCGN systems, at the UN Working Group on Romanization Systems: [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom2_uk.pdf (PDF)]. * Thomas T. Pederson's comparison of five systems: [http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Ukrainian.pdf (PDF)]. === Greek === Greek language includes the modern language spoken in Greece, as well as ancient Polytonic orthography. See also Greeklish. * ISO 843 (1997): [http://www.biology.uoc.gr/gvd/contents/databases/01c.htm] * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/greek.pdf] == Overview/Summary == The chart below shows the most common phonemic transcription romanization used for several different alphabets. While it is sufficient for many casual users, there are multiple alternatives used for each alphabet, and many exceptions. For details, consult each of the language sections below. (Because the number of Hangul characters are prohibitively large, only the first characters are provided in the following table.)
== External links ==
* [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/ UNGEGN Working Group on Romanization Systems]
* [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html U.S. Library of Congress Romanization Tables] in PDF format
* [http://people.cornell.edu/pages/rc235/Transliteration/demo.html Java romanization app]
* One of the few printed books with lists of romanizations is ''ALA-LC Romanization Tables'', Randall Barry (ed.), U.S. Library of Congress, 1997, ISBN 0844409405.
Romanization
== "Non-Roman" == "Non-Roman languages"?? It appears that you mean any language not normally written in the Roman alphabet. Thus Greek, Russian, and Arabic are "non-Roman" languages. Why don't you explain what "non-Roman" means? The term could be misunderstood; people could think that English is a "non-Roman" language since it didn't come from Rome. User:Michael Hardy 02:56 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC) : Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks to User:Brion VIBBER for changing it to make it more clear. : -- User:Wintran 03:20 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC) ------ == Capitalize term or not? == I have been thinking about whether or not we should use a capital "r" when we type "romanization". First, I was certain that "Romanization" was the correct way to write it, but now I have seen the non-capitalized version being used by encyclopedias and dictionaries as well, and I am not quite as certain anymore. - User:Wintran 00:42 May 13, 2003 (UTC) : It's incorrect. You "Romanize" when you turn something into Rome; you "romanize" when you apply a method of transcription. Compare with xeroxing, hoovering, and any number of brands and names that have turned into generic words. I've changed the article. User:Jpatokal 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Becoming a Roman== How do you call the process of barbarians becoming Romans? -- User:Error 05:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) : According to OED, also "Romanization". Defintions 1 is "Assimilation to Roman customs or models." One quote is from 1876. The transliteration meaning came the latest ('tho not ''that'' much later): first quote in 1894. --User:Menchi 05:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) == Other languages == There are several other languages (or groups of languages) that could be covered here: * Greek language ** Ancient greek ** medieval ** modern (Demotic greek) * Sanskrit and other Indian languages * Thai language (have added relevant references User:Woodstone 15:22, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)) * Arabic language * Hebrew language Why not add norwegian? ø -> oe, å -> aa, æ -> ae. : Norwegian is already written with the Latin alphabet, so simplifying these letters isn't romanization. ''—User:Mzajac 17:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)'' Icelandic isn't, though. It still uses an entirely un-Roman letter: the thorn (þ). : The Icelandic, and the Old English, are Latin alphabets that have adopted letter(s) from Runic. One might say that the letter þ is romanized as ''th'' or ''y''—as in "ye olde gray mare"—but I don't know if it's technically correct. There's more fun stuff in :category:Uncommon Latin letters ''—User:Mzajac 00:20, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)'' Really, there are romanization systems for just about any non-roman script you can imagine -- while the term may have arisen originally in the context of Asian languages, I'm not sure it's NPOV to imply that that is the central meaning of the term today... : I think the term ''romanization'' is more commonly used for oriental languages, because they are not alphabetic. ''Transliteration'' is a more specific term, often used to describe the romanization of Cyrillic, and other languages with alphabets, that can have a letter-for-letter correspondence with the Latin alphabet. ''—User:Mzajac 16:42, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)'' == Transliterating Cyrillic == For anyone interested, here's the Russian example "Tchaikovsy" transliterated according to several different systems, from Russian and Ukrainian. See also Romanization of Ukrainian. {| border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border:1px solid #666;border-collapse:collapse;" |+ Transliterating "Tchaikovsky" |- ! ! align=left | Russian language:
Чайковский ! align=left | Ukrainian language:
Чайковський |- ! align=left | GOST/UN | Čajkovskij | - |- ! align=left | Transliteration of Russian into English (strict) | Chaykovsky | - |- ! align=left | Transliteration of Russian into English (allowed exceptions) | Tchaikovsy | - |- ! align=left | Ukrainian National/UN | - | Chaikovs’kyi |- ! align=left | ISO 9 | Čajkovskij | Čajkovs′kij |- ! align=left | ALA/LC | Chaĭkovskiĭ | Chaĭkovskyĭ |- ! align=left | BGN/PCGN | Chaykovskiy | Chaykovskyy |- ! align=left | International Phonetic Alphabet | [tʃʲajkɔvskij] | [tʃajkovsʲkɪj] |- ! align=left | X-SAMPA | /tS'ajkOvskij/ | /tSajkovs'kIj/ |} == Methods of romanization == I have taken the liberty of removing the (frankly) nearly incomprehensible paragraphs by the esteemed 63.22.206.187, which also contained a number of outright mistakes (''hatsuon'' means "pronunciation" in Japanese, not any specific character), and rewritten what I hope was the gist of them. Corrections welcome, and I'd like to hear more about "phonemic conversion" (how does this differ from transcription?). User:Jpatokal 17:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) : I'm mostly guessing, but there are some hints in this paragraph from International Phonetic Alphabet: :: ''When characters from the IPA phonetic alphabet are embedding in another script they are isolated from the rest of the text with either slashes ("/") or square brackets ("[" and "]"). Linguists use brackets when a narrow phonetic transcription is given, for example the English word "huge" would be [çjudʒ]. Slashes denote a phonological transcription:"huge" would be /hjudʒ/.'' : I think ''phonemic conversion'' (or ''phonological transcription'') is a general indication of a word's pronunciation. You might say that in English "huge" is pronounced /hjudʒ/, and it applies equally to the way you would say it whether you were from Alabama or Jaipur. : ''Phonetic transcription'' would be more precise, whereby linguists will use all those fancy IPA characters and modifiers to compare the way a Yorkshireman's pronunciation of "huge" differs from an East Midlander's. :: ''—User:Mzajac 19:17, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)'' == Page organization == Would anyone object if I reorganized this page by writing system, rather than by language(s)? Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian belong together in a section concerning the Cyrillic alphabet, not in the current "arrangement". ''—User:Mzajac 16:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)'' Sounds good to me --User:Arcadian 19:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- : One more vote in favor. User:Jpatokal 01:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- ==Singapore== Is there any system on how names of Singaporean people and geographical proper nouns are romanised (for those not according to Hanyu Pinyin)? Or is it done arbitarily? Are they mainly romanised according to Hokkien or Teochew dialects of Min Nan language? -- 03:13, January 24, 2005, UTC : Largely arbitrary and quite dependent on the dialect of the person or name in question, although if there are any standards I'd be interested in hearing about it. Most names are Hokkien. User:Jpatokal 04:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) Interested to hearing about if there is any standard for Hokkien. -- 15:41, January 24, 2005, UTC ::There might be no standard, as what has been suggested earlier. People's names usually are romanized based on the dialect group they belong to, and romanization of Chinese dialects dosent seem to follow a standard of any kind. ::This ambiguity is not just confined to Chinese dialects. Even Malay words, which would have been assumed to be less of an issue since the language itself has already been romanised, do sugger from a few instances of inconsistencies. A good example is how "Punggol" ends up being spelt as "Ponggol" too as well...both road names appear in the same locality, and are actually refering to the same word. ::I am not too sure about Indian translations thou, because I would think it follows romnisation standards adobted in India itself?--User:Huaiwei 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :No. On Wikipedia we use Peh-oe-ji, but it's not very common (as far as I know). The Minnan Wikipedia is written in Peh-oe-ji. There are other systems out there too. There is no standard romanization used for names in Singapore. (other than Pinyin of course, but that's for Mandarin only, which occurs here and there in personal and place names.) -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 08:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) So in other words names of places in Singapore which are not transcibed based on Mandarin pronunciation are transcibed with an arbitary manner? Or is there any trace-able pattern? -- 09:59, January 26, 2005, UTC :Well, there are obviously ''patterns'', there just isn't any standard. These names were devised in colonial era and they were basically spelled in whichever way sounded about right. I guess you can compare this to Hong Kong place names. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Same names in Hong Kong were later changed, for instance, Un Long to Yuen Long, and Shaukiwan to Shau Kei Wan. In other words there was certain moves towards standardisation. Are there any similar pattern for the case of Singapore? -- 10:04, January 27, 2005, UTC :I can only think of one example, "Nee Soon" (probably Minnan) is becoming less popular compared to "Yishun" (Mandarin). That's the only example I can think of though, so I'd say there's no such trend in general. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ::Hmm....the Yishun/Nee Soon thingy may not be a suitable example in this case, because it is more of switching from one dialect spelling to another. Should all "Ponggol" road names be amended to "Punggol", then we might have a comparative example. ::There might be such amendements somewhere down the dusty paths of history...if I can find any examples of this, I will notify here.--User:Huaiwei 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Oops, I think I misread what the Anon meant... in terms of standardization (not switching from one language or dialect to another), I honestly can't think of any examples. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 18:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) Yepp I mean for the same sound of a language, say Hokkien, is it very often transcribed and romanised in the same way? -- 18:27, January 27, 2005, UTC ---- ==Voiced/unvoiced, aspirated/unaspirated== I am interested to know about why the consonants b, g and d of Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.) as well as Korean are transcribed into p, k and t. Are the pronunciations of b, g and d different from those in European languages? -- 15:45, January 24, 2005, UTC : → Aspiration (phonetics). User:Jpatokal 18:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) But the Aspiration (phonetics), Voiced, Voiced consonant and Voiceless consonant articles do not provide a good picture to readers who have little knowledge in linguistics. -- 14:22, January 25, 2005, UTC :They don't, which is why Jyutping is better than IPA for giving Cantonese pronunciation. Same goes for Hanyu Pinyin vs IPA for Mandarin. If what you've suggested is the case then we should go differentiating the p sound in pend and spend, and mark them as ph and p respectively. -- 20:06, January 26, 2005, UTC :The pronunciation of Jyutping / Pinyin "b d g" are indeed different from European languages, or even Japanese. English is not a good example of this, because the English system is very close to the Chinese system (i.e. unvoiced plosives are aspirated, voiced plosives are less voiced); but listen to another language (French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese...) and the difference is very obvious. To a speaker of these languages, Chinese "b d g" do sound like "p t k". (And with good reason; they're not voiced, so in IPA these are indeed /p t k/.) -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 08:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Would German be closed to English? -- 09:56, January 26, 2005, UTC :I'm not sure. But I believe German unvoiced plosives are aspirated, just like English (and unlike French, Spanish, or Russian). -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) The Aspiration (phonetics) article mentions about Icelandic, Danish, Allemannic German and southern varieties of German. For the case of Danish and southern varieties of German the unaspirated p t and k (without the h) are transcribed as b d and g. -- 20:04, January 26, 2005, UTC So shall we mark the voiced unaspirated g of English differently from the voiced unaspirated g of French, Spanish or Russian in IPA? -- 20:08, January 26, 2005, UTC :Well, tradition is another factor. If Danish were a language spoken by a lost tribe somewhere and discovered only yesterday, its /b d g/ would probably be transcribed into IPA (rightly) as /p t k/. But Danish has connections with other European languages, and those languages pronounce these as [b d g], so by pure tradition, Danish also uses /b d g/. Another good example is English /æ/, as in bank. Most American accents don't pronounce this strictly as [æ], but the phoneme is written with that symbol nonetheless, due to tradition. :Chinese, on the other hand, is the precise opposite case. Chinese plosives are famously distinguished by aspiration; it has been this way historically and it is still this way today. This is why Postal System Pinyin and Wade Giles (as well as the romanizations of Hong Kong and Singapore) use "p t k" and left "b d g" unused. Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Hanyu Pinyin decided to use "b d g" in addition to "p t k" simply because they wanted to maximize the usage of all the letters of the Roman alphabet. (Hanyu Pinyin also uses "j q x" in rather weird ways, for example.) But that doesn't change the fact that these sounds continue to be recognized as [p t k] and [ph th kh] and therefore written (accurately) as the phonemes /p t k/ and /ph th kh/ in IPA by most linguistic literature. (Of course there are also books that try to argue that these are actually underlying /b d g/ and /p t k/, but these are the minority and we probably shouldn't be going into such deep level and controversial phonemic analysis at this stage.) :As for English: I don't understand your question, really. You described the g of English and the g of French in exactly the same way. In this case, of course they should be marked in the same way. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 20:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) So should the Danish b be marked /p/ in IPA, and p be marked /ph/? You mentioned the English g and French g are not the same. Should they be marked differently in IPA, to reflect the fact that their degrees of voiced are not the same? -- 21:06, January 26, 2005, UTC :Sure, but it's not really necessary. There's no more voiced /g/ or less voiced /g/ to distinguish in English. :As for Danish: I've explained alreadly. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 21:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) So there are traditionally not differentiated in IPA is that right? For Danish, you've answered on transcription, but not on marking by IPA. -- 21:54, January 26, 2005, UTC :What's the difference? I answered for the transcription of Danish into IPA. :As for English: no, in English these are not traditionally differentiated. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 21:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Ah I got it. So in Danish it's tradition which made the different.... i.e. the same unvoiced unaspirated b is marked as /b/ for Danish and /p/ for Cantonese. I got it. I mean the difference between the more voiced French/Spanish/Russian /g/ and the less voiced English/German /g/. -- 22:15, January 26, 2005, UTC One more question: should the English p sound in pend and spend be marked as ph and p respectively? -- 22:17, January 26, 2005, UTC :Only in a phonetic transcription. In English, aspirated and unaspirated /p/ are the same phoneme, so they don't show up in a phonemic transcription, only a phonetic transcription. In Chinese, however, they are different phonemes, so they show up in phonemic transcriptions. :By the way, how about getting a user name? It's hard to make proposals and give opinions if you're an Anon, since people can't even keep track of you. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 22:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) What about the French/Spanish/Russian /g/ versus the English/German /g/? -- 10:02, January 27, 2005, UTC :What about them? They wouldn't be marked in a phonemic transcription because none of these languages distinguish more than one type of /g/. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ==Macao== I would also like to know how proper nouns in Macao are transcribed and romanised. Is it based on Portuguese? For instance, San Kio (新橋, Jyutping: san1 kiu4, IPA: sɐn1 kɪʊ4), and Hac Sa (黑沙, Jyutping: haak1 saa1, IPA: hɑk1 sɑ1). Nam Van (南灣, Jyutping: naam4 waan1, IPA: nɑm4 wɑn1) is romanised with a 'v' instead of 'w'. The case of Ka Ho (九澳, Jyutping: gau2 ou3 IPA: gɐʊ2 əʊ3) is more confusing. -- 17:08, January 25, 2005, UTC ==The other way round of romanisation== Is there any proper terms for the inversion of romanisation, that is, transcription of words in roman alphabets into Cyrillic, Katakana or Han characters? -- 14:22, January 25, 2005, UTC : Cyrillization, for one. ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-22 16:54 Z'' ==User:Jiang's removals== Jiang removed the following romanisation systems with the remark "''rm fantasy/fringe systems''".
*Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
*Penkyamp
*Tongwa Lomaji ([http://www.onlineblast.com/tongwalomaji/ source])
-- 15:05, January 25, 2005, UTC
:Exactly. Please stop reinserting articles that have been deleted by consensus. Tongwa Lomaji receives only a few online hits and is therefore a fringe system. Please do not link to articles that should not exist. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:: Where was the deletion discussed to achieve consensus? Are they ''fantasy'' or ''fringe''—there's a big difference. If they're real romanization systems, then why not include them and mention that they are little-used, or when and where they are/were used? ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-22 16:54 Z''
:::This guy is simply asserting his own sets of values and his point of view everywhere. I am considering to file a complaint. Btw, how to check if he's an administrator? -- 20:11, January 26, 2005, UTC
:::: You can check at Wikipedia:List of administrators, although if you feel it's justified, his status shouldn't affect your decision to complain. Just follow the full procedure, starting with trying to find a compromise. ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-22 16:54 Z''
::In the meantime you might want to look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Google test. Not everything is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 20:53, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
::: You're beating around the bush, Ran. Will someone please explain the objection to including these romanization systems? Are you saying they're fake, or merely insignificant? Anonymous, can you describe where and when they are/were used?
::: There's evidently a dispute here, but neither side is presenting any facts to support their case. ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-22 16:54 Z''
:Try looking on Google for these three systems. I can perhaps see a case for Penkyamp, but the other two simply aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 21:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, these are the VfD discussions. I was involved in them:
*Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penkyamp
*Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
I cannot find the discussion for "Tongwa Lomaji". How was it deleted? -- User:Felix Wan 02:49, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
:Sorry, I think the article "Tongwa Lomaji" was never created. Jiang just deleted the link. -- User:Felix Wan 02:54, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
: Thanks for the references. I didn't realize these were previously deleted articles. ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-22 16:54 Z''
Are the standards for removing the article and removing the listing the same? -- 10:01, January 27, 2005, UTC
:Removing an article that is not obvious vandalism can only be done by an administrator, and it requires consensus in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion process. Removing the listing can be done by anyone, but still editors should discuss and collaborate at the talk page of each article. They are separate processes, but it usually makes sense to remove links pointing to deleted articles. -- User:Felix Wan 18:58, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
Transliteration Latin alphabet
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Romanization:
Romanization
Romanization
Romanization
Romanizations
Romanization_of_Hebrew
Romanization_of_Hebrew
Romanization_of_Korean
Romanization_of_Russian
Romanization_of_Ukrainian
Romanization_of_Ukrainian
Romanization
