The Place of Russian Scientific Literature in Bibliographical Work' J . G . TOLPIN Universal Oil Products Company, Chicago, Illinois
T
HE purpose of this paper is to call the attention of the bibliographer, specifically the science library worker, to the need for wartime preparedness for a peacetime activity and to suggest one practical step in the direction of this preparedness. I have in mind the need for closer attention to, and adequate recording of, the Russian published research in all branches of science. The specific instrument considered in this connection is a uniform system of indexing and of transliterating Russian proper names, titles, geographical locations, etc. A meeting of chemists or a chemical journal can serve in this instance mainly as the medium through which an attempt is made to speak to the workers in other branches of science. The journalsof the AmericanChemical Societyarelessguilty of confusion in transliteration of Russian names than other scientific periodicals. Especially is this true of Chemical Abstracts, which records Russian names in larger numbers than chemical jownals or other scientific journals in any other country. Only a few minor problems are to be considered as pertaining to its system of transliteration. This cannot be said about other scientific publications; however, inasmuch as technical literature searching cannot be limited to any one publication, the practice of other journals must be considered. The problem has become more significant owing to the rapid growth of the volume of Russian scientific literature and the mounting interest in it manifested by scientists in this country. The editor of Chemical Abstracts reported that the list of chemical journals in the Russian language covered by his journal exceeded 200 in 1937 (7.3 per cent of the total of 2800 periodicals). Of the jownals added between 1936 and 1942 to the list of those abstracted, the number of Russian papers was as large as that of German papers and much in excess of the French [8.3, 8.6, and 5.0 per cent, respectively ( 4 ) l . The number of abstracts of Russian chemical papers rose between the years 1913 and 1940 from 2.5 per cent to 14.1 per cent of the total number of abstracts prepared. During the same period the number of abstracts from German papers dropped from 34.4 to 13.4 per cent and the French from 13.0 to 5.3 per cent (3). Yet, this coverage of the Russian technical journals is still incomplete, for Soviet authorities in certain fields of chemical technoloev com~lainoccasionallv that some of their imiU",
"Ul",
portant achievements remain unnoticed in this country (6). In addition to the current literature, some of the older Russian scientific literature is occasionally found to be pertinent to current research on problems which had heretofore only academic interest. This type of older Russian literature was never well reported outside of Russia, although some Russian scientists published much in German and French jonrnals. At any rate, i t was not covered from the point of view of present-day research. In some cases brief abstracts of Russian papers in German jonrnals gave little detail of the research under report. In the past some Russian researches of importance were credited by American scientists to Germany, and their authors were sometimes thought to have been Germans. A few facts concerning Russian scientific publications and bibliographical activities during the years immediately preceding the present war are of interest. Neither of these was commensurate with the scope of scientific work i t was called upon to reflect. In spite of the centralized management of many scientific activities by the Soviet state, the scientific bibliographical work has not yet benefited from unification on a national scale, and for abstracts of chemical papers, for an example, a Russian chemist has to turn to several sources, if he wants to cover his field. Bibliographical work in the modern sense of the word is not new in Russia, for a technical bibliographical publication [Knigovedenie (Book Knowledge)] existed there as early as 1894-1896. The journal Knizhnaya Letofiis' (Book Chronicle) is over 35 years old. I t reviews books. Similar publications index magazine articles-others, newspaper articles. Certain laws in force in the U. S. S. R. facilitate bibliographical work. Thus, I find that .publishers are obliged to deposit 45 copies of new books in the 41 largest libraries of the country (16). I do not attempt to make a complete survey of the Russian bibliographical field covering the sciences from the point of view of either its quantity or quality. The numbers, and even the types, of services described here are only illustrative of the attempts made heretofore, and of the potential services of wider coverage that we may expect after the war and may use as a guide to the vigorous scientific activities which cannot be completely reflected in the regular Russian scientific Kniga (~nternationil~ i o k )in Moscow accepted i n
