4 ms·
How very USian. For example, what about "people outside Latin-1"? There's the original, canonical name (e.g. in Cyrillic), a Latin transliteration (also canonic
by Piskvorrr 7y ago
How very USian. For example, what about "people outside Latin-1"? There's the original, canonical name (e.g. in Cyrillic), a Latin transliteration (also canonical, but depends on the country, IIRC Bulgarian transliteration is slightly different from Russian), and both are canonical. As far as string matching, these are completely different; yet they represent the same person.
Not to mention the Irish name duality, if Cyrillic is too exotic for you: those are two equivalent names, both canonical, both official...and saying "use the English version then" gets political right at that point.
- Hitton 7y ago>How very USian. How very smart of you to make such assumptions. I'm Eastern European and no stranger to different encodings and alphabets, and your argument is bollocks. Transliteration is by definition canonical form of the name, otherwise it would not be transliteration. There might be more ways to write a name, using different alphabets or using all or only some parts of the name, but only one is canonical.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoNope. And you failed to read the second example, too: both the Gaelic and English versions of the Irish names are canonical: they are not string-equal, even though both fit into Latin-1.
- Hitton 7y agoI'm not familiar with this area, but what I gather after cursory google search is that they are equivalent about as much as are names John and Johannes. The simple fact that the name can be translated doesn't make the translation canonical.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoNope. The entire point is "you have two versions of the same name, where both are official and canonical" - not that one is official and the other is a tolerated translation. Looking through the comments of the original post, there's even a Rory/Ruairí mentioning this.