ON THE ROMANIZATION OF BULGARIAN AND ENGLISH

 

Dr. Lyubomir Ivanov

Institute of Mathematics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

 

( Paper published in Contrastive Linguistics ,   XXVIII (2003), No . 2, pp . 109-118;

Errata , id ., XXIX, 2004, No. 1, p. 157 )

 

 

 

Abstract

 

The present work deals with the recent evolution of the non-academic practice

of English transliteration of Bulgarian, starting with the introduction of the

Streamlined System in 1995, its subsequent progress and official endorsement,

as well as its present use for electronic communication in Romanized Bulgarian,

and its possible relevance to the phonetic spelling of English.

 

 

I. ???????????? The Streamlined System

 

This system of English transliteration of Bulgarian was introduced in the 1995

Toponymic Guidelines for Antarctica [7]. ? Here follows the relevant excerpt

from the Guidelines:

 

?7. ????????????? Language and Spelling ?

 

? ?Names are approved in their Bulgarian language forms using Cyrillic script,

together with Roman spelling versions obtained as outlined herein. ? Generic

elements of names will normally be translated into one of the official Antarctic

Treaty languages which use Roman script (English, French, Spanish), with

specific elements correspondingly Romanized. ? Definite articles of place names

which contain no generic elements may be dropped in the process with

generics added instead. ? In the case of English language, conversion of

Bulgarian names to Roman spelling is based on the following graphemic

correspondences scheme:?

 

?? ??-a, ?-b, ?-v, ?-g, ?-d, ?-e, ?-zh, ?-z, ?-i, ?-y,

? ? ?-k, ?-l, ?-m, ?-n, ?-o, ?-p, ?-r, ?-s, ?-t, ?-u, ?-f,

? ? ?-h, ?-ts, ?-ch, ?-sh, ?-sht, ?-a, ?-y, ?-yu, ?-ya.?

 

?However, authentic Roman spellings of names of non-Bulgarian origin, and

traditional Roman spellings which exist for few Bulgarian names will have

priority.?

 

 

II. ??????????? 1997 Comments on the English Transliteration

?????????????? of Bulgarian Names

 

Conventions:

 

?Transliteration system? stands below for ?system for English transliteration of

Bulgarian names?; ?Bulgarian practice? refers to the non-academic practice of

English transliteration of Bulgarian names in this country; ?English/American

practice? refers to the non-academic practice of transliteration of Bulgarian

names in the UK and the USA.

 

Remark 1 :

 

These comments are of informative nature and not intended to promote any

particular transliteration system.

 

Remark 2 :

 

The present comments deal with the practical rather than the theoretical

aspects of the issue. ? Although Bulgarian is my mother tongue and I do most

of my writing in English, I am not an expert in any of those languages. ?

Needless to say, I have consulted the leading Bulgarian experts on English

transliteration of Bulgarian names. ? These include Dr. H. Stamenov and the

late Prof. A. Danchev, both of Sofia University.

 

 

1. ????????????????? The problem

 

The Bulgarian version of the Cyrillic alphabet comprises 30 letters:

 

?? ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?,

?? ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?.

 

The transliteration system regarded as most appropriate for academic

Romanization of Bulgarian names is the so called ?universal? or ?Czech-style?

system:

 

?? ?-a, ?-b, ?-v, ?-g, ?-d, ?-e, ?-ž, ?-z, ?-i, ?-j,

?? ?-k, ?-l, ?-m, ?-n, ?-o, ?-p, ?-r, ?-s, ?-t, ?-u, ?-f,

?? ?-h, ?-c, ?-č, ?-š, ?-št, ?- ǎ , ?-j, ?-ju, ?-ja.

 

The ?universal? system complies with the one-to-one principle, i.e. establishes

a one-to-one graphemic correspondence providing for reverse transliteration

and retrieval of the original Bulgarian names from their Romanized versions. ?

The area of non-academic application of the system in this country is

restricted to postal services and road signs. ? The ?universal? system is

unsuitable for non-academic English transliteration because of the way it

renders letters such as ?? and ??? ; it is not suitable for non-academic

French or German transliteration of Bulgarian names either.