of a publishing house for what is regarded as a misleading book on an oil region, etc., and treating them as public officials who are managing enterprises in which the critic has a stake. At times, abstractors interject critical remarks in their abstracts. Criticism of writers for data or manner of its treatment by editors of technical journals is more frequent than in the case of the journals of the Academy of Sciences. Sometimes this gives the writer-editor or writer-abstractor relationship a shade of student-teacher attitude. Especially interesting is a case of criticism of the bibliographical journal, Knizhmya Leiopis' (Book Chronicle) (5), in which examples are given of a few important research studies missed by this journal, but properly recorded in the American bibliographical literature. In one instance, a complicated engineering calculation was carried out anew, although it was previously published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. I t is thus seen that Russian leaders in science and bibliographical research are cognizant of their needs and have been active in satisfying them. Even when the Russian scientific literature is expanded and unified after the present war, which is highly probable, and especially in the years before this unification is completely attained, much valuable information will be available to us only through systematically following the Russian scientific and engineering literature, including review journals, bibliographical publications, and the like. This will require also that much more attention be paid to complete and uniform records of the literature previously published. The correct and, above all, uniform transliteration of the names of Russian authors, titles, and journals is therefore an issue of significance. Because names of many Russian scientists have been spelled as given in transliteration in the German, French, or British literature, many readers have not known that these scientists are Russian. In order to prevent confusion which results from repeated entries of the same name in different spellings in bibliographies, it would be useful to compile a list of all Russian authors who have published important scientific research in non-Russian journals, a t least for the period since 1868, when the German Berichte was founded, or 1869, the first year of publication of the Journal of the Russian Physical-Chemical Society, with an equivalent uniform transliteration, if the means for such a project could be found. The problem before us, therefore, cannot be limited to the uniform transliteration of names given in the Russian alphabet, but must extend as far as possible to the identification of these names as transliterated in other languages and the distinction between Russian and non-Russian names. For the sake of complete treatment, two incidental aspects of the problem should be considered : ( a ) The current Russian literature uniformly uses the revised Russian spelling in which several letters in use before 1917 were discarded. However, papers published before 1917 have to be handled, and transliteration should consider also letters now obsolete.
(6) We are concerned here with Russian papers. In addition to Russian proper, which is the official language of the U. S. S. R. and is the native language of the majority of its population, two other languages, so closely akin to it that they are considered by some mere dialects of the Russian language, which use uniformly the same Cyrillic alphabet, exist there. Of these languages, white Russian uses the same letters as the Russian language, with minor exceptions, and may be overlooked. The Ukrainian language, however, must be considered in connection with transliteration. The recent discussion of transliteration of Rnssian names in Science (8) was quite timely. I t is to be regretted, however, that this discussion has been so far conducted without reference either to any previous attempts made in this direction or to the various existing and relatively widely used systems of transliteration of Russian names. Even if i t were established that all these systems of transliteration are incorrect in some respects, they deserve a t least serious consideration, especially in view of the fact that in all matters dealing with language, previous usage is a factor of primary significance. Wel-considered attempts a t uniform transliteration of Russian, as well as other Slavonic languages, were made as early as 1885 by the American Library Association (7), by the British War Office, Foreign Office, Colonial Office, and Admiralty in 19OG (lo),and by the British Academy in 1916 (14). I have considered also the systems of transliteration used by the Library of Congress, New York Public Library, and Chemical Abstracts and wish to suggest a set of principles for guidance in transliterating Russian names and titles. Transliteration is distinctly different from phonetic transcription. Transliteration should not be based on pronunciation, but on the spelling of the original word. It is immaterial whether we all pronounce correctly the names Chekhov and Zhitomir, as long as we have a uniform system of