Transliteration of Cyrillic Alphabets PDF

001
UNIVERSITY D-OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION OF CYRILLIC ALPHABETS
by
G. GERYCH
««
mil
. LIBRARIES *
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Library Science in
the Library School of the University of Ottawa
April 1965
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A - SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

UMI Number: EC56137
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform EC56137
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
UNIVERSITE D-OTTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis has been written under the direction of Reverend
Auguste-M. Morisset, o.m.i., B.A., B.S.(L.S.) Columbia, M.S.(L.S.)
Columbia, L.D.C., Director of the Library School, University of Ottawa,
and Professor lAroslav Rudnyts'kyi, Ph.D., Head of the Department of
Slavic Studies, University of Manitoba. To them I extend my thanks.
I also warmly thank Mr. Earl R. Hope, Translatioss Officer,
Defense Research Board of Canada, whose suggestions and observations
were essential.
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA - SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

J
UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA - ECOLE PES GRADUES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter page
INTRODUCTION iv
I. - TRANSLITERATION 1
1. Its Meaning and Basic Principles 1
2. Bibliographic Importance of Transliteration 9
3. ALA Attempts at Systematization 16
4. Provisions for Transliteration in European Codes . • 22
5. International Cooperation • 27
II. - CYRILLIC ALPHABETS 34

1. A Few Notes on Cyrillic Writing 34
2. Cyrillic and Roman 40
3. Interalphabetic Equations 42
4. The American Systems 48
5. Canadian Practice 51
6. The English Systems 56
7. Other European Systems 61
8. Russian and Ukrainian Systems 67
9. International Systems 76
III. - TABLES 82
Classical Cyrillic Alpahbet 84
Bulgarian Alphabet 88
Macedonian Alphabet 89
Moldavian Alphabet 90
Russian Alphabet 91
Serbian Alphabet 94
Ukrainian Alphabet 95
White Russian Alphabet 97
Karadzic's Table 98
CONCLUSIONS 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY 108

UNIVERSITE D-OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES GRADUES
INTRODUCTION
Everyone who deals with information storage and information
retrieval inevitably faces two problems: the language in which informa-
tion is contained, and the alphabet, or any other system of writing by
which this language is graphically represented. There is a great
diversity of languages and quite a diversity of alphabets, so that one
may recognize a language barrier to communication, and also an alphabet
barrier or writing-system barrier.
In the different alphabets or writing-systems, books and
periodicals are printed, manuscripts are written, literary, scientific,
and informational material is produced. Most of it remains inaccessible,
not only because of the language barrier, but also because of the al-
phabet barrier.
Materials in different alphabets, in various systems of writing,
cannot be easily handled and checked, cannot easily be entered in iblio-
graphies, catalogues, indexes, or other works of reference. Inter-al-
phabetic communication is ill provided for.
For general culture and progress it has always been important
to share the achievements and civilization of other peoples and nations.
Especially today, with the emerging of new nations, with the development
of new languages from obscure, unfamiliar dialects, with the inter- I
weaving of economic and political, cultural and social, religious and
philosophic interests, with the powerful pressure of mass media, the
problem of international communication and understanding is more urgent
than it ever was in the past.

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA ~ SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA » ECOLE DES GRADUES
INTRODUCTION v
Many attempts have been made to create an international language,
but all have failed. Maybe it will come sometime, this universal
language, but until it comes, the minimum requirement should be found
to lessen the barrier, and this minimum is the graphic access to other
peoples' languages and writings.
There are about three thousand languages, employing quite a
number of alphabets, or different writing systems. Thus far, no alpha-
bet has ever been devised or generally accepted for international use.
Each existing alphabet or system of writing is the product of slow
evolution and constant development, each one reflects the needs of the
language it serves.
In the western hemisphere it was the Roman alphabet which became
the basis for many "national" Roman alphabets; in the Eastern and South
Eastern Europe, as well as in many countries of Asia, it is the Cyrillic
alphabet, originally derived from Greek, that furnished the foundations
for "national" Cyrillic alpahbets.
The inter-relation between these two alphabetic families,
certainly has its history. It was, first of all, the Renaissance that I
laid down the first foundations for cultivation and appreciation of
languages. In 1548 appeared the earliest book on comparative philology j
and phonetics written by a Swiss Orientalist Theodor Buchmann
(Bibliander)1.
1. Theodor Bibliander, De ratione linguarum et literarum

commentarius, Zurich, Christoph Froschauer, 1548.

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES
INTRODUCTION vi
It is probably the first book that deals in philological way with the
comparison of several languages, Slavic included. At the end of the
book, the author attached transcribed "Pater Noster" in: Aethiopian,
Armenian, Arabic, Chaldaic, English, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Ice-
landic, Illyric, Italian, Polish and Spanish. From him we also have
tables of transliteration of Hebrew, Phoenician, and Greek into Latin.
His discussion of Serbian is believed to be the first account ever
given to a Cyrillic-written language.
In the 18th and especially in the 19th century the growing
interest in linguistic studies brought significant contributions to the
field. Several most important works were published, expanding and
(clarifying the problem of inter-alphabetic equations, i.e. the problem
of transcription from one alphabet into another. Actually it was the
Roman alphabet that served as a terminus ad quem, and not vice versa.
Of all such works the most complete and the most influencial was
that of Richard Lepsius, a German philologist . It was he who set
clearly the principles of transcription of foreign sounds (or scripts),
emphasizing that the native conception of sounds and phonation should be
brought in "transliteration"- This idea initiated a trend that resulted
in several important achievements.
1. Richard Lepsius, Das allgemeine linguistische Alphabet;

JGrundsa'tze der Ubertragung fremder Schriftsysteme und bisher noch
ungeschriebener Sprachen in Europaische Buchstaben, Berlin, 1855.

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA » ECOLE PES GRADUES
V11
INTRODUCTION
At the end of the 19th century an association was founded in
France, namely the International Phonetic Association (1886), which
developed a uniform phonetic alphabet applicable to all languages. Soon
followed other similar alphabetic systems (Pitman, Comstock,Anthropos,
Sprater, etc.) but they found no large scale application. All these
systems were devised mainly for linguistic purposes, for rendering as
truly as possible characteristics of one or another language. Being
overloaded with diacritics (upon a Roman-alphabetic basis) and with
symbols difficult to memorize, these systems were unusable for inter-
alphabetic operations with bibliographic purposes in mind.
The situation engendered a new concept in the library world;
application of the linguistic achievements for practical purposes, in
connection with the cataloguing and bibliographic needs. This is notice-
fable in the provisions in cataloguing codes of the late 19th century
jwith regard to the foreign scripts. As far as Cyrillic alphabets were
I concerned, they were rendered mainly according to the phonation of their
constituents (letters). As the phonation (pronunciation) is not a stable
factor, therefore the rendition of Cyrillic-written words varied greatly,
depending from pronunciation as well as from the possibilities of one or
another "national" Roman alphabet into which these words were trans-
I literated or transcribed.
By the end of the 19th century a number of national systems for
transcription or transliteration of Cyrillic was developed.
|important system that evolved during the 19th century was the system
The most
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA •• SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

INTRODUCTION viii
known as "International" and used widely in Slavic coundtries for
linguistic, bibliographic, and also library purposes. The system was
based on the Czech-style Roman. In application to the Cyrillic, it
avoided letter combinations and the inter-alphabetic disparity (between
the Roman and Cyrillic) solved with the help of diacritics.
This system was influencial in many European countries on the
provisions in cataloguing codes with respect to the Cyrillic alphabets.
In the Anglo-speaking world the systems of Cyrillic versus
Roman equations were introduced in the second half of the 19th century,
with the phonetic theories of that time being instrumental and playing
I an important role. This is the reason why the Anglo-American systems
used today compromise the phonetic convenience with the modern form-
I economy, or letter-for-letter principle.
By the beginning of the 20th century, bibliographic, documentary
I and library activity in general, had spilled over national boundaries.
This activity represented a new involvement and interest in inter-
national literary productivity, in international communication. The
"national" systems, good and workable within one nation, proved to be
very unsatisfactory in international use.
After the first World War the bibliographic problem (in con-
nection with transliteration) became so urgent that the Eleventh Session
of the International Committee of Intellectual Cooperation devoted
special attention to it. The Committee discussed the problem in 1929
and again in 1933. In the end it adopted a resolution to the effect
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA -- SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA « ECOLE DES GRADUES
INTRODUCTION ix
that, for the sake of better understanding among nations, the Roman
alphabet should be generally accepted as a basis for every nation's
literary use.
At approximately the same time, in 1928, a special section of
the FID was established, known as International Standards Association
(ISAi), the chief aim of which was to work out systems of standards in
many fields of international communication and international relations.
Recognizing the urgent need for alphabetic uniformity, the ISA in 1939
prepared the scheme of transliteration for Cyrillic alphabets for inter-
national use. Because of the outbreak of war, this project was not
carried through.
This "Roman-alphabetic" trend did not remain without results.
I Some countries indeed switched to the Roman-based alphabets (e.g.•
Turkey, Indonesia, and Albania earlier, i n 1908). A strong tendency
toward the Romanization was in the Soviet Union in the 1920's and early
1930's. All the new alphabets, for about fifty various nationalities
J (mainly of Asiatic peoples), were oriented upon the Roman alphabet.
I This tendency lasted until 1937, when the alphabetic practice switches
again toward the Cyrillic basis,
I After the second World War another organization was founded to
carry on the work of international standardization, namely, the Inter-
I national Standards Organization (ISO). This body accepted the recommend
ations of its predecessor (ISA), including those with regard to the
1. Institut International de Cooperation Intellectuelle, L'Adop-

tion universelle des caracteres latins, Paris, Societe des Nations, 1934.
INTRODUCTION x
transliteration system of the Cyrillic alphabets.
Within a few years it produced the scheme for transliteration
of Cyrillic, known as IS0/R9, as well as several other schemes. The
system (IS0/R9) became international, and ISO itself became the
central authority on transliteration problems, disregarding the fact
that some of its schemes have not been accepted by all member nations.
The strong emphasis on transliteration (i.e. transcription
"letter-by-letter"), the ISO made a clear distinction between these
two ways of inter-alphabetic operations: transcription founded on
phonetic factors, and transliteration founded on literal factors. The
main reason for this was to eliminate the unstable phonetic factor as
a basis for transliteration, and to adhere to one which is not subject
to variants in pronunciation.
The ISO selected for its first scheme the Cyrillic alphabets.
It means that the literary and scientific production in the'Cyrillic
alphabets has been highly evaluated.

UNIVERSITE D-QTTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES
CHAPTER I i
TRANSLITERATION
1. ITS MEANING AND BASIC PRINCIPLES
The- term transliteration has been known in English as well as
in French lexicography since about the 1860's. Unabridged dictionaries,
both English and French, published late in the nineteenth century in-
clude this word, but its meaning is not always clearly distinguished
from that of transcription. The Century Dictionary, for instance, has
under "transliteration" the following definition:
The rendering of a letter or letters of one

alphabet by equivalents in another and that
transliteration does not profess to give all
the exact vocalic differences.
But it also has under "transliterator":
It seems to have been the object of the trans-

literator to represent, at least approximately,
in Anglo-Saxon letters the current pronunciation
of the Greek words .
The last interpretation of the term would not agree with the
meaning that is attached to this term today. The definition itself could
be interpreted variously, as meaning either a letter-for-letter operation
or a phonetic operation. In the first case the meaning would be that
which is attached to the term today, in the second case it would rather
indicate an operation based on phonetic principles, ie. transcription.
1. TheCentury Dictionary and Cyclopedia, N.Y., The Century

Co., 1900.

TRANSLITERATION 2
Indeed, it was transcription that was used during the long
centuries as a mean of inter-alphabetic operations, for bibliographic
and non-bibliographic purposes. But, as transcription can satisfy
many literary needs as well as many everyday necessities, it certainly
cannot satisfy bibliographic or documentary needs. Being dependent
upon an unstable factor (pronunciation) it cannot achieve the precision
and exactness, the chief postulates of bibliographic notation. There-
fore, it cannot be regarded as a safe guide for bibliographic purposes,
and this exactness can better be achieved by another operation based
on more stable foundation, i.e. transliteration.
I Transliteration, as compared with transcription, has different
I reasons and different objectives. It does not attempt to write down
j foreign speech in our alphabet. The transliterator's purpose is to
I give an exact and accurate account, in letters of his own alphabet, of
S what has been written in a foreign alphabet, (in an alphabet of a J
I different genealogical basis),in a foreign spelling, while disregarding J
J any phonetic inadequacies that this operation may entail. Thus, trans-j
literation does not take into account the orthoepic equation, but only
the orthographic equation. And this is the main difference between
these two operations.
The guiding principle of transliteration is to "write what you
see, and not what you hear". To be sure, this is a principle that
{ simply cannot be applied to all languages. It is valid only in con- I

! !
S nection with the languages which, in their graphic representation,

TRANSLITERATION 3
have symbols for both consonants and vowels, as essential components of
words. In the case of Hebrew, for instance, which was written without
vowels, it would not be sensible to transliterate - thus producing
Roman alphabetic text consisting of consonants, and therefore unpronounce
able as far as the general reader is concerned. Nevertheless, the
National Union Catalog under the Romanized Hebrew titles uses a "title
transliterated" designation, although the titles are actually transcribed!
and not transliterated.
Transliteration thus conceived is very close to the practical
transcription and many dictionaries when defining these two terms do not
make any significant difference. The same type of definition is also
reflected by the ALA Codes (both of 1941 and of 1949) which define
transliteration as: "A representation of the characters of one alphabet
by those of another"l. The Anglo-American practice of transliterating
is exactly the one indicated in this definition. There is no reference j
to the letter-for-letter, or one-letter-for-one-letter postulate
demanded in recent years. The definition is carefully worded, and since
it does not bind itself to the letter-for-letter principle (although
this principle was in 1949 clearly stated), it admits digraphs or poly-
graphs (sh, zh, ch, shch) whenever the need for them arises. This pro-
cedure of admitting digraphs or polygraphs as equivalents for a single
foreign letter is not in accord with the stricter recent definitions of
tran s 1 it erat ion.
1. A.L.A. Catalog Rules, Chicago, 1941, p. xxxi; also A.L.A.

Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries, 2d ed., Chicago, 1949,p.24|3,
UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA -- ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 4
Not until after the war was the problem of the strict distinct-
ion between transliteration and practical transcription under dis-
cussion. Alois Sevcik is usually credited for being first to present
clearly the distinction between transcription and transliteration in
his paper presented to the Seventeenth International Conference on Do-
cumentation at Berne in 1947, and again in 1948 at the Hague conference
of the Technical Committee 46 of the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO TC/46) 1 .
It does not mean that the difference between transliteration
I and transcription was not known before.
that the consequences have- been clearlv .realized.

However, it was not long ago
concept of transliteration "each letter should be accounted for by one

According to Sevcik's
sign and one only, with the minimum number of diacritical signs"2.
This was a new contribution to the definition of transliteration, and
this view has been approved by ISO.
In 1955 ISO published its system for the transliteration of
I Cyrillic characters, and in the introductory note to this system the
general principles of transliteration have been stated.
, points of these "principles" are the following:
I
1. Transliteration is the operation by which the
characters or signs of one alphabet are represented
The basic
] by those of another.
1. Francis L. Kent, "International Progress in Transliteration",

in Unesco Bulletin for Libraries, vol. 10, May-June 1956, p. 132-137.
2. F. L. Kent, loc. cit., p. 133.
,____J______________________^ ; i
UNIVERSITE D-OTTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 5
2. It is a question of representing characters

or signs, and not sounds; of how they are
written and not how they are pronounced.
This aspect is the main thing that distinguishes
transcription from transliteration.
3. Transliteration is a bilateral operation, i.e.

the operation of representing the characters
or signs of any one alphabet by those of any
other.
4. Each character or sign should always be trans-

literated in the same way (consistently) and,
as a rule, a single character in one alphabet
should always be replaced by a single character
of the other alphabet.
5. Diacritics may be used, but as little as possible .
The principles of ISO are clear and actually do not need any
explanation. One may observe only that the real sense of the modern
definition of transliteration is identity, that is, the principle of
one-to-one correspondence between two different scripts. These princi-
ples have been further developed and interpreted by such authorities as
Francis Kent, R. Frontard, Jean Poulain, and others, but they do not
bring in anything new as regards the meaning and concept of translite-
ration. Whatever definition or modern interpretation of this operation
we take, one thing is certain: transliteration does not deal with sounds
it deals with the letters by which these sounds are represented. Here,
however, one remark must be made. Transcription and transliteration
both have a single common basis: namely, the'word.
1. International Organization for Standardization, ISO

Recommendation R9; International System for the Transliteration of
Cyrillic Characters, 1st ed., Geneva, 1955.

TRANSLITERATION 6
A word, when spoken or read, is represented by certain sounds; when
written, it is represented by certain letters or symbols. Transcrip-
tion has regard to pronunciation, transliteration to the graphic re-
presentation of pronunciation. Thus, transliteration is notthe oppo-
site of transcription, but a particular kind of transcription.
In theory it makes no difference what symbols or which symbols
are used to write the word, but in practice it does. Certain sounds, J
by long tradition, are closely associated with certain symbols, and vi-
ce versa. Therefore, in choosing transliteration symbols one cannot
proceed according to personal whim, without any regard for the long
established national or local alphabetic traditions.
Shcherba, dealing with some theoretical problems of trans-
literation, says (and this is worth remembering) that "letters should
not become hieroglyphics, and it is undesirable to assign to them
functions conflicting with those which the letters in question have in

i 1
J international acceptance" This condition of "international accept-
ance" could also be extended, at least to a certain degree, to
"national acceptance". When a certain letter, for instance g, in
a certain alphabet is associated with the sound it actually expresses,
it cannot be assigned the function of expressing-the sound h, or
vice -versa.
1. L. V. Shcherba, Izbrannye raboty po iazykoznaniiu i

fonetike, Leningrad, Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1958, vol. 1, |
p. 173. i

TRANSLITERATION 7
Among statements (or principles) of ISO there is one which
actually does not bear any reference to the nature and meaning of trans-
literation, but which is too important as to be omitted. It is the
idea of "automatic" transliteration. The Introductory note says
exactly:
Transliteration can, and should, be automatic,

so that it can be done by anyone able to identify
the language of the original; and it should be
possible for anyone with an adequate knowledge
!
of the language to re-establish the text in its
original characters^.
First of all, this statement has in it some degree of contradiction.
If it is enough just to "identify" the language in order to be able
to transliterate, one may wonder why in order to re-transliterate
j (the reverse operation) an "adequate krowledge" of that language is
| required. If the operation can be performed mechanically in one way,
I why the same cannot be done in another (reverse) way, using the same
I tables, and having just "identified" the language into which the re-
transliteration should be done? In other words: if the mechanical
transliteration is so easy and so safe in one way (Romanization), where
does the difficulty originate that the reverse process cannot be done
under the same conditions (identification of the language in question)?
j But this is not the focal point of interest. More important is the
; meaning 1.
and International
interpretationOrganization
of the word for Standardization.
"original". If by theISO
term
Recommendation R9, loc. c , p.4.

UNIVERSITE D-OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 8
"original" we understand the text we are transliterating from (i.e.
disregarding the fact that the text might be translation from a primary
source) then certainly an automatic operation of transliteration is
feasible. But if this term "original" means a primary original source,
then one is likely to encounter some difficulties. If a text is trans-
lated from a Roman-alphabetic language into a Cyrillic-alphabetic
language, then the Cyrillic text would be an original as far as the
transliterator is concerned. The retransliteration of this second-hand
original would produce, in many cases, something that no one would re-
cognize in terms of the real original text. For instance, the Czech
writer Jiri Hanzelka's name if translated into Russian and retranslite-
rated "automatically" will come out as "Irzhi Ganzelka". And this
certainly is not in the interests of bibliographic exactness and pre-
cision. Neither will it be in accord with the chief idea of translite-
ration.
Otherwise the principles of ISO are theoretically acceptable.
How far<rthey may in practice be accepted is another question. Refor-
matskii, for instance, does not think that the "mechanical substitution"
of letters of one (foreign) alphabet for those of another should be
considered as an essential attribute of transliteration, nor that such
a solution is ideal . The theory might be right, but when converted
into practice it might turn out to be rather "unpractical".
1. A. A. Reformatskii, "Transliteratsiia russkikh tekstov

latinskimi bukvami", in Voprosy iazykoznaiia, Moskva, Akademiia nauk
SSSR, Institut iazykoznaniia, 1960, vol. 5, p. 97.

UNIVERSITE COTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 9
The fact is that the principles underlying numerous translite-
ration systems ("national" systems) vary greatly. The main trouble is
that these principles endeavor to satisfy both the requirements of
bibliographic exactness and the phonetic requirements of a given lan-
guage. These two purposes, however, cannot simultaneously be achieved
at least not in all cases. They might be achieved to some degree in
national bibliographies and for national needs. In international nota-
tion the phonetic aspects must yield to bibliographic precision.
2. BIBLIOGRAPHIC IMPORTANCE OF TRANSLITERATION
The flag-bearers of transliteration uniformity usually start
their arguments with a "parade of names", to show how differently names
may be spelled in different Roman-alphabetic languages. Sometimes the
discordance is striking.
However, bibliographic interests are not limited to names
only, personal or geographic, but include also titles, imprints, and
foreign texts in general. The wrongly transliterated title presents
the same search difficulties as the wrongly transliterated name. But
names, from the bibliographic point of view, are of primary importance.
The same discordance will occur everywhere, in transliterated titles,
in imprints and in many other cases (e.g. quotations), but it is in
names that the discordance is most impressive.

