COMMENTS ON
LC'S PINYIN ROMANIZATION GUIDELINES:
CLARIFICATION OF PRACTICES

Hsi-chu Bolick, Chair bolick@email.unc.edu
Yu-lan Chou ychou@library.berkeley.edu
Sarah Elman selman@library.ucla.edu
Wen-ling Liu wliu@indiana.edu
Meng-fen Su msu@mail.utexas.edu
Daphne Wang dwang@oregon.uoregon.edu

ROMANIZATION OF PLACE NAMES

After carefully review the section of place names in the Pinyin Romanization Guidelines Clarification of Practices, the Task Force produces this report consisting of two parts: Part A (General comments and suggestions); Part B (Detailed comments on the guideline)

Part A: General comments and suggestions

1. There should be one overriding principle for romanizing Chinese geographical names: follow Use BGN form practice in romanization and word division for the generic term for a jurisdiction only when establishing geographical headings, but follow standard romanization rules (names are systematically romanized as specified in the LC document 'New Chinese Romanization Guidelines') when appearing in other areas.

Reasons:

(a) The guideline document introduces BGN standard for romanizing Chinese place names in descriptive texts. At the same time LC continues the practice of monosyllabic approach in romanizing Chinese corporate names and other texts. We see a double standard for word division and conflicting practices of romanizing Chinese proper nouns. If Pinyin word division rules are to be adopted, they should be applied consistently across the board. If the monosyllabic approach is to be retained as the practice with the Wade-Giles system, romanizing all types of Chinese proper nouns should adhere to the same principle. The current guidelines require that librarians and users memorize too many rules and exceptions.

(b) BGN has shown little uniform word division rules for romanizing Chinese place names because different romanization standards are adopted for place names in China and Taiwan. Under the circumstance, applying BGN convention in descriptive cataloging can hardly achieve any consistency in the cooperative cataloging environment. Even though one guideline provides adding variant forms of place names different from BGN forms, this practice cannot be effectively managed for descriptive fields. Thus, following BGN forms for descriptive fields will easily result in retrieval problems.

(c) Not many librarians and library users know what the BGN form is for a given place without checking BGN's database. It is a disservice to library users that the library's catalog requires them to first look up the correct form of a place name before they search for a title, etc.

(d) When BGN forms are limited to authority headings, variant forms of "headings" can be managed effectively under the authority control. With this practice, users without knowing the established BGN form will be effectively directed to the form selected for the bibliographic records.

2. Generic terms for administrative districts of all levels (such as Sheng, Shi, Xian, Xiang, Zhen, etc.) and geographic features of all types (such as Shan, He, Jiang, etc.) should be romanized and capitalized consistently whether they are part of a proper name or not. Consistency in word division and capitalization helps users identify roman names better, considering most existing library online catalogs do not display vernacular characters.

3. The romanization rule for "Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo" should not be different from that for official names of other Asian countries. Official country names carrying wording similar to "Renmin Gongheguo" should all be systematically romanized in the same way at least in the descriptive fields. The instruction of using BGN form for "Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo" in descriptive fields provides no positive purpose for the library catalog, instead, increases confusion for both library staff and the pubic in romanizing official country names.
4. Based on the provision of AACR2 A. 33A, we suggest every word in corporate names and other proper names, except prepositions and articles, be capitalized. This practice will be beneficial to users identifying roman names, especially in title and notes fields. Japanese and Korean corporate names all follow this rule. We don't see any reason for Chinese not to. Terms for buildings, bridges, etc., should be all capitalized for the same reason. (The existing records can be manually changed gradually since it does not affect retrieval.)
5. In each romanization guideline, please specify whether it applies to headings or to descriptions, or for both. Also for each instruction, please provide examples for both headings and descriptive fields.
6. We suggest separating new romanization guidelines from explanations of Pinyin converted records in the existing document. The explanation of machine conversion formats as to why they are deviated from the new guideline is very much needed. As important as it is, it should have a document of its own, rather than mixing it with new instructions on romanizations. The current document arrangement mixing the two categories together makes finding and understanding new guidelines more difficult.
7. It will be more convenient for catalogers if LC combine the "Guidelines" and the "Clarification of Practice" documents into one. However, if LC does not plan to do so, then for easy application and clearness, please use the same sequence numbering of the guideline when preparing Clarification such as done for AACR2 and its RI. The Clarification is the supplement to the guideline. It is not an independent document that is to be used alone.
8. It is suggested that a separate section on romanizing corporate and conference names be created in this document. Although syllable aggregations are introduced in the new guideline for place and personal names, their formats under the current guidelines often vary. In addition, corporate and conference names usually carry a mixture of personal and place name in one name. A designated section will allow catalogers to find relevant rules easier.

