How would you transliterate this sentence if you are to write it in Latin characters?

Ty zakluchonny.
Would the above be acceptable as a Latin (English related) transliteration?


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# This comment was copied from #3685362 when duplicate sentences were merged.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"zaklyuchonniy", to be precise ("yu" reflects ю and related palatalisation, "iy" reflects ый, although just "y" is also often used but is less "correct").

That's an unwieldy way, though, and I certainly prefer IPA transcription.~


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# This comment was copied from #3685362 when duplicate sentences were merged.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Ooney.
I do transliterate from Russian, once in a while, into Latin characters.
When doing that, I try to be as close as possible to the way the name is pronounced by a native speaker, and at the same time to the way an American would understand the transliteration of the pronunciation.

I try to refrain from transliterating the iy at the end of such names, as it wouldn't mean anything to an American who doesn't know Russian, while -nny would (I guess).

Another problem I had was whether to write "klyu" or "klu", i.e., whether I should convey the palatalization etc. I thought that if this name or word is intended for general use by an English speaking person, maybe we should give up the "yu". Do you think we should retain it?


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# This comment was copied from #3685362 when duplicate sentences were merged.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't like the idea of ignoring palatalization. A lot of words only differ in speech (in one or more case forms) by palatalising or not palatalising a consonant, so that habit seems pretty rough to me. It may be more convenient for your purpose to use the apostrophe to reflect palatalisation — I don't think that would be too difficult a concept to grasp even if one doesn't know how to pronounce it themselves?

Ultimately, ignoring palatalisation and final jot led to Горки (the place where Lenin's residence was famously located) and Горький (the writer) being both transliterated as 'Gorky', which is silly.

Still, if you're using it an a general text, I suppose that needn't matter much... one wouldn't bother over "correct" pronunciation of some arcane foreign term anyway. But if you're targeting some specific person(s), getting them to understand the distinction at least on a theoretical level would be nice. :)


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# This comment was copied from #3685362 when duplicate sentences were merged.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. I agree with you.


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# This comment was copied from #3685362 when duplicate sentences were merged.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duplicates of this sentence have been deleted:
x #3685362