:''In Antiquity, Romanization describes the spread of culture of Ancient Rome''. In linguistics, romanization or latinization is a system for representing a word or language with the Latin alphabet, where the original word or language used a different writing system. Methods of romanization include transliteration, representing written text, and transcription (linguistics), representing the spoken word. The latter can be subdivided into ''phonological transcription'', which records the phonemes or units of semantic meaning in speech, and more strict ''phonetic transcription'', which records speech sounds with precision. Each romanization has its own set of rules for pronunciation of the romanized words. To romanize is to transliterate or transcribe a language into the Roman alphabet. This process is most commonly associated with the Chinese language, Japanese language and Korean language languages (CJK). Cyrillization is the similar process of representing a language using the Cyrillic alphabet. Also spelled romanisation and latinisation. == Methods of romanization == === Transliteration === If the romanization attempts to transliteration the original script, the guiding principle is a one-to-one mapping of characters in the source language into the target script, with less emphasis on how the result sounds when pronounced according to the reader's language. For example, the Nihon-shiki romanization of Japanese language allows the informed reader to reconstruct the original Japanese kana syllables with 100% accuracy, but is not readable without prior study. === Transcription === ==== Phonological ==== However, most romanizations are intended for the casual reader, who is unfamiliar with the intricacies of the original script and is more interested in pronouncing the source language. Such romanizations follow the principle of phonological transcription and attempt to render the significant sounds (phonemes) of the original as faithfully as possible in the target language. The popular Hepburn romanization of Japanese is an example of a transcriptive romanization designed for English speakers. ==== Phonetic ==== A phonetic conversion goes one step further and attempts to depict all phones in the source language, sacrificing legibility if necessary by using characters or conventions not found in the target script. The International Phonetic Alphabet is the most common system of phonetic transcription. === Tradeoffs === For most language pairs, building a usable romanization involves tradeoffs between the two extremes. Pure transcriptions are generally not possible, as the source language usually contains sounds and distinctions not found in the target language, but which must be shown to for the romanized form to be comprehensible. In general, outside a limited audience of scholars, romanizations tend to lean more towards transcription. As an example, consider the Japanese martial art 柔術: the Nihon-shiki romanization ''zyūzyutu'' may allow someone who knows Japanese to reconstruct the kana syllables じゅうじゅつ, but most people would find it easier to guess the pronunciation from the Hepburn version, ''jujutsu''. == Romanization of specific writing systems == === Arabic === The Arabic alphabet is used to write Arabic language , Persian language , and Urdu language . Romanization standards include: * Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (1936): [http://www.dmg-web.de/] Adopted by the International Convention of Orientalist Scholars in Rome. Is the basis for the very influential Hans Wehr dictionary (ISBN 0879500034) * BS 4280 (1968): Developed by the British Standards Institute [http://www.bsi-global.com/index.xalter] * SATTS (1970s): Developed by US military * UNGEGN (1972): [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ar.pdf] * DIN-31635 (1982): Developed by the Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization) * ISO 233 (1984). Transliteration. * Qalam (1985): A system that focuses upon preserving the spelling, rather than the pronunciation, and uses mixed case [http://eserver.org/langs/qalam.txt] * ISO 233-2 (1993). Simplified transliteration. * Buckwalter Transliteration (1990s): Developed at Xerox by Tim Buckwalter [http://www.qamus.org/transliteration.htm]; doesn't require unusual diacritic [http://www.xrce.xerox.com/competencies/content-analysis/arabic/info/buckwalter-about.html] * ALA-LC (1997): [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf] A table comparing romanizations using DIN 31635, ISO 233, ISO/R 233, UN, ALA-LC, and Encyclopaedia of Islam systems is available here: [http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Arabic.pdf]. === Hebrew === ''For more details, see Hebrew alphabet and Romanization of Hebrew.'' * ANSI Z39.25 (1975): * UNGEGN (1977): [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_he.pdf] * ISO 259 (1984): Transliteration. * ISO 259-2 (1994): Simplified transliteration. * ISO/DIS 259-3: Phonemic transcription. * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/hebrew.pdf] === Brahmic scripts === The Brahmic family of abugidas is used for languages of the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia. There is a long tradition in the west to study Sanskrit and other Indic texts in Latin transliteration. Various transliteration conventions have been used for Indic scripts since the time of Sir William Jones. A comparison of some of them is provided here: [http://www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit/sanskrit3part2.html] * ISO 15919 (2001): A standard transliteration convention was codified in the ISO 15919 standard. It uses diacritics to map the much larger set of Brahmic consonants and vowels to the Latin script. See also [http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/trind.htm Transliteration of Indic scripts: how to use ISO 15919]. The Devanagari-specific portion is identical to the academic standard, IAST: "International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration", and to the United States Library of Congress standard, ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/hindi.pdf] * Harvard-Kyoto: Uses upper and lower case and doubling of letters, to avoid the use of diacritics, and to restrict the range to 7-bit ASCII. * ITRANS: a transliteration scheme into 7-bit ASCII created by Avinash Chopde that used to be prevalent on Usenet. * ASTHA: "Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration for HTML", made in Argentina, also into 7-bit ASCII [http://www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit/sanskrit3.html] See also ISCII (1988). === Chinese === Romanization of Chinese language, in particular, has proved a very difficult problem, although the issue is further complicated by political considerations. Another complication is the fact that Mandarin is not written phonetically, but rather written as ideograms. Because of this, most romanization tables convert not directly from the Chinese characters but from the underlying Zhuyin pronunciation. See also: [http://www.iqchina.com/going/PinYin2.asp] [http://www.romanization.com/] ==== Standard Mandarin ==== * ALA-LC: Used to be similar to Wade-Giles [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/chinese.pdf], but converted to Hanyu Pinyin since 2000 [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin/romcover.html] * EFEO. Developed by Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient in 19th century, used mainly in France. * Latinxua Sinwenz (1926): Omitted tone sounds. Used mainly in the Soviet Union. * Lessing-Othmer: Used mainly in Germany. * Postal System Pinyin (1906): Early standard for international addresses * Wade-Giles (1912): Transliteration. Very popular before World War II. * Yale Romanization#Mandarin (1942): Created by the U.S. for battlefield communication. ===== Mainland China ===== * Hanyu Pinyin (1958): In Mainland China, Hanyu Pinyin has been used officially to romanize Mandarin Chinese for decades, primarily as a linguistic tool for teaching Standard