Part B: Detailed comments on the guideline:

Note:

1. Page numbers in this report refer to the pagination in the LC Pinyin Romanization Guidelines Clarification of Practices.
2. LC guidelines are in italics; Task Force suggestions and comments are in bold.

Catalogers should take care to distinguish between the systematically romanized form of the name of a jurisdiction and its BGN-approved form. Place names should be romanized systematically in descriptive strings. Connect to the place name, or separate from it, the generic term for a jurisdiction, following BGN practice [see examples 1-2]. Also romanize the place name systematically when it is used as part of the name of a corporate body, following BGN practice in connecting or separating the syllable(s) for the generic term [see example 3].

Comment: [see example 3] should be [example 4]

Headings for the names of jurisdictions should be established in conformance with the approved BGN form. When the BGN form differs from the systematically romanized form, follow the BGN form in establishing the heading for the jurisdiction. When romanizing these place names, try to follow BGN's pattern of syllable aggregation. Be generous in providing alternative access points for other romanized forms that users might employ [see examples 4-5].

Comment: "When the BGN form differs from the systematically romanized form, follow the BGN form in establishing the heading for the jurisdiction." is redundant to the preceding sentence. Unless this information provides new instructions to additional situations otherwise, we suggest delete it. If there is a new instruction in this statement, please add related examples.

"... When romanizing these place names, try to follow BGN's pattern of syllable aggregation..."

Comments:

1) We are not sure if this instruction is for descriptive strings? In general, the majority of readers do not automatically interpret the word 'romanizing' as an instruction for descriptive fields.

2) The wording 'try to ...' does not serve well for readers who need clear and firm instructions to follow. Please spell out what to do in the guideline, as to follow the BGN form or to use the systematic romanization, etc.

"Be generous in providing alternative access points for other romanized forms that users might employ [see examples 4-5]".

Correction: [see example 5] (NOT example 4-5 shown in the guideline)

Comments:

1) This instruction makes sense and is practical only when alternative access points are made during the time when headings are created for the authority file. In other words, authority control is the only effective way to control variants of name forms and to provide adequate access for name forms not chosen for the records.

2) If alternative access points are not created with the heading for the authority file, the same kind of alternative access points will need to be repeatedly added to the bibliographic record each time a name form differing from BGN's appears in descriptive fields. Such practice will only result in more inconsistency in cataloging records under the current cooperative cataloging environment. (See also 1c, 1d of Part A)

Conclusion on BGN form vs. systematic romanization:

There should be one overriding principle for romanizing Chinese geographical names: follow Use BGN form practice in romanization and word division for the generic term for a jurisdiction only when establishing geographical headings, but follow standard romanization rules (names are systematically romanized as specified in the LC document New Chinese Romanization Guidelines) when appearing in other areas. (See Part A General comment 1)

In addition, Guideline Section I, at the beginning says, "... Catalogers should take care to distinguish between the systematically romanized form of the name of a jurisdiction and its BGN-approved form. Place names should be romanized systematically in descriptive strings."

We agree this statement should serve as the basic romanization guide for descriptive strings. But instructions in section II B (p. 4), C (p. 5), D-E (p. 6) depart from this principle and instruct following BGN forms also for descriptive strings. Such conflicting instruction is confusing to readers. (See Part A 1b for additional reasons)

Taiwan place names:

As Taiwan place names are exceptions and are entered in both WG and PY forms depending upon where the name appears in the bibliographic record. We suggest use explicit instruction to avoid confusion. For instance,

"In descriptive strings, Taiwan place names are romanized systematically in Pinyin. When creating access points, follow NAF for headings of place names in Taiwan. When establishing new headings in NAF, follow BGN forms. Under the new romanization scheme, catalogers should not provide additional cross-references of Wade-Giles romanization"

In addition, we suggest providing more examples on forms to assist clarification on the instruction.

(Suggestions and extra examples are in italics followed by **)

EXAMPLES:

Place name appears in title as:高 雄
BGN form: Kao-hsiung shih

Romanize place name in title as: Gaoxiong

**NAF heading: Kao-hsiung shih (Taiwan)
**When 高 雄 is subject, heading follows the NAF form as: Kao-hsiung shih (Taiwan)

Corporate name: 臺 南 市 觀 光 協 會
BGN form for the jurisdiction: T'ai-nan shih
Romanize heading in corporate name as: Tainan Shi guan guang xie hui

** We recommend that each word in corporate names be capitalized.
For example: Tainan Shi Guan Guang Xie Hui.

Place name that is subject of book: 基 隆 市
BGN form: Chi-lung shih

Romanize heading for place name as: Chi-lung shih (Taiwan)

**NAF heading: Chi-lung (Taiwan)

Question: The example in the guideline should agree with the form in NAF. Change this example from Chi-lung shih (Taiwan) to Chi-lung (Taiwan). Include explanations if non NAF forms are used.