TRANSLITERATION 10
One may find, for instance, the Arabic name Fakr al'Din (accord-
ing to B.M.) occuring in the following forms:
Fachr ed-din, Fakhr ul-Din, Faccardin, Fekherdin,

Faccardine, Fekkerdin, Facardin, Fakhruddin, Fakroddin,
Fechrredin, Fakkardin, etc.
To be sure, the difficulty here is that this is an Arabic name,
differently pronounced and differently written even by the Arabs them-
selves.
Slavic names are less complicated than Arabic, and in the
Cyrillic alphabets they are written constantly in the same way. But
what a difference there is in the Roman-alphabetic transliteration!
Take for example the names of two Russian writers:
Pouchkine (Fr.) Chekhov (Engl.)

Puschkin (Germ.) Cechov (Czech.)
Puszkin (Pol.) Tschechoff, or
Puskin (Hung.) Tchechow (Germ.)
Poesjkin (Dutch) Czechow (Pol.) {
Pushkin (Engl.) Tchekhov (Fr.)
Pusjkin (Swed.) Cecof (Ital.)

Pouskin (Greek) Chejov (Span.)
Puschkine (Ital.)
In each case these names have been written according to a
definite system of transliteration. It would not take much to find
"Pushkin" in any foreign encyclopedia, biographic dictionary or biblio-
graphy, since the initial consonant remains unchanged. But "Chekhov"
might be more difficult to locate in a Polish or Spanish or a German
reference work, because of the variation of the initial.

TRANSLITERATION 11
We should experience the same thing with a name like "Zoshchenko"
The dental z-sound, and the following sibilants, are not sounds common
to all Roman-alphabetic languages. Therefore, in transliteration they
will be replaced by whatever letters or letter combinations are most
closely associated with these sounds. Thus we should have the following
forms:
Zoscenko (Czech), Soschtschenko (German), Zochtchenko (French),

Zoszczenko (Polish), and so forth.
It is laid down that transliteration deals not with sounds but
with letters. True; but the letters from which the process of trans-
literation starts are representative of sounds, and the choice of the
substituent letters in the transliteration has to take this into account,[
in one measure or other.
Moreover, each national Roman alphabet offers its own particular
choice of possible substituents. The following table shows how different!
ly certain Cyrillic letters may be (and usually are) transliterated j
according to various national systems: !

z
z, z, sh, sch, zh, j
X h, ch, kh, x
IJ c, z, ts, cs
^ c, cz, tsch ch, tch
in s, sz, sch, sh, ch
m sc, szcz, schtsch, shch, chtch
It is evident that whenever a name is written in Cyrillic with
one of these consonants as initial, it becomes most difficult to locate
it in bibliographies or other reference works, in which different

TRANSLITERATION 12
(national) transliteration systems are used. Nobody can blame the
systems themselves, since they have been designed for national and not
for international use. For national use they may be well adapted and
efficient. A Frenchman, for instance, may easily find (or may not)
in the same alphabetic sequence the names of the Czech writer Svatopluk
Cech (spelled in Larousse du XXe siecle: Tchekh), and the Russian
Tcherbatchev, although the name "Shcherbachev" begins with quite a j

i
Y I
different initial than the name Cech.
Nevertheless, the disadvantages of a variety of national systems,
from the bibliographic point of view, are indisputable. They might have
been tolerated fifty years ago, when the international exchange of
printed materials was insignificant. Today, when the circulation of
books, periodicals, magazines, documents, educational and informational
I material has taken on such proportions, the problem of bibliographic
I access becomes very serious.

| For the purpose of bibliography and documentation it is of
minor importance how a word is pronounced, but it is_ important how it

i
! is written. How, for instance, would it be possible for a library to j
handle foreign books efficiently, to select and to acquire them, to file!
and interfile catalogue cards, if ten or more alphabets or translitera- ;
| tion systems have to be used? The same applies to the compiling of «
I bibliographies, booksellers' catalogues, indexes, abstracts and refer-
ence tools in general. A transliteration system, to be effective and
accurate, should follow as far as possible the original spelling and '•
I not conform to pronunciation. The ear is not a reliable, nor a precise,!

TRANSLITERATION 13
determinator of names.
The reproduction of foreign names presents essentially the
same difficulties for the Cyrillic-alphabetic nations as for the
Roman-alphabetic nations. When using Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian,
Serbian or other Cyrillic-written sources, bibliographies, gazetteers,
biographical dictionaries or other works of reference, one might find
it difficult to locate such authors as Hugo, Musset, Buckle, or
Galsworthy. These names would certainly be listed, but where? The
following example will show:
Hugo Musset Buckle Galsworthy
(Russ.) Miocce. BOKJI (Russ.) ToJicyopnH
(Ukr.) Miocce EoKjib (Ukr.) foJifecyepTH
(Serb.) MHC© e EBKJI (Serb.) roJl3BOp^H
(Bulg.) Mjoce BeKji (Bulg.) ToJioy^ pTH
And here is one more example of the modern Greek handling of
Roman-alphabetic names:
Bergk "Mpergk"
Burke "Mperk"
Bourget "Mpourse"
Draskovic "Ntraskobits"
Duchesne "Ntysen2
1. A. V. Superanskaia, "Slovari russkoi transkriptsii inoiazy- i

chnykh sobstvennykh imen, in Leksikograficheskii sbornik, Moskva, Gos. |
izd-vo inostrannykh i natsional'nykh slovarei, 1960, p. 120
2. Examples taken from S. Juric, "Transkripcijske metode i bi- j
bliotekarstvo", in Vestnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske, vol. 1, p. 109-118, 19]50.
UNIVERSITE D-0TTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES
• i
TRANSLITERATION 14
Such a "transliteration" of foreign names might be satisfactory
for those initiated into the mysteries of local or national pronunciatior
and graphic representation, but for international use, tools using a
system of transliteration such as this, would be of little (if any) use.
Roman-alphabetic names transliterated into Cyrillic present
greater difficulty than vice versa. Cyrillic- writing, with few excep-
tions, is a phonetic writing. Each word is written as it is pronounced
and the association of letters with sounds is stable. Transliterating
the name "Shakespeare" into Ukrainian or Russian would produce some-
thing hardly recognizable, a form nowhere found in literary or document-
ary works. To understand such a transliteration at all, people would
have to know how the word was spelled in English. But it would be too
long an too hard, via foreign original spelling, to reconstruct the
transliterated spelling in a domestic alphabet. This might be the
reason that some Slavic linguists are not willing to interpret trans-
literation as a "mechanical" conversion of different alphabets . j

2 I
Kent complains that Russians dealing with foreign names do not I
transliterate them (as, for instance, in the "Referativnyi Zhurnal"), J
but transcribe them phonetically. Thus instead of Darmois they write
"Darmua", for Guillaud they write "Gijo", and for Rousset - "Russe".
1. L. V. Shcherba, "Transkriptsiia inostrannykh slov i sobst-

vennykh imen i familii", in Trudy Komissii po russkomu iazyku, Lenin-
grad, Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1931, vol. 1, p. 191.
2. F. L. Kent, loc. cit., p. 133.

• —————————————— — —
TRANSLITERATION 15
This looks strange to people accustomed to using the Roman al-
phabet, and from bibliographical point of view, certainly very inconve-
nient, but to readers of Cyrillic it does not. The latter .û accustom-
ed to associate spelling very closely with phonation. If it were demanded
that they "overcome this strange habit", they would not find it as easy
as it is for Englishmen, who are accustomed to a universally non-phone-

write
tic spelling - whose motto indeed seems to be "never*what you pronounce"
Nevertheless, if one wishes to consider the possibilities of
bibliographic uniformity, then Kent's complaint has some justification.
From the point of view of bibliographic precision and accuracy, a uni-
form international system generally accepted could render a service
that would make some phonetic sacrifices worthwhile.
Librarians have long ago recognized this, and in many countries
they have striven to solve the problem according to their best under-
standing. Such uniformity is indeed important not only in the biblio-
graphic field and for purely bibliographic (cataloguing, indexing, ab-
stracting) purposes; it is just as important in other documentary fields
that is, for such non-bibliographic uses as in various sorts of register;
address books, catalogues and trade or industrial indexes. Also for
official purposes ( in passport offices, for instance) the uniform
transliteration would be much better than a number of various national
systems.
In the end, the international co-operation in the fields of
education and science, as well as publication activity of international
bodies, organizations, societies, agencies, etc., especially in preparing

8
'
TRANSLITERATION 16
bibliographic tools would probably be unattainable today. If one takes
only the publications of UN and its Agencies, of Unesco, or of other
cultural international organizations, he would realize that without one
generally accepted system of transliteration for foreign scripts, no
tools of universal character and general utility could be prepared.
3. ALA ATTEMPTS AT SYSTEMATIZATION
American librarians may rightly be given credit as real pioneers
in the field of transliteration. Melvil Dewey, in discussion at the
Lake George Conference (1885) said that he
... moved two years ago that this Committee

be appointed, because I wished a set of rules
for my own cataloguers, and was disheartened
with the diversity of practice
This was probably the first time that the transliteration problem was
discussed on an ALA forum. The conference, under the presidency of
Cutter, discussed three schemes of transliteration: from the Semitic
languages, from Sanskrit, and from Russian. But it is not the schemes j
j as such that are important. If one takes, for instance, the scheme
advanced for Russian and compares it with schemes in use today, there
will be quite remarkable differences. What is important is the approach,
J and the understanding of the problem's urgency.
1. ".Report of the A.L.A. Transliteration Committee, 1835",

in Library Journal, vol. 10, p. 302-309, 1885.

TRANSLITERATION 17
Actually the ALA pioneers' views on transliteration were not
very different from those that librarians hold today. Cutter, reporting
on three schemes submitted by C. Toy, by Ch. R. Lanman of Harvard,
and by L. Heilprin, added a few remarks of his own. He suggested that
transliteration principles, as far as the library catalogue is concernei
must be some kind of compromise between the
... claims of learning and logic on one hand,

and of ignorance, error, and custom on the
otherl.
He thought the catalogue must be set up and continued in such a way
that it would serve not only for the present but also for the future.
The future in question might however, not extend "beyond the next j
generation", because "the future is very uncertain". I
The founders of the ALA system were very careful about
assuming a permanence of contemporary trends in transliteration. They I
were not quite clear as to whether transliteration should be a "letter-!
for-letter" process, or whether it should involve a combination of
phonetic and etymological principles. Foreign words, for instance,
they preferred to see Romanized, and on International Latin rather
than "English" phonetic principles (thus Butan, not Bootan or Boutan;
Turgenef, not Toorgeneff or Tourgeneff, and so forth). In general,
the ALA seems to have been strongly influenced by the practice of the
Royal Geographic Society in Romanizing foreign names. For instance,
1. Ibid.
•f
j
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A -- SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
TRANSLITERATION 18
it was decided to adopt the continental values of vowels, instead of
English values:
u - as in rule
a - as in father
i - as in machine
o - as in mote
e - as in met or as in moire
Most interesting are the remarks concerning diphthongs or more
complicated sounds. Thus:
ch - The consonantal sound of ch in cheap should
never be expressed in transliteration by Polish
cz, or by the German tsch. This is certainly a
sound and just principle, but why eighty years
later there are still combinations in use such
as: Czech, czar, czaritsa, etc., is behond
one's comprehension.
j - The consonantal sound of j as in judge
should not be rendered by the English dg, nor
French dj, nor German dsch, but by j alone,
zh - The sound of French j should be rendered by
zh.
tz, ts - The diagraph tz is to be used for the ts-
phoneme of Semitic and Slavic, and ts for the
same purpose in Japanese and Chinese.

TRANSLITERATION 19
y - For the Semitic "yod" the symbol y should be
used, and not the German j. An exception should
be made when the yod follows a consonant in
the same syllable; in Russian names ai, ei, oi,
ui, are to be used instead of ay, oy, ey, uy
(e.g. Aleksei, not Aleksey).
w, v - W is to be used in Arabic names (e.g. Moawiyah),
but not in Slavic names, where v is recommended
(e.g. Paskevich).
v, f - In Russian place-names ending in ov, ev, the v
is retained, but in family names it is replaced
by f or ff (thus -of, -off, -ef, -eff).
kh - Kh should be used for the guttural affricate in
Slavic and Oriental names; not the German ch
nor the Spanish j.
ei Other permitted combinations were:
ai
ei ei - for the sound of a as in fate
ea - for the sound of ea as in great
ai - for the sound ai as in trait
As a general rule it was suggested that consonants be used with the
values they have in English, and vowels with the values as they have
in Italian.

TRANSLITERATION 20
But the Conference did not reach unanimous agreement. All the
speakers in the discussion favoured "letters rather than sounds as the
better basis for the Committee to use in making its code of rules".
However, when Melvil Dewey moved that practice should be "to translite-
rate letters" and not to transcribe sounds, he was forced to withdraw
this motion because of the opposition of Poole. Poole thought that the
problem was too important to permit voting "on a matter like that"
without longer study and preparation . Thus, the problem of trans-
literation was not definitely settled for a long time. Subsequent ALA
conferences again and again reverted xo this matter. Of special in-
terest would be the Chautauqua Conference held in August 1898. W. C.
Lane of Harvard University spoke of the necessity of revising the j
system of transliteration for "Russian names". Lane complained on the
practice in American libraries, because when transliterating, for
instance, Serbian (Cyrillic alphabet) "libraries are etymological,but
when they turn to Russian they attempt a hybryd mixture of the two
methods", i».e» etymological and phonetic methods of transliteration2.
1. Ibid., p. 309: This "Report of the A.L.A. Transliteration

Committee" has also been reprinted in the "Catalog Rules, author and
title entries" (Anglo-American), Chicago, ALA, 1908, p. 65-73 (in
abbreviated form), as well as in Ch. A. Cutter, Rules for a Dictionary
Catalog, Washington, GPO, 1904, p. 147-154.
2. Library Journal, vol. 23, p. 174.

i
i
i
I
t
r
i
i
.
TRANSLITERATION 21
The conference held in Montreal in 1900 accepted a general
scheme for "Slavic transliteration", and approved the Leskien scheme
for Old Bulgarian J-.
Transliteration has its place in early American codes. Dewey,
in his "Condensed Rules for a Card Catalog" (1886), makes special
provision for transliteration procedure2. The later codes of 1908,
1941 and 1949, as also the "Additions and Changes" of 1949-58, likewise
include rules and tables of transliteration^.
j The Library of Congress Rules, except for the addition of some
rules for points not covered by the ALA Code (e.g., for imprints),
adopted the ALA transliteration rules and schemes.
• _ —
1. Catalog Rules (Anglo-American), op. cit., p. 72.
2. Library Notes, vol. 1, p. 112-131, October 1886; p. 118:

"transliterate by ALA rules, titles in foreign characters, except Greek".
3^' Catalog Rules (Anglo-American) 1908, op. cit.: art. 42,

j 141, and the Appendix 2, with Tables for Semitic, Sanskrit, Slavic,
Serbo-Croatian, Russian, Modern Greek, p. 65-73;
ALA Catalog Rules, 1941, op. cit.: art. 58b, 231; also Part IV.
5 Transliteration with Tables for: Russian, Ukrainian, White Russian,
I Bulgarian, Serbian, Modern Greek, Semitic (Arabic and Hebrew), Syriac \
and Ethiopic; The ALA Catalog Rules, 1949, has the following on trans- ;
literation: art. 45B, 70B, and Part IV. Transliteration, with the
Tables for the same languages as in 1941 Code, except Syriac and Ethio-
pic, but Yiddish added. - "Additions and Changes, 1949-1958", Appendix
IV. (Transliteration) provides Tables for Arabic and Armenian; for
Romanization of Chinese and Japanese; references for Korean and Thai, 1
(p. 38-57);
Ch. A. Cutter, Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, op. cit.: art. j
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 248; also p. 147-154. j
Library of Congress, Rules for Descriptive Cataloging. Washing-
ton, The Library of Congress, 1949, 2:14, 3:41, 3:139, 3:140, 8:6.

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DFS GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 22
During the early period of transliteration systematization, the
greatest attention was devoted to the transliteration of Cyrillic j
alphabets, especially the Russian. The above-mentioned Chautauqua
Conference of 1898 is probably one of the important events in this
regard. Lane, criticising "a mingling of etymological and phonetic spell
ing", suggested at this time the use, for cataloguing purposes, of the
system adopted by Jagic in his "Archiv fur slavische Philologie",
with some slight modifications . But it was about ten years before a
I definite decision was taken at the Montreal Conference.
Although not all large libraries on this continent have
I adopted the ALA scheme of transliteration, this in no way diminishes
its (ALA) merits in the field of uniformity of transliteration.
4. PROVISIONS FOR TRANSLITERATION IN EUROPEAN CODES
Perhaps the most important of European codes, from the point
of view of its impact on other continental codes, was that known as
the "Prussian Instructions" (1899)2.
1. Instruktionen fur die alphabetischen Kataloge der

preussischen Bibliotheken. Vom 10 Mai 1899; This code, originally
compiled by K. Dziatko for Breslau University Library and based on the
earlier Munich Code (1850) was regarded as "epoch-making". - In this
work use has been made of:
Andrew D. Osborn, The Prussian Instructions, Ann Arbor, The
University of Michigan Press, 1938.
2. The following Codes were in use in larger German libraries:

Munich (ca 1850), Breslau (1886), Cologne (1886), Halle (1888),
Berlin (1890, 1892, 1899, 1908), Karlsruhe (1893), Kassel (1893), Wolf-i
enbuttel (1893), Freiburg (1900), Stuttgart (1902-11), Munich (1905,
1911, 1922), Strassburg (1911), Frankfurt (1913). - Cit. after A.D.
•O.Bbiinrnij p p . ît-3 -p—î-v - ., .,,.„,—
:
"~ ' " 1
TRANSLITERATION 23
It was not the earliest German code, because there were about a dozen
of them associated with the larger libraries in Germany, some dating
from as early as 1850.
But the Prussian Instructions were the best of them all, and
after simplification in 1908 they exercised a great influence on the
codification of cataloguing rules in other European countries. Thus,
the codes of Hungary, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, as well as those
of Denmark, Holland and Norway, were all more or less influenced by
the Prussian Instructions. The Prussian code was extended in 1935 to
the whole of Germany and Austria. It has the following provisions with
regard to foreign names or scripts:
art. 4:1 - The title is entered in Roman characters,

even if it is printed in German characters.
Greek script is transcribed from the copy.
4:2 - Every other kind of writing is translite-
rated according to the appended scheme
(Appendix II), and the designation of the
kind of writing precedes the transliteration.
I 22:2 - This article rules on the variations in the

| "national" Roman alphabets, especially as
Ij regards umlauts (German and Swedish), on
I other variant practice in Dutch, Old Norse,
jj Old and Middle English, and on Greek charac-
l ters. Greek diphthongs should be rendered by
. the corresponding diphthongs in Latin (au, eu,
' but u ) ; initial r or rr should be rendered
by rh or rrh respectively. The guttural g
• (gamma) preceding other gutturals should be
| transliterated by n; the spiritus asper by h,
iota subscript and iota adscript should be
omitted entirely.
130 - If a name appears transformed according to

the laws of a foreign language, the original
form of the name becomes the entry word;
reference is made from the altered form if
necessary.
TRANSLITERATION 24
These rules, especially art. 130, seem to be clearer and more definite
than the corresponding rules in the ALA Code of 1949 (e.g. art. 36
"general rule" with its possible exceptions as in art. 40, 44, 45). It
also is more sensible with regard to "transformed names" than the
"automatic" provision of ISO.
The transliterated forms of names are also dealt with in
articles 163 and 164. Article 163 rules that whenever
... the given transliteration of a name does not

agree with the rules drawn up in Appendix II, then
the form of the name established according to these
rules becomes the entry word ...
(e.g. not Ouvaroff, but Uvarov)
[And article 164 states:
If the name of an author appears carried over into

a language whose alphabet has to be transliterated,
the original name becomes the entry word; as a rule
a reference is made from the form of the name to be
established according to the rules for translitera-
tion only when the author himself has written in
that language.
This last is an interesting rule (and a sound one) which, if
applied, would eliminate a lot of confusion in entering foreign names,
| and every "automatist" should take note of it.
The Code provides Tables for transliteration of the following
languages or scripts: Russian, Ukrainian, Old Bulgarian, Modern Bulga-
rian, Serbian, Wallachian, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Hindusta- :
ni, Malay, Hebrew, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian. In
transliterating Cyrillic, the scheme admits a few diacritics and di-
graphs (ch, sc, ju, ja, etc.)

TRANSLITERATION 25
The French code, which reflects the practice of the "Catalogue
General", also has special provisions for foreign names and scripts J
(noms anciens, latinises, modernes), embodied in Article 167-169, and
in a special chapter (11) on "Ouvrages imprimes en caracteres particu-
liers" . The said chapter deals with European, Asiatic, and other
non-Roman characters (articles 222-244) . It does not include tables
of transliteration, but refers the reader to the practice of the
"Ecole des Langues Orientales" or to other sources in each particular
language.
The second French code, prepared by the Association des Biblio-
thecaires Frangais, rules that all foreign scripts except the Greek
should be rendered "en ecriture latine" (art. 10). Although it has
some rules on the differences exhibited by the "national" Roman alpha-
bets (e.g. articles 52 and 107) and on entries for foreign authors
(Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Indie, Hebrew, and so forth) it fails to
provide transliteration tables .
In the British Museum Rules it is worthwhile to mention article
9, concerning foreign names and umlauts (foreign names are also dealt
with in other special articles: 6, 7, 10, 40, etc.). Article 41
; 1. Usages suivis dans la redaction du Catalogue General des

Livres Imprimes, par E. G. Ledos, nouv. ed. par Armand Rastoul, Paris,
Biblitotheque Nationale, 1940.
2. Regies et Usages observes dans les principales bibliothe- I

ques de Paris pour la redaction" et le classement des Catalogues d'au- !
teurs et d'anonymes, Paris, 1912. (Extrait de la "Revue des Biblio- i
!
theques", no 4-6, avril-juin, 1913).

