Talk:Tebe poem (Sergei Rachmaninoff)

Merge discussion

Merge as suggested. -- Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 13:18, 10 February 2008 (PST)

I agree, but the merge would have to happen under a correctly spelt title: not 'Teybe', but 'Tebe' or, if you want to use the y, 'Tyebye'. joachim 19:27, 10 February 2008 (PST)

Thanks for your input, Joachim, but on the external site for this edition, the piece is listed as "Tebye Poyem". Is that incorrect? --Bobnotts talk 04:47, 12 February 2008 (PST)

Hi Rob. At the very least, it is inconsistent: an 'e' in Slavonic (and Russian) tends to be pronounced as in 'yep', so including a 'y'-sound. It is rather cumbersome to include that every single time you encounter an 'e', so a number of transliterations leave it out and take it for granted (resulting in 'Tebe'). IMHO, if one insists on including it, you should it include it at every occurrence. Besides, this one smells of a modern Russian approach (again), where the first 'e' tends to be slightly softened, hence probably the absence of a 'y'. Incorrectly so, alas. Cordially, joachim 17:19, 12 February 2008 (PST)

Rob makes the correct observation that the page is posted with a misspelling (or typograchical error) of the title as given in the PDF file and on the externally hosted listing ... namely, Tebye, not Teybe. In this case, this probably represents an attempt to give a phonetic rendering (into more or less modern Russian phonetic pronunciation) of the Church Slavonic original, where in the first syllable (unaccented) the y is not heard (or only slightly) heard. Both Tebe andTyebye might represent ways of a systematic way of (nonphonetically) transliterating the Church Slavonic title. -- Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 01:21, 13 February 2008 (PST)

From comments made so far, it would seem that merging the pages is the way we should go. However, Joachim makes a salient point about the title (and the rendering of the Church Slavonic text). If you examine the various other CPDL settings of the text under Tebe poem, you will find several transliterations of the Church slavonic text which are (variously) anglicized, frenchhified, anglo-russified ... none of them the literal Church Slavonic text rendered with the Slavonic character set ... but each an attempt to transliterate (that is, render) the text into the vernacular of a particular dialect.

Interestingly, such renderings into "modern" languages in the slavic family (eg. Russian, Bulgarian, two dialects of Ukrainian, etc.) rarely (if ever) capture the original original Church Slavonic pronunciation. Indeed, whatever one thinks that original pronciation in such transliterations is, these renderings are most often further tainted by filtering such transliteration through non-slavic languages (such as French and English). It is unlikely that we will want to title such pages with the Church Slavonic character set, or even a russified version, (except for a text-transliteration page, where the Church Slavonic title is redirected), but instead we should probably use a currently accepted (non-phonetically based) transliteration standard.

Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 01:21, 13 February 2008 (PST)

Agreed, though I still maintain that 'Tebye' isn't standard, whatever system you use. It's just inconsistent, since it tries to give some phonetic impression from an actual phonetic practice (and the wrong one, at that). Anyway, I suppose everything has been said about this, so I subscribe to whatever the admins decide. joachim 02:45, 13 February 2008 (PST)

And I agree with what you maintain, Joachim ... just as I stated in the very last sentence above, "we should probably use a currently accepteed (non-phonetically based) transliteration standard. I, too, would never use Tebye. As a further example of what we don't want, look at where you will see another example of russification with, among other things, the o-a-u vowel shift in the pronunciation rendering of poem as paiom. Personally, I'm happiest with Tebe poem. -- Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 08:00, 13 February 2008 (PST)