Transliterace Ruských Vlastních Jmen Do Angličtiny Magisterská Diplomová Práce

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Transliterace Ruských Vlastních Jmen Do Angličtiny Magisterská Diplomová Práce MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Filozofická fakulta Ústav jazykovědy a baltistiky Obecná jazykověda Bc. Ivana Kozáková Transliterace ruských vlastních jmen do angličtiny Magisterská diplomová práce Vedoucí práce: prof. PhDr. Marie Krčmová, CSc. 2018 Prohlašuji, že jsem tuto magisterskou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně s využitím uvedených pramenů a literatury. podpis autorky Upřímně děkuji paní profesorce Krčmové za vedení této práce, za vstřícnost, trpělivost, přímost a téměř nadpřirozenou schopnost inspirovat svým nadšením, když už se to vlastní vytrácí. ABSTRAKT Tato diplomová práce je věnována transliteraci ruských vlastních jmen v anglicky psaných textech. Nejdříve je v první teoretické kapitole vysvětlen proces transliterace a jsou představena a srovnána obě zapojená písma – anglická latinka a ruská azbuka. Dále jsou ve druhé kapitole poskytnuty náhledy několika vybraných transliteračních norem, které se používají k romanizaci azbuky v různých oblastech (knihovnictví, kartografie apod.). Kapitola třetí je věnována ruským příjmením, jejich vzniku a vývoji, morfologické i sémantické struktuře. Poslední kapitolu pak představuje praktický výzkum existujících transliterací příjmení ruských hokejistů v anglicky vedených materiálech na internetu. ABSTRACT This diploma thesis elaborates on the current state of English romanization of Russian surnames. In the first chapter, the process of transliteration is described, and both employed scripts – Latin and Cyrillic – are presented. The second chapter introduces and compares valid romanization standards of Russian Cyrillic. Chapter three is devoted to Russian surnames – their origins and history, morphology, word-formation and semantic structure. Fourth and final chapter provides the research of romanization in the sphere of ice hockey. Collected transliterations of Russian ice hockey players’ surnames are analyzed in terms of their compliance to the International Ice Hockey Federation romanization standard, existing deviations are compiled, and the alternative, non-standard ways of transliteration are demonstrated. Finally, the research results are commented on and the im/possibility of a single unifying transliteration standard is discussed. KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA Transliterace, romanizace, angličtina, ruština, latinka, azbuka, vlastní jména, příjmení, lední hokej, transliterační norma KEYWORDS Transliteration, romanization, proper nouns, surnames, Russian, English, Latin script, Cyrillic Script, romanization standard, ice hockey OBSAH ÚVOD ............................................................................................................................... 9 1. RUSKO-ANGLICKÁ TRANSLITERACE ............................................................ 11 1.1. TRANSLITERACE A TRANSKRIPCE .......................................................... 11 1.2. GRAFICKÉ SYSTÉMY RUŠTINY A ANGLIČTINY ................................... 14 1.2.1. Ruština – ruská azbuka .............................................................................. 14 1.2.2. Angličtina – anglická latinka ..................................................................... 16 1.3. SROVNÁNÍ GRAFICKÉ A ZVUKOVÉ STRÁNKY RUŠTINY A ANGLIČTINY .............................................................................................. 17 1.3.1. Ruské a anglické konsonanty .................................................................... 17 1.3.2. Ruské a anglické vokály ............................................................................ 19 1.3.3. Ruský tvrdý a měkký znak ........................................................................ 21 1.3.4. Latinka, azbuka, a jejich zvuková realizace v porovnání .......................... 22 1.4. SHRNUTÍ: ÚSKALÍ PŘEPISU ........................................................................ 25 2. TRANSLITERAČNÍ NORMY ................................................................................ 27 2.1. LATINIZACE: DEFINITIVNÍ NORMA NA DOSAH ................................... 28 2.2. HISTORIE ROMANIZAČNÍCH NOREM ...................................................... 30 2.3. PŘEHLED VYBRANÝCH PLATNÝCH ROMANIZAČNÍCH NOREM ...... 