__J
TRANSLITERATION 26
contains schemes for transliteration of the following alphabets:
Cyrillic (Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian) and Modern
Greek. It is interesting that the schemes for Ukrainian and Russian
do not use diacritics, but admit digraphs and polygraphs (zh, kh, ts,
ch, sh, shch, etc.) .
The last example is the Vatican code. This is indeed an im-
portant piece of work. According to statements of American librarians
it is "perhaps the best of modern cataloguing codes, and one which goes
far to reconcile European and American practice . A comprehensive
work (490 articles in 39 chapters), it has the following articles on
transliteration:
46 - Foreign names should be latinized

(transliterated) according to the
rules for transliteration (Appendix IV).
If any other form of name is found, the
form that should be accepted, as entry
word, is that resulting from the rules
for transliteration.
46:d - Transliterated names in foreign languages

are in all cases restored to the original
forms.
This ruling (like the pertinent rule in the
Prussian Instructions) is the only just
and logical decision as regards deal-
ing with foreign names.
298 - This article deals with the "translitera-

tion" of Roman numerals, and of other
older symbols, into Arabic numerals.
1. Rules for compiling the catalogues of printed books, maps

and music in the British Museum, rev. ed., London, 1936.
2. W. W. Bishop. "J. C. M. Hanson and International Cataloging!)"

in Library Quarterly, vol. 4, p. 165-168, April 1934.
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA « SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA •• ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 27
475 - Titles in non-Roman alphabets are

filed as though they were trans-
literated into Roman characters
(e.g. Greek: Katalogos).
Appendix IV contains Tables for the following languages: Arabic,
Persian, Turkish, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Gaelic, Greek, Hebrew,
Slavic languages (one Table with "Special characters" found in Church
Slavic, Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Croatian), Syriac. For Cyrillic
("Slavic" languages) it uses a few digraphs, diacritics, and ties.
With few exceptions it follows the Croatian style of transliterating
Cyrillics .
5. INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
As the first attempt at international standardization one might
take the Anglo-American Code of 1908, which provided rules of transli-
teration for the English-speaking world. At this time a cooperative
effort was not too difficult, since only transliteration into the
English was envisaged.
But even in the English-speaking world the provisions of the
Code did not find unanimous approval and acceptance. Many great libra-
ries in both countries continued to follow the old, earlier established
systems (as they still do today). Cooperation on a larger scale began
i late in the 1920's, initiated by the "Institut International de Coope- \
ration Intellectuelle"- :j
1. The Vatican Library, Rules for the Catalog of Printed Books;jj

! translated from the Second Italian Edition by Thomas J. Shanahan (and 1
j others),, edited by Wyllis E. Wright, Chicago, ALA, 1948. j
UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES GRADUES
TRANSLITERATION 28
This Institute was established by the League of Nations in 1925
(succeeding the previous Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, 1921),
with the aim of promoting education and mutual understanding.
In 1929, at its Eleventh Session, the Institute discussed ex-
tensively the possibility of the Roman alphabet's being accepted by all
nations of the world, and published in this connection a very valuable j
book .
Similar movements in the 1920's could be observed in other
countries also, namely in the USSR, in China, and in Turkey. At its
I Fifteenth Session, in July 1933, the IICI Conference passed a new reso-
j lution on "l'adoption universelle des caracteres latins" . The time,
however, was probably not yet ripe for the universal acceptance of
Latin characters, and the "Roman-alphabetic" enthusiasm of the 1920's
slowly cooled. I
It was another international organization, the "International I
Federation of National Standardizing Associations" (known as ISA and J
organized in 1928) that took charge of the problem. The Technical Com-
mittee of the ISA prepared in 1939 a project for international transli-
i teration, but this project, because of the outbreak of war, was not
1. Institut International de Cooperation Intellectuelle,

l'Adoption universelle des caracteres latins, Paris, 1934.
2. Ibid., p. 193.
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA •• SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

TRANSLITERATION 29
carried out . The agenda of ISA were taken over by a new international
organization founded after the war (1946), the "International Organiza-
tion for Standardization" (ISO).
As an international union of national standards associations
with a membership of twenty-five participating countries, the organiza-
tion was created to promote "mutual cooperation in the sphere of in-
tellectual, scientific, technological, and economic activity". The
Technical Committee of ISO (ISO/TC 46) at its first meeting, held in
The Hague on June 17-19, 1948, discussed a number of questions regard-
ing standardization and raised the question of transliteration. It was
agreed unanimously to recommend, with some slight modifications, the
adoption of ISA project No. 7 for transliteration of the Cyrillic
alphabets - prepared, as mentioned above, by the ISA with the help and
2
cooperation of the Italian slavist Damiani .
1. Federation Internationale de Documentation (F.I.D.),

Communicationes, vol. 6, p. 9, 111, 113, 1936; and vol. 7, p. 62,
1940.
A. Sevcik, La Translitteration, in Revue de la Documentation,
vol. 14, p. 21-22, 1940.
2. E. Damiani was very prolific in the field of translitera-

tion, and h_s works, especially on the transliteration of Cyrillics, are
of primary importance. His most important works in this regard are:
"Sulla questione della transcrizione dei caratteri cirillici

in caratteri latini e vice versa',' in Rivista italo-bulgara di letteratu-j
ra, storia, arte; vol. 6, 1936.
"Sur l'etat actuel des systemes de transcription des noms

slaves cyrilliques dans la documentation bibliographique',' in F. I. D.,
Transactions, vol. 14, p. 245-248, 1938.
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A ~ SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

TRANSLITERATION 30
This time the preparation of the modified project was entrusted
to A. Sevcik, a Czech documentalist. At the same session the sub-
committee passed the following resolution:
The sub-committee recommends that, if so desired,

each national standards association supplements
the international system with a phonetic system
appropriate to its own language, and that one
suitable system would be that now widely used in
the United States of America, which agrees closely
with the system of the Russian standard OST/VKS
84831.
Interesting in this resolution is that the position taken by the members
of the sub-committee with regard to a uniform standard of translitera-
tion was rather liberal. It admits, besides the international trans-
literation system, as a supplementary aid, national phonetic systems,
the basis of which is actually transcription.
The ISO Technical Committee 46 and its Working Committee No. 2
(Transliteration of Cyrillic characters) dealt again with the problem
at trhe Ascona Conference, April 28-30, 1950, and in Rome, September
1951.
At the Ascona meeting a paper submitted by the British Stand-
ard Institution (BSI) was accepted, which after certain modifications
constituted the draft to be approved by ISO. This draft was finally
accepted by ISO Technical Committee at the Brussels Conference, and
1. Ir. M. Verhoef, "International Standardization and Documen-

tation", in Revue de la Documentation, vol. 16, p. 51-53, 1949.

TRANSLITERATION 31
approved by the ISO Council in Geneva in September 1954 as IS0/R9
"International System for the Transliteration of Cyrillic Characters" .
It is also worth mentioning that the problem of transliteration
was discussed with great interest by the F.I.D. Conference Internatio-
nale de Documentation in Berne, August 1947. It was here, at this
Conference that the Czech representative Sevcik spoke of the urgent
need for one generally accepted system of transliterating Cyrillic
alphabets, which, he thought, should be the one prepared in 1939 by
ISA2.
This was certainly encouragement for ISO to go ahead with its
proposals. By the end of 1963, the ISO Technical Committee had pre-
pared or published a few more schemes of transliteration. They are:
R 233 - International System for translite-

ration of Arabic characters, 1961.
R .259 - Transliteration of Hebrew, 1962.
DR 315 - (2d draft) Transliteration of Greek

into Latin characters, 1963 .
The IS0/R9 scheme did not achieve the universal acceptance that had beer
}
expected. Even some members of ISO are relunctant to accept it. This
probably was the reason that Technical Committee 46 decided, at the
1. ISO, ISO Recommendation R9, op. cit., p. 3.
2. A. Sevcik, loc. cit., p. 21.
3. F.I.D., News Bulletin, vol. 13, p. 48, December 15, 1963;
M. Rodinson, "Les Principes de la translitteration de l'Arabe

et la nouvelie norme de l'ISO, in Bulletin des Bibliotheques de France.
vol. 9, p. 1-23, Janvier 1964.

TRANSLITERATION 32
session in Brussels, October 1963, to review and eventually to revise
the scheme .
At the present time, ISO is considering Romanization systems for
Chinese and Japanese. This is one of the more difficult problems. For
the rendering of monosyllabic Chinese the system in use (the modified
Wade-Giles) is far from perfect. For Japanese, the Hepburn system has
been widely used, in which the consonants are rendered as in English
and the vowels as in Italian. But the difficulty is that the Japanese,
in the last thirty years, have switched to another system of their own,
which they consider a better one - an opinion that the rest of the. world
is far from sharing. If ISO succeeds in satisfying both sides, it will

2
be a great achievement .
Not quite an achievement of international cooperation, but an

achievement whereby the international community can profit, is the
publication of two Library of Congress schemes.
The first of these, for the transliteration of Persian, was

issued in 1963, and approved by L.C. and ALA3. The second scheme pro-
vides Tables for the following Indic or neighbouring languages: Assamese
Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayan, Marathi, Oriya, Panjabi in

Gumukhi script, Sanskrit and Prakrit in the Devanagapi script^
1. F.I.D., News Bulletin, loc. cit., p. 48.
2. H. E. Palmer, The Principles of Romanization with special

reference to the Romanization of Japanese, Tokio, 1930.
A. Richter, Z-39 today - its work and its subcommittees, in
Special Libraries, vol. 54, p. 107-109, February 1963.
3. Library of Congress, Processing Department, Bulletin, vol. 5<\

July 1963.

TRANSLITERATION 33
Tamil, Telugu, Urdu in Arabic script, as well as rules of application
and rules for the transliteration of some additional symbols .
In the last fifteen years, generally speaking, great progress
has been made toward the standardizing of transliteration systems.
Although the complaints of Jespersen about "la grande diversite des al-
phabets en usage" have not lost their relevance, there is nevertheless,
today, much easier and better access to information than at his time or
2
even a decade ago . This could not have been achieved without a
joining of forces and a sincere cooperation.
1. Ibid., February 1964.
2. G. A. Lloyd, A Decade of Standardizing in Documentation,

in Journal of Documentation, vol. 15, p. 208-225, December 1959.
3. J. Meyriat, La Normalisation internationale des codes de

translitteration, in Courrier de la normalisation, no. 155, p. 538-596,
September-October 1960.
IFLA, International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Paris,

9-18 October 1961, Report. London, 1963, p. 109-112.

UNIVERSITY D'OTTAWA ~ £COLE DES GRADU1-S
i"~" ' ' • l___________________- I " <<m*« " ' "' '• I I I I -
i CHAPTER I I
!
CYRILLIC ALPHABETS
1. A FEW NOTES ON CYRILLIC WRITING
The system of writing used today in countries of Eastern and
South Eastern Europe, as well as by many peoples in Asia and Caucasus,
originated more than a thousand years ago. Its origin and authorship
are not quite clear and are still a controversial matter. Some authors
think it was St. Cyril, the apostle to the Slavs, who invented or
adapted it to the Old Church Slavonic. Others maintain that Cyrillic
I writing already existed when he and his brother, St. Methodius, started
missionary work among the Slavs .
Istrin, in his recently published book , believes that there |
are good reasons to accept the year 863 as an origin date for this |
system of writing. According to his findings the Old Cyrillic alphabet,
I i.e. its oldest version, had thirty-eight letters. During the next
century five more letters were added, thus making an alphabet of forty- i
three symbols.
I
j
More than half of this alphabet (twenty-four letters) was taken !
over from the Greek, while the other letters, nineteen in number, were
j
created independently of the Greek alphabet. By this addition of nine- ;i
I •
S teen letters the Old Cyrillic alphabet became more independent of its I
I 1. I. Ohienko, Povstannia azbrW i literaturnoi movy v slovian,

| Zhovkva, Vyd. 00. Vasylian, 1938.
J 2. V. A. Istrin, Tysiacha sto Jet slavianskoi azbuki, Moskva,

Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1963, p. 50.

CYRILLIC ALPHABETS 35
Greek basis than the western alphabets were of the Roman. It was also
better equipped than the Roman alphabet to meet the phonetic nedds of
the language it served.
Today the Cyrillic alphabet is known and used in two scripts or
two type-faces: the Old or Ecclesiastical Cyrillic, and the new or civil
Cyrillic. Other terms used in connection with and applied to the Cyril-
lic writing are: Old Bulgarian (Cutter), Old Bulgarian (Church Slavic),
Old Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic Cyrillic (Matthews), Classical
Cyrillic (Rudnyts'kyi), Old Cyrillic, Church Slavic, Church Slavonic
Cyrillic, or simply Cyrillic. Matthews also calls the Old Cyrillic "Pa-
jleocyrillic", and the modern form "Neocyrillic" . In the present work
I the Old Cyrillic or Classical Cyrillic is used for the old type of Cyril-
|lie writing, and the term Cyrillic for the type of writing used today.
j Over the centuries, this script underwent several changes. When
lit was originally introduced, its letter forms were based on the Greek
I uncials, and this type-face, with only partial remodeling, was used
I until about the fourteenth century. After that, the uncial writing was I
jreplaced by the 'lower-case' letters, i.e. by the less monumental form.
Some letters fell out,of use, as being no longer needed for the rendi-
tion of oral speech.
In the eightheenth century the alphabet again underwent a tho-
I rough revision (1710, 1735, 1758), many letters being omitted and the
1 1. W. K. Matthews, The Latinicstion of Cyrillic Characters,

!
j
in The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 30, p. 531-548, 1951- I
1952.
CYRILLIC ALPHABETS 36 I
graphic form simplified. In the e n d , after the last alphabetic "purge"
in 1 9 1 7 , twelve of t h e original forty-three had been omitted and some
n e w ones added. It must be noted that a l l these revisions did not j
result in any essential change of the Cyrillic alphabet. The modern
Cyrillic, a s used in national a l p h a b e t s , is only a stylistic variant
of the Old C y r i l l i c , developed and perfected mainly during t h e last
t w o centuries. With a f e w exceptions, the graphemes of the modern
Cyrillic writing remained almost the same a s in Old Cyrillic. j
J There are about eighteen letters in modern Cyrillic alpahbets
that either did not occur or had a different meaning in the Old C y r i l -
j l i e . There are six n e w letters (or remodelings) in Serbian, five in
j R u s s i a n ; the rest are in other Cyrillic a l p h a b e t s .
I In view of these changes, the Old Cyrillic alphabet is today

I
I used mainly f o r the printing of the liturgical books of some Orthodox
Churches including the Ukrainian Catholic, and for the reprinting of
I literary monumenta. The modern or reformed Cyrillic, with slight
differences in each "national" a l p h a b e t , is used today by the follow-
ing l a n g u a g e s : Bulgarian, Macedonian, Moldavian, R u s s i a n , Serbian, Ukrai-
n i a n , White R u s s i a n , plus a number of Asiatic and Caucasian languages.
Taken a l l together, about sixty different languages today employ C y r i l -
lie alphabets .
j In a l l these sixty Cyrillic alphabets the main stock of graphic
1. R. S . Giliarevskii, Opredelitel' iazykov mira p o pis'mennos-1

t i a m , 2-e izd., M o s k v a , Izd-vo Vostochnoi literatury, 1 9 6 1 . ~ 3
1
signs is the same, but there are many additions, especially in alpha- 1
bets for the Asiatic and Caucasian languages, the "Cyrillization" of

s
which started late in the 1930's and has continued after the war. ',
These additions are either remodeled or inverted Cyrillic letters, I
letter-compounds, and new creations, plus letters with diacritics ...
diacritics are heavily used in the alphabets for Asiatic languages.
Of the non-Slavic peoples in Europe, only the Rumanians have
used the Cyrillic alphabet. Rumanian Cyrillic lasted until about the jj
middle of the nineteenth century (1860), when it was replaced by a
Roman-based alphabet. The alphabetic modifications in Rumanian Cyril- !
lie (alfabetul cirilic) were not the same as in other languages which
employed the Cyrillic system of writing. Of the original forty-three
letters, only twenty-eight remained by the middle of the nineteenth
century when the reform came. Some letters of the Old Cyrillic were
I discarded as no longer needed for speech purposes, and some were re-
S placed by new ones, characteristic for Rumanian Cyrillic only.
The first attempts to adapt the Old Cyrillic alphabet to the
needs of emerging vernacular languages were made in the twelfth century I
S From that time there has existed a variant of Cyrillic known as "bosan-
jj cica" or "bosanska cirilica", an alphabet used for ecclesiastic pur-

!
; poses in Bosnia and Dalmacia.
\ Changes on a larger scale in the Old Cyrillic alphabet were j
j initiated in Russia in 1708. Regarded as outdated, this alphabet was I
replaced by the "grazhdanka", a Cyrillic alphabet more suitable for a I
I living language.UNIVERSITY
The subsequent
OF O T T A W A - amendments haveSTUDIES
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE adapted it very well
to cover the approximately thirty-nine phonemes of Russian, or the more
or less similar number of Ukrainian and White Russian phonemes.
Of all the modern Cyrillic alphabets, it was the Serbian alpha-
bet in which the most far-reaching changes were made. Vuk Karadzic
created the new Serbian alphabet in 1818. He omitted twelve letters of
the remodeled Old Cyrillic and added six new, specifically Serbian letters
or letter comninations. This Serbian alphabet (cirilica) is exactly
paralleled in the Croatian Roman-based alphabet (latinica). Therefore '
the transliteration of Serbian-Cyrillic into.Croatian-Roman presents no
difficulties.
The Macedonians also accepted the reformed Serbian alphabet and
introduced only a few insignificant changes - two letters with diacri- j
tics and one new letter. The Bulgarians, after the last reform in 1945,
retained in their alphabet thirty letters, and the Moldavians too have
the same number. j
I Today, when the term "Cyrillic alphabet" is encountered (in the
I sense of the modern Cyrillic writing), it should be understood in a
I general sense. There is no longer any single Cyrillic alphabet, but a I
I number of separate national alphabets having the same Cyrillic basis.
I Neither is there a single Slavic or Slavonic alphabet. Unusual and im-
I proper is also the term "Serbo-Croatian" (Cyrillic) used by the B.M.
Rules in reference to Serbian. There is no such alphabet, since the
j Croatians use Roman letters, in an alphabet of their own, and this indeed
j is what the table shows. Still less reasor :"s there to categorize all
the alphabets which have a common Cyrillic basis as "Russian". I

With regard to the term "Slavic alphabet" (Cutter), it may be
observed that there are Slavic nations which do not use any "Slavic
(Cyrillic) alphabet"; for instance, the Poles, Czechs and Croatians.
As to the term "Russian", it is obvious that not all peoples that use
the'same or a similar alphabet belong to the same nation, and such a

I I
"simplification" of the alphabetic terminology is decidedly undesirable.
J A mistake of this sort may appear to be insignificant, but in fact it
j creates a confusion, and in the end one does not know what is Cyrillic, I
what is Slavic or Slavonic, and what is (or is not) Russian. And j
besides this, if one is to preach terminological precision and reliabi-
j lity of information, then first of all he himself has xo be precise. J
I The literary and scientific production of the nations using j
I the Cyrillic type of writing has aroused increasing interest within the j
I Roman-alphabetic world, especially after the last war. In older trans- f
literation schemes there usually were only two or three Cyrillic alpha-
bets included. After the last war, when scientific and technological
publications increased in volume and quality, the interest became still
5 greater, so that more and more Cyrillic alphabets were being transli-
| terated. Aside from the Roman-based alphabets, it is the Cyrillic

1system of writing that today exhibits the greatest vitality. Over sixty
languages, representing about 10% of the world's population, today use
1 i
a Cyrillic-based alphabet , j
1. V. A. Istrin, Razvitie pis'ma. Moskva, Izd-vo Akademii nauk!

SSSR, 1961, p. 367-369. j
i
i
!

2. CYRILLIC AND ROMAN
To render all vowel phonemes the Roman alphabet offers no more
than six letters, a number far below the need. To solve the problem
of vowel coverage the western alphabets resorted to various diacritics
to modify the phonemic significance of particular letters. By the in-
corporation of diacritical marks into their alphabets, they succeeded,
at least partially, in covering the vowel sounds. It is more difficult,
though, to meet the consonantal needs, especially in the group of sibi-
| lants and affricates. Here particularly it is not easy to harmonize
the Cyrillic and R^.r.an alphabets. Sibilants and affricates exist in
both Slavic and western, languages, but are handled very differently. I
The Cyrillic alphabet, as compared with its Greek prototype, has signi- «
ficantly extended its stock of letters to provide for these needs,
whereas the western alphabets have not extended their stock of letters
! and have therefore had to resort to rather artificial means. The
resulting situation may be illustrated as follows:
Cyrillic English French German Polish
X Kh kh ch ch
^ ch tch tsch cz
m
sh ch sch sz
^ shch stch schtsch szcz
The Cyrillic alphabet, it is seen, provides a very good cover-
age for this class of consonants. The western languages, on the other
hand, have had to resort to clumsy and inconvenient letter combinations

This is the fundamental difference between the Cyrillic and j
the various national Roman alphabets. These Roman-based alphabets do f
not have phonetically equivalent letters to be substituted for those

i
of the Cyrillic alphabets, and here lies the chief difficulty of trans- j
I literating Cyrillic into Roman.