Comments:

1) Separate information explaining pinyin conversion phenomenon from actual instructions on Pinyin romanization. Create a separate document for explanatory information on pinyin conversion and past practices [i.e. information on p. 4 A1, 2; p. 5 C1; p. 6 D1; p. 6-7 III. A, etc.]

The mixture of both types of information makes this document difficult to read and finding instructions to follow needs extra filtering efforts.

2) This guideline mixes examples of syllable separation with syllable connection, so do instructions in later sections. To make instructions in this document less confusing and more consistent, we suggest group all instructions on generic terms, single syllable and multi-syllables, for place names together under one category and change guideline numbering accordingly. For example (suggestion on numbering and text):

Caption for II will be like:

II. Place names: separation/connection of syllables and capitalization
(suggested numberings are preceded with **)

**A1. (to replace A) BGN separates...them. "Follow BGN forms when romanizing these terms" (move the instruction on p. 4 after Qu):

Examples: "generic terms of administrative districts":

Sheng (province)
Shi ...

Examples: "when romanizing":

Anhui Sheng

Delete 1, 2 (after example Wu Xian) (see comment 2 above)

**A2. (to replace B)/ Generic terms for populated ...

BGN connects the generic terms ... below the level of ...

**A3. Multi-syllable generic terms for place names (see guideline p. 8 B)

The following terms were capitalized, with connected

Zizhixian
Zizhizhou
Zizhiqu

We recommend that these terms be connected only in headings, but not in descriptive fields (see Part A General comment 1).

**A4. Multi-syllable place names (on guideline p. 6 A under III Place names)

Retain only instructions on PY romanization and related examples. Remove information on pinyin conversion (see comments 3 2 above)

**A5. Do not join syllables of general, non-specific geographic terms: (on guideline p. 7)

**A6. Other related instructions scattered in the document.

Delete 1. (see comment 2 above)
Combine instructions 2 & 3 (guideline numbers) into one instruction

1. (replace 2 on the guideline)

Generic terms for geographical terms should be "separated from the name of a place" and capitalized in the future when used as a part of a proper name in subject heading:
 

"For example": Jinpo Lake (China) (other following examples in the guideline should be aligned on the left)

Gansu Corridor (China) ...

[Move the instruction "They should also be capitalized as part of a corporate name or title:" and aassociated examples to Section I with instructions for corporate names or title. e.g. with section I. example 4-5]

2. (replace 3 on the guideline)

Generic terms for geographic features are separated in the name of the place itself; however, those terms are often joined by BGN when ... Distinguish whether the term refers ... or to ... jurisdiction:

[We suggest follow this instruction only for establishing headings. Reasons see also Part A 1 a, b.]

Reason:

This instruction requires extra steps and time be taken to analyze the meaning of a name and its grammatical usage before one can decide if the syllable need joining or dividing. Therefore, such instruction should not be applied to descriptive cataloging at all.

Problematic examples:

When following this guideline, we found examples in guideline II C3 and II D2 are inconsistent in syllable aggregation. see comments in brackets.

IIC3 Fenhe Shuiku
IID2 Luzhou Chang Jiang Da Qiao

[Why 'Shuiku' connected, but not 'Da Qiao'?
Why connecting 'Fenhe' but not 'Chang Jiang' in these two examples? ]

[We suggest guidelines of similar nature either be consolidated into one guideline or be given consistent instruction for syllable aggregation and capitalization.]

Delete 1 (see comment 2 above)

1. (replace 2 in the guideline, or no numbering at all) They should be capitalized in the future

"Example": Fu Ling Site (China) (examples should be aligned on the left)

This guideline will be clearer if it focuses on romanization instruction on terms of buildings, instead of giving a general description of "syllables after the first one..."

[Suggested wording: "The term of building is separated from the name precedes it and not capitalized."]

Example:
Huang he lou 黃 鶴 樓
Penglai ge  蓬 萊 閣

We suggest the guideline be revised as: "Join name syllables before the terms of buildings. The first letter of the name and terms of building are capitalized. "

For example,

"Hunghe Lou" NOT "Huang he lou"
"Penglai Ge" NOT "Peng lai ge"

Reason:

The current approach in LC's guideline requires catalogers, even public users, to take extra steps and time to analyze the meaning of names and its grammatical usage in order to decide if syllables need joining or dividing. Such requirement involving personal interpretation in linguistic usage of terms only creates confusion and inconsistency.

