Why no Cyrillic?

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Valery Belyanin wrote:

> Небольшой оффтоп :-)
> я нахожу немного странным (если не сказать дискриминационным), что в работах
> англоязычных русские публикации описываются транслитом, Вот пример из
> соседней ветки:
> 2.      Efimova, N.: Vetkhii Zavet v kontekste Bozh'ego mira geroev romana
> Dostoevskogo "Brat'ia Karamazovy".
> а в русских публикациях вся библиография иностранная идет в латинице или
> соответствующих шрифтах.

Makes perfect sense.

If you have Cyrillic installed on your system, it comes with Roman so 
you can do both. If you have Roman installed on your system, it may not 
have Cyrillic, so you may not be able to do both. In sending information 
to an unknown system, it is more reliable to use transliteration to 
Roman because all systems can handle it.

That being said, I still find it preposterous that Slavicists working 
with Russian find the need to transliterate in case fellow Slavicists 
working with Russian might not have Cyrillic capability. It's like a 
doctor saying "thigh bone" to another doctor in case the latter might 
not understand "femur."

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
pbg translations, inc.
"Russian Translations That Read Like Originals"
http://pbg-translations.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------