The same Cyrillic letter m is represented in English by the
digraph sh, in French by ch, in German by sch, and in Polish by sz. j

I
I
9
Here we see that the diphthong
terating. In German the digraph

ch has different phonetic values in
French and in English, and is used for different purposes in transli-
ch has still another value, a value

j
which in English is generally rendered by kh (e.g. in the L.C. trans-
| literation).
I The Cyrillic letter x has in French a double equivalent. At
times it appears in the guise of the digraph ch (Chmilowsky, Cheops),
I wherever these words or names are originally so written in Roman charac-
I ters or so transliterated from other than Cyrillic scripts. In other
cases the Cyrillic x will be transliterated by kh (Kharbin, Khar-
kov, Kherson).
Similar difficulties occur in many other cases. Using two or
more Roman letters for one Cyrillic is not quite in accordance with the
•: "one-letter-for-one-letter" principle, but there is no single system
of transliteration which in this regard would be impeccable. I

! I
However, it is not digraphs that cause the trouble; it is with ;
1 polygraDhs that one encounters a more conrolicated situation. The j
i ' ' i
| Cyrillic letter m; will be transliterated in some German systems by a j
f
seven-letter combination (schtsch); in French by five letters (chtch,
as in Chtcherbatchev); in English by four letters (shch). Thus it j
happens that in French encyclopedias names which in the original '
(Cyrillic) begin with different initials are classed together: S
-X» XepaCKOB - Cheraskov I

W, IfleBxieHKO _ chevtchenko ;
- Chtchednne
i
I
3. INTERALPHABETIC EQUATIONS |
i
With regard to the Old Cyrillic alphabet there are only nine- f
I
teen letters which are transliterated in the same way in all systems. '
They are: ;
a 6 B r
' » » » fl, e, 3, H, K, jr, M,
H, O, n, p , c, T 9 y, $. |
i
i
All other letters are transliterated variously. Both diacritical |
marks and letter combinations may be used wherever the Roman alphabet
fails to cover the more extensive Cyrillic alphabet. It is worth-
while to note that some systems fail to transliterate certain letters
(e.g. the letters jer, and jer'), when it happens that these letters
express no particular sound. This certainly is contrary to the basic
rule of transliteration (letter-for-letter) since in such case a
restitutio ad integrum (re-transliteration) would be impossible.
The most controversial elements in transliteration schemes
are probably the equations for the nasals ("jusy"), both-mag-or and
minor, and for certain original Greek letters. In particular the
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A - . w . - . O C OF GRADUATE STUDIES

CYRILLIC ALPHABETS "3
letter^(theta), which in the Russian pronunciation becomes equal to
f, is rendered by the Roman digraph th representing the original Greek
letter, or by f, or by f with a diacritical sign, or by ph.
Cataloguing codes and their tables do not devote much attention
to Old Cyrillic, for it seldom happens that one has much to do with this
type of writing in library practice.
The situation is different with regard to the modern Cyrillic
alphabets. With these alphabets every librarian is more or less con- (
i
versant. In them there are even fewer letters, in fact only sixteen, I
which in all schemes have the same Romanized equivalents, while about [
half of each alphabet is dealt with variously in different systems. Thej
following letters of the modern Cyrillic alphabets are transliterated j

identically in every system:
a, 6, B, #, 3, K, JI, M,
H, o, n, p, c, T,y, $. j
i
All other letters found in particular Cyrillic alphabets (there is a ;
total of over thirty such letters) are transliterated variously. This I
distinction in transliteration practice derives rr._inly from phonetic j
considerations. Beforetransliteral icn had been recognized as a distinct j
procedure, and a precise definition adopted, it was transcription
(practical transcription) that was used for all inter-alphabetic opera-;
tions. Hence the differences in schemes differences that are the
outcome of the phonetic approach to transliteration. Thus the Gdrman
ch was (and stii is) used for the Cyrillic /, since in German this
diphthong (ch) does render the phonetic value of the Cyrillic X.

In English the procedure is to use the digraph kh.
In most cases little difficulty is created by the different j

!
national uses of diacritical marks or letter combinations to represent
the approximate original phonation. But there are a few letters which
present major difficulties and which should be discussed separately.
These are above alir,H , and ^-%~ ^ 9T_ -phis is probably the most
confusing and controversial letter as far as transliteration of Ukrai- I

r
nian and White Russian is concerned. The letter has, in all Cyrillic
alphabets except Ukrainian and White Russian, the phonetic value of the
Croatian g. In Ukrainian, however, and in White Russian, differing
from all other Cyrillic alphabets, it does not have the phonetic value
of g, but of h. Therefore the Ukrainian and White Russian alphabets [
have a separate letterT to represent the Croatian g-sound. But many
transliteration schemes disregard tnis fact and render the Ukrainian

r
or White Russian by the Roman letter g. If a transliteration
scheme fails to make this distinction and renders this letter always
by g, it commits a major error, because it substitutes for the Ukrainian
and White Russian r a quite different phoneme, a phoneme which in these
two alphabets is associated with a different graphic sign. It is true
that this could be understood as a routine ooeration or "automatic"

1 I
] transliteration, but when the true g-letter (r ) of these two languages |
I is encountered, there will be no way of rendering it properly, since S
1
" I
i
i <
j the letter g has already been pre-ero;ed to render the h-sound. '!
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A - SCHOOL Or GRADUATE STUDIES

A system disregarding this distinction creates uncertainties and
ambiguities; many words or names, instead of sounding Ukrainian or
White Russian, will sound as though th~y we're Russian, thus mislead- |
J
ing, and often resulting in their retransliteration as Russian words j
or names. The most confusing situations could occur in the translite-j
ration of personal'and geographical names. Thus the Ukrainian name j
Hrushevs'kyi will become Grushevs'kyi - another Ukrainian name of the
| same sound and spelling (when Romanized); Grushets'kyi could be either!
Hrushets'kyi or Grushets'kyi, Halych might be Galych, and so forth.
Unfortunately there are several systems which do not make this dis-
tinction between the White Russian and Ukrainian usage and that of the
! other Cyrillic alphabets.

-
H, H This symbol exists in all Cyrillic alpahbets except White
Russian, and has the value of the Roman i. Not so in Ukrainian. I
In Ukrainian it has a value very close to the German,u . However, J
I
f
only a few codes take note of this fact; usually this symbol is j
lumped together with the letter i of Ukrainian, and transliterated
j by the Roman letter i (for instance, in B.M., Cutter, Prussian !
Instructions, Swedish, Damiani, Slovenian). This practice also con-
I travenes a principle of exact transliteration, since it is impossible
to retransliterate correctly; the letter i of the transliteration
represents two original letters, namely n and i. This, certainly,
• v,o_ld be of paramount importance as regards to the proper spelling

I
j of personal or geographical names. !
i i
X, x - The Roman-based alphabets do not have any special letter
to represent this sound, which is found in every Cyrillic alphabet:
namely, the sound of the Scottish ch (in the word loch). For trans-
literating this letter we find three different expedients employed,
namely h, ch, kh, and sometimes even x (e.g. Xomiakov). As the Cyril- I
S lie x has no equivalent letter in any of the national Roman alphabets,j

I j
a tempting, but cheap, solution of the problem was to use h for the
purpose; that is, to equate Cyrillic x and Roman h. Yet translite- I
ration of Cyrillic x by h will utterly confuse Ukrainian words and
their meanings, since in Ukrainian it is the letter r which phonetically

l
corresponds to the Roman h. If the Roman h is substituted for Cyril-
j
lie x, it will produce in Ukrainian the following confusions of words: «
XOJio,n - cold weather, transcribed holod, which is actually

=
the sound of rojroji; hunger
XOJlO^HHii z cold, transcribed holodnyi, which is actually the
sound of roJIOflHHH = hungry
xa_a _ house, transcribed hata, which is actually the
sound of ra_a = dam
.xafir _ let, transcribed hai, which is actually the
sound of raS = grove

=
xopir choirs, transcribed hory, which is actually the
sound of ropH - mountains
The name of the painter Kholodnyi (z Cool) will confuse with
Holodnyi (= Famished)!

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES _______
One further note must be made here. The Cyrillic x (the
English kh-sound) is indeed represented in Roman-alphabetic Croatian

I
by h. Therefore all codes, with one exception (the Swedish code),
have h for Serbian, but kh or ch for the other Slavic alphabets, I
with the h left free. Ch is used in the Prussian Instructions and j
in the Austrian, Swedish, Hungarian, Czech and Polish codes. Kh is
used in the ALA, B.M., Vatican and French rules or codes. All the codeSi
which transliterate by ch or kh (except the Swedish) include also |
the h-alternative for Serbian. IS0/R9 transliterates the Cyrillic x j
by the letter h, but has here a "principle with exception". In addi- j

9
tion to the h it admits, for "countries with a firmly established
tradition of ch j or kh", the alternative use of these digraphs. If

j k
one needs an example of non-uniform procedure, then surely this kh-ch-h P
t
phoneme provides it. i
!
The above case seems to be one of the major stumbling-blocks
j
in the problem of interalphabetic equation and international standard-
ization of transliteration. Other differences between transliteration

. . I
schemes ( e s p e c i a l l y with respect t o a f f r i c a t e s and s i b i l a n t s , as p r e - i1
I '
I
!
viously i l l u s t r a t e d ) have been much b e t t e r resolved in the i n t e r n a t i o n a l !
t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n schemes, in s p i t e of t h e i r being conditioned and i n -
fluenced by the phonetic t r a d i t i o n of the r e s p e c t i v e " n a t i o n a l " alpha-

jj
i
j
I
I
b e t i c systems.
t_,»__---M J i»_-»_--— T ~-.. TrrT - |r - T - r ^-^._.~>..i.. — — . . 1,11| i, i |M , || , - . „ — . — -~-~—.—..—. ,. — „.. .,.•——-——- — , i - ,.,..„ n |r, „ . . i n „ „ , „ , . . . - , „ • - - , „..•,,• .-..-—T. , ,-,—.I.,....-..-—-—>—«—_^T_—————.—_•—„. r -. • >|.< , •—-.. .—^ __^j
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A ~ SCHOOL OF GRADUATc STUDIES

4. THE AMERICAN SYSTEMS
The oldest of the American systems of transliterating Cyrillic
will be that introduced by the American Library Association in 1885.
Its original proponent and probably its author was L. Heilprin of the
Transliteration Committee of the ALA. It is interesting that in definini
the principles of transliteration accepted at this time, Cutter,
speaking for the Conference, put forth the idea of a "compromise"
between scholarliness and convenience, an idea which still prevails in
many systems of transliteration. This attitude is certainly reflected
in the scheme itself. At first glance it is seen that many diacritical
marks are employed, especially underlinings, which also served as "ties".
The letter y was used to represent iotization.
The first ALA system underwent a certain evolution, and having
included into its scheme a few more Cyrillic alphabets, it is known to-
day as the ALA-L.C. system. It is reproduced, in its definitive form,
in the ALA Rules (1949).
Originating from the same source, or influenced thereby, we have
the New York Public Library system (NYPL) and the U.S. Board of Geo-
graphic Names system (BGN). All these four older systems are very simi-
lar in their manner of deciding controversial points, and strongly rely
on the traditional representation of certain Cyrillic letters, or better
said, on the traditional representation of Russian letters, since the
ALA scheme (1885) was actually devised for Russian only. The table will
show their similarities and dissimilarities.

TABLE
Russian ALA 1885 ALA (1949)-L.C NYPL BGN

r :
g (h, v) g g (v) g
e e (ye) e e (ye, io) e (ye)
e - e io (e) e (ye)
X zh zh zh zh
H i i i y
X kh kh kh kh
i* tz ts tz ts |
q tch ch ch ch j
in sh sh sh sh
m shtch shch shch shch
K> Y_u iu yu yu
H Z_, ia ya ya
As the table indicates, there are some differences between the
systems, but basically they represent one trend, the principle of which
is not to disregard entirely the phonetic element in transliteration.
The ALA (1885) scheme goes so far as to prescribe the use of f
instead of v in the terminations of family names, for in the actual
pronunciation it is an f-sound and not a v that is heard (thus Gorcha-
kof, not Gorchakov).
All other Cyrillic letters (not reproduced above) are identical-
ly transliterated or exhibit only insignificant differences .
1. Library Journal, vol. 10, p. 302-309, September-October 1835.

Of the newer American systems, the following four should be
mentioned, as they are employed by important reference tools: by the
Slavic Review (1945), the Mathematical Reviews (1940), Chemical Abstract!
(1937), and the American Standards Association, Sectional Committee Z
39 (ASA/SC 39). Of these four, there are two that follow the old tra- j
dition, while the other two display more contemporary trends. The
following table is a representative comparison.
TABLE
Russian Chem. Abs. ASA/SC-Z39 Math. Rev. Slav. Rev. !

_c zh zh z z
x kh kh h kh
i* ts ts
in sh sh
shch shch sc sc
The last two systems (Mathematical Reviews and Slavic Review) reflect
the influence of the ISA project, dating from 1939 and continued by ISO.
In 1962 a new system of transliteration of Russian was
announced by the National Science Foundation, and recommended by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. It is known as I

the "AAA Transliteration System" and endeavours to combine features
of various systems now in use .
1. Jerrold Orne, Transliteration of modern Russian, in Library

j Resources and Technical Services, vol. 8, p. 51-53, Winter 1964.
5. CANADIAN PRACTICE
Are there any specifically Canadian transliteration systems?
It is worthwhile, in this connection, to review Canadian practice in the
transliteration of Cyrillics, and it must be said at the beginning that
there are no special systems (to this writer's knowledge) of Canadian
origin. It is understandable why. Canadian libraries and bibliographic
or documentary institutions depend very much on American or English
reference tools, which use "English-style" transliteration of Cyrillics.
Canada, being also an English speaking country, at least in its major
part, does not have any logical need for a special system. Therefore
Canadian bibliographic or reference works have always been orientated
upon one or another English-style system used in the USA or Great
Britain. Meanwhile French works published in Canada have recourse to
systems used in France.
The leading bibliographic source, the publication Canadiana,
| should be a very authoritative example as regards to systems used for
transliterating Cyrillic. It is nowhere said that the LC-ALA system
of transliteration has been adopted for this bibliography, but it is
evident from the very beginning that Canadianadoes adhere to it. Such
entries as:

a
Tsentral'nyi Komitet, agitatsiia, Borshchak,

Kommunisticheskaia partiia, Shevelov, Ukrains'ka
Akademiia nauk, Khrushchev, Panchuk, etc.
used
indicate that the basic system employed here is that„_y L.C. and ALA.
But this is not the only translitetation used in Canadiana. Just what
the criteria are for using one or the other transliteration, is j
difficult to determine, at least from examination of the entries them- ,
selves. 1
i
f
From the name "Rudnyts'kyi", for instance, there is a "see I
reference" to Rudnyc'kyj (1950-1951, p. Ill, index), and under this I
name the entries are handled consistently. Here we have a translitera- j
J tion that is definitely not ALA-LC. The use of c and j is remiscent
of the International system. Rudnyc'kyj is not the only name transli- \
!
terated in this way: we find, for instance, Barvins'kyj, Zilyns'kyj, J
Luckyj, Bilec'kyj, Sheptyckyj, Borovs'kyj, Kupranec, Daciuk, Hancov, s
and others. j
Thus, it would seem that besides the ALA-LC system Canadiana I
I also uses the International. But this is only partly the case. The jj
J names cited above, with two exceptions (Sheptyckyj, Daciuk), are indeed f
j transliterated according to the said system. However, there are many 5

I ••
I names which are transliterated according to neither the International j
nor the ALA scheme. There occur forms that r.ight be referred to the i
British system (Yuzyk, Pereyaslav) or to the old ALA of 1885 (Pidhainy). I

!
There are forms that are transliterated according to a combination of
j
schemes; for instance, the names Kopacz, K2ymasz, Shewchuk, Woycenko, I
i
'Luciw, Hawrysyshyn, Lypoweckyj,
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A Zyla, Kluchko,
- SCHOOL etcSTUDIES
Or GRADUATE each have one or
more discrepancies in their forms. The letter w, which occurs in
many of them, is not used for its Cyrillic equivalent in any of the
transliteration systems. All systems use in thir, case the Roman letter
v.
One entry, "Wasyl' Simovych" (1953, p. 167) has for the same j
Cyrillic letter B thetransliteration w in the first name, but v in
the second name. By what rule or which system this is done, one can-
not determine. Another interesting name is "Shevelov, George Yury".
Shevelov is the surname and is transliterated correctly in accordance
with L.C.; George is an English name, in fact the English form of the
name Yury; this name Yury is transliterated not according to L.C. but
in an "English" manner. Thus disregarding any nonsense about "con-
firmation" of the English transliteration by the "original" name, we
here find two different systems of transliteration, used in one and
the same author's name. The retransliteration of this name to its
correct original form would not be possible.
Of course, many mistakes could possibly be ascribed to a wrong
identification of the language in question (the original language in
which these names occur). Such names as Smal-Stocki, Katerina Antono-
•i vich, Kurilo, Stechishin, Pidhainy, etc., are either wrongly translite
I rated or erroneously taken as non-Ukrainian names; analysis is here

!
I impossible.
| To sum up the transliteration practice of the editors of Cana- j
diana, it could be said that: j

j
i
I
a) Basically Canadiana uses the ALA and LC system for
transliteration of-Cyrillic.
b) Canadiana*s practice has from the start been, and still
is, influenced by the practice of authors who favour the International
system. Thus Canadiana in many cases follows the International trans-
literation procedure.
c) There is a lack of consistency in the application of this
International system.
d) The title-page form (one has the impression) is in many
cases the deciding factor, though this, from the viewpoint of biblio-
graphic uniformity, is undesirable.
e) A common difficulty is that authors themselves spell and
transliterate their names in various ways. The editor, it seems, does
not see any other possibility than to accept the name as it appears,
even in mutilated form.
Nevertheless, many unnecessary mistakes could be eliminated by
limiting the systems admitted (to ALA and International), and by the
use of "see references" for names variously or mistakenly translite-
rated by the authors.
The following cases that have been observed will illustrate the
transliteration practice of this important Canadian bibliographic tool.

2
- is transliterated: i, j , - y (Ukrains'kyi.,, Kysilewskyj_,
Pidhain_i, Woy_cenko)^
B
- is transliterated: v, w Kovaliv, Woroby
ZC - is transliterated: zh, Z (Zyla, without the diacr. mark)

CYRILLIC ALPHABETS. 55
X - is transliterated: kh, ch (Khrushchev, Ochrym, Prychodko)
u. - is transliterated: ts, c (Tsentral'nyi, Luckyj)
m - is transliterated: sh, sz (Shewchuk, Klymasz) j

X> - is transliterated: iu, ju, Yu (Daciuk, Julian, Yury)
H - is transliterated: ia, J, ya (Ul'ianov, Jaroslav,
Pereyaslav)
H
- is transliterated: ch, cz (Chaplenko, Kopacz)
The second authority interested and engaged in transliteration j
pract.Lee are Canadian slavist s. Th<2_r practice is represented and
reflected by the "Canadian Slavonic Papers" , an irregular publication
since the 1956. On the verso of th<2 title page of each volume a note
on transliteration reads:
Two systems of transliteration of Slavic languages

are used in this publication. One, closely re-
sembling the system of the Library of Congress, is
used in literary and historical articles, the other
in contributions on philology.
This "other" system is namely the International, Czech-based system,
as many names transliterated according to it would demonstrate. The
first system, the one "closely resembling the system of the Library
of Congress", is not as much "closely" resembling if one compares, for
instance, such transliterations as: Lyubcheko, Revutsky, Strakhovsky,
Malakhiy, Araktcheyev, Chaadaev, Alexander, etc. On the same page one
may find tch and ch for the same Cyrillic letter.
1. Canadian Slavonic Papers, published for the Canadian Asso-

ciation of Slavists by the University of Toronto Press in co-operation
with the University of British Columbia, 1956-

Summarizing these few remarks on Canadian practice, it could
be accepted that there are two basic trends in Canadian transliteration
practice (of Cyrillics): the older and stronger one, based on the long
established tradition and adapted to the phonetic peculiarities of the
English language, i.e. the system widely used in USA, and the second
trend pormoted and advocated by linguists and philologists, the
practice of the International (Czech-based) system or very closely
reminding this system.
6. THE ENGLISH SYSTEMS
English systems of Cyrillic transliteration show less variation
than the American. In particular they are more careful in distinguish-
ing (whenever the necessity arises) between the value of a letter in
Russian and in Ukrainian. Otherwise, there is in the English systems
the same tendency as in American, namely, to confound the principle of
transliteration with the "principle" of convenience for the English
I reader. Thus digraphs resembling the phonetic value of the original
I (Cyrillic) letter are often in use (e.g. zh, kh, sh, shch, etc.). A
few letters taken from the Russian alphabet will illustrate the relation!
1 ships of thi;se systems:
TABLE |
Russian B.M. Bodleian PCGN BSI Science Abs.

r
I
g g g (h) g g
x
I zh zh j zh zh
UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A •• SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

, ,
sian B.M. Bodleian PCGN BSI Science Abs.