writing them down. I t was pointed out (13) that the number of possible variations of transliteration of the name of Chekhov would be quite imposing, if the conventional methods used by writers in various European languages to express the sound combinations present in that name are considered, namely, the first sound as either Ch, Tch, C , Tsch, Tsj, Tj, Cz, or C; the middle consonant as ch, kh, h, k, or x ; and the last as v, f, or ff (w was left out of consideration). Perfect similarity of sound cannot always be achieved by transliterated letters, for some sounds are characteristic for one language and are not employed in the other. For this reason, transliteration can aim only a t uniform representation of the letters, not the sounds of the transliterated language, in the given case, Russian. If we go by sound and attempt to represent it correctly, i . e., attempt to devise a system of phonetic transcription, we cannot think of letters and cannot achieve a uniform indexing, for we must then represent the Russian letter "r" (g) by the Eng-
lish "g" in most cases, but by the letter "v" in words such asaRusskogo," and by "kh"in"1egko" (light, easy). By the same token, we would have to use at least three different methods of representing the Russian sounds for all of which the English "e" can be used, one for the soft sounding "e," one for the hard "3", and one for the "em pronounced like "yo." The name Gogol' with the soft "1" a t the end, indicated by the apostrophe, strikingly differs in pronnnciation from that with the hard "1" a t the end; the Russian word YMJI (ugol), with the hard "1" a t the end, means angle or comer, whereas with the soft "1" YrOJrb (ugol') means coal, carbon. The word 0 6 % ; ~ (volume) would not be well recognizable in Russian without the effect on its pronunciation produced by the hardness sign, %, which should be indicated in transliteration. The sounds produced by the Russian letters enter, conseqvently, into the picture only in so far as they serve as a basis for selecting for the Russian letters the closest equivalents among the English letters. In selecting English equivalents for the Russian letters, we should aim, for the above reasons, a t representing nothing more than those letters, but we should also not omit any of the letters in the Russian spelling. We should, therefore, not leave letters afTecting the pronunciation of a name and the meaning of a word without representation. The ideal solution to all transliteration problems would be a uniform international system which would facilitate searching through the technical literature in all languages. Commenting on the state of transliteration, a meeting of phoneticians in Copenhagen in 1925 (13) expressed an opinion that "the thing must be left in the present chaotic state until knowledge of the most important rules of phonetics reaches the widest circles of oeonle." Must It? At a meetine of the German gedgra'phical society in Halle in 189$ i t was brought out that a suggestion was received from England to discuss the subject together, and formulation of a systern of transliteration was postponed until a report would be available from a pending convention a t Geneva (11). This report was subsequently released on September 10, 1894, and covered a number of alphabets in a system which considered also the practice of the Berlin Library. In 1944 we seem to be infinitely farther from this bit of international collaboration than we were in 1893. We are not here concerned with transliteration of English names into Russian, and the recent public discussion of this subject is outside the scope of this paper (9). This is a problem for the Russian bibliographer. Some Russian scientific periodicals recently adopted a method of writing non-Russian names in the original language concerned. The system, however, is apparently far from standardized. E. I. Shamurin of the Moscow Public Library, an authority on cataloging, does not mention transliteration of nonRussian names in his book (15). The following system gives proposed English equiva-
lents for Russian letters based on the above-outlined considerations, bearing in mind primarily the scientific literature. The entire alphabet is listed, including the letters which became obsolete through the adoption of the simplified orthography in 1918. Ukrainian letters not used in the Russian language are also added. This system uses no diacritical marks with exception of the short "in (N). The methods of representing the Russian soft sign (6) and the hard sign ($ are not the best imaginable. It is only because they are already in use to some extent that they are suggested. The remarks relating to pronunciation of these letters are given for the sake of explaining their significance and the examples of comparative transliteration cited below. Russian A a
B 6
B e r
Latin a (as in far) b v
5 (as in go)
r
A n
e (as "ye" in yes) zh (as "s" in pleasure)
E e 3fC z 2 - ."
"
"
II u
li K
i (as "i" in ravine) i (not used in the revised orthography) i (as "y" in boy) k
i
K
.Tl n
T T y Y 0 4 X x
:: m UI
UI. m.
