Chapter XV: Appendix: II

REPORT OF THE TRANSLITERATION COMMITTEE.

[See § 36. This Report was made to the American Library Association in 1885, and printed in the Proceedings of the Lake George Conference, and in the _Library journal_, 10: 302–8.]

In determining the principles of transliteration it must be remembered that a catalogue is not a learned treatise intended for special scholars, and bound to an erudite consistency, at whatever cost of convenience. It is simply a key to open the doors of knowledge to a partly ignorant and partly learned public, and it is very important that such a key should turn easily. A good catalogue, therefore, will be a compromise between the claims of learning and logic on the one hand, and of ignorance, error, and custom on the other. Speaking generally, that form of name must be chosen with which people now are, _and in the future will be_, most familiar. This reference to the future is important. The catalogue must not be in advance of its age; but, on the other hand, it will not be well that it should be behind the next generation. If, therefore, there is an evident current of progress in any direction the makers of the catalogue will do well to be a little before the present practice, in the hope that the world will soon catch up with them, not to pass them before the catalogue itself has been superseded by another. The larger the catalogue, therefore, and the less likely to be soon reprinted, the more may it venture to be ahead of the times. Nevertheless the maker will do well to remember that the future is very uncertain.

One evident current of progress there is,— in favor of adopting the continental value of the vowels, representing the _ou_ sound, for instance, not by _ou_ nor by _oo_ (as does Dr. Thomas), but by _u_; writing, therefore, Butan, not Boutan, nor Bootan, Turgenef and not Tourgueneff; using also _a_ and not _ah_ for the sound of _a_ in father, papa (I speak as a New Englander); using the _i_ for the English _e_ sound; and giving what are unfortunately called the corresponding short sounds by doubling the following consonant; thus Nānā would be spelt with one n, but Nanny with two. This tendency, which has been gathering strength for some time, has at last received the sanction of an influential body, the Royal Geographical Society, and can be followed with safety.

The following notes are taken mostly from Mr. Heilprin’s articles in the _Nation_:

1. For ancient _Greek_ names use the Latin forms, _e. g._, Homerus not Homeros, Plato not Platon, Philippus not Philippos. But where two forms are in common use choose that which is nearest the Greek.

2. For _Egyptian_ names known to us through the Greek, both the Greek and the Egyptian form (as Cheops and Shufu) should be given, with a reference from the one which is not chosen for the main entry.

3. _Biblical_ names are to be written as we find them in the English Bible, and the names of post-Biblical Jews, if derived from the Scriptures, should retain their Anglicized form. On the other hand, a strict transliteration is demanded of rabbinical and other more or less pure Hebrew names which are not taken from Scriptures, and therefore have no popular English forms, to which, again, there is an exception in the case of a few celebrated Jewish authors, as Maimonides, where an un-Hebrew form has been fully adopted in English literature.

East _Indian_ names have such long accepted forms that it might well be doubted whether it will do to use any others. Cashmere, Mooltan, Jellaleddin, Punjaub, have taken their places in literature and in the popular mind. Nevertheless, as the better system which writes Kashmir, Multan, Jalal ud Din, Panjab, is now adopted in most histories, in all official documents, among others in Hunter’s great statistical dictionary of Bengal, it is evident that it is the coming method, and, in accordance with the {109} principles already laid down, we are inclined to recommend this spelling rather than the clumsy English fashion of the last generation.

All other _Asiatic_ and _African_ names should be transliterated according to the rules of the Royal Geographical Society, which we quote here from their Proceedings for August, 1885 (pp. 535, 536).

The Council of the Royal Geographical Society have adopted the following rules for such geographical names as are not, in the countries to which they belong, written in the Roman character. These rules are identical with those adopted for the Admiralty charts, and will henceforth be used in all publications of the society:—

1. No change will be made in the orthography of foreign names in countries which use Roman letters: thus, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, etc., names will be spelt as by the respective nations.