Mandarin (the standardized Chinese spoken language) to students whose mother tongue is not Standard Mandarin, and has been adopted by much of the international community as a standard for writing Chinese words and names in the Roman alphabet. The value of Hanyu Pinyin in education in China lies in the fact that China, like any other populated area with comparable area and population, has literally thousands of distinct Chinese dialect, though there is just one common written language and one common standardized spoken form. * ISO 7098 (1991): Very similar to Hanyu Pinyin. =====Taiwan (Republic of China)===== * Gwoyeu Romatzyh: (1926): Used in mainland China before the communist Chinese civil war in 1949. Primarily used in Taiwan. Replaced by Mandarin Phonetic Symbols II and no longer commonly used. * Mandarin Phonetic Symbols II (1984): Primarily used in Taiwan. Replaced by Tongyong Pinyin and no longer commonly used. * Tongyong Pinyin (2000): Primarily used in Taiwan. Literally means "Universal Spell Sound". Very similar to Hanyu Pinyin. Differences between the two are noted [http://research.chtsai.org/papers/pinyin-xref.html here]. ==== Standard Cantonese ==== * Barnett-Chao * Guangdong Romanization#Cantonese (1960) * Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation * Jyutping * Meyer-Wempe * Sidney Lau * Yale Romanization#Cantonese (1942) ==== Min Nan ==== * Guangdong Romanization#Teochew (1960) * Taiwanese_language#Scripts_and_orthographies === Japanese === Romanization (or, more strictly, Roman letters) in Japanese language is called "romaji". The most common systems are: * Hepburn (1867): transcription * Nihon-shiki (1885): transliteration. Also adopted as (ISO 3602 Strict) in 1989. * Kunrei-shiki (1937): transliteration. Also dopted as (ISO 3602). * JSL (1987) * ALA-LC: Similar to Hepburn [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/japanese.pdf] * Wapuro romaji === Korean === ''Main article: Korean romanization'' * McCune-Reischauer (1937): Transcription. Until 2002, the official system for Korean language in South Korea was this system, which is still used in North Korea. * Revised Romanization of Korean (2000): As of 2005, South Korea officially uses this system, that was approved in 2000. Road signs and textbooks are required to follow these rules as soon as possible, at a cost estimated by the government to be at least US$20 million. Proper names are still left to personal preference, but the government encourages using the new system. * Yale Romanization#Korean (1942): This system is used mainly in academic literature. * ALA-LC: Follows McCune-Reischauer in most cases [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/korean.pdf] * ISO/TR 11941 (1996): This actually is two different standards under one name: one for North Korea (DPRK) and the other for South Korea (ROK). The initial submission to the ISO was a joint effort between both countries (and was based heavily on Yale), but they could not agree on the final draft. A comparison between the two is available here: [http://www.sori.org/hangul/romanizations.html#Roman_Intro] === Thai === Thai language , spoken in Thailand, is written with its own script, probably descended from Old Khmer, in the Brahmic family. Also see Thai alphabet. * Royal Thai General System of Transcription: * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/thai.pdf] * ISO 11940 (1998): Transliteration === Cyrillic === In linguistics, scientific transliteration is used for both Cyrillic alphabet and Glagolitic alphabets. This applies to Old Church Slavonic, as well as modern Slavic languages which use these alphabets. ==== Belarusian ==== The Belarusian language has been written with both Cyrillic and Latin scripts. Today the Latin script (''Lacinka ,'' or ''Łacinica'') is rarely used, although it has its advocates. Despite the existence of a native Latin alphabet, Belarusian names are usually transcribed similarly to the Russian language. {| |+ Examples |- ! align=left | Lacinka ! align=left | Transliterated |- | Homiel | Homyel' |- | Mahiloŭ | Mahilyow |- | Viciebsk | Vitsebsk |- | Baranavičy | Baranavichy |- | Žytkavičy | Zhytkavichy |} * Belarusian National System of Romanization * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/beloruss.pdf] * BGN/PCGN * ISO9 External link: [http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Belarusian.pdf Thomas T. Pederson's chart] (PDF). ==== Russian ==== There is no single universally accepted system of writing Russian language using the Latin script — in fact there are a huge number of such systems: some are adjusted for a particular target language (e.g. German or French), some are designed as a librarian's transliteration, some are prescribed for Russian traveller's passports; the transcription of some names is purely traditional. All this has resulted in great reduplication of names. E.g. the name of the great Russian composer Tchaikovsky may also be written as ''Tchaykovsky'', ''Tchajkovskij'', ''Tchaikowski'', ''Tschaikowski'', ''Czajkowski'', ''Čajkovskij'', ''Čajkovski'', ''Chajkovskij'', ''Chaykovsky'', ''Chaykovskiy'', ''Chaikovski'' etc. Systems include: * BGN/PCGN (1947): Transliteration system (United States Board on Geographic Names & Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use). [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/cyrillic.htm] * GOST 16876-71 (1983): From the Main Administration of Geodesy and Cartography of the former Soviet Union. Russian abbreviation of ''GOsudarstvenny STandart'', "the State Standard". [http://www.ccl.net/cca/software/SOURCES/C/translit/phg-koi8.shtml] * United Nations standard (1987): Based on GOST. Used in the Russian Federation and increasingly in international cartographic products. * ISO 9 (1995): Transliteration. From the International Organization for Standardization. * ALA-LC (1997): [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf] * Volapuk encoding (1990s): Slang term (it's not really Volapük language) for a writing method that's not truly a transliteration, but used for similar goals (see article). * Internal Wikipedia standard (2004): Derived from BGN/PCGN, documented at Transliteration of Russian into English, but essentially congruent with de-facto internet practices. ==== Ukrainian ==== Ukrainian personal names are usually transcribed phonetically; see the main article section Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names . The Ukrainian National system is used for geographic names in Ukraine. * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/ukrainia.pdf (PDF)]. * ISO 9 * Ukrainian National transliteration: [http://www.hostmaster.net.ua/docs/translit/tab_01.jpg (JPEG, in Ukrainian)]. * Ukrainian National and BGN/PCGN systems, at the UN Working Group on Romanization Systems: [http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom2_uk.pdf (PDF)]. * Thomas T. Pederson's comparison of five systems: [http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Ukrainian.pdf (PDF)]. === Greek === Greek language includes the modern language spoken in Greece, as well as ancient Polytonic orthography. See also Greeklish. * ISO 843 (1997): [http://www.biology.uoc.gr/gvd/contents/databases/01c.htm] * ALA-LC: [http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/greek.pdf] == Overview/Summary == The chart below shows the most common phonemic transcription romanization used for several different alphabets. While it is sufficient for many casual users, there are multiple alternatives used for each alphabet, and many exceptions. For details, consult each of the language sections below. (Because the number of Hangul characters are prohibitively large, only the first characters are provided in the following table.)
