28 



REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD. 



tions with other diphthongs when in 

 juxtaposition. It also represents a 

 sound which is not forcibly or usually 

 in evidence and which is, in general, 

 better rendered by i. It is therefore 

 recommended that No. 10 be tran- 

 scribed as i with a diacritical mark, 

 as in the Libi'ary of Congress table. 



No. 11. The solution previously sug- 

 gested is faulty in that, when in juxta- 

 position with u there would be am- 

 biguity, as iyu could represent iy and 

 u or i and yu. It is therefore recom- 

 mended that a diacritic mark be used 

 over i, as in the Library of Congress 

 table. 



No. 29. The proposed digraph ui is 

 open to objection on the score of am- 

 biguity, not being distinguishable from 

 the two single vowels u and i. Fur- 

 ther minor objections may be found in 

 its expressing, according to some au- 

 thorities, only an occasional and not 

 the regular sound, ind, when in juxta- 

 position with other diphthongs, form- 

 ing a word of awkward appearance 

 and inconvenient length. The simple 

 y can not be substituted for it, how- 

 ever, as that is a consonant according 

 to the Board's rule, and with it imme- 

 diately preceding either of the vowels 

 e or u or a the combinations could be 

 interpreted either as two single letters 

 in each instance or as the diphthongs 

 ye, yu, ya. This conflict with the 

 method of the Library of Congress em- 

 braces Nos. 31, 33, and 34, the render- 

 ing of which is dependent upon the de- 

 cision as to whether y is a vowel or 

 a consonant ; the latter use is so firmly 

 inti'enched in general practice as to 

 seem mandatory, and this compels the 

 avoidance of i in digraphs to represent 

 Nos. 31, 33, and 34. It is therefore 

 recommended that No. 29 be tran- 

 scribed by i with a diacritical mark. 



No. 36 is open to the objection of 

 ambiguity, not being distinguishable 

 from the two single vowels o and e; 

 these rarely, if ever, occur in juxta- 

 position in Russian names, but there 

 might be uncertainty in retranslitera- 

 tion. Recourse will, therefore, again 



have to be had to the use of a diacritic 

 mark. Objection to this is minimized 

 by the fact that the letter is virtually 

 obsolete. It seems objectionable to use 

 a fifth i, and preferable to use y dis- 

 tinguished by a diacritic, and thus ex- 

 plained as a vowel in the rare in- 

 stances of its use. This will conform 

 to the practice of the Library of Con- 

 gress. 



Table III, appended, exhibits the 

 sj^stem resulting from the reconsidera- 

 tion. As a test of its expediency, it 

 has been applied to the Russian place 

 names of Table II, forming column 3 

 of that table, and appears to meet re- 

 quirements. 



There are some Russian names in 

 such frequent popular use in this coun- 

 try and in England as to have become 

 anglicized, probably beyond any at- 

 tempt to change them to an academi- 

 cally correct transliteration. Among 

 such names are Siberia, Archangel, 

 Crimea, Thetis, differing from the ren- 

 derings in Table II, column 3. This is 

 a thing of frequent occurrence in other 

 countries, e. g., Leghorn (Livorno), 

 Naples (Napoli), Antwerp (Anvers)^ 

 and others. Irrepressible popular ex 

 ceptions, therefore, can not well be 

 considered in antagonism to a general 

 system. 



In the matter of maps and charts 

 the application of transliteration tables 

 is affected by conditions not entering 

 the domain of pure philology, as ex- 

 plained in the early part of this re- 

 port, and seems to form virtually a 

 separate problem. Rule E of the reso- 

 lutions passed by the International 

 Map Committee, assembled in London 

 in 1909, suggests that the Governments 

 of countries which do not use the 

 Latin alphabet should publish an au- 

 thorized system of map translitera- 

 tion. The Hydrographic Office accepts 

 the Chinese Maritime Customs romani- 

 zation of names in China. Russia has 

 not published an authorized system. 

 In this situation it has not been con- 

 sidered important that the charts pub- 

 lished by the Hydrographic Office be 



