Transliteration Of Writers' Names

[Stewart]

Wouldn't it be nice if there could be some official standard for the transliteration of names from non-Latin alphabets, like Russian, Chinese, and Arabic?

On the Literary Saloon M.A. Orthofer points (http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/archive/200803a.htm#dr8) it (http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/archive/200901a.htm#jz1) out (http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/archive/200808a.htm#gc8) regularly (http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/archive/200901a.htm#jw9) and I've come up against the same situation this evening while doing some research on هوشنگ گلشیری, the Iranian writer. That's Hushang Golshiri (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41stITLdqaL._SS500_.jpg)...no wait, Houshang Golshiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushang_Golshiri)...no, Hooshang Golshiri (http://golshirifoundation.org/english/index.asp). Seriously, what chance do we have of finding the overseas writers we are interested in if there's not a uniform way of rendering them in a Latin alphabet?

Given that we have the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) creating global standards for pretty much anything you can think of - from toy safety to date representation to, you guessed it, transliteration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_romanizations) - why can't those involved in publishing such translations all agree a standard for rendering names and stick to it?

[Bjorn]

I always assumed it was because transliterations are largely phonetic, since there's no 1:1 relationship between the letters of different alphabets, and different languages pronounce the Latin alphabet differently? Say, if we let the Germans decide what the standard for transliterating the Cyrillic alphabet would be, then all English speakers would pronounce Dostojewski as Dostojuiceguy.

[Stewart]

I always assumed it was because transliterations are largely phonetic, since there's no 1:1 relationship between the letters of different alphabets, and different languages pronounce the Latin alphabet differently? Say, if we let the Germans decide what the standard for transliterating the Cyrillic alphabet would be, then all English speakers would pronounce Dostojewski as Dostojuiceguy.
I can see the issue (indeed one of the links above talks about translitering Ilija Trojanow | Iliya Troyanov between English and German) but the Golshiri thing is three separate renderings on English language sites. I'm not going to be looking for books in another language, since I can't speak them, but if I was looking for books by an a writer in English translation then I'd hope to one day find them all listed under the one accepted transliteration.

[Bjorn]

Ah, gotcha. In that case I agree. Is it a Brit/US thing?

[Stewart]

Is it a Brit/US thing?
I don't think so. Just a case of inconsistency in doing the transliteration. Even the one one Golshiri novel on Amazon UK database is inconsistently referenced: Hushang on the hardback, Houshang on the paperback.

In one of the links to the Literary Saloon above, talking about the winner of the Naguib Mahfouz Medal for Literature, it's stated that the winner (حمدي أبوجليل) is mentioned as follows
So: Hamdi Abu Galil won. [al-Ahram Weekly]
Or is it: Hamdy Abowgliel -- as they have it (http://www.banipal.co.uk/contributors/contributor.php?conid=107) at Banipal.
Or is it: Hamdi Abu Golayyel -- as they have it (http://www.syracuseuniversitypress.syr.edu/fall-2006/thieves-retirement.html) at Syracuse University Press (where they published an earlier novel of his, Thieves in Retirement -- see an excerpt (http://www.wordswithoutborders.org/article.php?lab=TheVeilerOfAllDeeds) at Words without Borders, or get your copy at Amazon.com (where, just to add to the fun, they have his name as: Hamdi Abu Julayyil) or Amazon.co.uk)).
Or this one:
They announced the shortlist for the International Prize for Arabic Fiction a month ago (see our mention (http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/archive/200812b.htm#jl8)), and now also have some information up (http://www.arabicfiction.org/en/shortlist.html) at the official site. As we mentioned, one of the shortlisted works -- Hunger -- is actually already available in English from the American University in Cairo Press. But they spell the authors name as:

Mohammad Al Bisatie on the shortlist page
Muhammad Al-Bisatie further down on the shortlist page
Mohamed El-Bisatie further down on the shortlist page
Mohamed El-Bisatie at the AUC Press publicity page (http://www.aucpress.com/pc-2699-6-hunger.aspx)

(Yes, they spell it three different ways on the shortlist page .....)
As if that weren't enough, Daily News Egypt has some overview coverage (http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18928) -- and admirably plan to offer reviews of all six titles, beginning with their review of Hunger: Mohamed Al-Bosaty?s Hunger (http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18927). So add to the list:

Mohamed Al-Bosaty

[Eric]

I can't speak for Chinese or Arabic, but I know a bit about Russian.

