Talk:斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特

7 google hits, all pointing back to Wiktionary except for one Japanese language website.[1] 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特 appears to be the preferred transliteration.[2] A-cai 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be able to find a more common name here: Chinese wikipedia. —Stephen 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that site also. It uses 科特 (short for 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特).

A-cai 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特. —Stephen 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's still not really a word tho - it's basically a phonetic spelling of the place name, like if someone didn't know how to spell Seattle and spelled it see-at-ul... bd2412 T 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s how Chinese works. All Western names can be written (after a fashion) in Chinese, just as they can in Russian and Arabic. And just like Russian and Arabic, there is method in the madness. Certain sounds tend to be transliterated only with certain characters ... for example, names that end in -ia usually represent that sound with the character 亚 (yà). I think this is a very good rendering of the name in Chinese. —Stephen 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BD2412 makes a valid point. When does a word stop being a transliteration or neologism and when does it start being a valid word? I like Wiktionary's attestation policy of at least two documented uses of the word. I'm not sure whether or not we can pull two valid uses out of the 12 Google hits for 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特. However, we for sure cannot pull out two for 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科提. Personally, I would much rather be focusing on words that are more commonly used. On the other hand, people don't generally use dictionaries for words they already know.

A-cai 08:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

True. This is an unusual name that is completely unknown to most Americans, and there isn’t much information about it in languages other than English and the Indic languages. I think we now have made a very reasonable page and we can afford to wait for an educated Chinese/Tamil/Sinhalese-speaking businessman to make any improvements that he thinks are needed at some future date. —Stephen 09:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, you note above that all Western names can be transliterated into Chinese - but should we include all such transliterations? bd2412 T 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We should include the ones that have become standardized. I have a friend who translates and needs exactly this kind of information. She had said sometimes she's forced to just make it up, including the English name parenthetically, but she'd much rather have it in a reference book. Right now she uses travel websites. One day she'll have Wiktionary.

Where do we draw the line? I don't want to provide her with the wrong information, but please do include what's legit. DAVilla 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I worked as a translator for four decades, and names were a constant thorn. Just as there are numerous transliteration standards for Russian to English, many English names can be transliterated in several ways into Russian, and some are definitely better than others. For example, Fort Worth can validly be transliterated as Форт-Ворт, Форт-Ворс, Форт-Верт, or Форт-Верс (after years of feedback, I finally decided that the best choice is Форт-Ворт). We don’t need a campaign to enter transliterations of every single name into every non-Roman language, but whenever somebody goes to the trouble of doing one, I think it’s valuable and feel strongly that we should keep it. —Stephen 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Noting the sparse number of references we have for this term, how do we know this is the "best" transliteration? Granted, certain characters are most commonly used for Chinese phonetic translations, but even then, arbitrary decisions are made about what equivalents to use for words that have no phonetic equivalent in Chinese (like "Sri" here). The above rationale convinces me that we should provide such transliterations - if we know they are the "right" or the "best" ones available. bd2412 T 03:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The same way we know that г. Нью-Йорк is the translation of NYC ... the experience and knowledge of the person or persons who entered it and edited it. If a term is incorrect, changes, or falls out of favor over the course of time, somebody will adjust it. As for showing that translations or transliterations are the "right" ones or the "best" ones, that is simply not possible. I can give you the benefit of my many years of professional experience, but you just have to take my word for it. When I’ve made a mistake, or if a different version becomes standard later on, someone will change it. I remember when a certain major city in Vietnam was most properly called (and spelt) Saigon in English. That has changed, and a new name is now considered the best and most correct in English. Other English names that have recently undergone such sea changes are the USSR, Bombay, Siam, Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian, Nootka, and senility. Things change, it’s no big deal. —Stephen 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify my position. My original purpose was to call into question the validity of 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科提. Replacing the term with 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特 is another issue entirely. However, there is some evidence (albeit a bit shaky) that 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特 is ever so slightly more common than 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科提. Only time will tell which one proves to be the correct transliteration. Usually, several translations will co-exist for Western terms until one (or more) is loosely agreed upon by a major block of Chinese speakers. For example, President Bush was originally called 布希總統 (Bùxī zǒngtǒng) in Taiwan, but 布什总统 (Bùshí zǒngtǒng) in the PRC. At present, both terms are understood to be valid transliterations, one prefered in Taiwan, and one prefered in the PRC.

A-cai 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am putting this discussion on the talk page of both articles. Andrew massyn 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)