=
bI, 5
SIX
Mm I 3
e
I
t u (as "00" in m o a ) f kh (no similar a u n d in English exists; like "ch" in the German word Buch) tS
--
rh
sh shch (like "shch" in "rash child." "fresh cheek") " (mute; indicates that the preceding consonant is hard and may be disregarded at the end of a ward, but is to be retained in the middle of the word, indicating a sharp separation between a hard consonant and a following soft sound, as in "opulent") y (as "it' in fit) ' (this letter is mute by itself, and only indicates the softness of the preceding consonant. It should be expressed both in the middle of the word, as in Vol'nou, and at the end, as in Gomel') e (abolished in the new orthography) e (as "e" in let) ya (as "ya" in yard) YU (as "yu" in yule) f (abolished in the new orthography)
The Ukrainian alphabet does not use some of the Russian letters (a, a, M). The Russian F, transliterated into English by "g," when used in Ukrainian, should be transliterated by "h," the sound of which it represents. Similarly, the Russian I4 is to be transliterated from the Ukrainian by the English "y." The following Ukrainian letters are not employed in the Russian alphabet: 6
to he transliterated into English by g to be transliterated into English by ye
of a publishing house for what is regarded as a misleading book on an oil region, etc., and treating them as public officialswho are managing enterprises in which the critic has a stake. At times, abstractors interject critical remarks in their abstracts. Criticism of writers for data or manner of its treatment by editors of technical journals is more frequent than in the case of the journals of the Academy of Sciences. Sometimes this gives the writer-editor or writer-abstractor relationship a shade of student-teacher attitude. Especially interesting is a case of criticism of the bibliographical journal, Knizhnuya Letopis' (Book Chronicle) (5), in which examples are given of a few important research studies missed by this journal, but properly recorded in the American bibliogaphical literature. In one instance, a complicated engineering calculation was carried out anew, although it was previously published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. I t is thus seen that Russian leaders in science and bibliographical research are cognizant of their needs and have been active in satisfying them. Even when the Russian scientific literature is expanded and unified after the present war, which is highly probable, and especially in the years before this unification is completely attained, much valuable information will be available to us only through systematically following the Russian scientific and engineering literature, including review journals, bibliographical publications, and the like. This will require also that much more attention be paid to complete and uniform records of the literature previously published. The correct and, above all, uniform transliteration of the names of Russian authors, titles, and journals is therefore an issue of significance. Because names of many Russian scientists have been spelled as given in transliteration in the German, French, or British literature, many readers have not known that these scientists are Russian. In order to prevent confusion which results from repeated entries of the same name in different spellings in bibliographies, it would be useful to compile a list of all Russian authors who have published important scientific research in nowRussian journals, a t least for the period since 1868, when the German Berichte was founded, or 1869, the first year of publication of the Journal of the Russian Physical-Chemical Society, with an equivalent uniform transliteration, if the means for such a project could be found. The problem before us, therefore, cannot be limited to the uniform transliteration of names given in the Russian alphabet, but must extend as far as possible to the identification of these names as transliterated in other languages and the distinction between Russian and non-Russian names. For the sake of complete treatment, two incidental aspects of the problem should be considered: (a) The current Russian literature uniformly uses the revised Russian spelling in which several letters in use before 1917 were discarded. However, papers published before 1917 have to be handled, and transliteration should consider also letters now obsolete.