First of all, one absolutely crucial factor: the many languages using our Roman alphabet all spell sounds differently. So, for instance, the "sh" and "ch" sounds as they are written in English are written as sch, sj, and tsch, tj, and so on, in various languages. That's why Googling Chekhov in several languages can be a nightmare (Tschechow, Tsjekhov, etc.).

The fiction and poetry reader has to be comfortable. There does exist a standard phonetic transliteration of Russian used internationally by libraries, but it employs characters such as ?, ?, etc., which we would not like to see in our ?oloxov novels (Sholokhov, to you), or poems by Xarms, Axmatova. See what I mean? Ugly, and partly unrecognisable for the lay reader. Very handy, however, for the cataloguer in a library.

Yiddish also has a standard transliteration alphabet called the YIVO system. This is used for English and French transliteration (the exact same version), whilst the Germans, Dutch, Poles, etc., use their own national systems, which make things as difficult as with the transliteration of Russian.

For someone like me, translating from Estonian which, of course, has many references to things Russian, I have to be on my guard. Sol?enits?n is an easy guess, but the fact that the Estonian use an "?" where we use a "y" can cause confusion.

*

An allied problem is getting the accents (i.e. diacritic marks) right for languages alreasy using the Roman alphabet, such as Polish, French, Romanian, Norwegian. I can't even reproduce half the relevant accents here for names such as R?zewicz, Ceausescu, and so on, because of various technical limitations (the first "z" and the first "s" are cases in point). The only way to get them here would be to copy them from a Wiki text. Word and WordPerfect have a rather hit-and-miss system for accents when you use the Alt + method.

[Stewart]

First of all, one absolutely crucial factor: the many languages using our Roman alphabet all spell sounds differently.

Yeah, but what about the inconsistency in putting the same name into the same language? Another example woukld be the great Telegram Books in the UK, who put out a book by Чыңгыз Айтматов. On their website we get Tchingiz A?tmatov (http://www.telegrambooks.com/archives/jamilia/jamilia_about_the_author/) (although this isn't the transliteration on the cover (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aRnFQeZOt_s/RsVXEHDqhqI/AAAAAAAAAB4/uXukPUzCONg/s400/jamilia.jpg) of the book) with a link to an obituary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jul/15/culture.obituaries) in the Guardian calling him Chingiz Aitmatov. Two London based sources, two ways of transliterating the name: that's the concern.

[Eric]

You're right Stewart: some people, even in the publishing world, are so self-centred and ignorant that they don't even see the problem. In the case of Aitmatov, incidentally, the fact that he was by origin a Kyrghyz (however you're meant to transliterate that language!) could also affect the transliteration.

But in my opinion, there is no reason to transliterate the Russian "Ч" as "tch" for the English language. This comes via the French and stems from the days when French would be the first language that "Tchekhov" would be translated into, owing to the snobby way that the 19th century Russian upper classes would speak French, even among themselves. We should call them Chingiz and Chekhov. In French, a written "ch" is our "sh" sound, so you need a "t" in front to render our "ch" sound (as in "church").

Nor do we, the English-speakers, need to use ? (i.e. an "i" with two dots over it). This again is from the French. In French, putting the dots there make it an "eye" or "fly" sound in Aitmatov, not a "play" or "bay" sound. There is logic in the French usage; none in English. We don't need this in English.

Despite all the forked paths of transliteration, there is logic in what is done. So there is no reason whatsoever, in the early 21st century, to ape French transliteration when transliterating Russian names for English usage.

[Mirabell]

You're right Stewart: some people, even in the publishing world, are so self-centred and ignorant that they don't even see the problem. In the case of Aitmatov, incidentally, the fact that he was by origin a Kyrghyz (however you're meant to transliterate that language!) could also affect the transliteration.

