The Transliteration of Modern Russian for English-Language Publications by J. Thomas ShawReview by: J. S. G. SimmonsThe Modern Language Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Oct., 1969), p. 960Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3724015 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 08:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.31 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:38:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This inauguration of the new series of Oxford Slavonic Papers is a fine performance all round, and should persuade all concerned to give it of their best, whether as subscribers or contributors. tC L. WRENN

"C. L. WRENN OXFORD

The Transliteration of Modern Russianfor English-Language Publications. By J. THOMAS SHAW. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin Press. I967. I5 PP. 7s. 6d.

If we exclude the Slovo o polku Igoreve from our pharmacopoeia, the problem of transliteration must rate as the russisant's Number 9 febrifacient. Professor Shaw's booklet is a useful febrifuge which lays no claim to being a panacea (it excludes problems associated with the Old Orthography and library cataloguing). It seems, moreover, in spite of its title, to be directed to the North American reader to whom it offers four commented systems: the first, one for use in general works in which simple orthography and close phonetic approximation are key elements; the second, the Library of Congress system shorn of its diacritics (for bibliographical and non-Russian-specialist academic contexts); the third is what Professor Shaw calls 'the international scholarly system' (actually the variant of ISO/R9, popular in America, which gratuitously and misguidedly substitutes - calesco referens - x for h when transliterating Russian x) - this he commends for specialist linguistic and literary works; and, finally, the Library of Congress scheme with diacritics, recommended for separate bibliographical publications, preferably not those 'intended for an international audience'. He adds valuable practical notes on special problems such as those connected with the transliteration of personal and place names, and - for good measure - a word on Russian chronology which includes the bald injunction 'to change dates "from the creation of the world" to our system, subtract 5508'; those concerned with sixteenth- and seventeenth- century Russian Julian dates falling between September and December will find 5509 a better bet.

Professor Shaw is within his rights in passing over in silence alternative systems; but it would have done no harm if he had found room for at least a mention of the existence of ISO/R9 and British Standard 2979:I958 - the latter is commonly used (neat or diluted) in British 'English-language publications'. One can have doubts about details of his systems, e.g. he allows revtushenko and forbids Dostoyevsky, but his principles are sound and his booklet contains much useful practical good sense in its annotations. Editors and others concerned with trans- literation problems can consult it with profit, but they would do well to have a Slavist advocatus diaboli within earshot, for they stand on the edge of a quagmire. And, chauvinism apart, I believe that editors of British publications should do what they can to further the cause of standardization by turning a deaf ear to his trans-Atlantic siren systems -unless, of course, they are aiming at a North American audience. . . .

This inauguration of the new series of Oxford Slavonic Papers is a fine performance all round, and should persuade all concerned to give it of their best, whether as subscribers or contributors. tC L. WRENN

"C. L. WRENN OXFORD

The Transliteration of Modern Russianfor English-Language Publications. By J. THOMAS SHAW. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin Press. I967. I5 PP. 7s. 6d.

If we exclude the Slovo o polku Igoreve from our pharmacopoeia, the problem of transliteration must rate as the russisant's Number 9 febrifacient. Professor Shaw's booklet is a useful febrifuge which lays no claim to being a panacea (it excludes problems associated with the Old Orthography and library cataloguing). It seems, moreover, in spite of its title, to be directed to the North American reader to whom it offers four commented systems: the first, one for use in general works in which simple orthography and close phonetic approximation are key elements; the second, the Library of Congress system shorn of its diacritics (for bibliographical and non-Russian-specialist academic contexts); the third is what Professor Shaw calls 'the international scholarly system' (actually the variant of ISO/R9, popular in America, which gratuitously and misguidedly substitutes - calesco referens - x for h when transliterating Russian x) - this he commends for specialist linguistic and literary works; and, finally, the Library of Congress scheme with diacritics, recommended for separate bibliographical publications, preferably not those 'intended for an international audience'. He adds valuable practical notes on special problems such as those connected with the transliteration of personal and place names, and - for good measure - a word on Russian chronology which includes the bald injunction 'to change dates "from the creation of the world" to our system, subtract 5508'; those concerned with sixteenth- and seventeenth- century Russian Julian dates falling between September and December will find 5509 a better bet.

Professor Shaw is within his rights in passing over in silence alternative systems; but it would have done no harm if he had found room for at least a mention of the existence of ISO/R9 and British Standard 2979:I958 - the latter is commonly used (neat or diluted) in British 'English-language publications'. One can have doubts about details of his systems, e.g. he allows revtushenko and forbids Dostoyevsky, but his principles are sound and his booklet contains much useful practical good sense in its annotations. Editors and others concerned with trans- literation problems can consult it with profit, but they would do well to have a Slavist advocatus diaboli within earshot, for they stand on the edge of a quagmire. And, chauvinism apart, I believe that editors of British publications should do what they can to further the cause of standardization by turning a deaf ear to his trans-Atlantic siren systems -unless, of course, they are aiming at a North American audience. . . .

J. S. Gi. SIMMONS J. S. Gi. SIMMONS OXFORD OXFORD

96o 96o Reviews Reviews

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.31 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:38:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions