| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Fassbinder 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
 Posted: May 21 2007 at 15:09 |
Not too great, Uwe -- just a simple copying / pasting.
I know about the differences. "Olster" is, apparently, misspelling. (Also, there's a period instead of a comma in the English translation of this track).
As for the other tracks -- I think there's a little relevance of them, if at all. Maybe, as Julian has pointed out, we don't need those translations at all, transliterations are enough?
|
 |
Rivertree
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions
Joined: March 22 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 17626
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 15:41 |
 Fassbinder wrote:
As for the other tracks -- I think there's a little relevance of them, if at all. Maybe, as Julian has pointed out, we don't need those translations at all, transliterations are enough? |
clause 2.2 english translation of track titles are optional - so if they are known they should be added? clause 1.2 english translations of Autograf album titles should be deleted
Edited by Rivertree - May 21 2007 at 16:21
|
|
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 17:32 |
You're right, Uwe (whereas I'm not) -- there's a difference between track titles and album titles.
The only problem is that those English translations are not exactly known -- I think that there is no official source of those translations accepted by everyone. Therefore translations may differ.
Now the question is: do we want consistency in translations? If we do, we need to choose one single variant for each title.
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 08:20 |
|
Hang on ... we have a number of issues here ... so let's put them in order ....
Band Names
Issue 1: should only the original band name be displayed in its original form?
Автограф
not Автограф (Autograph / Avtograf / Autograf) or any combination
Album Titles
Issue 2: should album title contain transliteration if original is not in roman alphabet?
Issue 3: current standards state English translations should not be given
Track Titles
Issue 4: should track title contain transliteration if original is not in roman alphabet?
Issue 5: can we provide English translation or must it come from an authoritative source such as band's website, CD cover etc?
My own views?
1 & 2 & 4 - If we transliterate band names, then, by default, we should also do so for album & tracks. Sounds like a lot of work for somebody though ....
5 - English translation of tracks should be given only if it comes from an authoritative source
|
|
Rivertree
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions
Joined: March 22 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 17626
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 14:04 |
issue 1
That's really a great problem. 
search the WWW for
Avtograf Tear down the Border
Autograf Tear down the Border
Autograph Tear down the Border
Автограф Tear down the border
and you will get a lot of hits for all those four expressions. 
The covers have two notations with Latin characters:
AUTOGRAPH (Stone Land)
AVTOGRAF (Tear down the border)
So I think we are forced to indicate the band name according to this fact
AUTOGRAPH (AVTOGRAF/AUTOGRAF/Автограф)
or if possible (I can ask Prog-jester)
AUTOGRAPH (AVTOGRAF/Автограф)
Edited by Rivertree - May 22 2007 at 14:19
|
|
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 14:54 |
Personally, I prefer original names with transliterations. I'd keep translations only for group titles, although even this is not necessary.
Compare with groups / albums / tracks from other languages. None of them is translated. Hence, the Russian ones must not to be translated either. However, they should be transliterated, in order to provide their legibility.
As for work -- how many USSR / post-USSR do we have?
By the way, in case of Автограф, Autograph is the translation and Avtograf is the transliteration, so, there is no need for Autograf, at least. In my opinion.
If we decide that there is no need in translations at all, we'll keep it as Автограф (Avtograf) (or Avtograf (Автограф), depending on the default order of languages / alphabets).
If we decide to keep translations too, we'll have Автограф (Avtograf / Autograph).
By the way, the group's name in Russian when written in upper case letters looks like АВТОГРАФ.
Edited by Fassbinder - May 22 2007 at 14:57
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 02:45 |
|
Thinking a little further ....
I was inclined to agree that the form should be ... original (transliterated) ....eg Автограф (Avtograf) .... and this would apply to band name, album title and track title. I always prefer to see things in their original state, even if I can't read or understand them. But, while that is fine for Russian, Greek etc, what about Arabic, Chinese, Japanese etc?
What I am coming round to is the question ... should we have the 'original' form at all? I am sure somebody already asked this a while back, but it didn't seem right at the time. Now I am thinking, if we are to have a standard then it will have to apply to all, including the Arabic, Chines and Japanese etc.
Perhaps, then, the form should be simply ... transliterated ... eg Avtograf ... track titles could optionally contain an English translation as before.
What do you think?
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 05:20 |
Basing an argument on the notion of standard is a double-edged weapon.
