Abstract
WITH reference to the scheme of Russian transliteration propounded on p. 397 of NATURE (vol. xli.), I should be obliged if the editor of NATURE would allow me the opportunity of suggesting that different principles of respelling foreign languages in English might possibly be adopted with advantage for different purposes. The scheme referred to is one of strict transliteration; in other words, the aim is to represent the letters of a foreign alphabet uniformly by the same letters or combinations of letters in the English alphabet. For the purpose of drawing up lists of titles of books and papers in a foreign language—the purpose obviously kept in view by the propounders of the new Russian scheme—this principle is no doubt the best. It is the only one that makes it easy to consult a Russian dictionary. But it does not follow that the principle of strict transliteration is the best to adopt for foreign proper names occurring in a language different from that to which they belong. The third of the rules adopted by the Council of the Royal Geographical Society for geographical orthography is as follows: “The true sound of the word as locally pronounced will be taken as the basis of the spelling” (Proc. Roy. Geog. Soc., 1885, p. 535). This rule is inconsistent with any scheme of strict transliteration. I can imagine that two views may be held as to its propriety. Unquestionably there are difficulties in applying it, but surely for the purpose for which the rule was adopted it is at least defensible and worthy of serious discussion.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CHISHOLM, G. Russian Transliteration. Nature 42, 7 (1890). https://doi.org/10.1038/042007a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/042007a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.