A/ Multi-syllable place names

Two Comments:

1) retain only new instructions for PY romanization on multi-syllable place names and related examples. (see comment 2 above)
2) move this section to section II as indicated above as A4.

B/ Multi-syllable generic terms for place names

1. The following terms were capitalized, with connected syllables, by the Conversion program

Two comments:

1) remove information on conversions (see comment 2 above)
2) move this section into Section II (see suggested A3 above)

2.& 3.

Apply instructions to headings only. (see reasons in Part A 1 a,b)

C/ Two syllable place names

Two comments:

1) remove information on conversion or past practices (see comment 2 above)
2) move it to Section II as A5?

Re-number Section III for D/ Names of peoples and E/ , when Section III A,B,C are incorporated into section II.

D/ Name of peoples

Comment:

Do NOT make distinctions of syllable aggregations on tribal names by their grammatical usages. Since Chinese is a non-inflected language, such distinctions make no sense to Chinese language users. Each name should be consistent in one roman format regardless where it appears in bibliographic records.

Instruction 1 & 2 should become one instruction.

E/ Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo

The instruction is beyond comprehension for the majority of Chinese material users. Under the cooperative cataloging environment, we find this rule creates more inconsistency rather than reducing it. (Suggestions see Part A 3.)

I. Married women

Questionable example:

100 0 Li Ma, $c Shi

Incorrect indicator in this example, please see the NAF record [n 85214532]:

Please add an example demonstrating romanization for descriptive data.

E.g. 100 1 Li Ma, $c Shi
Romanize in descriptive text as : Li Ma Shi

Suggestion:

Please add to guidelines explicit wordings on how romanization should be done on descriptive entries. Romanization guidelines in this version, except section I, are explicit for establishing headings but vague for describing bibliographic entries. The wording 'romanize as' can only be found in examples. It generally is not a good idea to make guideline readers to infer what guidelines mean from examples rather than from the text itself. In addition, this guideline introduces different practices in syllable connections on names between headings and descriptive entries. To make sure these guidelines are followed consistently among the library community and to avoid different interpretation on examples, we strongly recommend that each guideline provides clear wording for heading establishment and for bibliographic description.

Suggestion on guideline statement: (in caps and italics)

"A forename ... Therefore, to promote ... WHEN DESCRIBING BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, all forenames ..." WHEN ESTABLISHING HEADINGS, if a term appearing ... by the cataloger.

Nevertheless, to promote consistent application, we would like to suggest NOT all forenames be romanized with connected syllables in one string. Instead, forenames are romanized with connected syllables in the same practice which LC guidelines set for romanizing Japanese and Korean names. That is, separating commonly used terms in pen names, such as jushi (居 士), zhuren (主 人), laoren (老 人), shanren (山 人), etc., from the terms before it.

For example:

Wugang Zhuren
Baisha Xiansheng
Yungu Laoren
Yungu Laoren

When terms appearing inseparable or difficult to separate, such as Shudaizi , it will be connected together.

Examples:

Shudaizi	Daquandidan
Nezha	Baigujing
Mengjiangnu	Hongxiannu
Mulan	Aishatuo

Discussion:

1. The instruction of running multiple syllables in one string for forenames in the current version 'forces' words to be formed by crossing natural linguistic boundaries. This is not the normal/natural way Chinese native speakers and non-native speakers alike use to recognize personal names. For example, 'Alexander the Great', if connected as 'Alexanderthegreat', is unrecognizable to English language users or would be considered as errors. Likewise, a long string of romanized Chinese names without word boundary is even harder for Chinese language users to recognize and comprehend the catalog entries. In addition, the practice of unnatural word-division against the language runs the adverse effect on searching and retrieval.

Considering the difficulty of presenting forenames in proper word-division, NACO contributors should be instructed to provide as thorough as possible cross-references forenames in various word divisions to guide access.

2. Adopting the above suggestion will allow Chinese name forms to be consistent with Japanese and Korean names. It is doable also because CJK names share similar linguistic and cultural trace in format.

Correction: (p. 10)

The translation for Wugangzhuren should be "The Master/Owner of Wugang".

Questionable examples:

1. p. 10

-- no. 4. Qinhexianguan 琴鹤仙馆

(This term is someone's studio name. Sometimes it's used to refer to the person. But most of time it is for the studio, therefore, it probably belongs to the category of 'corporate body')

--no. 5 Shudaizi

Is it 书袋子 or 书呆子?

