Zeng Shiying
Problem raised To promote cultural intercourse, an atlas of China in English is in planning. The geographical names consist generally of specific and generic parts. The romanization of the former has unanimously been advocated in pinyin, while that for the latter difference in advocate between pinyin and translation comes into being. The writer is in favour of pinyin.Donor versus receiver Someone may think that when the generic parts of foreign geographical names have generally been rendered into Chinese by translation, the same way should be adopted to that of Chinese ones into English. Otherwise a "duality of standard" exists. The writer thinks, however, that there are two ways to deal with. When the writing system is different in form, viz, one in alphabets and the other in ideograms, the receiver principle should be followed, while they are in the same form the donor principle should play.The feasibility of donor principle can be illustrated by geographical names in China, Japan and Korea when they are shown by Chinese characters. They are copied one after another in writing but are read differently in pronunciation. So they are only good visually but not auditorily. Now as the geographical names in China are in pinyin, they are good for both. Therefore there is no such contradiction as described as "duality of standard".Generic parts in transcription accustomed to European readers It is questioned that whetherthe generic parts of geographical names in China in transcription is acceptable 10 European readers. In most of the atlases with influence published in roman letters we see that the generic parts of geographical names in non-romentzed letter countries are always rendered by transcription. For instance, in Egyption geographical names, mountain is trapscribed as jbel or jebel, river as bahr, bay as khalij or khalig; in Japanese geographical names, mountain as yama, island as do; in China, mountain, river, lake as shan, ho (now in he), hu. It may be of interest to mention that in India, Hindi and Engish are both adopted as official languages. But in the well known Times Atlas of the World, tthe administrative division is shown as pradesh instead of state.While Huang He and Chang Jiang are rendered in English as Yellow River and Yangtze River, someone may incline to say that the rendering of generic parts in translation is an all-round process. To the contrary they are exceptional as demonstrated by statistics.Mapping and writing not always in accord Because the generic parts of geographical names have been customarily translated in foreign language, someone thinks that if they are differently annotated in transcription on maps, it will be difficult to consult. In atlases published in European countries a glossary is always: appended. We should follow suit for consult. It is especially important that as the geographical names in’ China romanized after pinyin have been adopted as the international standard and that as the generic parts form their componant, we have to furnish their authentic spelling. The atlas serving as a show case should play an exemplary role in standardization. Because the geographical names therein are all-round, systematic, vast in number and clearcut in geographical position.Amend clause after trend of time There are two items concerning the romanization of geographical names in a certain regulation. One stipulates that pinyin should be applied both to the specific and generic parts and the other specifies that the generic parts be translated, In the latter case it deviates somewhat from the practice de facto.Furthemore, as a carrier of information besides the indication of position the geographical names also reflect the linguistic characteristics. It will serve as an evidence of territorial sovereignty right in dispute. For instance, by transcription the generic part of islands in Chinese should be in Dao, Japanese in Do, and Vietnamese in Dao. They are clear-cut. If by translation in English as Island, they mingle with each other.The writer suggests that the regula