| ROMANIZED | Greek | Russian language (Cyrillic) | Hebrew language | Arabic | Katakana | Hangul |
| A | A | А | ַ, ֲ, ָ | دَ, دَ, ﺍ — ﺎ, دَىا | ア | |
| AI | י ַ | |||||
| B | Б | בּ | ﺏ ﺑ ﺒ ﺐ | ㅂ | ||
| CH | Χ | Ч | ㅊ | |||
| CHI | チ | |||||
| D | Δ | Д | ד | ﺩ — ﺪ, ﺽ ﺿ ﻀ ﺾ | ㄷ | |
| DH | ﺫ — ﺬ | |||||
| E | Ε | Э | , ֱ, י ֵֶ, ֵ, י ֶ | エ | ||
| F | Φ | Ф | פ (final ף ) | ﻑ ﻓ ﻔ ﻒ | ||
| FU | フ | |||||
| G | Γ | Г | ג | ㄱ | ||
| GH | ﻍ ﻏ ﻐ ﻎ | |||||
| H | ח, ה | ﻩ ﻫ ﻬ ﻪ, ﺡ ﺣ ﺤ ﺢ | ㅎ | |||
| HA | ハ | |||||
| HE | ヘ | |||||
| HI | ヒ | |||||
| HO | ホ | |||||
| I | Η, Ι, Υ | И | ִ, י ִ | دِ | イ | |
| IY | دِي | |||||
| J | ﺝ ﺟ ﺠ ﺞ | ㅈ | ||||
| JJ | ㅉ | |||||
| K | Κ | К | כּ (final ךּ ), ק | ﻙ ﻛ ﻜ ﻚ | ㅋ | |
| KA | カ | |||||
| KE | ケ | |||||
| KH | Х | כ (final ך ) | ﺥ ﺧ ﺨ ﺦ | |||
| KI | キ | |||||
| KK | ㄲ | |||||
| KO | コ | |||||
| KU | ク | |||||
| L | Λ | Л | ל | ﻝ ﻟ ﻠ ﻞ | ||
| M | Μ | М | מ (final ם ) | ﻡ ﻣ ﻤ ﻢ | ㅁ | |
| MA | マ | |||||
| ME | メ | |||||
| MI | ミ | |||||
| MO | モ | |||||
| MU | ム | |||||
| N | Ν | Н | נ (final ן ) | ﻥ ﻧ ﻨ ﻦ | ㄴ | |
| NA | ナ | |||||
| NE | ネ | |||||
| NI | ニ | |||||
| NO | ノ | |||||
| NU | ヌ | |||||
| O | Ο, Ω | О | , ֳ, וֹֹ | オ | ||
| P | Π | П | פּ (final ףּ ) | ㅍ | ||
| PP | ㅃ | |||||
| PS | Ψ | |||||
| Q | ﻕ ﻗ ﻘ ﻖ | |||||
| R | Ρ | Р | ר | ﺭ — ﺮ | ㄹ | |
| RA | ラ | |||||
| RE | レ | |||||
| RI | リ | |||||
| RO | ロ | |||||
| RU | ル | |||||
| S | Σ | С | ס, שֹ | ﺱ ﺳ ﺴ ﺲ, ﺹ ﺻ ﺼ ﺺ | ㅅ | |
| SA | サ | |||||
| SE | セ | |||||
| SH | Ш | ש | ﺵ ﺷ ﺸ ﺶ | |||
| SHCH | Щ | |||||
| SHI | シ | |||||
| SO | ソ | |||||
| SS | ㅆ | |||||
| SU | ス | |||||
| T | Τ | Т | ט, תּ, ת | ﺕ ﺗ ﺘ ﺖ, ﻁ ﻃ ﻄ ﻂ | ㅌ | |
| TA | タ | |||||
| TE | テ | |||||
| TH | Θ | ﺙ ﺛ ﺜ ﺚ | ||||
| TO | ト | |||||
| TS | Ц | צ (final ץ ) | ||||
| TSU | ツ | |||||
| TT | ㄸ | |||||
| U | У | , וֻּ | دُ | ウ | ||
| UW | دُو | |||||
| V | B | В | ב, ו, וו | |||
| W | ﻭ — ﻮ | |||||
| WA | ワ | |||||
| WE | ヱ | |||||
| WI | ヰ | |||||
| WO | ヲ | |||||
| X | Ξ | |||||
| Y | Й, Ы | י | ﻱ ﻳ ﻴ ﻲ | |||
| YA | Я | ヤ | ||||
| YE | Е | |||||
| YO | Ё | ヨ | ||||
| YU | Ю | ユ | ||||
| Z | Ζ | З | ז | ﺯ — ﺰ, ﻅ ﻇ ﻈ ﻆ | ||
| ZH | Ж |
Romanization
== "Non-Roman" == "Non-Roman languages"?? It appears that you mean any language not normally written in the Roman alphabet. Thus Greek, Russian, and Arabic are "non-Roman" languages. Why don't you explain what "non-Roman" means? The term could be misunderstood; people could think that English is a "non-Roman" language since it didn't come from Rome. User:Michael Hardy 02:56 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC) : Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks to User:Brion VIBBER for changing it to make it more clear. : -- User:Wintran 03:20 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC) ------ == Capitalize term or not? == I have been thinking about whether or not we should use a capital "r" when we type "romanization". First, I was certain that "Romanization" was the correct way to write it, but now I have seen the non-capitalized version being used by encyclopedias and dictionaries as well, and I am not quite as certain anymore. - User:Wintran 00:42 May 13, 2003 (UTC) : It's incorrect. You "Romanize" when you turn something into Rome; you "romanize" when you apply a method of transcription. Compare with xeroxing, hoovering, and any number of brands and names that have turned into generic words. I've changed the article. User:Jpatokal 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Becoming a Roman== How do you call the process of barbarians becoming Romans? -- User:Error 05:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) : According to OED, also "Romanization". Defintions 1 is "Assimilation to Roman customs or models." One quote is from 1876. The transliteration meaning came the latest ('tho not ''that'' much later): first quote in 1894. --User:Menchi 05:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) == Other languages == There are several other languages (or groups of languages) that could be covered here: * Greek language ** Ancient greek ** medieval ** modern (Demotic greek) * Sanskrit and other Indian languages * Thai language (have added relevant references User:Woodstone 15:22, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)) * Arabic language * Hebrew language Why not add norwegian? ø -> oe, å -> aa, æ -> ae. : Norwegian is already written with the Latin alphabet, so simplifying these letters isn't romanization. ''—User:Mzajac 17:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)'' Icelandic isn't, though. It still uses an entirely un-Roman letter: the thorn (þ). : The Icelandic, and the Old English, are Latin alphabets that have adopted letter(s) from Runic. One might say that the letter þ is romanized as ''th'' or ''y''—as in "ye olde gray mare"—but I don't know if it's technically correct. There's more fun stuff in :category:Uncommon Latin letters ''—User:Mzajac 00:20, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)'' Really, there are romanization systems for just about any non-roman script you can imagine -- while the term may have arisen originally in the context of Asian languages, I'm not sure it's NPOV to imply that that is the central meaning of the term today... : I think the term ''romanization'' is more commonly used for oriental languages, because they are not alphabetic. ''Transliteration'' is a more specific term, often used to describe the romanization of Cyrillic, and other languages with alphabets, that can have a letter-for-letter correspondence with the Latin alphabet. ''—User:Mzajac 16:42, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)'' == Transliterating Cyrillic == For anyone interested, here's the Russian example "Tchaikovsy" transliterated according to several different systems, from Russian and Ukrainian. See also Romanization of Ukrainian. {| border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border:1px solid #666;border-collapse:collapse;" |+ Transliterating "Tchaikovsky" |- ! ! align=left | Russian language:
Чайковский ! align=left | Ukrainian language:
