One More Look at the Problem of Transliteration
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4844832 |
|---|---|
| Authors | William B Edgerton (Indiana University Bloomington, corresponding author), William Edgerton |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 97-99 |
| Publication date | 1989-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Slavic Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0037-6779 • E-ISSN: 2325-7784 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2498689 |
| OpenAlex | W2323552607 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
In the United States we are saddled with three different systems for the transliteration of Russian, and none of the three is satisfactory enough to replace the other two. The so-called Popular System gives general readers a rough idea of how to pronounce Russian words within the sound system of English, but it does not accurately reflect the original Russian (for example, does voskresenie represent BOCKPeceHbe or BOCKPeceHИe?) The International Scholarly System is exact and simple: in its American variant (which uses x instead of the continental European ch to transliterate the Russian x) each Russian letter is represented by a single Latin letter. It is ideal and widely accepted for works in linguistics and for literary studies that are aimed at an international scholarly audience
Epistemology · Ideal (ethics · Linguistics · Physics · Political science · Simple (philosophy · Sound system · Transliteration · Computer Science · History · Law · Philosophy · Translation Studies and Practices
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |