Benutzer Diskussion:Apcbg

Willkommen

Merhaba & herzlich willkommen bei der Wikipedia.

Freut mich, daß du auf die Wikipedia gestoßen bist & hier mitarbeiten willst. Wenn du eine Frage hast & keine Antwort darauf in den FAQ gefunden hast, dann stelle deine Frage auf Fragen zur Wikipedia oder frag einfach auf meiner Diskussionsseite oder bei einem anderen Wikipedianer, alle werden dir sicher gern helfen. Wenn du im Diskussionsnamensraum bist, unterschreibst du am besten mit ~~~~. Vielleicht findest du ja zu deinem Interessengebiet ein WikiProjekt, an dem du mitarbeiten möchtest. Hier stehen ein paar Einsteigerinfos & danach hilft das Handbuch weiter. Also let`s go =). Schöne Grüße aus der Kaiserstadt Goslar (Touristen erwünscht ;-))--Danyalova ? 18:50, 10. Apr 2006 (CEST)

Hi, I moved your article to Benutzer:Apcbg/Geschichte der Südgeorgien und die Südlichen Sandwichinseln where you can go on translating it. You might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Übersetzungswünsche (requests for translation) to find help in translating it. Please refrain from directly putting english text in de:WP name space, thank you! greetinx --JHeuser 06:19, 23. Mai 2006 (CEST)

...meanwhile, Henriette has moved it to Südgeorgien und die Südlichen Sandwichinseln/Englischsprachiger Steinbruch --JHeuser 06:22, 23. Mai 2006 (CEST)

Karte bei den Protobulgaren

Die alte Heimat des Protobulgaren in den Imeon Bergen, entsprechend den karte von Zentralasien vom ‘Aschcharazujz’, wieder aufgebaut vom Akademiker S.T. Eremian.

Hallo Apcbg! Es ist leider nicht ganz klar, was diese Karte zeigen soll, vielleicht liegt es auch an deren Qualität. Auch findet sich keine Erklärung im Text zu Aschcharazujz. Vielliecht holst Du Dir Hilfe in der Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt. Auf diese Weise ist die Karte leider absolut nutzlos. Schönen Gruß, --J. Patrick Fischer 15:28, 20. Jan. 2008 (CET)

Dear Patrick, perhaps a more informative caption for the map would be

The ancient homeland of the Bulgars at Hindu Kush and Pamir, according to the map of Central Asia from the Armenian geographical atlas ‘Ashharatsuyts’ (5-7 century), reconstructed by academician S.T. Eremian.

Of course, any improvement of the map itself would be welcome too. I leave it to your judgement if the present version of the map, with the new text (adequately translated into German), might be useful for that article. Apologies for not communicating in German. Best, Apcbg 21:41, 20. Jan. 2008 (CET)

Transliteration des Kyrillischen

Die "offizielle" Latiniesierung in Bulgarien ist eine reine Katastrophe : sie ist inkohärent und pseudo-englisch (in welchem englischen Wort wird z. B. der Laut "ж" mit "zh" notiert?). Die Anglizisierung der Umschrift ist deshalb absurd, weil das Englische, noch weniger als das Französische, eine "Orthographie" im Sinne einer Korrespondenz zwischen Laut und Schrift kennt. Leider wird dieses "System" (die offizielle Website des bulgarischen Innenministeriums spricht sogar völlig dilettantisch von einem "englischen Alphabet", das es gar nicht gibt!) in Bulgarien völlig willkürlich verwendet. Ich arbeite z. Z. in Bulgarien und habe mich entschlossen, jetzt nur noch die internationale Transliteration zu verwenden, selbst wenn die Bulgaren regelmäßig staunen und behaupten, die Buchstaben mit diakritischen Zeichen wie Č, š oder ǎ nicht zu kennen. Antwort : können Sie lernen! In Makedonien dagegen wird korrekt und kohärent transkribiert - warum nehmen die Bulgaren, die so oft die "Bulgarität" ihrer makedonischen Nachbarn beschwören, kein (gutes) Beispiel daran? --Hubertgui 13:58, 15. Mai 2008 (CEST)

Dear Hubertgui, your criticism of the official Bulgarian system for the Romanization of Bulgarian seems less than substantiated. Indeed, that system shares many essential characteristics (including the use of ‘zh’) with the BGN/PCGN system used for the Romanization of Bulgarian by the US and UK government agencies. If you mean that the official system for the Romanization of Bulgarian in the USA and UK is ‘pseudo-English’, then so be it and yes we choose that ‘pseudo-English’ approach ... the one used in Skopje is ‘too English’ for us :-) You may find a detailed explanation of the history of and motivation behind our choice (and not favouring the Croat-like approach that you seem to prefer) in L.L. Ivanov, On the Romanization of Bulgarian and English, Contrastive Linguistics, XXVIII, 2003, 2, pp. 109-118. ISSN 0204-8701; Errata, id., XXIX, 2004, 1, p. 157. Apologies for not communicating in German. Apcbg 12:14, 29. Mai 2008 (CEST)

Dear Apcbg. Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. I don't want to have endless polemics about this topic, but I am not at all convinced : here only some arguments. 1. I maintain that the practical romanization in BG is highly incoherent, included (and this is the worst of it) the official practice on roadsigns for instance. Ex.: ъ is tranlitterated with "a" - formerly (horresco referens!) "u". 2. BGN/PCGN is the system of US-UK administrations, it has no general international validity. To give another example: the US (and in fact the UK too) use the so-called "imperial units", but a large majority of countries in the world ignore them, and (most importantly) the international scientists: even some US administrations like NASA use the metric system. There are internationally recognized systems for the transliteration of cyrillic: ISO 9, the system of the UN and the Serb-croatian system. Why should they not be used? It should be possible to question the decision of some Bulgarian minister (his name has now fallen into oblivion) about 10 years ago... 3. In academic publications (e. g. in a thesis), it would really be regarded as a bit "strange" (to put it mildly) to use the system you advocate. ISO 9 or the serbo-croatian transliteration are considered as "normal". I think that English-speaking universities are not an exception (or at least should not be). As Wikipedia is an international scientific project, I do not see any reason why even the English-speaking version should not use one of both. 4. The system I prefer (because it's more coherent, I think) is what the Bulgarian Wiki calls "Научна транслитерация" (cf. bg:Транслитерация на българските букви с латински. It differs a little bit from ISO 9 and from the system of the UN and is in fact the system used in Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. It was formerly used in Bulgaria too, until a foolish minister of the interior (I think you know the realitiy of Bulgarian political life much better than I do) took that ill-considered decision... --Hubertgui 10:50, 2. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

Dear Hubertgui, your reasoning is self-refuting. The imperial units may have no wider international validity but the English language (unlike Serbo-Croatian) does, and the official Bulgarian system for the Latin transliteration of the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet is English-oriented, making it better comprehensible for the wider world public that speaks English rather than Serbo-Croatian. This consideration is questioned by no Bulgarian experts; moreover, it is shared also by other countries using Cyrillic script like Russia and Ukraine – for practical (non-academic) purposes they have adopted similar English-oriented transliteration of their Cyrillic alphabets. By the way, the decision in question, while approved by the Bulgarian Government, was taken on the basis of an assessment made by a commission of leading academic experts (who incidentally did not include among them the author of the system). Republic of Macedonia's practice results from past Serbian domination there which is irrelevant in the Bulgarian case; by the way, there is no reason to believe that if the Croats were to design their Latin alphabet today they wouldn't have made it differently than they actually did in centuries ago at a time when the English language didn't have its present lingua franca function, and when electronic communication (which disfavours diacritics) was not yet in sight. Wikipedia is no academic thesis, and given that Wikipedia uses ISO 9 transliteration for no language whatsoever, there is no reason why Bulgarian should be an exception as you suggest. Apcbg 23:48, 3. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

However, the "English" system of translitteration has a lot of problems and does'nt grant an great coherence. The Научна транслитерация does: one latin letter or letter group = one sound! Okay, you are for English-speaking uniformization and you mean that the Научна транслитерация is the result of a Serbian or Croatian (?) imperialism. But can you tell me, why the Bulgarians call it "Научна "?. But forget about that, I do'nt think we can convince each other... More interesting is the debate about the question, whether Wiki is a scientific project or a journalistic one. I favour the first solution. I do'nt see why I should imitate The Sun, USA Today or even the Herald Tribune. --Hubertgui 08:00, 4. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

Being a 'scientific project' is one thing, being for 'scientific purposes' is something else. You wrote: "But can you tell me, why the Bulgarians call it "Научна"?" Answering your question, the so called 'scientific transliteration' (научна транслитерация) is so called not because it is the result of a scientific project (other systems are also results of scientific projects) but because it is used for scientific purposes (typically in linguistic publications, bibliographies, library catalogues etc. but little else) rather than in mass practice (such as road signs, street names etc.). You mention only the desirability of one-to-one correspondence, which indeed is essential for the purposes of 'scientific transliteration', but there are also other requirements a transliteration would be desirable to meet. These requirements form an inconsistent set, so the good system is the one that offers a better ballance between them. Such a transliteration system is the Streamlined System, and I really recommend you say the paper On the Romanization of Bulgarian and English which gives an introduction to the subject that explains all the principal requirements rather than single out merely one of them as you do. Apcbg 17:42, 6. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

The link you gave to me is very interesting, but it mentions explicitly that the rules given in the text base on the "non academic practice in the UK and US". And I maintain that this has no contractual international relevance. And in fact, many popular publications in all three languages I practice (French, German, English) do not use this system, which is not binding for other languages than English (in not academic texts, of course). For instance, the Guide Vert Michelin « Bulgarie » (a very popular publication indeed, released 2005) uses only the scientific system, and the German Lonely Planet Guide Bulgarien (translation of an English guide) a mix of the scientific transcription and of German transcription. Furthermore, most editors of touristic maps of Bulgaria (e. g. the French IGN or the German editor Freytag and Berndt) use also the scientific transcription. As for the idea that diacritical signs are not compatible with modern electronical communication, I have also to disagree: it was true 20 years ago, but nowadays, all word processing softwares allow their use. The question, whether the Anglo-American usages should be compulsory for all countries and cultures, should be discussed on a political level. I would rather disagree with that, but the status of Wikipedia is for me a more important question. And if you have a look to the definition of an encyclopedia since d’Alembert and Diderot, you’ll see that this kind of work has a scientific purpose, more precisely the aim of scientific vulgarisation. I would feel uneasy to use a non scientific transcription in French or German Wiki-articles, because I would have the impression to show a lack of respect to the audience I’m writing for. If the Bulgarian authorities have decided to change the existing system of practical romanization (to adopt a foreign practice, not a contractually elaborated system), I respect that decision, although I regret it, because the scientific system used formerly on an official level seems to me more coherent and is recognised as an international convention. If it were the only bad example shown by this country, the world would surely be a better place to live in... I know that English is widely understood and used, but it is not a fin en soi, only a tool. Therefore, if you have a look at the article fr:Vitocha in the French Wiki I’m translating from Bulgarian, you’ll see I have opted for a moderate use of the scientific transliteration: for names which are well known in the French language, I use the traditional orthography (for instance Sofia and not Sofija), but for unknown names, I use the scientific transliteration, for instance Vladaja and not Vladaya. I should this should be the convention for all languages in Wiki, and not anglicisation. In fact, it would be very strange to write «Vitosha» in French as well as in German. --Hubertgui 16:27, 8. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

No, it doesn't say that the Streamlined System is based on the non-academic practice in the UK and the USA. The paper explains how that system reflects the evolution of the mass non-academic practice of transliteration in Bulgaria (as it should indeed do), comparing it with that in the UK and USA too. Nobody says that the Streamlined System is universally intended for all purposes of transliteration of Bulgarian. For instance, we cannot put several transliterations on Bulgarian road signs to make them more friendly to German, French, Spanish etc. speaking travellers, only one is used and that is the English-oriented Streamlined System (which will be understandable to most foreigners); same for the Bulgarian personal identification documents. However, there is no reason for using that system in French or German language texts. There are well established French and German transliterations of Bulgarian that would be suitable for that purpose (the use of 'scientific transliteration' would be quite inappropriate and confusing there either). For instance, 'Витоша' should be (and normally is) transliterated 'Vitocha' in French texts and 'Witoscha' in German ones; the form 'Vitoša' would be neither here nor there, it is not Bulgarian, not German and not French; possibly adequate in Croat or Czech texts that have nothing to do with German or French (similarly, 'Vladaja' is confusing in a French text, probably should be 'Vladaia' or 'Vladaya'). Other Romanized languages transliterate Bulgarian according to their own rules, e.g. it is 'Vitosja' in Dutch and Norwegian, 'Vitosa' in Hungarian, 'Witosza' in Polish etc. I don't think that proposing the 'scientific transliteration' for those languages is a good idea, and frankly I doubt if anyone would consider seriously such a proposal. As for diacritics, yes it is possible to use it in electronic communication but the present software and keyboards (computers and mobile phones) are not user-friendly in that respect. As a result, diacritics is generally omitted in electronic communication, thereby replacing the original diacritics-using alphabets with crippled diacritic-stripped versions; go to any Chech or Croat web forum and you will see grossly distorted spellings with most of diacritics missing. Languages using little or no diacritics (like English, German, Italian) suffer no such distortions. Apcbg 21:16, 9. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

Antarktische Konvergenz

Danke für die Karte. ich weiß, wie viel Mühe das machen kann (hab mal die Kurilenkarte betitelt). Jetzt ist die Konvergenz-Seite so ziemlich fertig. --HAL-Guandu 16:12, 5. Mär. 2009 (CET)