Чайковський |- ! align=left | GOST/UN | Čajkovskij | - |- ! align=left | Transliteration of Russian into English (strict) | Chaykovsky | - |- ! align=left | Transliteration of Russian into English (allowed exceptions) | Tchaikovsy | - |- ! align=left | Ukrainian National/UN | - | Chaikovs’kyi |- ! align=left | ISO 9 | Čajkovskij | Čajkovs′kij |- ! align=left | ALA/LC | Chaĭkovskiĭ | Chaĭkovskyĭ |- ! align=left | BGN/PCGN | Chaykovskiy | Chaykovskyy |- ! align=left | International Phonetic Alphabet | [tʃʲajkɔvskij] | [tʃajkovsʲkɪj] |- ! align=left | X-SAMPA | /tS'ajkOvskij/ | /tSajkovs'kIj/ |} == Methods of romanization == I have taken the liberty of removing the (frankly) nearly incomprehensible paragraphs by the esteemed 63.22.206.187, which also contained a number of outright mistakes (''hatsuon'' means "pronunciation" in Japanese, not any specific character), and rewritten what I hope was the gist of them. Corrections welcome, and I'd like to hear more about "phonemic conversion" (how does this differ from transcription?). User:Jpatokal 17:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) : I'm mostly guessing, but there are some hints in this paragraph from International Phonetic Alphabet: :: ''When characters from the IPA phonetic alphabet are embedding in another script they are isolated from the rest of the text with either slashes ("/") or square brackets ("[" and "]"). Linguists use brackets when a narrow phonetic transcription is given, for example the English word "huge" would be [çjudʒ]. Slashes denote a phonological transcription:"huge" would be /hjudʒ/.'' : I think ''phonemic conversion'' (or ''phonological transcription'') is a general indication of a word's pronunciation. You might say that in English "huge" is pronounced /hjudʒ/, and it applies equally to the way you would say it whether you were from Alabama or Jaipur. : ''Phonetic transcription'' would be more precise, whereby linguists will use all those fancy IPA characters and modifiers to compare the way a Yorkshireman's pronunciation of "huge" differs from an East Midlander's. :: ''—User:Mzajac 19:17, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)'' == Page organization == Would anyone object if I reorganized this page by writing system, rather than by language(s)? Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian belong together in a section concerning the Cyrillic alphabet, not in the current "arrangement". ''—User:Mzajac 16:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)'' Sounds good to me --User:Arcadian 19:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- : One more vote in favor. User:Jpatokal 01:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- ==Singapore== Is there any system on how names of Singaporean people and geographical proper nouns are romanised (for those not according to Hanyu Pinyin)? Or is it done arbitarily? Are they mainly romanised according to Hokkien or Teochew dialects of Min Nan language? -- 03:13, January 24, 2005, UTC : Largely arbitrary and quite dependent on the dialect of the person or name in question, although if there are any standards I'd be interested in hearing about it. Most names are Hokkien. User:Jpatokal 04:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) Interested to hearing about if there is any standard for Hokkien. -- 15:41, January 24, 2005, UTC ::There might be no standard, as what has been suggested earlier. People's names usually are romanized based on the dialect group they belong to, and romanization of Chinese dialects dosent seem to follow a standard of any kind. ::This ambiguity is not just confined to Chinese dialects. Even Malay words, which would have been assumed to be less of an issue since the language itself has already been romanised, do sugger from a few instances of inconsistencies. A good example is how "Punggol" ends up being spelt as "Ponggol" too as well...both road names appear in the same locality, and are actually refering to the same word. ::I am not too sure about Indian translations thou, because I would think it follows romnisation standards adobted in India itself?--User:Huaiwei 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :No. On Wikipedia we use Peh-oe-ji, but it's not very common (as far as I know). The Minnan Wikipedia is written in Peh-oe-ji. There are other systems out there too. There is no standard romanization used for names in Singapore. (other than Pinyin of course, but that's for Mandarin only, which occurs here and there in personal and place names.) -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 08:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) So in other words names of places in Singapore which are not transcibed based on Mandarin pronunciation are transcibed with an arbitary manner? Or is there any trace-able pattern? -- 09:59, January 26, 2005, UTC :Well, there are obviously ''patterns'', there just isn't any standard. These names were devised in colonial era and they were basically spelled in whichever way sounded about right. I guess you can compare this to Hong Kong place names. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Same names in Hong Kong were later changed, for instance, Un Long to Yuen Long, and Shaukiwan to Shau Kei Wan. In other words there was certain moves towards standardisation. Are there any similar pattern for the case of Singapore? -- 10:04, January 27, 2005, UTC :I can only think of one example, "Nee Soon" (probably Minnan) is becoming less popular compared to "Yishun" (Mandarin). That's the only example I can think of though, so I'd say there's no such trend in general. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ::Hmm....the Yishun/Nee Soon thingy may not be a suitable example in this case, because it is more of switching from one dialect spelling to another. Should all "Ponggol" road names be amended to "Punggol", then we might have a comparative example. ::There might be such amendements somewhere down the dusty paths of history...if I can find any examples of this, I will notify here.--User:Huaiwei 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Oops, I think I misread what the Anon meant... in terms of standardization (not switching from one language or dialect to another), I honestly can't think of any examples. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 18:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) Yepp I mean for the same sound of a language, say Hokkien, is it very often transcribed and romanised in the same way? -- 18:27, January 27, 2005, UTC ---- ==Voiced/unvoiced, aspirated/unaspirated== I am interested to know about why the consonants b, g and d of Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.) as well as Korean are transcribed into p, k and t. Are the pronunciations of b, g and d different from those in European languages? -- 15:45, January 24, 2005, UTC : → Aspiration (phonetics). User:Jpatokal 18:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) But the Aspiration (phonetics), Voiced, Voiced consonant and Voiceless consonant articles do not provide a good picture to readers who have little knowledge in linguistics. -- 14:22, January 25, 2005, UTC :They don't, which is why Jyutping is better than IPA for giving Cantonese pronunciation. Same goes for Hanyu Pinyin vs IPA for Mandarin. If what you've suggested is the case then we should go differentiating the p sound in pend and spend, and mark them as ph and p respectively. -- 20:06, January 26, 2005, UTC :The pronunciation of Jyutping / Pinyin "b d g" are indeed different