X kh kh kh (h) kh kh
n ts ts ts ts ts
v ch ch ch ch ch
m sh sh sh sh sh
m shch shch shch shch shch
From this comparison is evident that only the Permanent Committee on
Geographical Names system (PCGN) has alternative transcriptions for
any Russian letter. Thus h is provided to replace kh as an equi-
valent for the Cyrillic letter X, when this X actually represents
J an h in a foreign word borrowed into a Slavic language; h is also
allowed to replace g in similar cases, that is when Cyrillic r
actually represents an h-sound or a borrowed h. Further to the above J
I list there are also some variations in representing the Russian letters
J e, i, and "yat"', or in applying diacritical marks; but these varia- j
I tions, although undesirable from the point of view of transliteration

1
J principles, could be tolerated as far as they affect bibliography in
the English-speaking world.
I The oldest English systems are the Bodleian and the B.M., !
the newest is the BSI (British Standards Institution) known as BSI:
| 2979:1958. It was introduced in 1958, just three years after IS0/R9
was accepted and recommended for international use. In the introductory!
notes to BSI:2979 the authors indicate why this system has been intro- 1
duced. The new IS0/R9, they explain, is an "amplification of the Serbo-
Croat latinica", and therefore "it can hardly be expected that it will
be used for all purposes in countries with alphabetic traditions and
literary heritage as strong as those of English ...". One cannot say
that the argument of BSI authors has a weak foundation.
After the publication of this system (BSI:2979), a fiery dis-
cussion broke out with many known and highly competent specialists
participating (Palmer, Poulain, Lloyd, Hope and others) .
Although both sides are right, one of them certainly is
"righter". Nobody can deny that Poulain is right when he advocates
internatinal uniformity of transliteration and the urgent need for
this. But one cannot deny that arguments offered by Lloyd and Hope are
I of a serious nature, and they cannot be dismissed.
is not difficult to construct a scheme that would satisfy in detail the
stated principles, but it is much more difficult to
nations to use it. National traditions and habits are not easy to
Theoretically it
persuade the j
overcome and in cases like this they certainly should be taken into J
I consideration. There is no dount that a single universal system would
be best, but as practical life demonstrates, it is no easy matter to
construct or establish such a system, to the satisfaction of all con-

j
cerned.
I 1. This exchange of opinion took place in the New Scientist,

in the following order: Palmer, April 26, 1962; Lloyd, May 31, 1962;
Palmer, June 28, 1962; Hope, August 2, 1962; Poulain, August 30, 1962.

Of particular interest is the system known as PCGN , it is,
the system developed by the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names.
This Committee was formed in 1919 with the purpose of dealing with
the correct spelling of foreign geographical names for British offi-
cial use. Before the PCGN was formed, the Royal Geographical Society
had previously employed, for many years, a system (usually called
R.G.S.) for the phonetic representation of foreign names. The PCGN
revised this system and produced a new one, known as R.G.S. II. The
system provides transliteration tables for many languages or language
groups, Slavic included. For the Slavic languages which use Cyrillic
alphabets the system provides tables of transliteration only for
Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbian. (Bulgarian is discussed, but no
special tables of transliteration are provided). The tables are ' j
basically the same as for Russian, with a few exceptions indicated.
Besides the tables of transliteration the system has also "Rules for
Spelling of Geographical Names" and a "Table for Spelling and Pronunw
ciation" according to R.G.S.II. |
An interesting fact is that the system does not favour dia- j
critical marks. There is not a single diacritical mark in the tables j
for Russian or Ukrainian. Diacritical marks are used only when they
I
exist in the original spelling (e.g. in Czech, Polish, German, etc.),
but not in all cases even here.
l
1. Lord Edward Gleiche, and John H. Reynolds, Alphabets of
Foreign Languages, 2d ed. , London, The ,\oyal Geographical Society, ,
1933.

The system admits digraphs and polygraphs and provides alter-
natives (e.g., g and h, kh an h - for Russian), but it commits
one basic error: it has one symbol (i) for four different Cyrillic
letters. As far as transliteration in its proper sense is concerned,
this is inadmissible, since the reverse process (retransliteration)
would be impossible.
There are also other systems, derived from the R.G.S. system
for dealing with geographical names, but less known than the R.G.S. II
1. Rules for the Transliteration of Place-names Occuring on

Foreign Maps, compiled in the Topographical Section, General Staff,
by Alexander Knox, (London) 1906, (known as the War Office System).
Instructions for the Spelling of Place-names in Foreign

Countries, Naval Staff Intelligence Division, 1917.

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA - ECOLE DES ORAOUES
7. OTHER EUROPEAN SYSTEMS
Under the ambitious heading only a few European systems will be
mentioned. It is clear that every European country and every larger
library will have some established way of Romanizing or transliterating
Cyrillics. But a survey in this regard has never been made, and there
is no way of knowing which systems or how many systems are used in
dealing with Cyrillic alphabets.
Most European cataloguing codes provide rules and tables for
either.all or at least a few Cyrillic alphabets. Some codes, however,
do not include either rules or tables of transliteration (e.g. the
Italian code), and in their practical work rely on rules laid down by
some external authority. The majority of European systems in use have
been fundamentally influenced by the Croatian orthography, as the best
counterpart of the Serbian "cirilica".
The Croatian orthographic system, known as "Hrvatska latinica",
evolved after the reform of the Serbian alphabet by Vuk Karadzic. It is
a popular system used by many learned institutions, philogical societies
and their publications, as well as by many libraries. Its popularity
increased especially after Damiani undertook to demonstrate its philolo-
gical perfection and its simplicity. The origin of the system is trace-
able to the early 19th century, when Karadzic was preparing his "Lexicon
Serbico-Germanico-Latinum" (1st ed. 1818) .
1. Vuk S. Karadzic, Lexicon Serbico-germanico-latinum, 4th ed.,

Belgradi, 1935.

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES ORADUES
In this dictionary he included a comparative table of Serbian
letters and their equivalents in Croatian, Czech, Polish, Hungarian,
German, Italian, French and English. Thus Karadzic produced the oldest
poly-alphabetic, scholarly and well founded system of transliterating
Serbian into various national alphabets. A few selected examples will
show his approach:
Serbian Croat. Czech Pol. Hungar. German Ital. Fr. Engl.

B V w w v w v V V
X. z _ z zs - - j s
X h ch ch h ch - -
nq c c c cz z z - -
—•
c _ cz cs tsch c - ch
m s g sz s sch sc ch ch
If one compares the Croatian "latinica" of today with the Serbian
equivalents (i.e. Serbian transliterated into Roman) introduced by Karad-
zic one hundered and fifty years ago, only one change will be seen: to-
day the symbol"^ is used instead of Karadzic's dj (for which in any
case he gavef as substitute).
Of course, Karadzic's table dealt only with the Serbian alphabet,
whereas the "latinica" is extended (by adding diacritics) to correspond
fully with all Cyrillic alphabets, and the correspondence is very satis-
factory. Damiani and many other supporters of this Croatian system think
that it is very well elaborated and suitable to serve as an international

CYRILLIC ALPHABETS __
system for the transliteration of Cyrillic . It conforms to all the
modern transliteration principles:
1. The principle of one-letter-for-one-letter is rather well
maintained;
2. Different letters are never transcribed by the same letter;
3. The principle of "nothing added and nothing omitted in
transliteration" is respected.
Thus theoretically the Croatian system, except for the single
defect that the Ukrainian and White Russian letter X is transliterated
by the Roman letter h, should be quite serviceable. But the theory
takes no adequate note of practical considerations in the national Roman
alphabets, each with its own tradition, nor of the procedures of indi-
vidual national libraries.
The Croatian system, or better said, the system of Romanization
introduced by Karadzic, strongly influenced transliterating practices,
especially in the field of cataloguing and bibliography, in other Euro-
pean countries. When the German code (the Prussian Instructions) was
published, with its transliteration tables, it too served as a guide for
other codes in the field of transliteration. The Prussian Instructions
most obviously influenced the following codes: the Austrian, the French,
_____________—________
1. E. Damiani, Sur l'etat actuel des systemes de transcription

des noms slaves cyrilliques dans la documentation bibliographique, in
F.I.D., Communicationes, vol. 5, p. 107-109, 1938.
Norme adottate e da adottare per l'unificazione bibliografi-

ca dei nomi d'autori variamente transcritti da lingue a caratteri diversi
dall' alfateto latino, con particolare riguardo all' alpfabeto cirillico.
Relatione al VI. Conveyno naz-ionale dell'Associazione Italiana per le
I Biblloteche. Napoli. 15-1F maW-O, Roma. 1940.
the Hungarian, and even the Vatican.,
Thus the second generation of Cyrillic transliterating systems
is the group influenced by the Prussian Instructions. There is very
little difference between the transliteration systems in these particu-
lar European codes. The following table of selected letters will ex-
hibit their affinity:
Cyrillic Pruss.
Instr. Austr. Belg. French Swed. Hung. Vatican
•- V V
X Z z z Z
z Z z
H j j j j j j i
X ch ch h kh ch ch kh
u, c c c C ts c ts
V V
6V c d tj € c
m cV
s V
sj r s
m. u
s s
V V
sc
V V
SC
s
_£ stj sc SC
Variations, as the table shows, are not very significant;
except in the Swedish scheme the letter-equations are mostly the same
and are oriented upon the Prussian Instructions, which in turn were
influenced (as far as transliteration is concerned) by the Serbo-Croa-
tian equations.
The new German system developed recently by Steinitz , and
known as the Steinitz-Duden system of transliteration, is actually not
L. W. Steinitz, "Wie sollen wir russische Namen schreiben?"

in Die neue Gesellschaft, Berlin, Verlag Kultur und Vorschritt, No. 4,
p. 66-71, 1948.
"Abschliessend zur Schreibung russischer Namen", in Die

neue Gesellschaft, No. 3, p. 233, 1950.

a transliteration in the proper sense, since it pays too much attention
to phonetic factors. Besides, it was not intended for documentary or
bibliographic use. The other German system known as "Bibliothekarisch"
and used mainly in libraries, is the same as that in the Prussian Instruc
tions, with only two additions: e is used for the io- sound, while the
"hard" sign (jer), previously disregarded at-the end of a word and re-
presented by a hyphen in the middle of words, is in the "Bibliothekarisch
system represented by " (quotation mark) in the middle of a word, and
omitted at the end of a word.
In connection with this group of transliteration systems, we
should mention the system developed and used (since 1921) by the Insti-
tut d1Etudes Slaves} It follows very closely the Croatian practice.
The Cyrillic X, however, is rendered, as in the Prussian Instructions,
by ch.
As what might be considered a separate group of systems for
transliterating Cyrillic alphabets, we note the procedures employed by
the Roman-alphabetic Slavic peoples. The Slavic nations have the same
difficulties in representing particular Cyrillic letters^ in terms of
Roman letters as are observed in the English and French transliterations
of Cyrillic. But in particular cases the Roman-alphabetic Slavs pro-
ceed differently from the Roman-alphabetic non-Slavs. Thus the Czech,
Polish and Croatian systems, instead of using polygraphs, generally
employ diacritics, thus achieving a considerable abbreviation of the
1. Institut d'Etudes Slaves, Revue des Etudes Slaves, t. 1,

p. 310-312, 1921.
UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA - ECOLE DES ORADUES
written forms. As regards to the transliteration of vowels there are
only insignificant differences between the procedures of the Roman-
alphabetic Slavs and of other nations, though the divergencies become
much greater elsewhere. They transliterate in the following ways:
llic Czech Polish Slovenian Croatian

X z z z z
i* c c c c
VI <* c
in £
_
t£ st s
m _t
V
*t St St
sc sc Sc _t?
Only in one case, namely in Bulgarian, is there a double
notation for one and the same Cyrillic letter, to allow for a special
Bulgarian phonation of this letter.
The Polish spellings are individual and characteristic; this
language already had distinct letter combinations precisely and fully
representing certain Cyrillic letters (sz, cz, szcz, z) . In general
the European systems resemble very much the Croatian orthography,
differing from it only in a few cases (the transliteation of the
Ukrainian letters h, i, y, and of a few Serbian letters). Character-
istic of these systems is the avoidance of polygraphs.
Comparing now the American transliteration of Cyrillic with
the European (continental) systems, it would be very difficult to make
a definite statement as to which is better. If we proceed by a strict
1. Przepisy katalogowania w bibliotekach polskich, Warszawa,

1934.
J. Grycz, Skrocone przepisy katalogowania alfabetycznego,

interpretation of the principles of transliteration, then the European
systems would come out on top. They follow more precisely the one-
letter-for-one-letter rule than the American systems. The main diffe-
rences are found in the following Cyrillic letters:
American European
Cyrillic ALA-LC Ang-Am. Cutter NYPL Pruss. Czech Pol. Croat,
z• V
X zh zh zh zh z Z Z
X kh kh kh kh ch ch •ch ch
n ts ts ts tz c c c c
V
m sh sh sh sh s s s
sV V
m shch shch shch shch sc sc scv
sc
w iu iu iu yu iu ]U Du 3U
a ia ia ia ya ja ja ja ja
Finally/ one must add that these systems are created not for
their own sake, but for service. The Anglo-American tradition in trans-
literating Cyrillic is long and well established; the systems serve
their purposes very well, so that if they sin against "purity in
principle", this is in practice a negligible defect.
8. RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN SYSTEMS
Until the end of the 19th century there is not much that can be
said about the standard forms or systems of transliterating Cyrillic
into Roman, or Roman into Russian or Ukrainian. As regards to personal
and geographical names, practice varies. In the earlier centuries, the
16th and 17th, the only way of rendering foreign names into Ukrainian
or Russian (and vice versa) was transcription, i.e., their rendition
according to phonetic principles.

In the 18th century we observe the contrasting practice of
transliteration. Here, of course, the word transliteration should not
be understood precisely in the modern sense, but in any case the trend
was to follow the letter rather than the sound .
In the 19th century there was again strong emphasis on pronun-
ciation as the basis for the rendering of foreign names, and this ten-
dency, as far as personal and geographical names are concerned, is

2
still dominant .
As in Western Europe, the way for scholarly systems of trans-
literation was prepared by eminent linguists and philologists of the
middle and late 19th century - Lomonosov, Vostokov, Vasil'ev, Radlov,
Zaleman, Baudouin de Courtenay, Zhytets'kyi, Potebnia and others. It
was they who laid a strong foundation for comparative linguistic studies
and thus made it possible to construct transliteration systems based
on reasonably scientific principles
The oldest system of Romanization used in Russian was probably
that developed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, influenced
by and oriented on the French language and French systems.
1. L. Iivainen,"The Rendering of English Proper Names in

Russiani' in the Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 39, p. 137-147,
December, 1960.
2. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo iazyka, Toponomasti-

ka i Transkriptsiia, Moskva, Izd-vo Nauka, 1964. (A number of articles
dealing with the practical transcription of personal and geographical
names of foreign origin into Russian).

Since 1906 there have followed a number of different systems
developed either by scientific institutions or by individuals. Thus
the Academy of Sciences in 1906 introduced its first scheme of transli-
teration, which has been several times modified (1925, 1937, 1951, 1957).
The Russian Geographical Society produced its own system in 1911. Ano-
ther system widely used is that designated as OST-VKS, and known since
1935 as OST 84831.
Systems developed by individual philologists are those of
Teplov, Iakovlev and Larin, but they did not find application on any
large scale; they remained rather scholarly projects than systems in
use.
The Russian systems in general are influenced either by French
or by English-language considerations, and by the transliteration pro-
cedures in countries of French or English speech. Differences of
treatment affect about half the alphabet. The following letters are
treated everywhere the same:

a, 6, B, r, R, 3, K, JI,
M, H, o, n, p, c, T, <j)
for which the Roman equivalents are:
a, b, v, g, d, z, k, 1, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, f.
The other half of the alphabet reflects either English or French, and
sometimes even German influence. These influences are most visible in
1. A. A. Reformatskii, Transliteratsiia russkikh tekstov

latinskimi bukvami, in Voprosy iazykoznaniia, Akademiia nauk SSSR,
Institut iazykoznaniia, vol. 5, p. 96-103, Moskva, 1960.
OST-VKS = Obshchesoiuznyi Standart - Vsesoiuznyi Komitet po

Standartyzatsii.
the case of the fricatives and sibilants, as shown in the tabled:
Cyrillic OST NK Geog NK

VKS, 1935 vn. torg Soc. sviazi
zh zh j j
X
kh kh ch kh
c(ts) z tz tz (ts)
ch ch tsh tsh
SI
sh sh sh ch
sch sch stsh stch
The English-style transliteration is best visible in OST-VKS
(1935) system. The Narkomat "sviazi" system was oriented on French,
and transliterates the respective letters in the same way as the French
systems do (thus j , tch, ch, stch, ou, etc.). The German influence is
visible in the Geographical Society's treatment of the Cyrillic X,
which is rendered by the digraph ch (as in the Prussian Instructions).
A different approach is visible in the system devised by N. F.
IAkovlev (1920's). He avoids digraphs or polygraphs and applies dia-
critics to both vowels and consonants. This system was developed for
use by those peoples of the Soviet Union whose languages were to be
Romanized (a trend in the years 1923-1937).
The B. A. Larin system, also developed in the 1920's and re-
sembling the one mentioned above (no digraphs, no polygraphs), is
interesting on certain counts; first of all, for the transliteration
1. ibid, p. 102-103.

of Cyrillic X by the Roman letter x. The introduction of the German
letter fo to represent the Cyrillic m, (shch) is, of course, a nonsensical
procedure. The soft vowels are transliterated either by giving them
a circumflex accent or by the addition of j (thus a or ja, 6 or jo).
Another recently developed system is that of Teplov (1951) ,
which is actually a revision of the OST-VKS No. 8483 system of 1935.
From the viewpoint of strict transliteration principles this system is
unacceptable, if only for the reason that no distinction is made as
regards to the use of the apostrophe for the softening of consonants
in their different positions in the word; that is to say, no distinct-
ion between consonants followed by the "soft sign" or followed by soft
vowels. Such a treatment of softening creates difficulties in re-
transliteration. Unacceptable also is the treatment of the letter X,
which transliterates by the Roman letter x (as in Iakovlev's system).

2
The Academy of Sciences system (i.e. its various versions) is
oriented mainly on the Croatian latinica. The differences between its
successive versions affect only a few letters: x, dotted e, and the
palatalized vowels. The letter x is usually transliterated by ch.
Only the version of 1939, elaborated by Shcherba has for Cyrillic X I
the Roman h. Shcherba thought that the digraph ch, or the kh used
1. A. A. Reformatskii, op. cit., p. 100.
2. L. V. Shcherba,"Transliteratsiia latinskimi bukvami russ-

kikh familii i geograficheskikh nazvanii,"in Izvestiia Akademii nauk,
Otdel, literatury i iazyka, No. 3, Moskva, 1940.

in the Anglo-American systems, "contradicts the basic principles of
transliteration . Yet he himself does use such "contradictory" digraphs
in other cases, e.g.: je, jo, ji, s£, ju, ja. Cyrillic X repre-
sented by Roman h is the worst feature of Shcherba*s system. When
this procedure is applied to the Ukrainian and White Russian.alphabets,
the Roman h will not be available to represent the letter r
That is to say, if one transliterates Russian, Bulgarian and
Serbian x by kh, the h is left free so far as these three alphabets
are concerned. This free h is needed to represent Ukrainian and
White Russian r . In Shcherba*s system (1939) the letter h is used
for the Cyrillic X, thus blocking its use to represent the sound of
Ukrainian and White Russian r . The same mistake was committed in ISO/
R9 also.
Between the Ukrainian and White Russian on one hand, and the
Russian alphabet on the other, about 25 letters will be transliterated
in the same way. Seven or eight letters will be differently translite-
rated. As in the Russian practice, the rendition of foreign names into
Ukrainian (as well as into White Russian) was and still is done by trans
2
cription, that is, phonetically . In dictionaries of foreign languages
where the pronunciation is given, the simplified International Phonetic
Alphabet is used, and the transcription of foreign names is regulated

3
by rules issued bu the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences .
1. L. V. Shcherba, Izbrannye raboty po iazykoznaiiu i fonetike,

Leningrad, Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1958,' Vol. 1, p. 177:
2. I. Ohienko, Ridne pysannia, Druk. 00 Vasyliian, Zhovkva,1933
p. 96-110.
3. Akademiia nauk URSR, Ukrains'kyi pravopys,Kyiv, 1960, p.ll4-[L37
As regards to systems for transliterating (in the proper sense)
Ukrainian into Roman letters, there have been several attempts to deal
with the problem. The most used is probably the .'"International" system
for Cyrillic, which provides satisfactory equivalents for the uniquely
Ukrainian letters, i.e., for e and I, and for the characters e and ar
which have values different from those in Russian. The semivowel i
in isolation ( tt) is rendered by j,' Which letter is also used for soften-
ing purposes. The "controversial" Ukrainian X is rendered by German-
style ch; r by h, a n d t by g. The only questionable procedure is
the rendition of X by ch; otherwise the system is irreproachable .

2
This system is followed by J. Rudnyts'kyi , who has also elabo-
rated his own schemes of "practical transliteration" (i.e. transcription]

of Ukrainian into English, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese.
•a
Schemes such as that proposed by A. Zaharychuk0 are not reason-

able enough to be considered seriously.
1. W. K. Matthews, op. cit., p. 541.
2. J. Rudnyts'kyi, ,Chuzhomovni transliteratsii ukrains'kykh

nazv, Augsburg, 1948.
Anhiis'ka peredacha ukrains'.koi abetky, Augsburg, 1946.
3. A. Zaharychuk, The Ukrainian Alphabet, Winnipeg, 1961,

p. 28.

The system used by the publishers of the Ukrainian Encyclope-
dia is the most recent one. Basically it resembles the NYPL system,
with slight modifications in a few cases and diacritics omitted.
Differences as compared with the NYPL and L.C. systems occur1 in the
following letters:
Ukrainian Ukrainian NYPL L.