2. Neither will any change be made in the spelling of such names in languages which are not written in Roman character as have become by long usage familiar to English readers: thus, Calcutta, Cutch, Celebes, Mecca, etc., will be retained in their present form.

3. The true sound of the word, as locally pronounced, will be taken as the basis of the spelling.

4. An approximation, however, to the sound is alone aimed at. A system which would attempt to represent the more delicate inflections of sound and accent would be so complicated as only to defeat itself.

5. The broad features of the system are, that vowels are pronounced as in Italian and consonants as in English.

6. One accent only is used—the acute—to denote the syllable on which stress is laid.

7. Every letter is pronounced. When two vowels come together each one is sounded, though the result, when spoken quickly, is sometimes scarcely to be distinguished from a single sound, as in _ai_, _au_, _ei_.

8. Indian names are accepted as spelt in Hunter’s _Gazetteer_.

The amplification of the rules is given below:

Letters.│Pronunciation and remarks. Examples.
────────+───────────────────────────────────────+──────────────
a │_ah_, _a_ as in _father_ │Java, Banána.
│ │
e │_eh_, _e_ as in _benefit_ │Tel-el-Kebír, Oléleh,
│ │ Yezo, Medina, Levúka,
│ │ Peru.
│ │
i │English _e_; _i_ as in _ravine_; │
│ the sound of _ee_ in _beet_. │
│Thus not _Feejee_, but │Fiji, Hindi.
│ │
o │_o_ as in _mote_ │Tokio.
│ │
u │long _u_, as in _flute_; the │
│ sound of _oo_ in _boot_. │
│Thus, not _Zooloo_, but │Zulu, Sumatra.
│ │
│All vowels are shortened │Yarra, Tanna,
│ in sound by doubling │ Mecca, Jidda,
│ the following consonant. │ Bonny.
│ │
│Doubling of a vowel is │Nuulúa, Oosima.
│ only necessary where │
│ there is a distinct repetition │
│ of the single sound. │
│ │
ai │English _i_ as in _ice_ │Shanghai.
│ │
au │_ow_ as in _how_. │
│ Thus not _foochow_, but │Fuchau.
│ │
ao │is slightly different from │Macao.
│ above. │
│ │
ei │is the sound of the two │Beirút, Beilúl.
│ Italian vowels, but is │
│ frequently slurred │
│ over, when it is scarcely │
│ to be distinguished │
│ from _ey_ in the English │
│ _they_. │
│ │
b │English _b_. │
│ │
c │is always soft, but is so │Celebes.
│ nearly the sound of _s_ │
│ that it should be seldom │
│ used. (If _Celebes_ │
│ were not already recognized │
│ it would be written _Selebes_.) │
│ │
ch │is always soft as in │Chingchin.
│ _church_. │
│ │
d │English _d_. │
│ │
f │English _f_. _ph_ should not be used │
│ for the sound of _f_. │
│ Thus, not _Haiphong_ but │Haifong, Nafa.
│ │
g │is always hard. (Soft _g_ │Galápagos.
│ is given by _j_.) │
│ │
h │is always pronounced when inserted. │
│ │
j │English _j_. _Dj_ should never be put │Japan, Jinchuen.
│ for this sound. │
│ │
k │English _k_. It should always be put │
│ for the hard _c_. │
│ Thus, not _Corea_, but │Korea
│ │
kh │ the Oriental guttural │Khan.
│ │
gh │is another guttural, as in the Turkish.│ Dagh, Ghazi.
│ │
l,m,n │as in English. │
│ │
ng │has two separate sounds, the │
│ one hard as in the English word │
│ _finger_, the other as in _singer_. │
│ As these two sounds are rarely │
│ employed in the same locality, no │
│ attempt is made to distinguish │
│ between them. │
│ │
p │ as in English. │
│ │
q │should never be employed; _qu_ is │
│ given as _kw_. │ Kwangtung.
│ │
r,s,t,v │as in English │ Sawákin.
│ │
w,x,y │as in English │ Sawákin.
│ │
y │is always a consonant, as in _yard_, │
│ and therefore should never be used │
│ as a terminal, _i_ or _e_ being │
│ substituted. │
│ Thus, not _Mikindány_ but │ Mikíndáni.
│ not _Kwaly_, but │ Kwale.
│ │
z │ English _z_ │ Zulu.
│ │
│Accents should not generally be │Tongatábu, Galápagos,
│ used, but when there is a very │ Paláwan, Saráwak.
│ decided emphatic syllable or stress, │
│ which affects the sound of the word, │
│ it should be marked by an _acute_ │
│ accent. │
│ │
────────+───────────────────────────────────────+──────────────