34 2.3.1. GOST 7.79-2000 ....................................................................................... 34 2.3.2. ISO 9:1995 ................................................................................................ 35 2.3.3. ALA-LC .................................................................................................... 36 2.3.4. BS 2979:1958 ............................................................................................ 37 2.3.5. Vědecká transliterace ................................................................................ 38 2.3.6. Normy UNGEGN ...................................................................................... 38 2.3.7. BGN/PCGN 1947 ...................................................................................... 39 2.3.8. ICAO Systém ............................................................................................ 40 2.3.9. Norma IIHF ............................................................................................... 41 2.4. SROVNÁNÍ TRANSLITERAČNÍCH NOREM .............................................. 44 2.4.1. Shody a rozdíly mezi normami ................................................................. 44 2.4.2. Příklady užití norem .................................................................................. 46 2.5. SHRNUTÍ: NORMY JAKO ŘEŠENÍ, NEBO DALŠÍ PROBLÉMY? ............ 47 3. RUSKÁ ANTROPONYMA, RUSKÁ PŘÍJMENÍ ................................................ 51 3.1. STRUČNÁ HISTORIE RUSKÉHO PŘÍJMENÍ ............................................. 51 3.2. PRAMENY RUSKÉHO PŘÍJMENÍ ................................................................ 52 3.3. STAVBA RUSKÉHO PŘÍJMENÍ ................................................................... 53 3.3.1. Sufixy a možné podoby příjmení .............................................................. 54 3.3.2. Kmeny příjmení ........................................................................................ 56 3.4. SHRNUTÍ: VYMEZENÍ „RUSKÉHO“ PŘÍJMENÍ ....................................... 62 4. TRANSLITERACE RUSKÝCH PŘÍJMENÍ V PRAXI ....................................... 63 4.1. PŘEDMĚT VÝZKUMU .................................................................................. 63 4.2. ZDROJE ZKOUMANÉHO MATERIÁLU ..................................................... 64 4.3. METODA ZPRACOVÁNÍ MATERIÁLU ...................................................... 66 4.4. LIMITY VÝZKUMU ....................................................................................... 68 4.5. CÍLE VÝZKUMU ............................................................................................ 69 4.6. VÝSLEDKY VÝZKUMU ............................................................................... 69 4.6.1. Přehled vybraných ruských příjmení a jejich transliterací ........................ 71 4.6.2. Analýza nalezených transliterací .............................................................. 86 4.7. SHRNUTÍ: TRANSLITERACE V SOUČASNOSTI A (NE)MOŽNOST JEDNOTNÉ NORMY V BUDOUCNU .......................................................... 93 ZÁVĚR .......................................................................................................................... 97 SEZNAM POUŽITÉ LITERATURY ....................................................................... 100 PŘÍLOHA 1: Příklady transliterace podle norem – ruská antroponyma ............. 108 PŘÍLOHA 2: Příklady transliterace podle norem – ruská toponyma ................... 109 PŘÍLOHA 3: Srovnání transliteračních norem ....................................................... 110 ÚVOD Chtělo by se říci, že lidská komunikace 21. století prakticky nemá omezení. Lidé si posílají psané zprávy v reálném čase na vzdálenosti kontinentů. Hovoří spolu z očí do očí, ačkoliv je dělí světový oceán. Mohou být k zastižení kdekoliv a kdykoliv – na zemi i ve vzduchu, v místech osídlených i zcela opuštěných, v klidu i v pohybu. V okamžiku. Zcela neomezená však tato komunikace není. Lidské dorozumívání je zakódováno do mnoha různých jazyků a písem, a tudíž je stále do jisté míry limitováno. Univerzální jazyk pro celé lidstvo doposud nevznikl. Existují jazyky, které by se svým počtem mluvčích mohly stát adepty na „pozemštinu“ – čínsky (mandarínsky) mluví snad sedmina Země a základy angličtiny ovládá každý, kdo má co dočinění se sférou mezinárodního obchodu, cestovního ruchu či virtuální komunikace. Žádný z těchto jazyků však dosud nepřekročil