 

As far as non-academic English transliteration of Bulgarian names is

concerned, it appears that most Bulgarian letters are treated uniformly

throughout both Bulgarian and English/American practices, namely:

 

?? ?-a, ?-b, ?-v, ?-g, ?-d, ?-e, ?-zh, ?-z, ?-i, ?-y,

?? ?-k, ?-l, ?-m, ?-n, ?-o, ?-p, ?-r, ?-s, ?-t, ?-f,

?? ?-ts, ?-ch, ?-sh, ?-sht, ?-y, ?-yu, ?-ya.

 

(The finer details of certain transliteration systems are disregarded here.) ?

However, divergent treatments do occur in the case of the Bulgarian letters

?? , ??? , ??? , due to intrinsic reasons or to influence by other practices.

 

????????????? The case of ??

 

This Bulgarian letter denotes a short vowel practically identical with the

English one in ?book? . ? It is transliterated by ?u? , ?ou? , with ?u?

prevailing in both Bulgarian and English/American practices. ? The usage of

?ou? , more popular in the past, is probably related to certain patterns of

French origin encountered in the English spelling.

 

????????????? The case of ???

 

This Bulgarian letter denotes a consonant corresponding to the Scottish one

in ?loch? or the German one in ?Bach? . ? It is transliterated by ?h? , ?kh? . ?

Transliteration by ?h? strongly prevails in Bulgarian practice with a

diminishing usage of ?kh? , while the latter is more frequent in

English/American practice, presumably due to influence by the English

transliteration of Russian. ? Bulgarian experts fail to find any convincing

reasons justifying the use of ?kh? .

 

????????????? The case of ???

 

This Bulgarian letter denotes a short vowel, to be transcribed by the shwa

sign ?ә? , which is practically identical with the English one in ?wisdom?

/'wizdәm/ and occurs in both unstressed and stressed positions, e.g. in

Bulgarian ?????? , /'mәdәr/ (English ?wise? ). ? While this vowel is

probably as common in English as it is in Bulgarian, it lacks a specific

grapheme in the English spelling. ? The Bulgarian letter ??? is rendered by

various transliteration systems as ?a? , ?ǎ? , ?â? , ?ŭ? , ?ǔ? . ? The Bulgarian

and English/American practices differ on this point, the latter being more

liberal toward the use of diacritics. ? Diacritical marks are avoided by

Bulgarian users and not recommended by the experts on two grounds. ? First,

the non-academic publishers almost inevitably tend to omit diacritics for

technical reasons, thus replacing the originally intended transliteration

system by a different one. ? Second, diacritics are not common in both

English and Bulgarian spellings, hence their meaning is not clear without

special explanation.

 

 

2. ????????????????? The Bulgarian practice

 

While the Bulgarian practice has a long tradition, it has become of particular

importance only in the recent years, with English becoming the number one

foreign language in all areas of public usage at the expense of other

languages traditionally popular in this country such as French, German and

Russian.

 

The usage of the English language, and correspondingly the practice of

English transliteration of Bulgarian names, is expanding tremendously in

three main areas: first, by governmental agencies; second, by English

language editions such as books, magazines and weekly newspapers,

published both by Bulgarians and by the community of English speaking

foreigners resident in this country; and third, by business enterprises in their

correspondence and advertising materials. ? Part of the Bulgarian practice is

formed by numerous international and foreign institutions located here,

starting with the US and British embasies and ending with the American

University in Blagoevgrad. ? (Bulgarian practice seems to embrace the street

graffiti even, written nowadays more often in English than in Bulgarian!)

 

It should be stressed that the practice of English transliteration in all these

areas has always been (and still is) somewhat chaotic and has never been

subjected to any formal regulation. ? Therefore, that practice is evolving in a

fairly natural way with some notable tendencies to be discussed below.

 

One may distinguish between two major patterns of usage in Bulgarian

practice, to be informally referred to as the ?Streamlined System? and the

?Danchev System? respectively. ? Both of them transliterate ??? by ?h? . ? The

Streamlined System transliterates ?? , ??? respectively by ?u? , ?a? , while

the Danchev System renders ?? , ??? as ?ou? , ?u? respectively. ? While

there is no available statistical data at present, observations suggest that the

Streamlined System is becoming established in an irreversible way.