Enc.
6 ye (ie) ye ie
X. zh zh zh
ft y (i) i i
» yu (iu) yu iu
a ya (ia) ya ia
i* ts tz ts
One has to admit that the use of, for instance, the L.C. sys-
tem would be preferable and much safer, as far as exactness of trans-
literation and retransliteration is concerned. The omission of "ties"
used by L.C. may create, at least in one case, a difficulty of retrans-
literation.
In transliterating words like:

3rara, 3rap, araâHHfi, 3roêH, 3riHKa
if zh i s w r i t t e n without a " t i e " , would confuse with

acara, xap, acaflaHnii, JKO^CH, aanica,
which are words of q u i t e d i f f e r e n t meaning. There are indeed two
d i f f e r e n t names in Ukrainian t h a t could not be d i s t i n g u i s h e d a t a l l ,

namely 3 r a p c _ K n f i and 3Kapo_KHic.
1. Ukraine; a concise encyclopedia. Prepared by t h e Shevchen-

ko S c i e n t i f i c Society, Toronto, Toronto University P r e s s , 1964,
cf. p . x x x i i - x x x i i i .
2. I n i t i a l l y or otherwise.
True, the words affected are not many, but nevertheless they
exist. The omission of the "tie" over the zh might be tolerated in
some reference works such as encyclopedias, but it is unacceptable for
strict bibliographic purposes.
The second mistake of the UE system is in connection with the
letter y, which is to be used "initially or otherwise". This letter
y is used in the system for two different purposes, namely, to repre- I

M
sent the letter and for the softening of semi-vowels. Thus re-
transliteration from the Encyclopedia system is not "automatically"
simple. Modern systems of transliteration tend to be as simple and
clear as possible, therefore this complication and confusion, no matter
what the arguments for it, is regrettable. According to all principles
of transliteration, one and the same letter ought not to be used for
two different purposes.
The second system used in the said Encyclopedia is described
as "the system of international transliteration commonly used in Slavic
linguistics". This "international" system is used in the articles on
language and in some maps. Why two different systems should be used in
one work is not explained. Nor is it quite clear just what this
"international system" is. W. K. Matthews recognizes only one Inter-
national system, namely, the "Czech-style" Latin transliteration of
Cyrillic.

But the system employed in the Encyclopedia (in linguistic articles and
in maps) is not the same as this International system recognized by
Matthews.
9. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
How many "international" systems there are for the translitera-
tion of Cyrillic alphabets is an open question. An "international"
system would be one that is internationally used. Yet L . C , for instance
which is actually used internationally, is not termed "international".
The same could be said with regard to the system used by the Revue des
Etudes Slaves, or the System used by the Slavonic and East European
1
Review, or the system developed by 0. Hujer , and perhaps others.
Nevertheless there are at least two systems that could be
regarded as international in a proper sense. The first is that evolved
in the 19th century and known as the "Czech-style" or International sys-
tem; the second one, that which was introduced by ISO in 1955.
The International, or Czech-style, system originated in Bohemia
thanks to the comparative study of Slavonic languages that began there
early in the 19th century. It is generally used for Indo-European and
Slavonic linguistics in Central as well as in Western Europe.- It_<. basis
is the Czech alphabet, which has a long tradition of development and a
dominant position among the other Roman-alphabetic Slavic languages.
1. W. K. Matthews, op. cit., p. 535.
Slavonic Review, vol. 1, no. 1, p. vi-vii, 1922.

Transliteration of.Russian, in Slavonic and East European Review
n ,T1
I- voIn j "" °° i P •* ""'•'•' j " i n o °
The International system is the best one for transliterating Old
Cyrillic, as it combines brevity of form and clarity of representation.
For the modern Cyrillic (national) alphabets it provides a good
coverage, resorting for this purpose to both diacritics and digraphs.
The main difference between the International and other systems is that
it uses more diacritics and less letter combinations. Comparison with,
for instance, the British system (BSI) will show this very well in the
following cases:
British: zh, kh, ch, sh, shch

Intern.: z, ch, c, s, sc
Here the International uses only one digraph (ch). In other cases it
resorts to diacritics, in places where the British system uses digraphs
with h.
The only digraphs the International system uses are dz, ch, dz
(Macedonian), ch, st (Bulgarian), ch (White Russian), ch, sc (Ukrai-
nian), ch, sc (Russian) and the j-combinations used to represent the
soft vowels. As compared with other systems this is not excessive. All
other alphabetic problems are solved with the help of diacritical marks.
The International system is certainly one _pf the best ever devised. Its
features are clarity and simplicity. It is based on a strong foundation
(the Czech alphabet) and as such is more easily acceptable to users of
national Cyrillic alphabets.
The second system in question is the IS0/R9 . This system was
1. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO

Recommendation R9. International'bystem for the Transliteration of
Cyrillic Characters. 1st ed., (Geneva), 1955.
CYRILLIC ALPHABETS 78.
initiated by the International Standards Associations (ISA), the pre-
decessor of International Standards Organization (ISO). The draft of
the scheme was ready in 1939, but because of the outbreak of war it
failed to secure international acceptance. When the ISO was established
after the war, its Technical Committee 46 (Documentation) took over the
work on a uniform system of transliterating Cyrillic alphabets. Study of
the scheme began in 1947 and ended in 1954, when it was accepted at the
ISO plenary meeting in Brussels, June 1954. It was published in October
1955.
The system includes tables for the transliteration of Bulgarian,
Russian, Ukrainian, White Russian, and Serbian. The Macedonian alphabet
is not included, but a note is added to the effect that this language may
be transliterated in the same way as Serbian.
The principles of transliteration as set forth by ISO are worth
our attention, since they represent the fundamentals not only for Cyril-
lic alphabets, but for transliteration in general. Briefly they are as
follows:
1. Transliteration is the representation of signs

or characters of one alphabet by those of another.
Its purpose is to make texts written in non-Latin
characters recordable in Roman characters, mainly
for bibliographic and library purposes.
2. Transliteration represents characters, not sounds.

It is the equation of characters as they are
written, and not according to how they are pronounced,
or what etymological value they have.
3. Transliteration should be automatic; that is it

should be performable by anyone able to identify
the language, or rather the characters to be trans-
literated.
4. A character or sign of an alphabet should always

be transliterated in the same way, and always
by the same equivalent. Wherever possible the
"one-letter-for-one-letter" principle should be
maintained. But in certain cases combinations
of letters may be used, that is, where the Roman
alphabet offers no "other reasonable possibility".
5. Diacritical marks may be used, but only such as

may be..easily typed on a Roman-alphabetic type-
writer .
These principles are no new creation. They reflect and recapi-
tulate the practice already established by systems previously developed.
ISO's merit is that it has definitely and clearly set forth these prin-
ciples as a guide for the future.
In deciding on this system of transliteration, the ISO probably
anticipated that some countries would hesitate to accept it, and added
an "escape clause". It is laid down that
... the standard international system for the

transliteration of Cyrillic characters may be
supplemented by a recognized national system
of transliteration, based on the characteristics
of the non-Slav language concerned.
This exception practically excludes the possibility of a uniform
system for international use, since many countries which have long-
established systems would prefer (for practical reasons) to take advan-
tage of this "escape clause". It appears, however, that the "escape"
facility is intended only for "non-Slav" languages; thus Czechs, Poles,
and Croatians, who are Roman-alphabetic Slavs, are not to make use of it
no matter what they would like to do.
1. Ibid., p. 4.

The ISO system includes 44 Cyrillic letters found in various
alphabets, and it is based on the Hrvatska latinica. There are indeed
only very slight differences between the Croatian system (with which one
may include the International system) and the IS0/R9. They are mainly
in the employment of diacritics.
The ISO system is constructed according to stated principles.
It is easy to use, its diacritics are available on typewriters, and it
permits retransliteration. For the sensitive distinction in Ukrainian
and White Russian (the letter t ) it provides the Roman equivalent g.
But one does not know why this equivalent is provided at all, since the
note attached to the said letter says that "No. 5 is no longer utilized
in Ukrainian or in White Russian". If this letter is no longer in use,
then the equivalent is not needed. But indeed it is not so simple. The
letter in question is still used in a great many Ukrainian and White
Russian publications, and it was used for a long time before it was
abolished (by Soviet fiat). Therefore the note should at least have
briefly explained this fact.
The second remark that could be made is on the treatment of the
Cyrillic x. This too has been taken over from the Croatian system.
The Serbs are accustomed to this transliteration, since it is used in
the Croatian latinica. Nevertheless, where other Cyrillic alphabets are
concerned it would be more practical to continue with the kh digraph,
as used in Amglo-American and French systems. Then the free h could be
used for the Ukrainian and White Russian letter now transliterated by g.
It is to be noted that in all Russian systems except Shcherba's (1939)

the Russians have transliterated this letter properly - more aptly than
ISO.
As is known, two major countries, the United States and Great
Britain, did not acdept the IS0/R9 system. Whatever their reasons,
the fact is that IS0/R9 has to this extent failed of acceptance, and
this certainly affects its international standing. Perhaps it was
this that moved ISO/TC 46 to take another look at the system. Perhaps
it will eventually be brought into an acceptable shape .
The characteristic of the system is avoidance of letter-combi-
nations (digraphs, or polygraphs). Like the International system the
ISO system endeavours to solve inter-alphabetic equations by using
diacritical marks. Its difference from the Croatian system or from the
International is minimal. As regards to transliterating Ukrainian
there are only three letters which are not identically transliterated
in all three systems. They are:
Ukrainian IS0/R9 Croatian International
r h
g g
*" _ i g
X h h ch
Elsewhere there are no differences. The ISO system, as said,
follows the Croatian style of Cyrillic transliteration. The basis is
sound, and if ISO is finally able to effect a few corrections and to
persuade the greatest producers of bibliographic tools (the U.S.A. and
Great Britain) to accept it, the system will be a great success.
1. F.I.D. News Bulletin, vol. 13, p. 48, 1963.

CHAPTER III
TABLES
How many systems of transliteration of Cyrillic exist in
current practice is not known. But there are about a dozen schemes
that are widely known and used by major libraries or bibliographic
centres.
The tables here reproduced represent a kind of a cross-
section of transliteration schemes for both Classical or Old Church
Cyrillic and the modern national Cyrillic alphabets (Bulgarian, Mace-
donian, Moldavian, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian and White Russian).
For some of these alphabets, especially the Russian, there
exist more than two dozen different schemes of transliteration; other
alphabets, such as the Moldavian, have nowhere been transliterated.
In general, these tables reflect two basic practices: the
Anglo-American and the European. Each one derives from a particular
attitude and point of view on transliteration as an inter-alphabetic
operation.
In many cases the systems differ insignificantly, mostly as
regards to the diacritical marks, but in other cases there are quite
remarkable distinctions. These are easier realized and understood
when put in parallel with the other systems.
Some schemes fail to transliterate particular letters (e.g.
Prussian Instructions omits the Old Cyrillic letter S; Vatican omits
the letter *t
Some schemes transliterate more than they should (e.g. B.M.
includes in Serbian the letter^ = shch, which this alphabet actually

TABLES 83
does not possess). Elsewhere it sometimes happens that a certain letter
is accidentally omitted (e.g. B.M. omits in Serbian the letter B- v ) .
The sources from which these tables have been taken are listed
at the end of the chapter, except the sources for Classical Cyrillic,
which follow immediately after the tables of transliteration for that
alphabet.

TABLES 84
CLASSICAL CYRILLIC ALPHABET
Cyrillic ALA-LA B.M. Pruss. Austr. Czech Vatican Slovenian

1908 Instr. Code Code Code Code
Cutter
1. fl A a a a a a a a
2. E B b b b b b b b
3. B R V V V V V V V
4. rr g g g g g g g
5. AA d d d d d d d
6. 6 . e e e e e e e
V V
7. JK * z zh Z Z Z Z £
8. S s z(dz) s dz dz dz dz
9. 3 3 z z Z z z z z
10. H H i i i i i i i
11. iv i i i i i i I
12. K K k k k k k k k
13. AA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. M. M m m m m m m m
15. 11 .1 n n n n n n n
16. 0 o o o o o o o o
17. nn P P P P P P P
18. Pp r r r r r r r
19. G c s s s s S s s
20. T T t t t t t t t
21. rv* u u u u u u u
22. <D> f f f f f f f
23. *X h(ch) kh ch ch ch kh h
24. Q w o o o 5 o o 9
25. qiiM St shch St It St St ft
26. Hn c
V
ts c c
V
c ts c
27. HM
c ch c C c <r
V
V
C
28. I U ui S sh s S s S S
1. No. 21 - Occurs also as oy , and %

TABLES 85
Cyrillic ALA-LA B.M. Purss. Austr. Czech Vatican Slovenian

1908 Instr. Code Code Code Code
Cutter
29. il s 6 u(med. ) u u u
30. Til •_•' y ui y y y y
V
31. I. k b » 1
V
1 1
1
32. "fr -k e ye e e e e e
33. 10 w ju yu ju ]U 3U iu ju
34. ffl a. ja ya ja ja ja ia ja
35. 16 re je ye je je je e je
36. /ft A j§ § § § § § e
37. /T\ * a a
>
a a
t a
9
38. _ft IA j§ ye 3§ 3§ :§ i« j§
bT\ IK
39. J a
y a• 3 a
3 a
3 a i a
j?
40. 3s ks X X X X x
41. *• t ps ps ps ps ps ps
42. 0 A * th f th th f th
43. v *•; V i y _' y y y
ALA-LA (1908), Cutter - transliterate according to A. Leskien,

Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslawischen) Sprache, 2. Aufl.,
Weimar, 1886; Letters 8 and 23 are also transliterated by Leskien as
dz and ch.
B.M.: - British Museum, Rules for Compiling the Catalogues of
Printed Books, Maps, and Music in the British Museum, London, 1936.
Pruss. Instr.: - The Prussian Instructions. Rules for the Al-
phabetical .Catalogs of the Prussian Libraries. Tr. by Andrew D. Osborn,
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1938.
Austr. Code: - Vorschrift fur die Verfassung des alphabetischen
Nominal-Zettelkatalogs der Druckwerke der k.k. Hofbibliothek, Wien, 1901.
Czech Code: - J. Borecky, Pravidla katalogu zakladniho, V Praze,
1925. ~"
Vatican Code: - Vatican Library, Rules for the Catalog of Printed
Books, tr. by Thomas J. Shanahan (and others), Chicago, ALA, 1948:
Slovenian Code: - Pravila za katalogieacijo v znanstvenih
knjiznicah: Abecedni imenski katalog, Ljubljana, 1947.

TABLES 86
CLASSICAL CYRILLIC ALPHABET
Cyrillic Croatian Rumanian Hungarian Polish Lehr- Internation-

(Kniezsa) A B Splawinski al
a
1. " a a a a a a a
2. K K b b b b b b b
3. n B v v v v v v v
r r
4. g g g g g g g
5. A A d d d d d d d
6. 6 I e e e e e e e
7. J K « _ j £ z Z z 2
8. S s p dz dz dz z_ ^ dz
9. 3 3 z z z z z z z
10. H H 1 1 1 1 jL 1 1
ii. 'i Y r _ i i i i i
12. K K k k k k k k k
13. A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. M M m m m m m m m
15. N H n n n n n n n
16. 0 © o o o o o o o
1 7 . n n p p p P P P P
18. P p r r r r r r r
19. G c s s s s s s s
20. T T t t t t t t t
x
21. V u u u u u u u
22. * $ f f f f f f f
23. * X* h h ch ch ch x ch
2i+.G)w5 5 0 o o o o
2 5 . IP iM -t st st st s^ st 5t
26. U H c £ C C C C C
27. 1 •• c c c £ £ £ <T
28 111 in s s s s £ s s*
1. P o l i s h B, t r a n s l i t e r a t e s oy a s ou, andfc' a s ou.

TABLES 87
Cyrillic Croatian Rumanian Hungarian Polish Lehr- Inter-

(Kniezsa) A B Splawinski national
» » » 5
29. T» * a/u <& u
30. t l TJ1 y ai y y y y y
31. h k t
r/u b • c b 1
V V
32. "B - e ea
V
s e e e e
33. 10 W ju IU ju ju ju ju ju
34. M a ja ia ja ja ja ja ja
35. 16 KS je je je je je je
3>
36. /ft A e ea § § ia § §
37. & * 9 a a a U 9 9
38. W\ IA j§ j§ j§ j§
3g. W\ I* j
3 a iu J9
? j?
40. si a ks ks ks ks
r1
X
41. *" t ps ps ps ps ps
42. 0 A f th f th ph' t/f
43. V v
•
y y y y 1 V
i
* ^ i
* In Rumanian only; there are also the following variants of

Alfabetul cirilic in latinized Rumanian: No."6 - ie"(after vowels),
No. 8- z, No. 23- ch, No. 24- O, No. 29- a, u, No. 30- l, a, No. 32- e
No. 36- e, ia, e, No. 37- I, u, No. 40- t, No. 41- i; cit. after the
[British Standards Institution, Transliteration of Cyrillic and Greek
Characters, London, 1958, p. 15.
Croatian: - S. Juric,"Transliteracija cirilickich azbuka" in

Vestnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske, vol. 1, p-. 225-244, 1950.
Rumanian: -W. K. Matthews,"The Latinisation of Cyrillic Charac-
ters" in The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 30, p. 531-548, 1952.
t Hungarian: - I. Kniezsa, Cirillbetus szlav szovegek nemzetkozi

tudomanyos at-rasa, Budapest, 193?;
Polish A: - Przepisy katalogowania w bibljotekach polskich. I.
Alfabetyczny katalog drlikow, Warszawa, 1934"".
Polish B: - B. Horodyski,"0 transliteracji druko'w cyrylickich" in
Przeglad Bibljoteczny, vol. 16, p. 171-179, 1948.
Lehr-Splawinski: - T. Lehr-Splawinski, Zarys gramatyki jezyka sta-

ro-cerkiewno-slowianskiego, Poznan, 1923. — —
International: - W. K. Matthews, op. cit. sunra.
TABLES 88
BULGARIAN ALPHABET
Bulgarian ALA-LC B.M. Science BSI Pruss. Vati- Inter- ISO

1949 Abs. Instr. can national
l.A, a a a a a a a a a
2. B, d b b b b b b b b
3.B, B V V V V V V V V
4.T,r g g g g g g g g
5.JI, fl d d d d d d d d
6. E , e e e e e e e e e
7. aj, £ zh zh zh zh _ z z z
8. 3, 3 z z z z z z z z
9. H, H i i i i i i i i
V V V
io. a, ft 1 i 1 1 j 1 j j
11. K, K k k k k k k k k
12. JI, JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. M, M m m m m m m m m
14. H, H n n n n n n n n
15. Q, & o o o o o o o o
ie. n, n P P P P P P P P
17. P, P r r r r r r r r
18. C, c s s s s s s s s
19. T, T t t t t t t t t
20. y , y u u u u u u u u
21.®, $ f f f f f f f f
22.X, X kh kh kh kh ch kh ch h
23.11, I* ts ts ts ts c ts c c
• V
n
24. H , ch ch ch ch £ c c
c
V
25.m, m sh sh sh sh S s s
s st
26.m, m sht shch sht sht St it st
H
27.fc, <b u/" u/a u u a a
> » i
28. b, fa
.-*
'/» I .-»
'/'
29. K), X) iu yu yu yu ju IU ju ju
.A
30.H, H ia ya ya ja ia ja ja
If ya _
U u u a u
/ft t
No. 19, the lette* t, - in BSI only, - when followed by s,

is divided by a hyph en (t- s).
No. 27, the letter b , is trarisliterated by u in the middle of

a word (ALA) ; by u or a when it represents a vowe 1-sound, and < dis-
regarded otherwise (B .M.); disre garded when final (BSI); a- when medial,
disregarded when final (ISO).

UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA » ECOLE DES ORADUES
TABLES 89
MACEDONIAN ALPHABET
Macedonian BSI Internat. ISO
I. A, a a a a
2. B, 6 b b b
3. B, _ V V V
4. r, r g g g
5.
6.
£. fl d d d
r, r € g g'/g»
7. E, e e ew e
8. 3K, JK z Z _•
9. 3, 3 z z z
15. S, s dz dz dz
:II. Hi H i i i
12. J , J j j j
13. K, K k k k
14. JI, JI 1 1 1
15. Jb , * lj 1' lj
16. M, M m m m
17. H, H n n n
18. H> , H, nj n' nj
19. o, 0 o o o
20. n, n P P P
21. p, P r r r
22. c» cT s s s
23. t t t
24. It, re «' * k'/k'
25. y, y u u u
26. $» $ f f f
27. x,X h ch h
28. Ui I* c c c
'29. H, *I C <r c
30. u,Q dz*
s
&£ dz
—
31. in, m s s
32. > , » 9
The letters p , K and S are the only characters by which

Macedonian differs from the Serbian alphabet.

TABLES 90
MOLDAVIAN ALPHABET
Moldavian BSI
1. A, a a
2. B, 6 b
3. B, B v
4.
r, r g (gh before e and i)
5. Rf A d
6. Et e
e
7. 2K, JK j
8. 3t 3 z
9. Hr K
i
10. a f ft i
11. K» K c (ch before e and i)
12. JI » J I . 1
13. M> M m
14. Hr H n
15. 0t o o
16.
n > n P
17. p, r P r
18.
19.
c ,, oT s
t
Ti
20. y .- y u
21. $ 1 $ f
22. X, X h
23.
24.
u. I* Xc
*i, T_
25. ni, in
26. hi :, _i 4
27. £, b i
w
28. 3, 3 a
29. D, K> iu
30
a, a ia
IS0/R9 does not mention this alphabet. This transliteration

is shown under the heading "Modern Cyrillic Transliteration (IS0/R9)"
in BSI's Transliteration of Cyrillic and Greek Characters, London,
1958. It is based on modern Rumanian orthography.

TABLES 91
RUSSIRN ALPHABET
Russian ALA Cutter ALA-LC NYPL Chemical Sl.R. BGN

1885 1949 Abs.
1. A , & a a a a a a a
2. B , - b b b b b b b
3. B r B v/f V V V V V V
4. r , r g/h g/h g g/v g g g
5. M, , a d d d d d d d
6. E , e e/ye e e e/ye/io e e e/ye
7. E r e e io/e e e/ye
8. JK r X. zh zh zh zh zh z zh
9. 3t 3 z z z z z z z
10. H, H i i i i i i i
V V
11. H,> ft i 1 1
1
l j y
12. K> K k k k k k k k
13. JI, JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. M M m m m m m m m
15. H H n n n n n n n
16. 0, 0 o o o o o o o
17. n , n P P P P P P P
18. P P r r r r r r r
19. C, c s s s s s s s
20. T, T t t t t t t t
21. y , y u u u u u u u
22. $, $ f f f f f f f
23. X,» x kh kh kh kh kh kh kh
24. Et, I* tz ts ts tz ts c ts
25. H , q tch tch ch ch ch £ ch
26. IU, in sh sh sh sh sh S sh
27. m, m shtch shtch shch shch shch S_ shch
28.1b, «_ » V c » i)
29. hi • -i y y y y y y y
30. B, b > ' or, » i _ > >
V
31. 3, 3 e e e e e
e
32. K>, K) yu iu/u iu yu yu ju yu
3 3 . H , fl ya ia ia ya ya ja ya
No. 4, the letter r, is transliterated by ALA 1885 and Cutter

as h, when it represents the original foreign h.
NYPL transliterates the letter r by the letter v when in

genetive form.

