Russian 23

≤m≥ cannot mark palatalization, yet it still occurs in specific morphological environments: in nouns of Declension<III> (≤yjxm≥ ‘night’, ≤djim≥ ‘louse’, ≤hj;m≥ ‘rye’, ≤gjvjom≥ ‘aid, help’), in infinitives of velar-stems (≤gtxm≥ ‘to bake’), in the imperative (≤gkfxm≥ ‘cry!’, ≤ckmim≥ ‘listen!’, ≤ht;m≥ ‘cut!’),21 and in the second singular of the present tense (≤xbnftim≥ ‘you read’).

1.3.6 How the Cyrillic alphabet works (lexical idiosyncrasies)

In general, Russian writing can be converted automatically to a phonological representation when it is supplemented by information about stress. There is only a limited number of idiosyncratic instances in which spelling and phonology do not match.

Orthographic ≤u≥ is pronounced as [v] in the genitive singular of masculine and neuter adjectives -- for example, in ≤njuj≥ [t vj´] ‘that’, ≤gjcnjhjyytuj≥ [ . . . n˛ìvə] ‘outsider’. The same pronunciation occurs in the lexicalized genitives ≤ctujlyz≥‘today’ and ≤bnjuj≥ ‘thus’. Historically this pronunciation goes back to a sound change in which g became [ ] in the southern half of the Russian language area, and was then reinterpreted as [v] in these words in central dialects. Despite the spelling ≤cz≥, palatalization is now rare in the reflexive

particle in the present tense and the masculine past (hd=ncz [rv˛5otsə], ,hƒkcz

⁄

‘undertook’ [brƒlsə]).

Some other peculiarities derive from the tension between [ ] and [ ] as the pronunciation of ≤u≥. In individual lexical items with a sacral connotation, the pronunciation of ≤u≥ as [ ] was maintained. The fricative is still possible in interjections ≤ujcgjlb≥ ‘Lord’, ≤tq <jue≥ ‘oh God’, ≤fuf≥ ‘aha’, and was earlier possible in the declension of the nouns ≤<ju≥ ‘God’ and in ≤,kfusq≥ ‘honorable’ and ≤,jufnsq≥ ‘rich’. A fricative pronunciation is recommended in ≤,e[ufkmnth≥ ‘bookkeeper’, where it has a different source.

The fact that ≤u≥ was once widely pronounced as [ ] is indirectly responsible for another peculiarity of spelling. Foreign [h] was for a long time spelled with Russian ≤u≥, because these foreign sounds were perceived to be similar to [ ]. This convention was maintained long after ≤u≥ ceased to be pronounced as [ ], and has carried over into modern borrowings, when it is pronounced as [ ], not [ ]: ≤uevfybcn≥ ‘humanist’, ≤ujnntynjns≥ ‘Hottentots’, ≤ujyjhfh≥ ‘honorarium’, ≤Ubnkth≥ ‘Hitler’. In recent years there is a tendency to use ≤[≥, unless the spelling with ≤u≥ is already established: one discussion of Shakespeare refers to ≤Ufvktn≥ ‘Hamlet’ and ≤{jncgeh≥ ‘Hotspur’. Note also ≤{tkmuf≥ ‘Helga’, ≤{tkmcbyrb≥ ‘Helsinki’, ≤ntktcrjg bvtyb {f,,kf≥ ‘the Hubbell telescope’, ≤Ejh[jkk≥‘Warhol’, ≤{fhktq-Lfdblcjy≥ ‘Harley-Davidson’.

21 The imperatives of verb stems ending in ≤o≥ take a vowel -- hßcrfnm, hs´ob -- suggesting ≤o≥ counts as a cluster.

24 A Reference Grammar of Russian

1.3.7 Transliteration

It is possible to convert words or whole texts written in Cyrillic into a Latin script by transliterating: each Cyrillic letter is assigned to one or more Latin letters, and the rules of conversion are applied blindly.22 For example, each time ≤u≥ occurs in a Cyrillic text, the letter ≤g≥ is used in the Latin text; thus ≤Djkujuhfl≥ is transliterated as ≤Volgograd≥, ≤Ufvktn≥ as ≤Gamlet≥ (though we know him by another name), ≤njuj≥ as ≤togo≥ (though the ≤u≥ is pronounced as [v]). When possible, the Latin equivalent is chosen so that its sound value corresponds to the sound value of the Cyrillic letter.

A number of systems for transliteration are in use. They are quite similar, and they are more or less equally adequate. There are also more informal, less rigorous, strategies of Anglicizing isolated Russian words, used, for example, in journalism.

The linguistic system uses diacritics in preference to diagraphs for unusual consonant letters, for example ≤x≥ is transliterated as ≤ˇc≥, using the Czech hƒˇcek. The soft-vowel letters ≤z≥ and ≤/≥ are rendered as ≤ja≥ and ≤ju≥ in all positions, whether they serve to mark a previous consonant as palatalized or to indicate the presence of [j]. Cyrillic ≤q≥ is ≤j≥. In this system, Latin ≤j≥ has multiple values: it occurs after a consonant in ≤djadja Vanja≥ (≤lzlz Dfyz≥), implying [d˛], before a vowel in ≤Jalta≥ (≤Zknf≥), implying [j], and after vowels in ≤geroj≥ (≤uthjq≥). Thus in order to know what Latin ≤j≥ means, one has to know the principles of Cyrillic writing. Cyrillic ≤э≥ is distinguished from Cyrillic ≤t≥ by a diacritic, as ≤è≥ or ≤˙e≥ (continental). The linguistic system of transliteration is rigorous in representing ≤=≥ when it is used in the source, and rigorous in transliterating ≤m≥ and ≤(≥. The linguistic system is commonly adapted to serve as a phonetic alphabet, a practice adopted here, though other sources prefer the International Phonetic Alphabet.

All other systems avoid diacritics and use digraphs instead: ≤x≥ is ≤ch≥, ≤o≥ is ≤shch≥, and ≤w≥ is ≤ts≥. Differences concern how vowels and ≤q≥ are transliterated. One widely used system is that of the Library of Congress. The soft-vowel letters ≤z≥ and ≤/≥ are rendered as ≤ia≥ and ≤iu≥, and Cyrillic ≤q≥ is also ≤i≥. Thus the Latin transliterated letter ≤i≥ derives from multiple sources -- from Cyrillic ≤b≥, obviously, but also from ≤q≥ and the soft-vowel letters ≤z≥ and ≤/≥. As a consequence, sequences such as ≤ii≥, ≤oi≥, ≤ei≥ are ambiguous. A further difficulty is that spellings such as ≤Ialta≥ or ≤diadia Vania≥ or ≤Svetloiar≥ (≤Cdtnkjzh≥) seem not to be enlightening guides to English pronunciation.

The Library of Congress system, in its most rigorous formulation sanctioned by the Library,23 uses ligatures (≤/≥ > ≤ıˇu≥) and some diacritics (≤э≥ > ≤˙e≥),

22 Neisweinder 1962, Shaw 1967/79, Hart 1983.

23 Barry 1991.

							Russian 25
Table 1.5 Romanizations of Russian Cyrillic
		British	Library of		American Geographic		Uppsala
Cyrillic	linguistic	System	Congress		Society	popular	Corpus
f	a	a	a		a	a	a
,	b	b	b		b	b	b
d	v	v	v		v	v	v
u	g	g	g		g	g	g
l	d	d	d		d	d	d
t	e	e	e		e | ye†	e (ye)	e
=	¨e	e	¨e (e‡)		yo	e (yo)	oh
;	ˇz	zh	zh		zh	zh	zh
p	z	z	z		z	z	z
b	i	i	i		i	i	i
q	j	i	*¸ (i‡)		y	y	j
r	k	k	k		k	k	k
k	l	l	l		l	l	l
v	m	m	m		m	m	m
y	n	n	n		n	n	n
j	o	o	o		o	o	o
g	p	p	p		p	p	p
h	r	r	r		r	r	r
c	s	s	s		s	s	s
n	t	t	t		t	t	t
e	u	u	u		u	u	u
a	f	f	f		f	f	f
[	x cho	kh	kh		kh	kh	x
w	c	ts	ts (ts‡)		ts	ts	c
x	ˇc		ˇ
		ch	ch		ch	ch	ch
i	ˇs	sh	sh		sh	sh	sh
o	ˇsˇc	shch	shch		shch	shch	w
(	”			(”‡)	”		qh
s	y	¯y (y‡) / ui§	y		y	y	y
m	’			(’‡)	’		q
э	è / ˙eo	é	˙e (e‡)		e	e	eh
/	ju	yu	iu (iu‡)		yu	yu	ju
z			ˇ
	ja	ya	ıa (ia‡)		ya	ya	ja

†≤e≥ after consonant letter, ≤ye≥ elsewhere

‡less rigorous variant often used in practice oContinental variant

§ British Library in particular

26A Reference Grammar of Russian

but these diacritics usually disappear in informal practice outside of the Library itself. Similarly, prime and double prime, defined as the Romanization of the soft sign and the hard sign, are often replaced by a single or double closed quotation mark, or omitted altogether. (Here they are maintained in transliterating names of scholars, but not in Russian names in glosses.) Moreover, search programs in electronic library catalogues ignore them.

The British System (British Standard 2979, 1958) renders consonant letters in the same way, but has different equivalents for vowel letters: ≤z≥ =≤ya≥, ≤/≥ = ≤yu≥; ≤i≥ is used consistently for ≤q≥. The results in this system -- ≤Yalta≥, ≤dyadya Vanya≥, and ≤geroi≥ -- seem a more congenial guide to pronunciation for English speakers. But there is a problem with ≤s≥, rendered in other systems as ≤y≥. Hart’s Rules for Compositors (various editions, e.g., 1983) recommends ≤¯y≥ for ≤s≥, but the diacritic disappears in practice, with the result that Roman ≤y≥ is used for two very different purposes. The British Library, whose practice is reflected, for example, in the catalogues of books acquired (for example, British Library 1974, 1979--87, 1986), uses ≤ui≥ for ≤s≥.

