Talk:Informal romanizations of Russian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge four articles[edit]

The distinctions between Russian Chat Alphabet, Translit, Volapuk encoding, and Informal romanizations of Russian are confusing at best. There is also material in Faux Cyrillic which has nothing to do with graphic design and typography, but may be related to this topic. Some merging is in order, I think. I don't know which article is best to merge into, but this article's title is the most generally applicable and self-explanatory. Michael Z. 2007-06-18 14:45 Z

This was my foal of starting this article, but apparently no one was interested in the topic and I simply forgot about it while waiting for responses from russian community. `'юзырь:mikka 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
From my reading, Volapyuk and translit do have specific meaning, but are not formally defined or standardized. The relevant articles sort of imply that they are formal encoding standards, although I imagine they are almost exclusively applied in an informal and inconsistent way, and combined, as is comfortable for a user. The topic would probably be much clearer if the relationships were described in this single article.
In other words, (although I'm no expert) I think you've summarized the topic better here than any of the other articles. I think they ought to be merged into the structure you've established here. Michael Z. 2007-06-18 16:12 Z
My problem is that I'm no expert either, so I didn't go much beyond obvious summary and minimal references to keep the article from deletion. `'юзырь:mikka 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This situation makes no sense. Of course these articles have to be merged. Hellerick (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Volapuk encoding[edit]

It is transliteration, but not transliteration standard, it is rather transliteration chaos. According to my memories, the term originated as a joke from the olden days of e-mail, when typing in Russian font was a HUGE problem, for several reasons. When an ordinary person typed Russian text on latin keyboard, he didn't have any idea of various wise transliteration standards. It was not uncommon that person's ad-hoc transliteration followed the second language learned in school: English, German or French. What is more, when typing quickly without much typing experience (who had it, in times of computer illiteracy?) one easily types similarly looking rather similarly sounding letters. And the text becomes kinda funny: "ETO ochenj smeshnoj tekct, kotoryj BCEGDA nopmalno poluchishj. ECLN cpeshishj ochenj. OH Hazivaetcja Bolapuk!". If you throw in a liberal amount of typos (can you imagine a spell-checker for volapuk? :-), volapuk you will have.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any printed matter that tells this story. `'юзырь:mikka 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, no such standard, as there is no such term (I'm a native Russian speaker and an IT specialist since early 1990s). Let's kill such unsourced's volapuk research (please, leave no REDIRECT!), but I have no major objections against content of the article. Such latinizations do exist. гык 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Early 90s you are too young, man, to judge. We are talking about 70s. `'юзырь:mikka 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You have Soviet origin, man, isn't it? So what did you say about 1970s? There was no latin translits in USSR till the PC epoch, all ancient computers in USSR used russified EBCDIC or dialects of KOI, you should know it. гык 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So named standard romanizations of Russian[edit]

There is no standards of romanization in Russian Internet. Mikkalai's source says nothing about standards. гык 08:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)