But in my opinion, there is no reason to transliterate the Russian "Ч" as "tch" for the English language. This comes via the French and stems from the days when French would be the first language that "Tchekhov" would be translated into, owing to the snobby way that the 19th century Russian upper classes would speak French, even among themselves. We should call them Chingiz and Chekhov. In French, a written "ch" is our "sh" sound, so you need a "t" in front to render our "ch" sound (as in "church").

Nor do we, the English-speakers, need to use ? (i.e. an "i" with two dots over it). This again is from the French. In French, putting the dots there make it an "eye" or "fly" sound in Aitmatov, not a "play" or "bay" sound. There is logic in the French usage; none in English. We don't need this in English.

Despite all the forked paths of transliteration, there is logic in what is done. So there is no reason whatsoever, in the early 21st century, to ape French transliteration when transliterating Russian names for English usage.

I think you completely missed Stewart's point, but good on you. You like lecturing, no?


To get back to Stewart: this is interesting to hear. In Germany this almost never arises and when it does it's due to one translation coming from the former GDR and the other from West Germany, which is, again, understandable.

[Eric]

I like lecturing Mirabell. When you actually know something about something from experience, something that other people may hardly have thought about, then a lecture is called for. What are your personal opinions about transliteration, Mirabell? I believe you have Russian background, so could surely help with some of the detail of the discussion here. German transliteration of Russian names, for instance, compared with the French and English systems.

I have identified the way that the Brits (or Russians doing foreign language publications) carelessly adopt the French system of transliteration. That is knowledge built on my personal experience, not lecturing for lecturing's sake.

People who know things have to lecture, because short soundbite put-downs are no way of conducting a debate. Space is needed to set out the truth in a comprehensible manner. So: please tell me exactly, Mirabell, where I have missed Stewart's point. I cannot see where I have done so and you have not explained, merely stated a claim.

I take on board your GDR explanation to an extent, but please provide some further examples to show the rest of us what you mean. I still insist that the examples Stewart gives are infected by a slavish adherence to French transliteration, and have set out my detailed reasons why. Could you, for instance, give examples of a GDR-transliterated name or two, and the equivalent in BRD-transliteration, so we foreigners can compare?

[Mirabell]

I I still insist that the examples Stewart gives are infected by a slavish adherence to French transliteration, and have set out my detailed reasons why.

since stewart is vexed by the fact that IN ENGLISH the same writer is transliterated in DIFFERENT ways, I would be very interested to hear how "a slavish adherence to French transliteration" explains this. Or is it *gasp* not very relevant?

[Eric]

This was my exact "lecture" on why the French language is highly relevant to the Chingiz Aitmatov debate. Please read it again and digest the content:



But in my opinion, there is no reason to transliterate the Russian "Ч" as "tch" for the English language. This comes via the French and stems from the days when French would be the first language that "Tchekhov" would be translated into, owing to the snobby way that the 19th century Russian upper classes would speak French, even among themselves. We should call them Chingiz and Chekhov. In French, a written "ch" is our "sh" sound, so you need a "t" in front to render our "ch" sound (as in "church").

Nor do we, the English-speakers, need to use ? (i.e. an "i" with two dots over it). This again is from the French. In French, putting the dots there make it an "eye" or "fly" sound in Aitmatov, not a "play" or "bay" sound. There is logic in the French usage; none in English. We don't need this in English.


The fact that they are translated in different ways is because the British or Russian publisher was simply not aware of (what should be) the exact science of transliteration in different languages.

[Mirabell]

The fact that they are translated in different ways is because the British or Russian publisher was simply not aware of (what should be) the exact science of transliteration in different languages.

See, now this is relevant, and it's so much shorter. I knew you'd eventually come round to it. I feel a little bit proud.