 

The choice of users seems to be determined mainly by personal perception

formed by their Bulgarian language environment and by their different

degrees of knowledge of English, varying from excellent and very good in

the case of experts, teachers and interpreters, to fairly modest (albeit

steadily improving) in the case of the average user. ? Recent developments in

Bulgarian practice suggest that users identify the following main purposes

and criteria of English transliteration, which obviously are partly overlapping

and partly conflicting:

 

(1) ?????? ???????? The primary purpose of a non-academic transliteration system is

to ensure a plausible phonetic approximation of Bulgarian names by English

speaking persons, including those having no knowledge whatsoever of the

Bulgarian language and no available additional explanation of the particular

transliteration system;

 

(2) ??????????????? It is desirable for a transliteration system to allow for reverse

transliteration, i.e. to comply with the one-to-one principle, as much as

feasible. ? Reverse transliteration appears to be of considerably lesser

relevance in the non-academic practice;

 

(3) ??????????????? Transliterated Bulgarian names should fit their English language

context; spellings perceived as too ?un-English? are disfavoured by users;

 

(4) ??????????????? Transliterated name forms should be streamlined and simple.

 

An obvious advantage of the Danchev System is that it complies better with

the one-to-one principle. ? As already noted however, that principle is not a

top priority in the non-academic practice. ? Anyway, no non-academic

transliteration system adheres strictly to the one-to-one principle, already

violated by the rendering of ??? as ?ts? since there are a number of

Bulgarian names with ?-???? in final position, e.g. ??????????? ,

?????????? .

 

The fact that transliteration of ??? by ?a? rather tnan ?u? is apparently

favoured by Bulgarian users might be attributed to the fact that in many

Bulgarian words ?a? is properly pronounced /ә/ , e.g. in Bulgarian ??????

/gra'dә/ (English ?a town? ), or Bulgarian ??? ?? /te sә/ (English

?they are? ). ? Likewise, possible pronunciation of ?a? as /a/ rather than

/ә/ in transliterated names would in many positions either go unnoticed or

sound familiar since such pronunciation is typical for the influential western

Bulgarian dialects (spoken in regions encompassing Sofia), where e.g.

Bulgarian ????? /rә'ka/ (English ?hand? ) is pronounced /'raka/ .

 

Taking into account the present situation and tendencies in the Bulgarian

practice, the Antarctic Place-names Commission opted to employ the

Streamlined System for the practical purposes of English transliteration of

Bulgarian place names in Antarctica.

 

 

Sofia, 25 July 1997

 

 

III. ???? ?????? Subsequent Developments

 

While no apology is owed for the publication of the above Comments (quoted

in [3] as [4]) five years after they were written, an explanation of their origins

and purpose seems to be in order ? more so in view of the relevant subsequent

developments.

 

To begin with, due to existing international obligations to Romanize the

Bulgarian names of geographical features in Antarctica, on 2 March 1995 the

Antarctic Place-names Commission (affiliated at that time with the Bulgarian

Antarctic Institute) accepted the author?s proposal to endorse what is called

above the Streamlined System for English transliteration of Bulgarian names

[7]. ? In the process, the author met the late Prof. A. Danchev to discuss the

subject, including particular merits of that system and the alternative one

suggested in [1], as well as possible tendencies in the non-academic practice of

transliteration.

 

At the same time, the Antarctic place-naming authorities of the United States

and Britain used to transliterate Bulgarian names according to yet another

scheme adopted for official use in those countries. ? (Their version differed from

the Streamlined System in using ?kh? for ?x? and ?ŭ? for ??? .) ? By 1997

they had become aware of this discrepancy and wanted to know more about

our system. ? So the above Comments came as a response to their request. ? On

that occasion, the manuscript was discussed with H. Stamenov and made

available to the Department of English and American Studies at Sofia University

too.