(b) We are concerned here with Russian papers. In addition to Russian proper, which is the official language of the U. S. S. R. and is the native language of the majority of its population, two other languages, so closely akin to it that they are considered by some mere dialects of the Russian language, which use uniformly the same Cyrillic alphabet, exist there. Of these languages, white Russian uses the same letters as the Russian language, with minor exceptions, and may be overlooked. The Ukrainian language, however, must be considered in connection with transliteration. The recent discussion of transliteration of Russian names in Science (8) was quite timely. I t is to be regretted, however, that this discussion has been so far conducted without reference either to any previous attempts made in this direction or to the various existing and relatively widely used systems of transliteration of Russian names. Even if i t were established that all these systems of transliteration are incorrect in some respects, they deserve a t least serious consideration, especially in view of the fact that in all matters dealing with language, previous usage is a factor of primary significance. Well-considered attempts a t uniform transliteration of Russian, as well as other Slavonic languages, were made as early as 1885 by the American Library Association (7), by the British War Office, Foreign Office, Colonial Office, and Admiralty in 1906 (lo),and by the British Academy in 1916 (14). I have considered also the systems of transliteration used by the Library of Congress, New York Public Library, and Chemical Abstracts and wish to suggest a set of principles for guidance in transliterating Russian names and titles. Transliteration is distinctly different from phonetic transcription. Transliteration should not be based on pronunciation, but on the spelling of the original word. It is immaterial whether we all pronounce correctly the names Chekhov and Zhitomir, as long as we have a uniform system of writing them down. I t was pointed out (13) that the number of possible variations of transliteration of the name of Chekhov would be quite imposing, if the conventional methods used by writers in various European languages to express the sound combinations present in that name are considered, namely, the first sound as either Ch, Tch, C, Tsch, Tsj, Tj, Cz, or C; the middle consonant as ch, kh, h, k, or x; and the last as v, f, or ff (w was left out of consideration). Perfect similarity of sound cannot always be achieved by transliterated letters, for some sounds are characteristic for one language and are not employed in the other. For this reason, transliteration can aim only a t uniform representation of the letters, not the sounds of the transliterated language, in the given case, Russian. If we go by sound and attempt to represent i t correctly, i. e., attempt to devise a system of phonetic transcription, we cannot think of letters and cannot achieve a uniform indexing, for we must then represent the Russian letter "P(g) by the Eng-
lish "g" in most cases, but by the letter "v" in words such asVRusskogo," and by "kh"in"1egko" (light, easy). By the same token, we would have to use a t least three different methods of representing the Russian sounds for all of which the English "emcan be used, one for the soft sounding "e," one for the bard "a", and one for the " 2 pronounced like "yo." The name Gogol' with the soft "1" a t the end, indicated by the apostrophe, strikingly differs in pronunciation from that with the hard "I" a t the end; the Russian word YrOJI (ugol), with the hard "1" a t the end, means angle or comer, whereas with the soft "1" YrOJIb (ugol') means coal, carbon. The word 0 6 % ; ~ (volume) would not be well recognizable in Russian without the effect on its pronunciation produced by the hardness sign, 3,which should be indicated in transliteration. The sounds produced by the Russian letters enter, conseqyently, into the picture only in so far as they serve as a basis for selecting for the Russian letters the closest equivalents among the English letters. In selecting English equivalents for the Russian letters, we should aim, for the above reasons, a t representing nothing more than those letters, but we should also not omit any of the letters in the Ru'ssian spelling. We should, therefore, not leave letters affecting the pronunciation of a name and the meaning of a word without representation. The ideal solution to all transliteration problems would be a uniform international system which would facilitate searching through the technical literature in all languages. Commenting on the state of transliteration, a meeting of phoneticians in Copenhagen in 1925 (13) expressed an opinion that "the thing must be left in the present chaotic state until knowledge of the most important rules of phonetics reaches the widest circles of people." Must (t? At a meeting of the German geographical society in Halle in 1893, i t was brought out that a suggestion was received from England to discuss the subject together, and formulation of a system of transliteration was postponed until a report would be available from a pending convention a t Geneva (11). This