ony kulturní, historické, společenské či jiné hranice, které jejich plnému rozšíření brání. Nejinak je tomu s písmem. Neexistuje jediné písmo pro všechny jazyky světa. Často neexistuje ani společné písmo pro jednu jazykovou rodinu, natož pro její jednotlivé větve (např. jihoslovanská větev je zapisována latinkou a cyrilicí, přičemž i ty se pro jednotlivé jazyky v drobnostech dále odlišují). Přestože je kompletní obměna psaného systému v rámci jednoho jazyka možná a i dnes se tak děje (například letos v únoru byl v Kazachstánu vydán zákon, kterým bylo ustaveno přijetí latinského písma namísto cyrilice používané od roku 1940; přechod k nové verzi psané kazaštiny by měl být dokončen v roce 2025),1 píšeme stále rozdílně. Zda a kdy budou lidská řeč či písmo sjednoceny, lze jen hádat. Do té doby je třeba poradit si v situacích, kdy se rozdílné jazyky a písma potkávají: umět přenést předmět jednotlivých informací do jiného
Recommended publications
  • Romanization of Russian Urbanonyms Проблемные «Зоны
    Ivan V. Zots Olga A. Suleimanova Moscow State Pedagogical University, Moscow, Russia Problem Areas of Modern Urban Planning in Global Space: Romanization of Russian Urbanonyms Voprosy onomastiki, 2019, Vol. 16, Issue 4, pp. 134–150 DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2019.16.4.049 Language of the article: Russian ___________________________________________ Зоц Иван Владимирович Сулейманова Ольга Аркадьевна Московский государственный педагогический университет, Москва, Россия Проблемные «зоны» современной урбанистики в глобальном пространстве: транслитерация урбанонимов Вопросы ономастики. 2019. Т. 16. № 4. С. 134–150 DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2019.16.4.049 Язык статьи: русский Downloaded from: http://onomastics.ru DOI 10.15826/vopr_onom.2019.16.4.049 И. В. Зоц УДК 81’373.211 + 81’373.4 + 81’286 + 316.334.56 О. А. Сулейманова Московский государственный педагогический университет Москва, Россия ПРОБЛЕМНЫЕ «ЗОНЫ» СОВРЕМЕННОЙ УРБАНИСТИКИ В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ: ТРАНСЛИТЕРАЦИЯ УРБАНОНИМОВ В настоящей статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы лингвогеографического моделирования образа современного мегаполиса, а именно передача русскоязычных со- общений городского ландшафта средствами латинского алфавита. Предлагается крити- ческий анализ существующих систем транслитерации, исследуются основные практики передачи названий улиц (транскрипция, транслитерация урбанонимов, а также перевод классификаторов в названиях городских улиц) и анализируются возможные методы их комбинирования. Рассмотрены действующие стандарты транслитерации, в частности принятые в различные
    [Show full text]
  • Azərbaycan Milli Elmlər Akademiyası İnformasiya Texnologiyaları İnstitutu
    Azerbaijan National Academy of Science Institute of Information Technology NATIONAL TRANSLITATION SYSTEM Senior Researcher of the Institute of Information Technology of ANAS Sabina Mammadzada International Conference TurkLang2020 18-19 October, 2020 Normative-legal bases of creation of "National Transliteration System" Presidential Order dated April 09, 2013 on approval of the “State Program on the use of the Azerbaijani language in accordance with the requirements of the time in the context of globalization and the development of linguistics in the country” 6.1.4. “Development of National Transliteration Standards” 6.3.9. "Development of software for transliteration from the Azerbaijani alphabet to other alphabets on the basis of national transliteration standards" 23.10.2020 2/12 Duties arising from the order Compilation of conversion Study of the interaction of Study of foreign experience tables of the Azerbaijani the Azerbaijani language in the field of transliteration scripts with the scripts of with other languages other languages Wide application and protection of Development of transliteration Adoption of national the Azerbaijani language, scripts software for the Azerbaijani scripts and terms, protection of national transliteration standards with other languages’ scripts on the values (history, territory, culture, based on conversion tables basis of national transliteration etc.) and correct communication standards with the world community 23.10.2020 3/12 The goal of the "National Transliteration System" Ensuring the one-to-one
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Romanization Tools
