Differences between registrant information and registrar information
To be added here
Definitions of translation and transliteration
From an e-mail sent by Chris Dillon to the T&T mailing list on 10 Feb., 2014.
So far, we are using the following definitions of translation and transliteration:
Translation: The process of conveying the meaning of some passage of text in one language, so that it can be expressed equivalently in another language. <RFC6365>
Transliteration: The process of representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by the characters of a conversion alphabet. <RFC6365>
Thoughts about translation
As meaning is involved, it is possible to have more than one correct English translation of the same foreign language text. For example, one version may be literal, another less loyal but better English. Does anybody have a good example of this phenomenon?
As more than one correct translation is possible, translation is not normally a reversible process. An exception would be when a controlled vocabulary is used. Such a vocabulary may be useful for contact information. For example, it may be possible always to translate the Japanese word ビル /biru/ as "building". Even in closely related languages, controlled vocabularies may produce nonsense. For example, German erst(e) is usually 'first' and Hilfe is usually 'help'. However, erste Hilfe is 'first aid', NOT 'first help'.
Some organizations have no official English translation for their names. "Official" means a form that the organization recognizes and uses on websites, headed paper, address slips etc. In these cases it is not helpful to create an ad hoc translated form, as there may be several possibilities and the organization concerned may disown such an unofficial form.
Thoughts about transliteration
The key word here is the word "process". Transliteration should be systematic. Ideally anyone transliterating should produce the same result. Typically it follows an ISO standard or government legislation. This may then be simplified in some way. For example, the Chinese example in https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Chinese+Addresses has the tone marks, that according to the Chinese transliteration rules should be there, removed.
Transliteration does not mean:
Representations where features from several systems mixed together, for example, Itou or Itoh for Japanese 伊藤 or 伊東.
Transliteration may be reversible in the case of alphabetic writing systems etc., as long as no letter in either script is represented by more than one letter in the other script. Thai, for example, is probably not reversible as it frequently represents the same sound with different letters depending on the tone of the syllable. See, for example, the high and low letters kho here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_alphabet#Alphabetic
Examples from various countries
On exonyms and endonyms
From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain
Sent: 07 March 2014 03:36
To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 06 March 2014
Dear All,
Thank you for sharing the recordings and sorry for not being able to make to the call.
Listening to the recording, regarding the excellent discussion by Chris on transliteration inaccuracies, I would like to contribute two terminology words and a comment specifically in the context of the discussion around Krung Thep and Bangkok (in which Bangkok is being recommended during the call).
United Nation Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) suggests the following relevant terminology:
Exonym is the name used in a specific language for a geographical feature situated outside the area where that language has official status, and differing in its form from the name used in the official language or languages of the area where the geographical feature is situated. Examples: Warsaw is the English exonym for Warszawa; Londres is French for London; Mailand is German for Milano. The officially romanized endonym Moskva for Москва is not an exonym, nor is the Pinyin form Beijing, while Peking is an exonym.
Endonym is the name of a geographical feature in one of the languages occurring in that area where the feature is situated. Examples: Vārānasī (not Benares); Aachen (not Aix-la-Chapelle); Krung Thep (not Bangkok); al-Uqşur (not Luxor); Teverya (not Tiberias).
And in addition, please note that
The United Nations recommends minimizing the use of exonyms in international usage
Thus, Bangkok is not the recommended form by the UN. The same applies to other examples from Taiwan discussed in the call, where transliteration/pinyin is recommended by the UN instead of the popular romanized versions. Thus, if we want to keep Bangkok (over the transliteration) we may want to document clear reasons why we want to diverge from this recommendation. Or other possibility is that we stick to the UN recommendation and use the transliterated forms (as this may be more consistent for all city names even if it means some names may not be in their popular exonyms).
Regards,
Sarmad
Dear Sarmad,
Thank you very much for your contribution. I think we certainly need to add both terms to our definitions page. I will wait for any responses to this email before doing that.
Personally I believe in making things as simple and intuitive (e.g. close to what normally gets written on an envelope) as possible for those transliterating or translating and ideally the use of exonyms for at least countries and major cities would be part of that. Most English speakers do not know what Krung Thep is.
If, however, we are unable to locate a user-friendly list of such exonyms, we may be driven to transliteration. At least that would be a very simple rule: “Transliterate the address using the national standard transliteration.”
Incidentally, it is interesting that there are two possible Japanese pronunciations and transliterations of 日本 ‘Japan’: the formal Nippon, as on postage stamps, or the more commonly used Nihon.
I am about to send a couple of other emails picking up points made by Amr, Peter Dernbach, Rudi et al. during the call.
Regards,
Chris.
--
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
