Why no Cyrillic?

[Susan Bauckus]

an example of papers published with Russian text that are likely to be of general interest were the ones we published last June or so in the Heritage Language Journal, in the issue on Russian as a heritage language. We transliterated almost all Russian text appearing in those papers. I think it's likely that most people reading those papers were not Slavists, but no matter who read them, that kind of accessibility was important to us because the phenomenon of heritage language knowledge, acquisition, loss, and instruction extend far beyond Slavic. 

I would say that knowing Cyrillic for languages that use a Cyrillic alphabet is more than a "tool of the profession;" it's essential to knowing the language well. However, not everyone here is a Russianist, Ukrainianist, Bulgarianist, or whatever.  And I don't agree that "a serious Russianist  would have made the commitment to acquire the necessary skills and technology." Are you sure? you can post in Cyrillic all you like, and take care to configure things properly, but how much control do you have over other people's messages to you? 
sb


> [Original Message]
> From: Paul B. Gallagher <paulbg at PBG-TRANSLATIONS.COM>
> To: <SEELANGS at bama.ua.edu>
> Date: 2/5/2009 1:51:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Why no Cyrillic?
>
> [redirecting my reply to the list]
>
> Susan Bauckus wrote:
>
> [quoting me:]
> > "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."
> > 
> > I suggest that it's more like a doctor and a computer specialist not
> > being able to understand each other's jargon or knowlledge of each
> > other's fields. unfortunate, or interesting, perhaps. why
> > preposterous? Not being able to type in Cyrillic would be
> > preposterous, but that's not what we're talking about.
> > 
> > don't non-Russianists read linguistic papers with examples set forth
> > in transliteration? it's a tool of the field.
>
> Just because we have a tool in our repertoire doesn't mean it should be 
> used for everything. You're right that transliteration is appropriate 
> for linguistic papers addressed to a broader audience, especially one 
> including non-Slavicists (I haven't seen any such papers here since I 
> subscribed in February 2001). And I find it easier to see cognate 
> relationships when the various reflexes are presented in the same 
> writing system. But I don't find it reasonable for a comparative Slavist 
> to say "I can't read Cyrillic, so dumb it down for me, please." (not 
> that anyone here has done so) It's a basic tool of the profession.
>
> I guess the question is whether it is reasonable for someone posting to 
> SEELANGS to expect his readership to be literate in Cyrillic. I would 
> say Cyrillic literacy is a reasonable expectation for someone posting on 
> Russia or Russian in this forum. Readers who are not Cyrillic-literate 
> are probably also not interested in the posting; a serious Russianist 
> would have made the commitment to acquire the necessary skills and 
> technology.
>
> -- 
> 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/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------