Talk:Romanization

message: :See also: transcription of Chinese (talk | edit history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantnood (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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.
- 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. Jpatokal 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm?  No, it's not a proper name, what makes you think it is? Jpatokal (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanization, as used in this article to mean transcription into a Latin based alphabet, is not a proper name.  is trying to expand a discussion at Talk:Pinyin#Proper Nouns about the use of the word 'romanization' on that page. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalize term or not? 

message: How do you call the process of barbarians becoming Romans? -- Error 05:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Menchi 05:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Becoming a Roman

message: For anyone interested, here's the Russian example "Tchaikovsy" transliterated according to several different systems, from Russian and Ukrainian.  See also Romanization of Ukrainian.
 Transliterating "Tchaikovsky"
                              	Russian: Чайковский	Ukrainian: Чайковський
GOST/UN                       	Čajkovskij                                                                	-
Wikipedia (strict)            	Chaykovsky                                                                     	-
Wikipedia (allowed exceptions)	Tchaikovsy                                                                     	-
Ukrainian National/UN         	-                                                                              	Chaikovs’kyi
ISO 9                         	Čajkovskij                                                                	Čajkovs′kij
ALA/LC                        	Chaĭkovskiĭ                                                          	Chaĭkovskyĭ
BGN/PCGN                      	Chaykovskiy                                                                    	Chaykovskyy
IPA                           	[tʃʲajkɔvskij]                                                  	[tʃajkovsʲkɪj]
X-SAMPA                       	/tS'ajkOvskij/                                                                 	/tSajkovs'kIj/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliterating Cyrillic 

message: 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".  —Michael Z. 16:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Sounds good to me --Arcadian 19:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One more vote in favor. Jpatokal 01:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page organization 

message: I reverted to what amounted to a circular redirect via Chinese romanization. m.e. 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: For your information, the Chinese romanization system Gwoyeu Romatzyh has been a FAC since 26 March. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comments on the color-coding issue being discussed on the FAC page would be welcome. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gwoyeu Romatzyh (information) 

message: The greek letter Phi (Φ) was the digraph ph, although is F too, graph, photo, phono were came from that letter. --Michael Peter Fustumum 10:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Φ is PH 

message: Anglicisation: Why does this appears on something that involves ADAPTING ALPHABETS?
Cyrillization: This one is a good one!!!! But what about the process by which you transliterate or transcript INTO Japanese, Sanskrit, Arabian and such languages???????????????????????????????????
Francization: Why does this appears on something that involves ADAPTING ALPHABETS?
If someone could add those words and maybe articles to wikipedia it would be a good idea to do so!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also? Why that? Why that not? 

message: As a (non-eurocentric) multilinguist and language-lover, I came to the opinion, that nowadays too many things are romanised or latinised. 
You can buy whole books that 'teach you Chinese' without a single Chinese character, which is absolutly idiotic. I often see inproper use and "lingual discrimination" when using romanisations. An example is a poster in an international school that apprently shows "Welcome" in many languages, showing Chinese e.ex. as "Huan ying" instead of "欢迎" and so with Arabic, Hebrew, Russian and Japanese.
It's a global trend that I would describe as the Roman/Latin writing culture oppressing other forms of scripts.
Something that should be called "Latin-centrism", "Roman-centrism" or "Roman Scriptism" has in fact no term to my knowledge.
Any ideas on that? I'd like to mention this in the article later on as well. 亮HH (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: A discussion involving Bengali romanization issues has been instigated at Talk:Bengali script.  Please weigh in if you care.  —  AjaxSmack  02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bengali romanization 

message: The article is miscategorized as a literature topic rather than an orthographic one, and the concept is a subset of Romanization in general, from which it is not, to my knowledge, commonly distinguished. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be a subset of Romanisation if I'm understanding the article correctly. Romanization deals with transliterating to Latin script from a different writing system or from speech, whereas Latinisation (literature) is about translating to the Latin language (or an imitation of the style thereof). These seem pretty distinct to me. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I noticed exactly that myself. Romanization is for the script; you are changing other scripts into the Roman script. Latinization changes the morphology. I'd leave them distinct but they need clean-up.Dave (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Latinisation (literature) 

message: Should there be some mention of the problems in giving a single uniform romanization of all of the varieties of Cyrillic? I do not trust my knowledge enough to assert (although it seems probable to me) that there is no uniform method of representing Cyrillic across all of its varieties for different languages. One example of a difficulty that strikes me is how to handle Russian Г (representing the sound /g/), Ukrainian Г (representing the sound /h/), and Ukrainian Ґ (for /g/). TomS TDotO (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representing varieties of CYrillic 

message: As German is already written in the Roman alphabet with some special characters, it doesn't seem to make sense to include a section on the "romanisation of German", especially as the "discussion" cited is just a single forum thread. Any objections to removing it? (It seems the "re-romanisation of English" section was removed a week ago, presumably for similar reasons.) aoxiang翱翔(user)(talk) 17:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German 

message: This article does not deal with countries with other writing systems changing to latin script. Was Somalia the last country that changed way back in 1974, or has there been other countries since? Just curious. 
Stein S., Oslo, Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.101 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries currently changing to latin script?