 

Subsequently, M. Gaidarska [3] carried out a comparative study producing

some general picture of the popular practice of English transliteration of

Bulgarian names as of 1998, based on the analysis of about 1,300 samples

taken from press articles, city guides, brochures, business cards and other

sources. ? While registering a marked predominance of the Danchev System,

she nevertheless conceded certain indications of a potential tendency favouring

the Streamlined System instead. ? And that was precisely what happened; very

soon it became clear that the Streamlined System was taking the upper hand.

 

In a major development prompted by the introduction of new identity

documents, the Government of Bulgaria decreed in 1999 that personal names

would be Romanized by the Streamlined System in the new Bulgarian identity

cards and passports. ? This was enacted by Ordinance 61 of 2 April 1999 [5],

later amended by Ordinance 8 of 10 February 2000 [6] (so that ??? be

rendered as ?ts? not ?c? ) to the effect of the eventual scheme now in use

being precisely the 1995 Streamlined System.

 

Yet another area in which the Streamlined System is presently gaining ground

is the Romanization of street names in various Bulgarian cities; a natural next

step would be to officialize its usage in the road signs as well.

 

This dynamic process of the last few years could be further elucidated by

having an update of the survey [3], hopefully covering the Internet practice as

well.

 

It would seem that the reasons for such remarkable ? and unforeseen by the

experts ? evolution in the Bulgarian practice of transliteration, are yet to be

understood and explained. ? A small remark on the link between ?a? and ???

in the mind of the native Bulgarian speakers. ? It is arguably due to more

than just certain peculiarities of Bulgarian in its spoken form as suggested in

[3], for some patterns of Bulgarian in its written form may also be

contributing to that link. ? Indeed, the Bulgarian Cyrillic spelling itself uses

?a? for the vowel /?/ in highly frequent grammatical forms other than the

case of vowel reduction in unstressed position. ? Namely, according to the

modern Bulgarian spelling the letter ??? is never used in end position, and

the vowel /?/ in that position is written as ?a . ? ? Likewise, yodized /?/ in

end position is written as ?? . ? ? Such are e.g. the words /????? - gra'dә/

and /?? ?? - te sә/ mentioned in the Comments above, or /???? -

t∫e'tә/ (English ?read? ) and /????? - sve'tә/ (English ?the

world? ), written as ?????? , ??? ?? , ????? , and ?????? ,

respectively the words /?????? - vәr'vjә/ (English ?walk? ), /?????? -

gra'djә/ (English ?build? ), /????? - sto'jә/ (English ?stay? )

written as ??????? , ??????? and ?????? . ? As for the spoken Bulgarian,

one may add also that the unstressed /?/ is pronounced close to /a/ e.g.

in ????? /rә'ka/ .

 

 

IV. ?????????? Communicating in Romanized Bulgarian

 

Presently, the Streamlined System is increasingly being used in a wider area of

practical application too, namely the Romanization of entire Bulgarian texts

rather than just particular Bulgarian names imbedded in English language

context.

 

Indeed, the practice of Internet and mobile phone communication conducted in

the Bulgarian language yet employing Roman script has been expanding

enormously during the recent years, both in terms of volume and especially the

number of people involved. ? That practice is fairly chaotic however, with a

great variety of graphemic correspondences being applied arbitrarily and

inconsistently. ? Even graphemes other than letters are being employed, such as

?4? , ?6? respectively for ??? , ??? , apparently deriving from Bulgarian

??????? /'t∫etiri/ (English ?four? ) and ????? /∫est/ (English

?six? ). ? It would be interesting to compare the Bulgarian case with the

evolution of the Romanization practices of other languages that normally

employ non-Roman scripts, such as Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Thai, Korean,

Russian, Ukrainian etc.

 

While the technical, psychological and other possible motivation behind such

unprecedented usage of Romanized Bulgarian ? and the perspectives of that

usage alike ? deserve a separate study, there is little doubt that the chaos in

question itself could be attributed but to one reason, namely educational

deficiency. ? The fact is that no particular transliteration scheme is taught in

Bulgarian schools, even though one single lesson might suffice. ? If this

?transliteration illiteracy? is remedied, then the usage of Roman script for

electronic communication in Bulgarian language could be expected to gradually

become more and more uniform.

