ПРЯМЕ КИРИЛИЧНО-ЛАТИНИЧНЕ ТРАНСКОДУВАННЯ: ДОСВІД ПОСТСОЦІАЛІСТИЧНИХ КРАЇН

Анотація

У рамках повернення України в європейський простір з кожним роком зростає необхідність коректного відтворення українських власних назв засобами латинського алфавіту. У цій роботі описано основні недоліки офіційного стандарту українсько-латинської транслітерації КМУ 2010, досліджено досвід переходу з кириличного до латиничного письма постсоціалістичних країн, зокрема Румунії, Молдови, Сербії, Туркменістану, Узбекистану, Казахстану й Азербайджану, визначено найбільш спірні літери й порівняно результати із КМУ 2010. У дослідженні використано порівняльний і описовий методи.

Ключові слова: кирилиця, латиниця, транскодування, транслітерація, алфавіт, графіка, голосний, приголосний.

As part of the return of Ukraine to the European space, with each passing year, the need for the correct reproduction of Ukrainian proper names – names, surnames, company names, toponyms, urbanonyms, national-cultural processes, etc. – by means of the Latin alphabet is growing. These and similar processes motivate the relevance of linguistic research in the field of transcoding various languages. As a main goal and tasks in the work the main shortcomings of the KMU 2010 official standard of the Ukrainian-Latin transliteration was described, the transition from the Cyrillic to Latin writing of the post-Socialist countries, particularly Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, was investigated, the most controversial signs were defined and the results were compared with KMU 2010. The study used comparative and descriptive methods. Having analyzed the experience of transcoding of post-socialist countries we can draw such conclusions: 1) Г and ґ. In five out of seven countries, there are two variants for the Cyrillic letter – two of them use h as a modifier, two of which - Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan – have attracted diacritics - ğ and ǵ, one country took another sign – q. 2) Я, ю, є, ї. The letter є exists only in two alphabets of seven and is reproduced with the help of the letter e. The letter e (in this case the equivalent of the Ukrainian one) is reproduced as e in six of seven cases, only in Moldova there is an option іе. Letters ю and я exist only in the Moldovan and Romanian Cyrillic alphabets and are translated as iu and ia accordingly. Letter ї wasn`t in Cyrillic alphabets of the studied countries. 3) Ж in five of seven countries is transmitted as j, in two of them – in Serbia and Turkmenistan – as ž. 4) There is no unity observed about й. This letter is transcoded as І і, J j, Ý ý, Y y, I ı, in two cases – in Romania and Azerbaijan, it is not transmitted at all. 5) Ь in Turkmenistan is trancoded as y, and in Moldova as i. In other alphabets there is no such separate letter, but there are diacritics denoting softened consonants: ӂ-g (Moldova), қ-q (Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan), љ-lj, њ-nj, ћ-ć і џ- dž (Serbia). 8) Such a sign as ’ (apostrophe) does not exist in any of the alphabets of the studied countries. If we consider the apostrophe for the equivalent of ъ, then it also exists only in two countries – in Romania and in Uzbekistan – and is transmitted as ă and ’ accordingly. So, the author got the rationale for the definition of г і ґ, я, ю, є, ї, ж, й, х, ц, ь, ’ as the most controversial letters not only for the Ukrainian language but for all post-socialist countries as well.

Key words: Cyrillic, Latin, transcoding, transliteration, alphabet, graphic, consonant, vowel.