from European languages, or even Japanese. English is not a good example of this, because the English system is very close to the Chinese system (i.e. unvoiced plosives are aspirated, voiced plosives are less voiced); but listen to another language (French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese...) and the difference is very obvious. To a speaker of these languages, Chinese "b d g" do sound like "p t k". (And with good reason; they're not voiced, so in IPA these are indeed /p t k/.) -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 08:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Would German be closed to English? -- 09:56, January 26, 2005, UTC :I'm not sure. But I believe German unvoiced plosives are aspirated, just like English (and unlike French, Spanish, or Russian). -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) The Aspiration (phonetics) article mentions about Icelandic, Danish, Allemannic German and southern varieties of German. For the case of Danish and southern varieties of German the unaspirated p t and k (without the h) are transcribed as b d and g. -- 20:04, January 26, 2005, UTC So shall we mark the voiced unaspirated g of English differently from the voiced unaspirated g of French, Spanish or Russian in IPA? -- 20:08, January 26, 2005, UTC :Well, tradition is another factor. If Danish were a language spoken by a lost tribe somewhere and discovered only yesterday, its /b d g/ would probably be transcribed into IPA (rightly) as /p t k/. But Danish has connections with other European languages, and those languages pronounce these as [b d g], so by pure tradition, Danish also uses /b d g/. Another good example is English /æ/, as in bank. Most American accents don't pronounce this strictly as [æ], but the phoneme is written with that symbol nonetheless, due to tradition. :Chinese, on the other hand, is the precise opposite case. Chinese plosives are famously distinguished by aspiration; it has been this way historically and it is still this way today. This is why Postal System Pinyin and Wade Giles (as well as the romanizations of Hong Kong and Singapore) use "p t k" and left "b d g" unused. Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Hanyu Pinyin decided to use "b d g" in addition to "p t k" simply because they wanted to maximize the usage of all the letters of the Roman alphabet. (Hanyu Pinyin also uses "j q x" in rather weird ways, for example.) But that doesn't change the fact that these sounds continue to be recognized as [p t k] and [ph th kh] and therefore written (accurately) as the phonemes /p t k/ and /ph th kh/ in IPA by most linguistic literature. (Of course there are also books that try to argue that these are actually underlying /b d g/ and /p t k/, but these are the minority and we probably shouldn't be going into such deep level and controversial phonemic analysis at this stage.) :As for English: I don't understand your question, really. You described the g of English and the g of French in exactly the same way. In this case, of course they should be marked in the same way. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 20:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) So should the Danish b be marked /p/ in IPA, and p be marked /ph/? You mentioned the English g and French g are not the same. Should they be marked differently in IPA, to reflect the fact that their degrees of voiced are not the same? -- 21:06, January 26, 2005, UTC :Sure, but it's not really necessary. There's no more voiced /g/ or less voiced /g/ to distinguish in English. :As for Danish: I've explained alreadly. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 21:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) So there are traditionally not differentiated in IPA is that right? For Danish, you've answered on transcription, but not on marking by IPA. -- 21:54, January 26, 2005, UTC :What's the difference? I answered for the transcription of Danish into IPA. :As for English: no, in English these are not traditionally differentiated. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 21:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Ah I got it. So in Danish it's tradition which made the different.... i.e. the same unvoiced unaspirated b is marked as /b/ for Danish and /p/ for Cantonese. I got it. I mean the difference between the more voiced French/Spanish/Russian /g/ and the less voiced English/German /g/. -- 22:15, January 26, 2005, UTC One more question: should the English p sound in pend and spend be marked as ph and p respectively? -- 22:17, January 26, 2005, UTC :Only in a phonetic transcription. In English, aspirated and unaspirated /p/ are the same phoneme, so they don't show up in a phonemic transcription, only a phonetic transcription. In Chinese, however, they are different phonemes, so they show up in phonemic transcriptions. :By the way, how about getting a user name? It's hard to make proposals and give opinions if you're an Anon, since people can't even keep track of you. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 22:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) What about the French/Spanish/Russian /g/ versus the English/German /g/? -- 10:02, January 27, 2005, UTC :What about them? They wouldn't be marked in a phonemic transcription because none of these languages distinguish more than one type of /g/. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 13:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ==Macao== I would also like to know how proper nouns in Macao are transcribed and romanised. Is it based on Portuguese? For instance, San Kio (新橋, Jyutping: san1 kiu4, IPA: sɐn1 kɪʊ4), and Hac Sa (黑沙, Jyutping: haak1 saa1, IPA: hɑk1 sɑ1). Nam Van (南灣, Jyutping: naam4 waan1, IPA: nɑm4 wɑn1) is romanised with a 'v' instead of 'w'. The case of Ka Ho (九澳, Jyutping: gau2 ou3 IPA: gɐʊ2 əʊ3) is more confusing. -- 17:08, January 25, 2005, UTC ==The other way round of romanisation== Is there any proper terms for the inversion of romanisation, that is, transcription of words in roman alphabets into Cyrillic, Katakana or Han characters? -- 14:22, January 25, 2005, UTC : Cyrillization, for one. ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-22 16:54 Z'' ==User:Jiang's removals== Jiang removed the following romanisation systems with the remark "''rm fantasy/fringe systems''".
Romanization
Transliteration Latin alphabet
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
R
RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |Words begining with Romanization:
Romanization
Romanization
Romanization
Romanizations
Romanization_of_Hebrew
Romanization_of_Hebrew
Romanization_of_Korean
Romanization_of_Russian
Romanization_of_Ukrainian
Romanization_of_Ukrainian
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