 

To this end, in 2002 the Public Council at the Parliamentary Committee on Civil

Society (acting on this author?s proposal) recommended to the Parliament,

respectively to the Ministry of Education and Science, that some basic

acquaintance with the transliteration scheme decreed by the abovementioned

Government Ordinances, i.e. the Streamlined System, be incorporated within

the national school curriculum.

 

 

V. ??????????? Re-Romanization of English

 

In yet another possible application of the Streamlined System approach,

English could be Cyrillized along the lines set by Danchev in [2], and then

Romanized back by means of the Streamlined System. ? This suggests the

following twenty-two-letter system of Basic Roman Spelling which provides for

an easy and natural, if somewhat rough, phonetic spelling of the English

language.

 

a ????? - ??? as in a sk ; but also h a t ; h u t ; a go , op e n

aa ???? - ??? f ar m ; f ir m

au ???? - ??? ou t

ay ???? - ??? wh i te

b ????? - ??? b est

ch ???? - ??? ch eer

d ????? - ??? d o ; th is

dzh ??? - ??? j oy (optional variant grapheme: j )

e ????? - ??? r e d

ea ???? - ??? air

ey ???? - ??? w ay

f ????? - ??? f ix

g ????? - ??? g reen

h ????? - ??? h ome ; w h y ; lo ch (Scottish)

i ????? - ??? i n

iy ???? - ??? f ee l

ia ???? - ??? d ear

k ????? - ??? k iss ; lo ch (English)

l ????? - ??? l ike

m ????? - ??? m e

n ????? - ??? n ame

ng ???? - ??? si ng

o ????? - ??? o n ; b o ther

oo ???? - ??? p or t

ou ???? - ??? kn ow ; n o

oy ???? - ??? t oy

p ????? - ??? p eak

r ????? - ??? r iver ; wr ite ; also fa r m , rive r in rhotic dialects

s ????? - ??? s ea

sh ???? - ??? sh ip

t ????? - ??? t op ; th ink

ts ???? - ??? ts ar

u ????? - ??? l oo k , y ou ; w ill , w hy

uu ???? - ??? m oo d ; woo d

ua ???? - ??? t our

v ????? - ??? v iew

y ????? - ??? y ou ; mill i on

z ????? - ??? z oo

zh ???? - ??? vi si on .

 

Possible variant graphemes: ?th? as in th ink , ?dh? as in th is .

 

 

An illustration of the Basic Roman Spelling of English:

 

Hamlet?s Salilakuiy ?????????????????????????????? ???????? Hamlet?s Soliloquy

(Akt III, Siyn I) ???????????????????????????????????????????? (Act III, Scene I)

William Shakespeare ???????????????????????????????????? William Shakespeare

 

Tu bi, oo not tu bi, dat iz da kueschan: ????????????????????????????? To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Hueda ?tiz noubla in da maynd tu safa ?????????????????????????????? Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

Da slingz and arouz av autreydzhas foochan ????????????????????? The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Oo tu teyk aamz ageynst a siy av trabalz, ????????????? ??????????? Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And bay apouzing, end dam. ? Tu day, tu sliyp ? ????? ??????????? And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep ?

Nou moo, and bay a sliyp tu sey ui end ????????????????????????????? No more, and by a sleep to say we end

Da haat-eyk and da tauzand nacharal shoks ?????????????????????? The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

Dat flesh iz ea tu; ?tiz a kansyumeyshan ???????????????? ??????????? That flesh is heir to; 'tis a consummation

Divautli tu bi uish?d. ? Tu day, tu sliyp ? ?????????????????????????????? Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep ?