    Inventory of Romanization Tools Standards Intellectual Management Office Library and Archives Canad Ottawa 2006 Inventory of Romanization Tools page 1 Language Script Romanization system for an English Romanization system for a French Alternate Romanization system catalogue catalogue Amharic Ethiopic ALA-LC 1997 BGN/PCGN 1967 UNGEGN 1967 (I/17). http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_am.pdf Arabic Arabic ALA-LC 1997 ISO 233:1984.Transliteration of Arabic BGN/PCGN 1956 characters into Latin characters NLC COPIES: BS 4280:1968. Transliteration of Arabic characters NL Stacks - TA368 I58 fol. no. 00233 1984 E DMG 1936 NL Stacks - TA368 I58 fol. no. DIN-31635, 1982 00233 1984 E - Copy 2 I.G.N. System 1973 (also called Variant B of the Amended Beirut System) ISO 233-2:1993. Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters -- Part 2: Lebanon national system 1963 Arabic language -- Simplified transliteration Morocco national system 1932 Royal Jordanian Geographic Centre (RJGC) System Survey of Egypt System (SES) UNGEGN 1972 (II/8). http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ar.pdf Update, April 2004: http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/ung22str.pdf Armenian Armenian ALA-LC 1997 ISO 9985:1996. Transliteration of BGN/PCGN 1981 Armenian characters into Latin characters Hübschmann-Meillet. Assamese Bengali ALA-LC 1997 ISO 15919:2001. Transliteration of Hunterian System Devanagari and related Indic scripts into Latin characters UNGEGN 1977 (III/12). http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_as.pdf 14/08/2006 Inventory of Romanization Tools page 2 Language Script Romanization system for an English Romanization system for a French Alternate Romanization system catalogue catalogue Azerbaijani Arabic, Cyrillic ALA-LC 1997 ISO 233:1984.Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages of New York State Is Designed As a Resource for All Education Professionals, but with Particular Consideration to Those Who Work with Bilingual1 Students
    TTHE LLANGUAGES OF NNEW YYORK SSTATE:: A CUNY-NYSIEB GUIDE FOR EDUCATORS LUISANGELYN MOLINA, GRADE 9 ALEXANDER FFUNK This guide was developed by CUNY-NYSIEB, a collaborative project of the Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society (RISLUS) and the Ph.D. Program in Urban Education at the Graduate Center, The City University of New York, and funded by the New York State Education Department. The guide was written under the direction of CUNY-NYSIEB's Project Director, Nelson Flores, and the Principal Investigators of the project: Ricardo Otheguy, Ofelia García and Kate Menken. For more information about CUNY-NYSIEB, visit www.cuny-nysieb.org. Published in 2012 by CUNY-NYSIEB, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10016. [email protected]. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Alexander Funk has a Bachelor of Arts in music and English from Yale University, and is a doctoral student in linguistics at the CUNY Graduate Center, where his theoretical research focuses on the semantics and syntax of a phenomenon known as ‘non-intersective modification.’ He has taught for several years in the Department of English at Hunter College and the Department of Linguistics and Communications Disorders at Queens College, and has served on the research staff for the Long-Term English Language Learner Project headed by Kate Menken, as well as on the development team for CUNY’s nascent Institute for Language Education in Transcultural Context. Prior to his graduate studies, Mr. Funk worked for nearly a decade in education: as an ESL instructor and teacher trainer in New York City, and as a gym, math and English teacher in Barcelona.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of Ethnicity in Southern Bessarabia: Tracing the Histories Of
    The Making of Ethnicity in Southern Bessarabia: Tracing the histories of an ambiguous concept in a contested land Dissertation Zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) vorgelegt der Philosophischen Fakultät I Sozialwissenschaften und historische Kulturwissenschaften der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, von Herrn Simon Schlegel geb. am 23. April 1983 in Rorschach (Schweiz) Datum der Verteidigung 26. Mai 2016 Gutachter: PD Dr. phil. habil. Dittmar Schorkowitz, Dr. Deema Kaneff, Prof. Dr. Gabriela Lehmann-Carli Contents Deutsche Zusammenfassung ...................................