No. 7-11 are not common examples that most readers familiar with. We suggest that the use of three or four commonly understood examples is enough to explain this guideline.

2. P. 11

Example for 'Jiang Jingguo xian sheng' should be moved to III/Terms of address.

*We do not agree "Jiang Jingguo xian sheng" is a forename.

Guildeline: "Romanize fictitious names in the same manner as the names of real people"

*This guideline is so hidden that is easily missed.

We suggest:

Make this guideline and its associate examples independent from other examples in section II to avoid confusion. Also should stage names, legendary characters, which normally are full names, be included in this guideline? Furthermore, pseudo names are problematic in terms of when to transcribing them as full names or forenames. It will be beneficial for practice to include instruction on pseudo names. 

Nevertheless, 伏 義, 蚩 尤 and 妈 祖 do not pair well with Qin Keqing 秦可卿 as examples to illustrate this guideline. One may just start to understand how this guideline is about from the 秦可卿 form, but gets confused right away by the next examples 伏 義, 蚩 尤 and 妈 祖. The latter forms are more resemble to those in forenames than that of Qin Keqing's. It is also likely that readers, by reading the guideline and the Qin Keqing form, will treat 伏 as the surname for 伏 義, and form this name as Fu, Xi instead of Fuxi. Likewise, 蚩 尤 to be Chi You instead of Chiyou.

Questions on the guideline:

(Note: Questions of the guideline are underlined, comments on the guideline are in bold.)

Follow AACR2 rule 22.11B when establishing phrases that consist of a forename followed by a term of address, or a title of position or office. Rules for terms of address apply to names that consist of a surname and another term that is not the person's name. Terms of address include: Laoshi, Daifu, Zi, etc. Zi is usually considered to be an integral part of a name; see section B [II?] above.) Separate a term of address from the surname with only a space, but not a comma. (This sentence makes sense only in descriptive text, it does not make sense in headings). Connect syllables in the term of address; capitalize only the first letter.

If a term appearing as an integral part of a name is not a title or term of address, establish the name in running form. (This sentence should refer to some examples under Section II. Please provide explicit examples to illustrate the point.) When in doubt, decide which way is better and make cross-references from meaningful separations of syllables, as determined to be necessary by the cataloger (Please provide examples that may cast doubt; when the rule leaves more room for different interpretations, inconsistencies are often introduced).

Questionable examples:

p. 12

A. (Master Kong)

400 1 $Kong, $c Fuzi

This example is not a good one. Is this referred to the name of Confucius or some other person called Kong Fuzi?

Suggested example:

Descriptive string: Kong Fuzi; Kongzi
Establish heading: 100 0 Confucius
Cross-references: 400 1 Kong, $c Fuzi
400 1 Kong, $c Zi
400 0 Kongzi
 

B.   李马氏 Establish heading: 100 1 Li Ma, $c Shi

This example should be removed, since it is already cited under Section I. In addition, we do not agree that 'Shi' is a term of address.

Questions:

Why Guifei and Fei are not considered as royalties like Hou and Huanghou? They are not titles for government officials. Mixing government titles and other 'titles' in one place causes more confusion than clarifying it. The guideline will be better understood/organized if examples of guifei and fei are moved to section VI of royalty, and revise guideline wording in VI accordingly.

Questionable examples:

p. 12

100 0 Yang, $c Guifei (in guideline)
should be

100 1 Yang, $c Guifei
(as shown in examples for section III?)

Same to other examples for

Zhen, $c Fei
Dong'e $c Fei, etc.

p. 13

Example 4

Huaruifuren

Please refer to comments we made for section II, forenames, we suggest change Huaruifuren to Huarui Furen to make this roman form clearer and more sensible.

Example 6

Yue Fei 岳飞

This is a misleading example. People will not easily mistake Yue Fei with those queens, concubines. It is ONLY awkward by using his name as warning here. We suggest REMOVE this example from the guideline.

Questionable example:

智 昇 is romanized as Zhisheng Shi

Should it be romanized as "Zhisheng"?

Suggestion:

Consolidate all empresses, consorts into the same category (C?) and move Guifei, and Fei from section IV here. They should belong to the same category.

Question on the guideline B:

It is difficult to apply the guideline statement with the shown examples, because neither Taizong nor Qin Shihuangdi is the "name" of the person.

Suggestion on guideline B (shown in caps):

The names of royal persons ... the name is entered in direct order. SEPARATE AND CAPITALIZE the name of the dynasty ... FROM the TITLE/FORENAME of the person ...

Questionable examples: p. 14

Category B: The first $d in all examples here should be changed to $c.