Tu sliyp, paachans tu driym ? ey, dea?z da rab, ????????????????? To sleep, perchance to dream ? ay, there's the rub,

Foo in dat sliyp av det huot driymz mey kam, ???????????????????? For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,

Huen ui hav shafld of dis mootal koyl, ??????????????????????????????? When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Mast giv as pooz; dea?z da rispekt ???????????????????????? ??????????? Must give us pause; there's the respect

Dat meyks kalamiti av sou long layf: ????????????????????????????????? That makes calamity of so long life:

Foo hu uud bea da huips and skoons av taym, ?????????????????? For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

D? apresaa?z rong, da praud man?z kontyumli, ??????????????????? Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,

Da pangz av dispayz?d lav, da loo?z diley, ?????????????? ??????????? The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay,

Da insalans av ofis, and da spaanz ??????????????????????????????????? The insolence of office, and the spurns

Dat peyshant merit av d?anwaadi teyks, ???????????????? ??????????? That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,

Huen hi himself mayt hiz kuayatas meyk ??????????????? ??????????? When he himself might his quietus make

Uid a bea bodkin; hu uud faadalz bea, ?????????????????????????????? With a bare bodkin; who would fardels bear,

Tu grant and suet andar a uiari layf, ???????????????????????????????? To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

Bat dat da dred av samting afta det, ???????????????????????????????? But that the dread of something after death,

Di andiskava?d kantri, fram huz buan ???????????????????????????????? The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn

Nou travala ritaanz, pazlz da uil, ?????????????????????????? ??????????? No traveller returns, puzzles the will,

And meyks as rada bea douz ils ui hav, ???????????????? ??????????? And makes us rather bear those ills we have,

Dan flay to adaaz dat ui nou not av? ????????????????????????????????? Than fly to others that we know not of?

Das konshans daz meyk kauadz av as ol, ?????????????? ??????????? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,

And das da neytiv hyu av rezalyuushan ????????????????????????????? And thus the native hue of resolution

Iz siklid o?a uid da peyl kast av toot; ????????????????????????????????? Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,

And entaaprayziz av greyt pich and moumant ??????????????????? And enterprises of great pitch and moment

Uid dis rigaad dea karants taan aray, ??????????????????????????????? With this regard their currents turn awry,

And luuz da neym av akshan. ? Soft yu nau, ????????????????????? And lose the name of action. ? Soft you now,

Da fear Ophelia. ? Nimf, in ti orizans ?????????????????????????????????? The fair Ophelia. ? Nymph, in thy orisons

Bi ol may sins rimemb?ad. ??????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Be all my sins rememb'red.

 

 

Acknowledgments

 

The author is grateful to H. Stamenov, Department of English and American

Studies at Sofia University, and V. Murdarov, Institute of Bulgarian Language at

the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, for their helpful comments.

 

 

Tirana - Varna, July/August 2002

 

 

References

 

1. ???????? A. Danchev et al, An English Dictionary of Bulgarian Names Spelling

? ???????? and Pronunciation , Naouka i Izkoustvo, Sofia, 1989

 

2. ???????? A. Danchev, Bulgarian Transcription of English Names , 3rd Revised

? ???????? Edition, Open Society Publishing House, Sofia, 1995

 

3. ???????? M. Gaidarska, The Current State of the Transliteration of Bulgarian

? ???????? Names into English in Popular Practice, Contrastive Linguistics , XXII,

? ???????? 1998, No. 112, 69-84

 

4. ???????? L.L. Ivanov, Comments on the English Transliteration of Bulgarian

? ???????? Names (Commissioned by the US Board on Geographical Names,

? ???????? and the UK Antarctic Place-names Committee, Unpublished), 1997

 

5. ???????? ????????????? ? 61 ?? 2 ????? 1999 ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ??

?????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ?? ???????????, ?????, ????????

?????????? ???????, ??. 33 ?? 1999

 

6. ???????? ????????????? ? 8 ?? 10 ???????? 2000 ?? ????????? ? ??????????

?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ?? ???????????

?????????? (??, ??. 33 ?? 1999), ?????, ???????? ???????, ??. 14 ?? 2000

 

7. ???????? Toponymic Guidelines for Antarctica , Antarctic Place-names Commission

? ???????? of Bulgaria, Sofia, 1995, http://www.geocities.com/apcbg/glines.htm *

 

 

????????????????????????????? ??? ?? * ??????? * ??????? *

 

 

 

 

* ?? Since 2009 moved to:

?? ? ? http://id-team.org/apc/Apcbg-Web-New_files/Toponymic-Guidelines.htm