1. Yes, we might have some problems (maybe, very serious or even impossible to solve problems) with Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic titles. If the characters of the corresponding alphabets aren't maintained by the system, they will be impossible to be displayed. Remember, however, that not every Arabic or Chinese group's name should be written in an original form, but only those, who actually have this form written on the covers of the albums.
So, there are reasons to keep only the transliterated forms as a standard.
2. On the other hand, pedantically speaking, many non-English titles are not transliterated, but remain in their original form. For example, ÄLGARNAS TRÄDGÅRD is the original form, and ALGARNAS TRADGARD is the transliteration. If we want to keep transliteration form only, we should keep the latter title and erase the former. But we definitely wouldn't like such a state.
3. So, maybe, there is a need for a compromise -- original titles should remain.
- a. In case of their relatively easy legibility they don't need any transliteration beside (all the languages using the Latin alphabet with some additional diacriticised letters).
- b. In case of their legibility only for those who are familiar with the relevant languages, but still the characters of those alphabets are maintained by the system, titles should appear in their original form with a transliteration beside (in brackets). This applies to Cyrillic and Hebrew alphabets, at least (Hebrew letters are possible to be seen, aren't they?)
- c. In case of total impossibility to read the original titles (the system doesn't recognise them and encrypts them) only transliterated form should appear. This might apply to Japanese and Chinese titles.
Edited by Fassbinder - May 23 2007 at 05:21
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 09:55 |
Just one more observation .... let's not forget the reason the site exists, which should act as a focus for whatever we decide to do .... legibility needs to be a priority consideration .... how many non-linguists [like me] would know what Автограф is, or how to pronounce it? This would equally apply to Arabic, Japanese etc etc. But I could have a reasonable stab at saying ÄLGARNAS TRÄDGÅRD even if I most likely get it wrong. In general though, I like your 3 point summary 
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 12:01 |
Joolz wrote:
Just one more observation .... let's not forget the reason the site exists, which should act as a focus for whatever we decide to do .... legibility needs to be a priority consideration .... how many non-linguists [like me] would know what Автограф is, or how to pronounce it? This would equally apply to Arabic, Japanese etc etc. But I could have a reasonable stab at saying ÄLGARNAS TRÄDGÅRD even if I most likely get it wrong.
|
This does not contradict the point 3. from my previous post.
No-one needs to know how to pronounce Автограф. Write the transliterated form first, then add the original form in brackets. For example, Avtograf (Автограф), or Tamouz (תמוז) (by the way, is the latter name in brackets readable?).
|
|
Rivertree
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions
Joined: March 22 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 17626
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 12:19 |
|
The standard should be to show the original band name without any translation/transliteration
if the letters cannot be displayed in that language - maybe chinese - we have to use a transliteration (but I think the majority of this bands take care of this problem on their own)
But for Autograph/Avtograf/Автограф: who can say what is original?
When I look at the album covers it seems to be neither we nor the band can answer that.
Some thoughts about the criteria to continue:
1) The band name(s) printed on the album/sleeve/booklet
2) What makes an internet user easy to be routed to ProgArchives when he searches for the band?
3) What's the opinion of the band?
If the result of the criteria is not satisfying though it is necessary to use the standard
transliteration (native language[if this can be displayed])
transliteration first because it is more legible for the majority of the visitors.
As for Autograph:
1) There are three different band names given on the covers
2) All the band name expressions have hits when searching the WWW
3) I don't know what the band is prefering
So my current summary is to enumerate alle the usual expressions
Autograph (Avtograf/Автограф)
and for the next step to ask the musicians for their opinion.
|
|
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 17:57 |
Fassbinder wrote:
Joolz wrote:
Just one more observation .... let's not forget the reason the site exists, which should act as a focus for whatever we decide to do .... legibility needs to be a priority consideration .... how many non-linguists [like me] would know what Автограф is, or how to pronounce it? This would equally apply to Arabic, Japanese etc etc. But I could have a reasonable stab at saying ÄLGARNAS TRÄDGÅRD even if I most likely get it wrong.
|
This does not contradict the point 3. from my previous post.
No-one needs to know how to pronounce Автограф. Write the transliterated form first, then add the original form in brackets. For example, Avtograf (Автограф), or Tamouz (תמוז) (by the way, is the latter name in brackets readable?). |
My intended point was that I would not recognise Автограф as being the same as Autograph unless it was pointed out to me.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Autograf - Autograf 1
