Zompist Bboard Again

Simple sollution would be to use the locals terms for it which would apparently be Lugansk.

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:57 pm Simple sollution would be to use the locals terms for it which would apparently be Lugansk.

You are forgetting that the locals pronounce "/g/" as [ɦ] or [ɣ] (I forget which - I know Ukrainian has [ɦ] for PSl /g/ but I have heard conflicting things about southern Russian varieties, as to whether they have [ɦ] or [ɣ]); the local Russian is not standard Russian.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:08 pm

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:57 pm Simple solution would be to use the locals terms for it which would apparently be Lugansk.

You are forgetting that the locals pronounce "/g/" as [ɦ] or [ɣ] (I forget which - I know Ukrainian has [ɦ] for PSl /g/ but I have heard conflicting things about southern Russian varieties, as to whether they have [ɦ] or [ɣ]); the local Russian is not standard Russian.

if we go by that it should be luchansk, at-least in dialect of english i speak.
of course even simple Solution isn't as simple as that(in practice) but it certainly beats out trying to make special politics out of not calling or calling it so and so.

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:27 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:08 pm

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:57 pm Simple solution would be to use the locals terms for it which would apparently be Lugansk.

You are forgetting that the locals pronounce "/g/" as [ɦ] or [ɣ] (I forget which - I know Ukrainian has [ɦ] for PSl /g/ but I have heard conflicting things about southern Russian varieties, as to whether they have [ɦ] or [ɣ]); the local Russian is not standard Russian.

if we go by that it should be luchansk, at-least in dialect of english i speak.
of course even simple Solution isn't as simple as that(in practice) but it certainly beats out trying to make special politics out of not calling or calling it so and so.

Umm, in transliterations of Russian or Ukrainian in English, <ch> is /tɕ/ and /tʃ/ respectively.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 7:25 pm

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:27 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:08 pm
You are forgetting that the locals pronounce "/g/" as [ɦ] or [ɣ] (I forget which - I know Ukrainian has [ɦ] for PSl /g/ but I have heard conflicting things about southern Russian varieties, as to whether they have [ɦ] or [ɣ]); the local Russian is not standard Russian.

if we go by that it should be luchansk, at-least in dialect of english i speak.
of course even simple Solution isn't as simple as that(in practice) but it certainly beats out trying to make special politics out of not calling or calling it so and so.

Umm, in transliterations of Russian or Ukrainian in English, <ch> is /tɕ/ and /tʃ/ respectively.

Well if one cares about that then maybe we should come up with the sounds and phonology of the local Russian,
and match it to the english sound/spelling according to closest possible match according to the diaphonemes, and find the least incongruous transcription of the spoken sounds.[maybe?]

also /ɦ – x/ would most closely fit the diaphoneme which at-least sometimes overlaps with the exact dialectal pronounciation of the particular variant.

1. /lu.ɣansk/ ~ /lu.ɦansk/
2. 1. /lu.xansk/
   2. /lu.xansk/ ~ /lu.gansk/
   3. /lu.xansk/ ~ /lu.kansk/
3. /lu.gansk/
4. • /lu.hansk/
   • /lu.tʃansk

– here attempt to list some option and grouping of similar options.
option 4 ones options that neither obey spirit nor intention of even the idea of respecting the locals language preference;
[they literally speak Russian one should use the Russian version for the international version];
While option 1 would be to leave the pronunciation//spelling intact as far as possible and just learn pronounciation that doesn't fit the phonetics of english.
While option 2A is use closest pronunciation of any dialect of english, option 2B ~ 2C is use the closest diaphoneme ((which is usually spelled either ⟨ch⟩, like ⟨loch⟩ ⟨architecture⟩ ⟨archetype⟩, ⟨archeology⟩, ⟨arachnid⟩)), i'm aware of, with option B tries to use the same voicing as in local dialect of Russian and option C uses the voicing that most commonly used for the same diphoneme in english.
and bold mark the one i think is the most sensible option.
of course if one has two versions one could decide to use one version for the city and another version for the broader encapsulating polity;
but that only raises question of ranked naming preferences.