To return tio the thread

what I do not understand is that a writer's name is 'knowledge'. Last night I've scanned a few encyclopedias and they appear to be generally of one opinion as far as the transliteration is concerned unless I mislooked. So why do publishers not use that knowledge? I mean it's out there. And on the covers of British books, too. The simple answer, I think, is that publishers don't care a lot because they assume we don't.

[hdw]

See, now this is relevant, and it's so much shorter. I knew you'd eventually come round to it. I feel a little bit proud.

To return tio the thread

what I do not understand is that a writer's name is 'knowledge'. Last night I've scanned a few encyclopedias and they appear to be generally of one opinion as far as the transliteration is concerned unless I mislooked. So why do publishers not use that knowledge? I mean it's out there. And on the covers of British books, too. The simple answer, I think, is that publishers don't care a lot because they assume we don't.

I love that "mislooked". As far as I'm concerned it's right up there with "mis-spoke" as a valuable addition to the English language. I'm not being sarcastic, believe me - if you heard my rusty German, dann w?rdest du dich totlachen.

Harry

[Eric]

Mirabell writes:



To return to the thread:

What I do not understand is that a writer's name could be construed as 'knowledge'. Last night I browsed through a few encyclop?dias and they appear to be generally of one and the same opinion as far as transliteration is concerned - unless I am very much mistaken.


I'm not sure what you mean, Mirabell, when you claim a name is "knowledge". I have set out (twice, and with painful pedantry) why exactly I think that people have been using a French system. I think I can understand that when Progress Publishers, or one of those other Soviet Glavlit-approved enterprises did things in English in a foreign language, they would not have much knowledge about transliteration out of Russian, in the same way as a Brit would not know much about how to transliterate "Chekhov" or "Akhmatova" in a correct German version.

Transliteration is an exact skill; whichever system is used it must be used consistently, and for the right audience.

[Eric]

This has not been a very popular thread. In fact, the last posting was in September 2009.

What triggered off my return today was a discussion between Liam and DWM (aka David) on another thread. I noticed that one Russian linguist was transliterated as Yakobson, but also as Jacobson.

What should we do with Russian names when those named have a Jewish background and maybe spoke Yiddish at home? Yakobson-Jacobson was probably brought up entirely in Russian, but the name looks German or Yiddish.

David himself published a book of translations of Mandelstam's poetry back in in 1973 with Rivers Press, Cambridge, UK, which is in parallel text with English. Here the poet is called Osip Mandel'shtam,which is an exact rendering of the name as written in Russian, complete with soft-sign. (The official YIVO transliteration for Yiddish would be Mandelshtam, but is probably as irrelevant here as with Jacobson.)

Spelling is not incredibly important compared with grammar, but I wonder whether David himself chose the spelling Mandel'shtam back in 1973, and whether he would continue to use it now for a book aimed at general English poetry readership, rather than scholars of Russian.

[DWM]

As far as I recall, the "Mandel'shtam" spelling was chosen at the request of Tom Rivers, the publisher.

I don't think there's any notable advantage or disadvantage in particular transliterated forms, as long as they are used consistently in the same text.

Some Russian names are transliterated according to historical convention, as you and others already pointed out - thus in Britain and America the composer is known as "Tchaikovsky", while when it occurs in other contexts this name is often spelt "Chaikovsky".

[Eric]

Thanks, David. Now that the whole of North Africa plus Yemen is in uproar, I hope that the transliterators are ready with proper transliterations from the Arabic. The Swedes simply appear to nick the French or English version, which they don't do with Russian. Luckily, there are extremely few writers that are affected. At least, the average European hasn't heard of too many North African writers. So maybe it will take a while before the issue becomes vital.

Posting #1 by Stewart already pointed out the varied nature of transliteration from Arabic. But now there will be a flood of names of people and places from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and maybe the odd thing from Libya. So while convention works in the case of Russian authors and composers, maybe it is time renew our vague transliterations from Arabic. To continue, throughout Europe, with a French or English transliteration implies a continuing colonial view of those countries which, now they are independent, should stand on their own linguistic feet, so to speak. But as their economies are poor, their demography dodgy, and many people are illiterate, maybe transliteration is a mere luxury.