In the British System, the ending of proper names is simplified to ≤y≥, as in ≤Evgeny≥, ≤Klimenty≥, ≤Zlatopolsky≥. This sensible practice of simplifying and domesticating proper names is becoming widespread.

In brief, each system has an advantage and a correlated disadvantage. The British System has a more congenial way of rendering ≤z≥ and ≤/≥ than the Library of Congress system, but does not have a good solution to ≤s≥. The Library of Congress handles ≤s≥, but creates off-putting sequences such as

≤Ialta≥.

The US Board on Geographic Names of The American Geographic Society of the Smithsonian Institute, like the British System, uses ≤y≥ in rendering ≤z≥ and ≤/≥. It even uses ≤ye≥ to render Cyrillic ≤t≥ in the position not after consonants -- in absolute initial position, after vowels, and after ≤m≥ and ≤(≥: ≤Dostoyevsky≥, ≤Yeltsin≥. This is roughly the strategy used in journalism to render Russian words or names, though popular practice is less consistent than the transliteration algorithms. Popular practice sometimes also transliterates Cyrillic ≤t≥ as ≤ye≥ even after consonants, leading to a profusion of ≤y≥: ≤Nye byt voynye≥24 (for yt ,snm djqyt! ‘there’ll be war no more’).

Computerization pulls in opposite directions. It has become easy to manipulate Cyrillic on computers. The letters of the Cyrillic alphabet are assigned to a designated range of characters. These are not the ordinary characters, but ones belonging to an enriched character table, and, with software, keystrokes are reassigned to that range. A mapping commonly used on the web is “KIO8,” for “rjl

24 Josef Skvorecky, The Engineer of Human Souls (New York, 1985), 357.

Russian 27

j,vtyf byajhvfwbtq, 8 ,bn” (Code for Information Exchange, 8-bit), or now the specifically Russian version “KIO8-R,” which assigns ASCII 192 through 255 (plus 179) to the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, which can then be typed, read, and printed with the appropriate software.25 Microsoft devotes the interval from 0410 through 0451 of Unicode to Russian Cyrillic. Thus, on the one hand, because of practical developments in computers, it has become increasingly natural simply to use Cyrillic without any transliteration, in discourse where acquaintance with Russian can be presumed. On the other hand, there are many Cyrillic fonts and mapping systems in use, and so far there is no standard for manipulating Cyrillic. Accordingly, there is a pressure to simplify.26

The Library of Congress system and the British Standard have one prominent ambiguity: transliterated ≤ii≥ can represent either gen sg ≤bcnjhbb≥ ‘history’ or gen pl ≤bcnjhbq≥; ≤oi≥ can represent either ≤jb≥ or ≤jq≥. Computerized corpora develop strategies to avoid such ambiguities. The system of the Uppsala Corpus, for example, is representative of the new mode of unambiguous Romanization. The Uppsala Corpus uses digraphs with ≤h≥ for the unusual Cyrillic consonant letters -- for example, ≤;≥ becomes ≤zh≥; it uses ≤j≥ for ≤q≥ and as the operational graph in vowel letters -- for example, ≤z≥ becomes ≤ja≥. By using ≤j≥ consistently, ≤jq≥ and ≤jb≥ are distinguished in transliteration (as ≤oj≥ and ≤oi≥, respectively). This strategy may gain ground.

In e-mail communication with Russians (in the format of plain text in a Latin alphabet), there is no standardized procedure. Not uncommon is a strategy like that of computerized corpora, in which the unusual Cyrillic consonant letters are spelled with digraphs with ≤h≥ as in most transliteration systems, while ≤j≥ is used for ≤q≥ and as the operational graph in vowel letters, for example ≤z≥ becomes ≤ja≥. Some Russians use ≤je≥ for ≤t≥ after vowels.

The various systems for Romanizing Cyrillic are similar and about equally adequate. They face conflicting demands. On the one hand, any transliteration is supposed to be automatic and rigorous, and retain all the information contained in the original, so that it is possible to reconstruct the original Cyrillic from the Romanization. On the other, a transliteration is more congenial if it indicates how Russian words might be pronounced and does not overwhelm the reader with its foreignness. The two expectations inevitably conflict at certain points: in the transliteration of ≤q≥, ≤s≥, and the soft-vowel letters, which have a dual function in Russian, and also in the transliteration of ≤э≥, ≤=≥, ≤m≥, and ≤(≥.

25Discussed on various sites, for example, http://koi8.pp.ru/.

26One could note, for example, that of library catalogues accessible by the internet, Cambridge University’s maintains ≤’≥, while Oxford’s has dispensed with it.