/me rolls eyes.

How about the spelling Lughansk?

/lu.ɣansk/ ~ /lu.ɦansk/
/lu.xansk/
/lu.xansk/ ~ /lu.gansk/
/lu.xansk/ ~ /lu.kansk/
/lu.gansk/
/lu.hansk/
/lu.tʃansk

Sorry, but... what?

Zju wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:01 pm

/lu.ɣansk/ ~ /lu.ɦansk/
/lu.xansk/
/lu.xansk/ ~ /lu.gansk/
/lu.xansk/ ~ /lu.kansk/
/lu.gansk/
/lu.hansk/
/lu.tʃansk

Sorry, but... what?

I don't get it either.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:22 pm How about the spelling Lughansk?

Lu(g)/(h)ansk

Just let's all switch to Cyrillic and get over it.

My idea was that if the locals speak it with [ɣ], why not spell it with gh?

Because that's not how either language is Romanised?

Because exonyms don't exist, and we only speak of Zhongguo, Rossiya, España, Deutschland, Nippon, Italia, and so on.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:23 pm Because exonyms don't exist, and we only speak of Zhongguo, Rossiya, España, Deutschland, Nippon, Italia, and so on.

I personally don't get the "exonyms are bad" people. Somehow people have gotten this idea that all exonyms are offensive somehow. Of course these people are also the people who forget that many endonyms literally translate as just "the people", as if people other than those such endonyms refer to aren't human.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:35 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:23 pm Because exonyms don't exist, and we only speak of Zhongguo, Rossiya, España, Deutschland, Nippon, Italia, and so on.

I personally don't get the "exonyms are bad" people. Somehow people have gotten this idea that all exonyms are offensive somehow. Of course these people are also the people who forget that many endonyms literally translate as just "the people", as if people other than those such endonyms refer to aren't human.

Nor do I. Most exonyms aren't offensive. Some are ambiguous, like "Ostyaks", which can refer to three different indigenous peoples of Siberia; some have unpleasant connotations, such as "Lapps", which apparently also means 'rags' in Norwegian and Swedish. These are reasons to avoid them, but they are not the rule.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:23 pm Because exonyms don't exist, and we only speak of Zhongguo, Rossiya, España, Deutschland, Nippon, Italia, and so on.

Newsflash: nonstandard romanisations aren't exonyms.

Some people are politically over-correct when it comes to exonyms. In Germany, there are people who insist on using Polish names for cities in formerly German territories, such as Szczecin, Gdańsk or Wrocław, but have no problems with calling cities in the Polish heartland by traditional German names, such as Warschau or Krakau. Well, in my opinion the German names are OK, as long as you don't say Litzmannstadt, which is a name for Łódż invented by the Nazis.

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:27 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:23 pm Because exonyms don't exist, and we only speak of Zhongguo, Rossiya, España, Deutschland, Nippon, Italia, and so on.

Newsflash: nonstandard romanisations aren't exonyms.

Spelling a word slightly differently is so much more extreme, isn't it?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:35 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:23 pm Because exonyms don't exist, and we only speak of Zhongguo, Rossiya, España, Deutschland, Nippon, Italia, and so on.

I personally don't get the "exonyms are bad" people. Somehow people have gotten this idea that all exonyms are offensive somehow. Of course these people are also the people who forget that many endonyms literally translate as just "the people", as if people other than those such endonyms refer to aren't human.

I don't think "people" have. I probably know more personally who roll their eyes at being asked to change what they call someplace than who make a point of cheerfully correcting others.

I have mixed feelings about when governments--particularly those run by dictators or reactionary nationalists--insist on fixing the form of name used in foreign media. "Call people what they want to be called" is a basic principle of interpersonal politeness, but I'm not sure it scales up to this level--particularly when there's a disconnect between the regime and the folks they are supposedly representing. ("Myanmar" was an egregious example of this, with many folks insisting for years on using the previous exonym out of distaste for the military dictatorship.)