A few points need to be emphasized. Of course the consonantal sound in _itch_ should never be expressed in transliteration by the Polish _cz_, nor by the German _tsch_. _Tch_ has been much used for this sound; but the _t_ is hardly necessary if, as the Geographical Society recommend, _ch_ is always used with this sound only and never with the sound _sh_. Of course there is no reason why _ch_ should be used in foreign names with the sound _sh_ any more than _j_ with the sound _zh_. All that was needed to prevent ambiguity was for some competent authority to make a rule; and these rules of the Geographical Society will no doubt soon be copied into all manuals and followed by the majority. In this connection we express our regret that a new edition of Dr. Thomas’s excellent Dictionary of Biography continues to give his support to what we believe is an obsolescent system of transliteration.

Nor should the consonantal sound in _judge_ be rendered by the English _dg_, nor the French _dj_, nor the German _dsch_, but by _j_ alone. Likewise the consonantal sound in _she_ is not to be written after the French style, _ch_, or as the Germans do, _sch_. The sound which the French transliterate by _j_ we must express by _zh_ (_e.g._, Nizhni Novgorod). _Tz_ is best to use in Semitic and Slavic names, and _ts_ in Japanese and Chinese. For the Semitic “yod” _y_ is the proper equivalent, and not the German _j_. But after a consonant in the same syllable it is usual to change the _y_ to _i_ (Biela not Byela), and in Russian names _ai_, _ei_, _oi_, _ui_ are used instead of _ay_, _ey_, _oy_, _uy_ (Alexei not Alexey). After _i_ the _y_ is dropped (Dobni not Dobniy). _W_ is to be used rather than _i_ in Arabic names (_e. g._, Moawiyah). But the Russian, Serb, Bulgarian, and Wallach contain no such sound or letter as _w_, and we must write Paskevitch, Vasili, not as do the Germans, Paskewitch, Wasili. In the last syllable of names of places (Azov, Kiev) _ev_ and _ov_ are to be used, because the Russians used the corresponding letter, though they pronounce _ef_ and _of_ (in the nominative cases). But in the last syllable of family names, similarly pronounced, _of_ and _ef_ may be used, because the Russians sign their names _off_ and _eff_ when using Roman characters. The last _f_, which they use, may be omitted as being plainly not required to express the sound, and not corresponding to the Russian character. _Kh_ represents the full guttural, which the Germans make _ch_ and the Spanish _j_ in Slavic and Oriental names. _H_ answers to the softer guttural as well as to the Hebrew _he_. _K_ answers to the Semitic _Kaph_ and _Koph_.

The use of _ei_ for the sound of _a_ in fate, _ea_ in great, _ai_ in trait, is not altogether satisfactory. It is not easy to see why _e_ was not used to represent this sound, and {111} the short _e_, like the short _a_, _i_, _o_, and _u_, indicated by doubling the following consonant, as Yeddo, Meddina.

The general rule, then, is to use the consonants with their English value, the vowels with their continental, or, to speak more exactly, their German and Italian value, for the French value of _u_ should never be used, and the short French _a_ requires of us a doubled consonant after it. Their _ou_ and our _oo_ is quite unnecessary to express the sound of the last syllable of Timbuctu or Khartum.