TABLES 92
RUSSIAN ALPHABET
Russian B.M. PCGN BSI Science Etudes Pruss. Vatican

Abs. Slaves Instr.
1. A, a a a a a a a a
2. B, 6 b b b b b b b
3. B, B V V V V V V V
4. r, r g g/v g g g g g
5. £, fl d d d d d d d
6. E, e e e e e e e e
7. E, e e e e
8. JK, XC zh j zh zh z z _"
9. 3, 3 z z z z z z z
10. K, H i i i
V
i i i i
11. tf, id i i 1 i j j l
12. K, K k k k k k k k
13. JI, JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. M, M m m m m m m m
15. H, H n n n n n n n
16. 0 o o o o o o
o, o
17. n, n P P P P P P P
18. p, P r r r r r r r
19. G s s s s s s
c, T
s
t t t t
20. T, t t t
21. y, y u u u u u u u
22. $» * f f f f f f f
X kh/h kh kh ch ch kh
23. x, kh
24. u, II ts ts ts ts c c~ ts
25. ^, SI ch ch ch ch c _ c
26. m, m
m,
sh .sh sh sh _ 5 5
27. m shch shch shch shch s^ £_- £(!
28. Tb» T> it c >
29. BI f-i ui i y y y y u
30. B, b > 5 5 » t i i
31. 3, 3 e e e' e e e
32. 10, K) yu yu yu yu ju ju iu
33. fl, H ya ya ya ya ja ja ia
No. 4. PCGN transliterates1 the letter f by v when in

genetive form.
No. 23. PCGN transliterates. the letter x by h when it

representes the original foreign h.

TABLES 93
RUSSIAN ALPHABET
Russian Acad. of Science's G e o g . OST-VKS I A k o v - L a r i n C r o a t . I n - ISO

1906 1939 1957 Soc. No.8483 l e v ter-
nal
1.A, aa a a a a a a a a a
2.E,<5 b b b b b b b b b b
3.B,B V V V V V V V V V V
4.r,r g g g g g g g g g g
5.JJ[,fl d d d d d d d d d d
6.E,e e/je e/je e/je e e/je e e e je/e e
7.fi,e 'o/o/jo e/je ' o / o / j o !e/je e/je 6/jo o/jo
—* V — _ z'
8JK,;K z z Z j zh _ £ z
9.3,3 z z Z Z z z z z z z
L0.H,H i / j i i/ji i/ji i i i i i i i
Ll.K,ft j j j i j j j j j j
L2.K,K k k k k k k k k k k
L3.JI,JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
L4.M,M m m m m m m m m m m
15.H,H n n n n n n n n n n
16.0,0 o o o o o o o o o o
I7.n,n P P P P P P P P P P
L8.P,P r r r r r r r r r r
19.C,C s s s s s s s s s s
20.T,T t t t t t t t t t t
2i.y,y u u u u u u u u u u
22.<±,,<j> f f f f f f f f f f
2 3 . X , X ch h ch ch kh X X h ch h
24.U,i; c c c tz c/ts 5 c c c c
25.^,^ c <r C
V
t s h ch £ c c c c
26.111,111 s
V*
_* S sh sh s- _• _* S r
27.HUm, ••V
SC __• SC stsh sch sc £ s'cT & u
28.B,b - - J i
j' - » - or'
29.BI^. y y y y y y y y y y
30.B,b » i
i ,/j j j i/j Vj 5
V
31.3,3 e e e e e - ae e e e
32.K),K> 'u/ju 'i/ju ju ju ju u/ju u/ju ju ju ju
33.H,H 'a/ja 'ia/ja ja ja ja a/ja a/ja ja ja ja
No. 7 - ' i o C o ,e) a f t e r consonants except q , m, x, m

= jo (1906), je (1939) - otherwise
- o ( 1 9 5 7 ) a f t e r *I, m , a c , m
=
jo - i n i t i a l l y , a f t e r vowe I s a n d fa, i•

r TABLES
94
SERBIAN ALPHABET
Serbian ALA-LC B.M. BSI Science PCGN Vati- Pruss.Croat.' ISO

1949 Abs. can Instr.
1. A, a a a a a a a a a a
2. B, 6 b b b b b b b b b
3. B, B V V V V V V V V V
4.
5.
r, r g
d'
g
d
g
d
g
d
g
d
g
d
g
d
g
d
g
d
fl, fl
6. T3 T> i g _• j ' dy/d'/j & d' _" _ •
7. E, e e e e e e e e e e
V
8 . X, ac Z if * zh zh Z _" z z"
9. 3, 3 z z z z z Z z z z
1 0 . H, H i i i i i i i i i
11. J, j j j j y y j j j j
1 2 . K, K k k k k k k k k k
1 3 . JI, JI 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1
1 4 . Jb , * lj lj lj i» ly/1' lj 1' lj lj
1 5 . M, M m m m m m m m m m
1 6 . H, H n n n n n n n n n
1 7 . H> , H» nj nj nj n> ny/n» nj n nj nj
18. 0 o o o o o o o o o
19.
o, n
n,
20. p, P
P
r
P
r
P
r
P
r
P
r
P
r
P
r
P
r
P
r
21. c s s s s s s s s s
c,
2 2 . T, T t t t t t t t t t
23. 'F>,
24. y, y
n c
u
c
u
c
u
t'
u
ty/t'/ch c
u u
c
u
c
u
c
u
25. $ , $ f f f f f f f f f
h h h kh kh/h h h h h
26. x, X
2 7 . U , II c c c ts ts c c c c
2 8 . q, q <r c C ch ch cT C cT C
t
2 9 . Mt LI dz dz dz" j j d_r g az d£
3 0 . in, m s~ s sT sh sh s" £ S s
ALA-LC corresponds exactly to the Croatian transliteration of

Serbian. Nof'PCGN transliterates by ch at the end of a word, other-
wise by ty or t».

TABLES 95
UKRAINIAN ALPHABET
Ukrainian ALA-LC B.M. PCGM BSI Pruss. Vatican Ecole nat.

1949 (RGS.II) Instr. des }angues
orient, vivan-
tes
1. A, a a a a a a a a
2. B, 6 b b b b b b b
3. B, B V V V V V V V
*. r, r h h h h g h h
5. r, r g g g g g g g
6. JI, JI d d d d d d d
7. E, e e e e e e e e
8. S, s ie e ye ye je je
V
9. K, XC zh zh j zh Z z
z
10. 3, 3 z z z z z z z
11. H, H
y i i y i i y
12. I i i i i i i i i
*
13. -, i I i yi yi *•
14. ft , ft l i •_ 1 j i jl
16. JI t JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. Mf M m m m m m m m
18. H, H n n n n n n n
19. 0, 0 o o o o o o o
20. n, n
P P P P P P P
21. P, P r- r r r r r r
22. C, c s s s s s s s
24. y» y u u u u u u u
25. <£ , $ f f f f f f f
26. X, x kh kh kh kh ch kh kh
27- LJ , II ts ts ts ts c ts c
V V
28. q, -^ ch ch Ch ch C c
V V c
29. in , m sh sh sh sh S
s s
30. m , m shch shch shch shch sc sc sc
3 1 . 10 , w iu yu yu yu ju iu ju
H
32. a » ia ya ya ya ja ia ja
f 1 ?
33. b » , '/' t
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

TABLES 96
UKRAINIAN ALPHABET
Ukrainian Etudes Hungar. Croatian Rudnyc- AUA-UE Inter- ISO

Slaves KniCzsa kyj national
1. A > a a a a a a a a
2. B r 6 b b b b b b b
3. B i B V V V V V V V
4. r , r h h g h h h g
s. r , r g
d
g
d d
g
d
g
d
g
d
g
d
6. JI , JJ;
7.E f « e e e e e e e
8. e, e je e ye ye/ie ye je
9.X i « Z _ zh zh z z
10. 3,> 3 z z
a*
z z z z z
11. H » H y y y y y y y
12. I r i i i i i i i i
13. 1 _ ji i yi yi/i yi ji
1 4 . ft . ft j j j y/y y j j
1 6 . JI > JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. M, M m m m m m m m
18. H,. H n n n n n n n
19. 0, o o o o o o o o
20. n, n P P P P P P P
21. P, P r r r r r r r
22. C:,r C s s s s s s s
24. y , y u u u u u u u
25. $, * f f f f f f f
26.X, X ch ch h kh kh ch h
2 7 - It, II c c c C t4,c c c
V
28.% ^ ** c
29. in, m c
s S
c
V
ch
sh
ch
sh
C
s
<r
V
s s
30. m, m sc SC sc shch shch sc &£
3 1 . K), » ju ju ju yu yu/iu ju ju
32. H, si ja ja ja ya ya/ia ja ja
i > » > t i
33. b 9

TABLES 97
WHITE RUSSIAN ALPHABET
White Russian ALA-LC BSI Polish Croat. Intern. ISO

1949
1. A , a a a a a a a
2 . B f <5 b b b b b b
3. B , B V V V V V V
4. r , r h h h s h h
5. r , r g g g g g I
6. J} f A d d d d d d
7. E t e e e e e e e
8.E » « io e e e "jo e
9.K r X zh zh Z _ _ z
10. 3 » 3 z z z z z z
11. I , i i i i i i i
i2. a . ft r l j j j j
13. K , K k k k k k k
1 4 . JI r JI 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. M ( M m m m m m m
16. H » H n n n n n n
17. 0 . o o o o o o o
18. n » n P P P P P P
19. P . P r r r r r r
20. C,> o s s s s s s
2 1 . T, T t t t t t t
22. y , y u u u u u u
23.^,» y u w u u u u
24. $ , $ f f f f f f
2 5 . X ,r X kh kh ch h ch h
2 6 . 1 1 , I* ts ts c C c c
V
27- % tl ch ch C £ c C
2 8 . m, _t sh sh s s _• s
2 9 . B_" , b i y y y y y y
1 / / t
30. B, b 'or' ' or'
—
31. 3 , 3 ei u e e e e e
3 2 . D , K) yu ju ju ju ju
3 3 . fl, a ia ya ja ja ja ja

•'• •
TABLES 98
KARADZIC'S TABLE
Karadzic's transliteration of Serbian into Croatian, Czech,
Polish, Hungarian, German, Italian, French and English.
Alphabeti serbici
cum viciniorum popularium et aliis cultioris
Europae alphabetis parallelismus .
Serbian Croat. Bohem. Polon. Hungar. German Ital. Gall. Angl

l.A,a a a a a a a a
2. E,6 b b b b b b b b
3. B,B V w w V w V V V
4.1\r g g g g g g g g
5. R,A d d d d d d d d
6.*B,$ dj d' gy
7.E,e e e e e e e e e
8. JK,2C Z _" z zs j s
9. 3,3 Z z z z s s z z
10. M,H i i i i i i i ee/y
11. I,i j j j j j j i y
12. K,K k k k k k c c k
1 3 . JI, JI1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. JI) ,Jb lj 1 iy gl il
15.M,M m m m m m m m m
16.H,H n n n n n n n n
17. a» ,a nj n n ny gn gn
18. 0,0 o o o o o o o o
LL9.n,n P P P P P P P P
bo.P,P r r r r r r r r
21. C,0 s s s sz ss s s s
22. T,T t t t t t t t t
23.% c f ty
p4.y,y u u u u u u ou oo
b5.*,$ f f f f f f f f
E6. X,X h ch ch h ch
27. U ^ c c c cz z z
28.H,^ c c cz cs tsch c ch
29.9,y dz/g ge j
30. _I,m s _• sz s sch sc ch sh
B,b
1. Vuk S. Karadzic, Lexicon serbico-germanico-latinum, (4th ed.),

3elgradi, Tipographia Regni Jugoslaviae, 1935; the 1st ed. of this Lexi-
con appeared in 1818.
TABLES 99
The transliteration tables of the modern Cyrillic alphabets,
(besidesthose already mentioned under the "Classical Cyrillic") have
been taken from the following sources:
ALA 1885 - Library Journal, V. 10, p. 302-311, 1885.
ALA-LC - A.L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries, 2d ed.
Chicago, A.L.A., 1949, p. 246.
AUA-UE - Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the

United States, New York, 1953- ; cf. Vol. 8, p. 235, 1960.
UA - Ukraine; a concise encyclopedia, Toronto, Univ. of Toron-
to Pr., 1964, p. xxxiii
BSI - British Standards Institution, Transliteration of Cyrillic and

Greek Chraracters, London, 1958.
Chem. Abst. - Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, V. 15, No. 10,

May 20, 1937.
Ecole Nationale des Langues Orientales Vivantes - S. Juric, Translite-

racija Cirilickih Azbuka, in Vjesnik, Bibliotekara Hravatske,
V. 1, No. 4, 1950, p. 225-244.
Etudes Slaves - Revue des Etudes Slaves, Paris, 1921, V. 1.
NYPL - Rosemary Neiswender, Russian Transliteration, Sound and Sense,

in Special Libraries, V. 53, p. 37-41, January 1962.
PCGN - Royal Geographical Society, Alphabets of Foreign Languages,

London, 1933.
Rudn yc'kyj - IA. Rudnyts'kyi, Chuzhomovni transliteratsii ukrains'kykh

nazv, Heidelberg, 1948.
Russian schemes - A. A. Reformatskii, Transliteratsiia russkikh tekstov

latinskimi bukvami, in Voprosy iazykoznaniia, Moskva, Akademiia
nauk SSSR, 1960, V. 5, p. 96-103.
Sc. Abst. - Science Abstracts,Electrical Engineering Abstracts (Section

B of Science Abstracts), V. 56, p. x-xl, 1953.
Slavic Review - W. K. Matthews, op. cit.

CONCLUSIONS
The relationship between the Cyrillic and Roman-style alphabets
has a long history. This inter-alphabetic relationship is also one of
the serious problems of today, as far as bibliographies, catalogues and
other reference tools are concerned.
For long centuries, transcript ion was used by the Roman-alphabe-
tic nations for the rendering of Cyrillic-alphabetic words and names,
not only for linguistic, educational or other similar purposes, but for
purely bibliographical purposes as well.
Transcription is what is still employed today by the Cyrillic-
alphabetic nations when dealing with the Roman alphabet, particularly
in the case of names. This manner of reproducing foreign names by Cy-
rillic characters will probably continue for a long time to come, since
in the Cyrillic-writing world one is accustomed to read what is written
... what one actually sees. This is not at all the case in the Roman-
alphabetic world, where one writes, for instance, Worcester or Proulx, I
and then reads about half of what is written.
The Roman-alphabetic world, in view of the discrepancy between
speech and its graphic representation, has opted for another method of
rendering foreign (including Cyrillic) words or names ... the method of
transliteration.
The difference between transcription and transliteration was I
long ago realized, but a clear distinction of one from the other was I
first made by the Copenhagen Conference in 1925 . I
1. Otto Jespersen, Phonetic transcription and transliteration;]

proposals of the Copenhagen Conference, April 1925, Oxford, 1926.
CONCLUSIONS 101
The object of this clarification was to define the purposes of
each of these two operations, as founded on different principles and
having two different aims. Such clarification is, however, of more
practical use for the Roman-style alphabets than the Cyrillic. It was
set forth by the Conference and accepted as a guiding principle that
transcription, or "transcription phonetique", as it was called, must
render the spoken language and sounds. Its chief aim is to show proper
pronunciation. The letters of one alphabet here become guides to the
pronunciation of a foreign language written in another foreign alpha-
bet. This has always been the accepted principle in Cyrillic alphabe-
I t i c usage, but not (or at least not always) in the usage of the Roman-
based alphabets.
Transcription still remains an important inter-alphabetic ope-
ration. Transcription,is used in dictionaries (to indicate pronuncia-
tion), in primers and readers, and in other language aids. It is used
for the rendering of foreign names in the daily press, in magazines,
in handbooks, in histories and in bibliographies ... material with
which every librarian has to do.
Every "national" alphabet, Roman or Cyrillic, will have some
system of transcribing foreign words and sounds. For national purposes
it may well be a satisfactory system, provided that it is uniform and
observed by all concerned. For many practical uses transcription cannot]
be replaced by transliteration, which is of nonservice as regards to j
J the pronunciation (of foreign names and so forth).

CONCLUSIONS 102
On the other hand, for librarians, documentalists and biblio-
graphers it is of minor importance how a word is read or pronounced.
What is important is how it is written, and how to reproduce unambiguous-
ly each written symbol (for instance, each Cyrillic letter). The basis
of procedure here lies in the written form, that is to say, in the
letters by which words or names are represented. This second approach
to foreign scripts is transliteration, a process which, we repeat, is
based not on the sound (pronunciation) but on the symbols by which the
sound is represented. Yet relying on the letter does not mean that
transliteration can entirely ignore the relation between the letter and
the sound in the original language, nor that it can play ducks and drakes
with graphemes that in the different languages have strong associations
of meaning or function. This is of paramount importance, for graphs,
in every alphabetic system, are closely associated with certain sounds,
and assigning to them a different function than that which they already
have acquired is evidently an illogical procedure. This is the case,
for instance, when a Roman h is used to represent Cyrillic x, and
j a Roman g to represent Ukrainian and White Russian r , thus inter-
mixing two different phonemes.
The theory and practice of transliterating Cyrillic have
established certain principles, which when respected should lead to
simple and workable systems. When compared with some older systems,
which are often a mixture of the phonetic and literal approaches, the j
newer practice of letter-for-letter operation is certainly a step in
advance.

_____ _
CONCLUSIONS 103
Basically, all systems of transliterating Cyrillic may be di-
vided into two groups: English-style, and Croatian-style. Beside these
two groups we have a number of "national" systems or practices, each
adapting the transliteration scheme to its own needs.
In;view of the modern (letter-for-letter) tread, the difficulty
that arises is how to effect a reconcilation with old-established "na-
tional" schemes or practices, which in certain cases depart far from
what transliteration principle would demand. This is practically the
only difficulty in the way of agreement. What is mainly concerned is
the practice of using combinations of two or more characters to repre-
| sent a single letter of another alphabet. Thus, for instance, the Cy-
rillic HI is transliterated by sch, sh, or s.
This happens not only with the Cyrillic scripts, but with
others as well. The Greek letter o is transliterated in the ALA system
as rh, and in the B.M. system as a simple r.. The Hebrew letter "shin"
in the ALA is sh; in the Vatican system it is s. The letter "tsadi"
is represented by both ts and s. j
The Cyrillic alphabets have several letters that are difficult J
to transliterate into Roman. They are: _c , x , _; ,*I ,m , m (letters j
which, except for the last, are common to all Cyrillic alphabets) plus
I the "palatalizing" vowels (which are common to some of these alphabets).
In transliterating Cyrillic, especially as regards to the letters
mentioned above, there is no system that keeps strictly to the principle
of "one-letter-fo-one-letter" operation. This departure from principle
is unavoidable if one does not want to create additional symbols in the |

CONCLUSIONS -U4
Roman alphabet and considers diacritics as undesirable. But even in
systems observing the "one-letter-for-one-letter" principle there is no
entire consistency. In case of the letterm , for instance, a diacritic
might, as elsewhere, be employed (at least in Croatian-style translite-
ration). But no system ventures to do so. Here the departure from the
principle is made because national practices are too strong, and unne-
cessary conflict therewith is undesirable.
The above-mentioned consonants are transliterated in English-
style schemes by as many as two to four equivalents (zh, kh, ts, ch,
sh, shch). The equivalents in question are easily acceptable to the
English reader, because they are, or could be, associated with the same
(ch) or similar (ts) sounds in the English language. Additional diffi-
culty arises in connection with the transliteration of the Cyrillic x.
The two major systems, the IS0/R9 and the Croatian, transliterate this
x by h, an unsatisfactory solution, for there are two Cyrillic alpha-
bets which could make good use of h in another connection. j
The letter h is needed to represent its counterpart in the
Ukrainian and White Russian alphabets. In the Ukrainian and White J
Russian alpahbets the letter r represents a phoneme distinct from the j
one represented by the same graph in other Cyrillic alphabets ... a
phonetic distinction that must be respected. This letter E" should j
not be transliterated as in the case of other Cyrillic alphabets, by I
the Roman g. Indeed, the Roman g is needed in these two alphabets j
for the letter T , which does not occur in other Cyrillic alphabets, 1
and has the phonetic value g. 1
--- - ^~ - «~~-~ -il— " -, ~-«~----»- - »~-*«--» - "-~-~"-*--_-^

CONCLUSIONS 105
These systems and variants of systems used in the English-speak-
ing world could easily be brought into harmony. Distinctions among
them are insignificant, mainly in the employment of diacritics.
The second major system of transliteration of Cyrillic is that
based on Czech or Croatian tradition. It has been accepted by ISO
(with very insignificant changes), thus becoming an international system.
Yet some nations, members of ISO, are hesitant about accepting
it, and persist in using their own "national" systems. Particularly
opposed to it is the- English-speaking world. The reason is not diffi-
cult to understand. Some of these English "national" schemes have long
been in use; hundreds of volumes of bibliographic or other reference
tools have been published according to their principles, and millions
of readers are accustomed to them. The switch to another system, which
might be found unsatisfactory ten or twenty years from now, creates a
problem not easy to solve.
Another problem arising in the IS0/R9 system is how its princi-
ples are to be interpreted, how strict should they be, what exceptions
should they allow, and why? And ultimately, which "national" Roman
alphabet should become the bibliographic Roman, the sole basis of trans-
literation?
The last question is probably the most difficult to answer. What
would be convenient as a Roman alphabet for the French would not be con-
venient for the English, Germans or Croatians.