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Questions and hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. History and anthropology, some methodological implications ................................................. 6 1.3. Locating the field site and choosing a name for it ........................................................................ 11 1.4. A brief historical outline .......................................................................................................................... 17 1.5. Ethnicity, natsional’nost’, and nationality: definitions and translations ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographic Access to Non-Roman Scripts in Library Opacs: a Study of Selected Arl Academic Libraries in the United States
    BIBLIOGRAPHIC ACCESS TO NON-ROMAN SCRIPTS IN LIBRARY OPACS: A STUDY OF SELECTED ARL ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED STATES By Ali Kamal Shaker BA—Cairo University-Egypt, 1995 MLIS—University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of School of Information Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2002 ii BIBLIOGRAPHIC ACCESS TO NON-ROMAN SCRIPTS IN LIBRARY OPACS A STUDY OF SELECTED ARL ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED STATES Ali K. Shaker, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2002 With the increasing availability of non-Roman script materials in academic/research libraries, bibliographic access to vernacular characters in library OPACs becomes one of the primary means for users of these materials to access and use them efficiently. Though Romanization, as a bibliographic control tool, has been studied extensively during the past five decades, investigations of using original (vernacular) scripts remain inadequate. The purpose of this study was to trace the transition from Romanization-based to vernacular-based bibliographic access to non-Roman script materials. Two major developments contributing to this transition were the availability of records with script characters from bibliographic utilities, and the development of a universal character set, the Unicode standard. The main data collection instrument was a self-administered mail questionnaire sent to a purposive sample of academic library members in the Association of Research Libraries with sizeable non-Roman script collections. Another data collection technique utilized was document/Web site analysis of bibliographic utilities and library automation vendors. Forty five questionnaires were obtained, which represented 65% of an actual population of 69 libraries.
    [Show full text]
  • Adyghe Romanization Handwriting
    Checked for validity and accuracy – June 2019 ROMANIZATION OF ADYGHE BGN/PCGN 2012 System The BGN/PCGN system for Adyghe is designed for use in romanizing names written in the Adyghe Cyrillic alphabet. Adyghe, a language of the north-western Caucasian family, is principally spoken in Russia’s republic of Adygeya and has been written in a modified Cyrillic script since 1938. Also known as West Circassian1 , Adyghe is, as other languages of this family, notable for its rich density of consonant phonemes and corresponding paucity of vowels. Given the language’s phonological complexity, and in line with other BGN/PCGN Romanization Systems for north- western Caucasian languages, Adyghe letters have been addressed in the romanizations below as per their articulation, rather than necessarily reflecting their orthography or the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian Cyrillic: specifically glottalised consonants have been marked with an apostrophe, labialized consonants with /w/, and retroflex consonants with an underbar. Adyghe contains a number of phonemes not part of the Kabardian alphabet, but those phonemes that are shared have been represented in romanization as per the BGN/PCGN Kabardian Romanization System. Adyghe italics/ Adyghe Romanization handwriting 1 A а А а a 2 Б б Б б b 3 В в В в v 4 Г г Г г g 5 Гу гу Гу гу gw 6 Гъ гъ Гъ гъ gh 7 Гъу гъу Гъу гъу ghw 8 Д д Д д d 9 Дж дж Дж дж j 10 Дз дз Дз дз dz 11 Дзу дзу Дзу дзу dzw 12 Е е Е е e 13 Ё ё Ё ё ë 14 Ж ж Ж ж zh 15 Жь жь Жь жь ź 1 East Circassian, or Kabardian, though very similar, is sufficiently different to be regarded a separate language.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization of Liturgical Terminology Used in the English Typicon
