From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:43:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from gateway04.websitewelcome.com ([64.5.38.14]:18054 "HELO gateway04.websitewelcome.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with SMTP id S20031155AbZDAJnL (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:43:11 +0100 Received: (qmail 17972 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2009 09:17:42 -0000 Received: from gator750.hostgator.com (174.132.194.2) by gateway04.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2009 09:17:42 -0000 Received: from [217.109.65.213] (port=2052 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by gator750.hostgator.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LowYe-0006ZN-FG; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:16:28 -0500 Message-ID: <49D330EF.1000209@paralogos.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:16:31 +0200 From: "Kevin D. Kissell" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zhangfx@lemote.com, gnewsense-dev@nongnu.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, loongson@bjlx.org.cn, yanh@lemote.com Subject: Re: yeloong or yeeloong References: <15359.159.226.43.42.1238459390.squirrel@mail.lemote.com> <20090331175252.GB4918@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> In-Reply-To: <20090331175252.GB4918@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator750.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - linux-mips.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - paralogos.com Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 22227 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: kevink@paralogos.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Zhang Le wrote: > Sorry for cross posting, but I just want to bring this issue to a wider > audience. > > > 2. Yeeloong -> Yeloong. > > I think this one is controversial. The e in Yeloong, to me, sounds like e > in yes, not ee in eel. So that the sound is changed, this action is by > itself bad. And Yeloong may make people connect it with the word yell, > which is not quite good a word. Moreover, the original sound is more like > its Chinese brand name. > For whatever it's worth, please note that the general rule in English is for "e" to be "long", as in "me" or "eel", whenever there is a single consonant before the next vowel, and for it to be "short", as in "them" or "yell", when followed by multiple consonants before the next vowel. There are, of course, many, many exceptions in English to the general pronunciation rules, but by default "yeeloong" and "yeloong" would be pronounced about the same. The only reason to have the extra "e" in "yeelong" in a transliteration to English would be to emphasize a long, drawn out "ee" sound. To have the "yell" sound, one would spell it "yelloong", with two l's. Worst case, the single "e" in "yeloong" would be collapsed to a "schwa" vowel, more of a short "uh" than an "eh", the way Americans often do with "the" (or "Lemote"). This is what happens when you ask someone who majored in computer science but minored in poetry! ;o) Regards, Kevin K.