—.^_____________ UNIVERSITE D'OTTAWA - ECOLE DES GRADUES
I '
CONCLUSIONS 106
There is also a practical question to be answered: would an in-
ternational system for transliteration of Cyrillic (such as IS0/R9), if
accepted for domestic use, assist the average reader (not merely the
learned scientist) in his quest for information and in his use of biblio-
graphic tools, or would it confuse him even more than he is confused
today?
Further, should the enforcement of theoretical principles ignore
all the fairly well established national practices, or might not some
compromise be found, reconciling national systems, practices or points
of view with the "internationality" of the proposed system?
As is well known, the international ISO system for Cyrillic has
not been accepted by the USA and Great Britain, the two greatest produ-
cers of bibliographic and reference materials. This situation also of
necessity influences the Canadian standpoint. Canada, being heavily
dependent on reference works (bibliographies, indexes, encyclopedias)
produced in the USA and in Great Britain, has had good and just reasons
to adopt the system which prevails in the English-speaking world, the
one accepted by ALA and used by a great many American libraries.
This English-style transliteration also solves more effectively
the controversial problems in connection with the transliteration of the j

1
letters r , r and x in the Ukrainian and White Russian alphabets . J
It cannot be denied that uniformity of transliteration would j
greatly facilitate bibliographic operations and render bibliographic |
1. E. R. Hope, Transliterating Russian, in New Scientist,

no. 298, August 2, 1962.

CONCLUSIONS 10?
tools much easier to use. But it also seems certain that the above-
mentioned questions must be taken into account, if the proposed system
for international use is not to remain just a particularism of one or
another international body.
What adjustments the ISO authorities may introduce into the
system, in order to make it satisfactory to all, remain to be seen. Yet
one cannot deny that the work accomplished so far by this Organization in
furthering a common cause deserves the full acknowledgment and support
of all those who understand the importance of bibliographic uniformity
and systematization of information retrieval.
The interest of the Western world in the Cyrillic-alphabetic
output has increased enormously in recent years. It may be assumed that
this interest will continue, and that a great deal of information will
be drawn from material originally published in Cyrillic. This is an
additional supporting argument for uniformity of approach to the Cyrillic
scripts, or for some other practical solution of the problem.
One does not need to exaggerate. The existence of a translite-
ration system will not absolutely determine the accessibility of Cyrillic
material, but it will certainly determine how easily and effectively the
bibliographic and other reference material may be used.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
108
A. CATALOGUING CODES AND TRANSLITERATION RULES
American
A.L.A., Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries, compiled by

Committees of the American Library Association and the (British)
Library Association, American ed., Chicago, 111., ALA, 1908.
, A.L.A. Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries,

Chicago, 111., ALA, 1941.
, A.L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries,

2d ed., Chicago, ALA, 1949.
Library of Congress, Rules for Descriptive Cataloging in the

Library of Congress (Adopted by the American Library Association),
Washington, Library of Congress, 1949.
, Library of Congress Cataloging Rules (Suppl.)

published on cards. Rule 10 rev. December 17, 1931.
, Cataloging Rules of the American Library Association j

and the Library of Congress, Additions and Changes 1949-1958, Washing- I
ton, L . C , 1959.
Cutter, Charles, Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed.,

Washington, GPO, 1904.
British
British Museum, Rules for Compiling the Catalogues of Printed

Books, Maps and Music in the British Museum, rev. ed., London, 1936.
British Standards Institution, Transliteration of Cyrillic and

Greek Characters, B.S. 2979:1958, London, 1958.
Bodleyan Library, Cataloguing Rules, new ed., Oxford, 1939.
Royal Geographical Society, Alphabets of Foreign Languages,

2d ed., by Lord Edward Gleichen and John H. Reynolds, London, 1933.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 109
Others
Bibliotheque Nationale, Usages suivis dans la redaction du

Catalogue General des livres imprimes, recueillis et coordonnes par
E.-G. Ledos, nouv. ed. par Armand Rastoul, Paris, 1940.
Ecole Nationale des Langues Orientales Vivantes, Caracteres

cyrilliques, translitteration, Paris, n.d.
Borecky, Jaromir, Pravidla katalogu zakladniho (listkoveho

abecedniho seznamu jmenneho) s dodatkem "0 popisu spisu drobnych",
V Praze, Nakl. statnim, 1925.
Brussells, Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique, Regies catalogra-

phiques en usage a la Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique; catalogue alpha-
betique par noms d'auteurs et titres d'anonymes, Bruxelles, 1961.
Grycz, Jozef, Skrocone przepisy katalogowania alfabetycznego;

opracowali Jozef Grycz i Wladyslawa Borkowska, wyd. 2. popr. Warszawa,
Panstwowe Zaklady Wydawnictw Szkolnych, 1949.
Kniezsa, I., Cirillbetus szlav szovegek nezetkozi tudomanyos

atirasa'', in Magyar Konyvszemle, Vol. 63, p. 149-158, April-June 1939.
Prussian Instructions, Rules for the Alphabetical Catalogs,

tr. from the 2d ed. by Andrew D. Osborn, Ann Arbor, Mich., University
of Michigan Press, 1938.
Vatican Library, Rules for the Catalog of Printed Books, tr.

from the 2d Italian ed., Chicago, 111., American Library Association,
1948.
Hanson, J. Ch. M., Comparative Study of Cataloging Rules '/based

on the Anglo-American code of 1908, Chicago, 111., University of Chica-
go Press, 1939.
Association des Bibliothecaires Francais, Regies et usages

dans les principales bibliotheques de Paris, pour la redaction et le
dlassement des catalogues d'auteurs et d'anonymes, (1912); extrait de
la Revue des Bibliotheques, no 4-6, avril-juin 1913.
Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Vorschrift fur die Verfassung des

alphabetisehen Nominal-Zettelkatalogs, der Druckwerke de k. k. Hofbiblio-
thek, Wien, Selbsverlag, 1901.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO

Recommendation R9, International System for the Transliteration of
Cyrillic Characters, 1st ed., October 1955 } Geneva ,1955.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
B. BOOKS
Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo iazyka, Toponomastika i

Transkriptsiia, Moskva, Nauka, 1964. 200p.
Albright, R. A., The International Phonetic Alphabet; its

background and development, Bloomington, Indiana University, 1958, 78p.
Basset, E., Librarian's Guide to Title-page Russian and Princi-

ples of Transliteration with an Introduction to Russian Law Books, N.Y.,
Columbia University Libraries, 1944. 47p. mimeographed
De Bray, R. G. A., Guide to the Slavonic Languages, London, I

Dent, 1951, 797p.
Diringer, D., The Alphabet; a key to the history of mankind,

N.Y., Philosophical Library, 1953, 607p.
Giliarevskii, R. S. and Grivnin, V. S., Opredelitel' iazykov

mira po pis'mennostiam, izd. 2. ispr., Moskva, Izd-vo Vostochnoi
literatury, 1961, 301p.
Institut International de Cooperation Intellectuelle, L'Adop-

tion universelle des caracteres latins, Paris, Societe des Nations, 193j
195p.
J International Federation of Library Associations, International

Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Paris 9-18, October 1961, London,
1963.
International Phonetic Association, The Principles of the In-

ternational Phonetic Association, being a description of the Inter-
national Phonetic Alphabet and manner of using it, London, University
College Department of Phonetics, 1949, 53p.
Istrin, V. D., Razvitie pis'ma, Moskva, Akademiia nauk SSSR,

1961, 394p.
Jespersen, 0., Phonetic Transcription and Transliteration, j

Copenhagen, 1926, 32p.
Jones, M. B., Inclusive Uniform Alphabet for Russian, Bulgarian!,

Serb-Croatian, Czech, Polish, Claremont, Calif., jTClaremont Slavic j
series 3 1944, 35p. I
Kotula, Rudolf, Instrukcja o katalogach alpfabetycznych, Lwow,

1924

BIBLIOGRAPHY HI
Lehr-Splawinski, T., Zarys gramatyki jezyka staro-cerkiewno-

slowianskiego, Poznan, 1923.
u Lepsius, R., Das allgemeine linguistische Alphabet; Grundsatze

der Ubertragung fremder Schriftsysteme und bisher noch ungeschriebener
Sprachen in Europaische Buchstaben, Berlin, Wilhelm Herz, 1855, 64p.
Tables.
Muhlpfordt, G., Transkriptionsprobleme; die korrekte Wiedergabe

russischer Namen im deutschen, Berlin, Rutten & Loening, 1957, 175p.
Ohienko, Ivan, Povstannia azbuky i literaturnoi movy v Slovian,

Zhovkva, 00 Vasyliiany, 1933, 300p.
Paclt, J., Studie o transliteraci azbuky, Praha, 1946, 22p.
Richter, Erich, Vergleichende Transkriptionstabelle, Gottingen,

Selbstverlag, 1955.
Rudnyts'kyi, IA., Chuzhomovni transliteratsii ukrains'kykh nazv:

Internatsional'na, anhliis'ka, frantsuz'ka, espans'ka i portugal's'ka,
Heidelberg, 1948, 6p.
I Shcherba, L. V., Izbrannye raboty po iazykoznaiiu i fonetike,

Leningrad, Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1958,
Smith, E. C , Personal Names, a bibliography, New York, NYPL,

1952, 226p.
U.S. Board on Geographic Names, Transliteration Guide Based on

the System as Used by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names for Arabic,
Bulgarian, Chinese, Hebrew, Icelandic, Japanese, Korean, Persian, j
Russian, Serbo-Croation, Tai, Washington, 1961.
C. ARTICLES
American Library Association, Transliteration Committee, 1

Report 1885, in Library Journal, Vol. 10, p. 302-311, 1885.
Crane, E. J., "Transliteration of Russian", in Industrial and

Engineering Chemistry (News ed.), Vol. 15, p. 230-231, May 20, 1937.
Damiani, E., Sur l'etat actuel des systemes de transcription des

noms slaves cyrilliques dans la documentation bibliographique, in F.I.D.
Transactions, Vol. 14, p. 245-248, 1938.
Deszo, L., "A cirillbetus cimek nemzetkozi atirasa", in Magyar

Konyvszemle, Vol. 79, p. 291-293, July 1963.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dick, G. and Kretschmar, F., "Zur Transkription des russischen

Alphabets", in Russischunterricht, Vol. 7, p. 1959- , 1954.
Fritschy, G. J. M., De normalisatie van de translitteratie van

Cyrillisch schrift, in Bibliotheekleven, Vol. 37, p. 293-295, 1952.
Frontard, R., "Transliteration Codes and Their International

Standardization", in Unesco Bulletin for Libraries, Vol. 15, p. 78-82,
March 1961.
Giliarevskii, R. S. and Krylova, N. V., "Transliteratsii biblio-

graficheskikh opisanii na iazykakh narodov SSSR latinskimi bukvami", in
Sovetskaia bibliografiia, Vol. 6, p. 37-44, 1960.
Hermenau, 0., "Ein entscheidender Schritt zur Vereinheitlichung

der deutschen Schreibung russischer Worter", in Russischunterricht,
Vol. 2, p. 98, 1949.
Hope, Earl, "Transliterating Russian", in New Scientist, No.

298, August 2, 1962.
Horodyski, B., "0 transliteracji drukow cyrylickich", in Prze-

glad Bibljoteczny, Vol. 16, p. 171-179, 1948.
I Hrdlicka, A., "Transliteration of English Names in Russian",

in Science, Vol. 98, p. 219, 1943.
Iivainen, L., "The Rendering of English Proper Names in Russian",
in Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 39, p. 137-147, 1960.
Juric, S., "Transkripcijske metode i bibliotekarstvo", in

Vestnik Bibliotekara Hravatske, Vol. 1, p. 109-118, 1950.
, "Transliteracija cirilickich azbuka", in Vestnik j

Bibliotekara Hrvatske, Vol. 1, p. 225-244, 1950.
Karum, L. S., "0 transliteratsii latinskimi bukvami russkikh j

familii i geograficheskikh nazvanii", in Voprosy iazykoznaiia, Vol. 6, j
p. 102-105, 1953.
I
Kent, F., "International Progress in Transliteration", in Unesccj
Bulletin for Libraries, Vol. 10, p. 132-137, May-June 1956.
Kiparsky, V., "Foreign h in Russian", in Slavonic and East

European Review, Vol. 38, p. 82-94, 1959.
I Krai, W., "Zu einer internationalen Transkription der kyrillis-j

I chen Buchstaben", in Zentralbalatt fur Bibliothekwesen, Vol. 69, p. 343-1,
1955. I

BIBLIOGRAPHY n_
Krai, W., "Zur Transkription der russischen Titel", in Zentral-

blatt fur Bibliothekwesen, Vol. 66, p. 47-50, 1952.
Lew, W., "H-g in the Ukrainian Literary Language", in Proceed-

ings of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, Vol. 1, p. 7-9, 1952.
Lloyd, G. A., "A Decade of Standardizing in Documentation", in

Journal of Documentation, Vol. 15, p. 208-225, December, 1959.
Lorphevre, G., Les travaux de la session 1952 du Comite 46

Documentation de 1'Organisation Internationale de Normalisation, in
Revue de la Documentation, Vol. 19, p. 83-84, 1952.
Matthews, W. K., "Latinization of Cyrillic Characters", in

Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 30, p. 5.31-548, 1951-1952.
Mann, S. E., "Initial X/S in the Slavonic Languages", in Slavo-

nic and East European Review, Vol. 37, p. 131-140, 1958.
Meyriat, J., La normalisation internationale des codes de trans-

litteration, in Courrier de la normalisation, No. 155, p. 586-596, 1960
Palmer, H., "The Value of Russian to the Reference Librarian",

in College and Research Libraries, Vol. 6, p. 195-198, 231, 1945.
Podborny, J. G., "Zu einer internationalen einheitlichen Umschre- i-

bung der kyrillischen Buchstaben", in Babel, Vol. 5, p. 207-212, 1959.
Poindron, P., Etat present de la normalisation francaise et in-

ternationale interessant la documentation et les bibliotheques, in
Bulletin des Bibliotheques de France, Vol. 7, p. 19-31, 1962.
Reformatskii, A. A., "Prakticheskaia transkriptsiia inoiazych-

nykh sobstvennykh imen", in Izvestiia Akademii nauk, Vol. 19, p. 529-53^,
1960.
, "Transliteratsiia russkikh tekstov latinskimi bukvami'|,

in Voprosy iazykoznaiia,' Vol. 5, p. 96-103, 1960.
Revue des Etudes Slaves, Systeme de transcription de la Revue

des Etudes Slaves, Vol. 1, p. 310-312, 1921.
Richter, E., "Zur Transliteration der kyrillischen Buchstaben",

in Borsenblatt fur den deutschen Buchhandel, Frankfurter Ausgabe, Vol.
p. 1332-1337, 1960.
, "Zur Norm DIN 1460 Transliteration slawischer kyril-

lischer Buchstaben", in Zeitschrift fur Bibliothekwesen, Vol. 11,
p. 2-8, 1964.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 114
Richter, E., "Zur bibliothekarischen Transliteration der kyril-

lischen Buchstaben einiger finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen in der Sowjet-
Union, in Ural-Altaische Jahrbucher, Vol. 31, p. 334-346, 1959.
Rodinson, M., Les principes de la translitteration, la translit-

teration de l'Arabe et la nouvelie norme de l'ISO, in Bulletin des Bi-
bliotheques de France, Vol. 9, p. 1-22, Janvier 1964.
I Royal Society of London, The Transliteration of Russian, Serbian

and Bulgarian for Bibliographical Purposes (prepared by H. S. Bushell),
London, 1953.
Schteinitz, W., "Wie sollen wir russische Namen schreiben?"

in Neue Gesellschsft, Vol. 4, p. 66-71, 1948.
Serdiuchenko, G. P., "0 russkoi transkriptsii dlia iazykov

zarubezhnogo vostoka", in Problemy Vostokovedeniia, Vol. 3, p. 91-107,
1960.
Sevcik, A., La translitteration, in Revue de la Documentation,

Vol. 14, p. 21-22, 1947.
Shaw, E. P., "Transliteration, a Game for the Library Sleuth",

in Medical Library Association Bulletin, Vol. 37, p. 142-145, 1949.
Shcherba, L. V., "Transliteratsiia latinskimi bukvami russkikh

familii i geograficheskikh nazvanii", in his Izbrannye raboty po iazy-
koznaniiu i fonetike, Moskva, Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1958, Vol. 1,
p. 171-181.
, "Transliteratsiia inostrannykh slov i sobstvennykh

imen i familii", in Trudy Komissii po russkomu iazyku, Vol. 1, p. 187-
I 188, 1931.
i*
• Sommer, F. E., "Books in Foreign Script in the Public Library",

in Library Journal, Vol. 59, p. 892-893, 1934.
5 "Co-ordinated Transliteration in Libraries", in

Library Quarterly, Vol. 7, p. 492-501, 1937-
. 5 "Transliteration Problems", in Library Journal,

Vol. 58, p. 534-536, 1933.
Superanskaia, A. V., "Mezhdunarodnyi alfavit i mezhdunarodnaia

transkriptsiia", in Voprosy iazykoznaniia, Vol. 4, 1958.
, "Spornye voprosy russkoi transkriptsii bolgarskikh,

pol'skikh, serbokhorvatskikh, cheskikh i slovatskikh imen sobstvennykh"J
I in Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Slavianovedeniia, Vol. 28, p. 51-60,

1960.
5
BIBLIOGRAPHY H
La Translitteration des caracteres cyrilliques; a propos de

deux articles recents, in Bulletin des Bibliotheques de France, Vol. 28
p. 51-60, 1960.
"Transliterace cyrilskeho pisma do latinky", in Slavia, Vol. 20

p. 158-161, 1950.
Transliteration of Russian, Serbian, and Bulgarian for Biblio-

graphical Purposes, in Science Abstracts, Electrical Engineering Abs-
tracts (Section B of Science Abstracts), Vol. 56, p. x.
Wharton, L . C , "On Prof. Damiani's Scheme for the Translitera-

tion of Titles in the Cyrillic Character", in F.I.D. Transactions,
Vol. 14, p. 244-245, 1938.
Note: - A number of titles have been located in Bibliographie

linguistique (Utrecht - Bruxelles, 1949- ) and in Onoma (Louvain,
1950- ). These titles were transliterated according to the Inter-
natinal system; in the present list, they are transliterated according
to the system used by L.C.

Transliteration of Cyrillic Alphabets PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transliteration of Cyrillic Alphabets PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transliteration of Cyrillic Alphabets PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

001

UNIVERSITY D-OTTAWA ~ ECOLE DES GRADUES

TRANSLITERATION OF CYRILLIC ALPHABETS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

UNIVERSITY OF O T T A W A - SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

This thesis has been written under the direction of Reverend

Auguste-M. Morisset, o.m.i., B.A., B.S.(L.S.) Columbia, M.S.(L.S.)

Columbia, L.D.C., Director of the Library School, University of Ottawa,

and Professor lAroslav Rudnyts'kyi, Ph.D., Head of the Department of

Slavic Studies, University of Manitoba. To them I extend my thanks.

I also warmly thank Mr. Earl R. Hope, Translatioss Officer,

Defense Research Board of Canada, whose suggestions and observations

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA - SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

II. - CYRILLIC ALPHABETS 34

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA - SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Everyone who deals with information storage and information

retrieval inevitably faces two problems: the language in which informa-

tion is contained, and the alphabet, or any other system of writing by

which this language is graphically represented. There is a great

diversity of languages and quite a diversity of alphabets, so that one

may recognize a language barrier to communication, and also an alphabet

barrier or writing-system barrier.

In the different alphabets or writing-systems, books and

periodicals are printed, manuscripts are written, literary, scientific,

and informational material is produced. Most of it remains inaccessible,

Materials in different alphabets, in various systems of writing,

cannot be easily handled and checked, cannot easily be entered in iblio-

graphies, catalogues, indexes, or other works of reference. Inter-al-

phabetic communication is ill provided for.

For general culture and progress it has always been important

to share the achievements and civilization of other peoples and nations.

of new languages from obscure, unfamiliar dialects, with the inter- I

weaving of economic and political, cultural and social, religious and

philosophic interests, with the powerful pressure of mass media, the

problem of international communication and understanding is more urgent

than it ever was in the past.

Many attempts have been made to create an international language,

language, but until it comes, the minimum requirement should be found

peoples' languages and writings.

There are about three thousand languages, employing quite a

number of alphabets, or different writing systems. Thus far, no alpha-

Each existing alphabet or system of writing is the product of slow

In the western hemisphere it was the Roman alphabet which became

Eastern Europe, as well as in many countries of Asia, it is the Cyrillic

alphabet, originally derived from Greek, that furnished the foundations

for "national" Cyrillic alpahbets.

The inter-relation between these two alphabetic families,

laid down the first foundations for cultivation and appreciation of

languages. In 1548 appeared the earliest book on comparative philology j

and phonetics written by a Swiss Orientalist Theodor Buchmann

1. Theodor Bibliander, De ratione linguarum et literarum

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA - SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

comparison of several languages, Slavic included. At the end of the

book, the author attached transcribed "Pater Noster" in: Aethiopian,

Armenian, Arabic, Chaldaic, English, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Ice-

tables of transliteration of Hebrew, Phoenician, and Greek into Latin.

His discussion of Serbian is believed to be the first account ever