    Standardization of Liturgical Terminology Used in the English Typicon Aleksandr Andreev PONOMAR GREEN PAPER* Executive Summary of Changes since Version 1 e present document aempts to codify rules for transliteration of Greek and Slavonic terms and other standards of usage in the English-language edition of the Typicon and other liturgical manuals. e paper defends use of the classical system of transliterating Greek and presents a list of liturgical terms with their standard names in English. 1 Introduction It is clear that the liturgical terminology used throughout the English edition of the Typicon needs to be standardized both for internal consistency and for reference purposes for external use. e laer is important because the Typicon, as the liturgical manual par excellence, should serve as a model for other liturgical manuals in English. While it may be too ambitious to hope that the English-speaking world can enjoy uniformity across editions of liturgical texts in the proximate future, coming up with a set of conventions of use in the English-language Typicon may be a confident first step in that direction. e present document, the fruit of considerable discussion of this maer, presents a list of liturgical terms and other conventions used in the Typicon with proposed standardized orthography and rendition. e transliteration of liturgical terms into English is guided by the following principles: • Greek terms should come into English from Greek and not via Slavonic or other Languages (in other words, “Troparion”, not “Tropar”). Also, Greek terms that have Slavonic counterparts should still be rendered according to the Greek prototype (in other words, use “Photagogicon,” not “Svetilen”; “Prosomœon”, not “Podoben”).
    [Show full text]
  • Abkhaz Romanization
    Checked for validity and accuracy – June 2019 ROMANIZATION OF ABKHAZ BGN/PCGN 2011 System The BGN/PCGN system for Abkhaz is designed for use in romanizing names written in the Abkhaz Cyrillic alphabet. Abkhaz is a consonant-rich north-western Caucasian language and has been written in a modified Cyrillic script since 1954. Given the language’s phonological complexity, Abkhaz letters have been addressed in the romanizations below as per their articulation, rather than necessarily reflecting their orthography or the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian Cyrillic. Certain characters are written followed by ь or ǝ, usually denoting palatalization and labialization respectively, and these digraphs are also included in the tabulation below, the palatal consonants being marked with /y/ in the romanization (note that characters 14, 57 and 62 are not palatal) and labialized consonants being marked with /w/. Retroflex consonants are marked with an underline in the romanization whilst the apostrophe in the romanizations below denotes the glottal form of the consonants. Abkhaz Abkhaz italics/ Romanization handwriting 1 A а А а a 2 Б б Б б b 3 В в В в v 4 Г г Г г g 5 Гь гь Гь гь gy 6 Гǝ гǝ Гǝ гǝ gw 7 Ҕ ҕ Ҕ ҕ gh 8 Ҕь ҕь Ҕь ҕь ghy 9 Ҕǝ ҕǝ Ҕǝ ҕǝ ghw 10 Д д Д д d 11 Дǝ дǝ Дǝ дǝ dw 12 Е е Е е e 13 Ж ж Ж ж zh͟ 14 Жь жь Жь жь zh 15 Жǝ жǝ Жǝ жǝ zhw 16 З з З з z 1 Abkhaz Abkhaz italics/ Romanization handwriting 17 Ӡ ӡ Ӡ ӡ dz 18 Ӡǝ ӡǝ Ӡǝ ӡǝ dzw 19 И и И и i 20 К к К к k’ 21 Кь кь Кь кь ky’ 22 Кǝ кǝ Кǝ кǝ kw’ 23 Қ қ Қ қ k 24 Қь қь Қь қь ky 25 Қǝ қǝ Қǝ қǝ kw 26 Ҟ
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Eighth United Nations
    E/CONF.94/3 United Nations Eighth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names Berlin, 27 August-5 September 2002 Department of Economic and Social Affairs (E/CONF.94/3) Eighth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names Berlin, 27 August-5 September 2002 United Nations • New York, 2003 E/CONF.94/3 Note Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. E/CONF.94/3 United Nations publication Sales No. E.03.I.14 ISBN 92-1-100915-4 Contents Chapter Paragraphs Page I. Organization of the work of the Conference ................................ 1–15 1 A. Terms of reference ................................................ 11 B. Opening of the Conference.......................................... 2–3 1 C. Attendance....................................................... 41 D. Election of the President............................................ 51 E. Organizational matters ............................................. 6–15 1 1. Adoption of the rules of procedure ............................... 61 2. Adoption of the agenda ........................................ 7–8 1 3. Election of officers other than the President.......................
    [Show full text]
  • Russian English and What It Is Not Русский Английский И То, Чем Он Не Является
    2020 Vol. 24 No. 3 649—668 Russian Journal of Linguistics http://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics DOI: 10.22363/2687‐0088‐2020‐24‐3‐649‐668 Research Article Russian English and what it is not Alexandra A. RIVLINA National Research University Higher School of Economics Moscow, Russia Abstract The arguments against the Expanding Circle (EC) Englishes being varieties in their own right are often provoked by terminological inaccuracies both in professional and folk-linguistic debate. The aim of the article is to particularize the concept of Russian English by highlighting the differences between Russian English as an EC variety per se and a number of English-related forms and practices in Russian-based intranational communication, which also might be referred to as Russian English or Rus(s)lish/Runglish. The article discusses the notion of Ruslish in detail, drawing on the recent surveys of “hybrid Englishes,” or “X-lishes” in World Englishes theory. The study provides a qualitative analysis of a corpus of examples illustrating different conceptualizations of Ruslish and some of its major tokens. As a result, Ruslish in the narrow sense of the term, as the basilectal sub- variety of Russian English, is distinguished from Ruslish as a broader language-contact concept embracing various cases of English-Russian interaction, primarily the Englishization of Russian, which is closer to its folk metalinguistic interpretation. A special emphasis is placed on the cases of “mock Russian English/Ruslish,” a form of bilingual language play, a linguistic
    [Show full text]
  • Turkmenistan Factfile
    TOPONYMIC FACTFILE Turkmenistan Country name in English Turkmenistan State title Turkmenistan Name of citizen Turkmen Official language Turkmen State title in official language Türkmenistan Country name in official language Türkmenistan Capital Aşgabat1 Script Roman script Romanization system n/a (see text below for obsolete Cyrillic usage) ISO 3166 code (alpha-2/alpha-3) TM/TKM Introduction Turkmenistan is a country in central Asia. From 1925 to 1991 it was one of the constituent Republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) but became independent when the USSR was dissolved. It is one of five countries informally called “Stans” all of which were part of the USSR2. Its area is 488,000 km2, slightly smaller than Spain, slightly larger than Cameroon. Its population is estimated at about 5.5. million3. Since independence, Turkmenistan has had international boundaries with Afghanistan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. It has a coastline on the Caspian Sea but as this is not directly connected to the World’s oceans, Turkmenistan is usually regarded as landlocked. Geographical names policy Turkmen is the official language of Turkmenistan, and as such PCGN recommends that the Turkmen language forms of place names across the country be shown on UK products. It is (see Language, below), however, difficult to find Turkmen-language cartographic sources and these may need to be supplemented by Russian-language sources4. Turkmen, as of 1993, has been written in Roman script 1 Often seen as Ashgabat in English-language sources; PCGN usually recommends retaining the Turkmen form, given its visual similarity to the ‘English’ form, and indeed the Russian transliteration (Ashkhabad) – see ‘Geographical names policy’ section for guidance on the use of Russian toponyms in Turkmenistan.
    [Show full text]