report was subsequently released on September 10, 1894, and covered a number of alphahets in a system which considered also the practice of the Berlin Lihraty. In 1944 we seem to be infinitely farther from this bit of international collaboration than we were in 1893. We are not here concerned with transliteration of English names into Russian, and the recent public discussion of this subject is outside the scope of this paper (9). This is a problem for the Russian bibliographer. Some Russian scientific periodicals recently adopted a method of writing non-Russian names in the original language concerned. The system, however, is apparently far from standardized. E. I. Shamurin of the Moscow Public Library, an authority on cataloging, does not mention transliteration of nonRussian names in his book (15). The following system gives proposed English equiva-
lents for Russian letters based on the above-outlined considerations, bearing in mind primarily the scientific literature. The entire alphabet is listed, including the letters which became obsolete through the adoption of the simplified orthography in 1918. Ukrainian letters not used in the Russian language are also added. This system uses no diacritical marks with exception of the short "?" (u). The methods of representing the Russian soft sign ( 6 ) and the hard sign ( 5 ) are not the best imaginable. I t is only because they are already in use to some extent that they are suggested. The remarks relating to pronunciation of these letters are given for the sake of explaining their significance and the examples of comparative transliteration cited helow. Russian A a B 6 B B r r
A n
E e 3fC x
3
8
M u
hK. i K
Latin a (as in far) b v g
d
(as in go)
e (as "ye" in yes) zb (as "s" in pleasure) 7 "
i (as "i" in ravine) i (not used in the revised orthography) i (as "y" in boy) k
Jl n M nn H H 0 0 n n p P C c T T
:i
X x
I ~i I Iq r q 5
bI b~ b
73 %
3 s
JI
n
K) m 8 e
t u (as "00" in moon) f kh (no similar a u n d in English exists; like "ch" in the German word Bucb)
--
~h shcb (like "shcb" in "rash child." "fresh cheek") " (mute; indicates that the preceding consonant is hard and may be disregarded at the end of a word, but is to be retained in the middle of the word, indicating a sharp separation between a hard consonant and a following soft sound, as in "opulent") y (as '5'' in fit) ' (this letter is mute by itself, and only indicates the softness of the preceding consonant. It should br erpreswd both in the middle of thc word. as in l'ol'no~.and at the end. as in Gomel') e (abolishedin the new orthography) e (as "e" in let) ya (as "ya" in yard) yu (as "yu" in yule) f (abolished in the new orthography)
The Ukrainian alphabet does not use some of the Russian letters ( 5 , a, bl). The Russian F, transliterated into English by "g," when used in Ukrainian, should be transliterated by "h," the sound of which it represents. Similarly, the Russian H is to be transliterated from the Ukrainian by the English "y." The following Ukrainian letters are not employed in the Russian alphabet:
I to he transliterated into English by g
s to be transliterated into English by ye
i to he translitcrated into English bv i i to be transliterated into English by yi
Concerning transliteration of names encountered in the non-Russian scientific literature, for instance in the German, English, or French journals, which appear to be Russian, no exhaustive rules can be given, and the safest decision can be made only on the basis of actual knowledge that the author is a Russian. Slavic-sounding names, like .Lichowsky, Ossietsky, are just as frequent among Germans as German-, French-, or Englishsounding names among Russians : Schmidt, Chatelain, Williams. Russian authors writing in non-Russian journals observe no rules of uniform transliteration. Some sign their names with "off or "eff at the end instead of "ov" or "ev," which represents the correct spelling in this case; many represent the ending -kii by -ky. As a result, the literature records their names in these spellings. Bibliographical journals occasionally transliterate the same Russian letter in diierent ways, attempting to base them upon their pronunciation in Russian or origin of the name transliterated (12). German systems of transliteration of Russian names will use a "w" where practically all proposed and existing systems of transliteration into English use a "v." Consequently, in retransliterating from German, the "w" should be changed to a "v," but wherever a "v" occurs in a Russian name in German transliteration, such as a Russian name of non-Russian derivation, its Russian spelling must first be ascertained, for it may be either a B (v) or a @ (f). French transliteration systems are usually also based on sound. Some typical divergencies of the systems of transliteration as used, for instance, by Chemisches Zentralblatt and Chimie et Industrie, as compared to the transliteration into English are shown below. In many cases these examples may be helpful in retransliteration of Russian names from the German and French. Both the German and French transliteration systems mentioned above make, as a rule, no distinction between the ending -ski? in Russian names and -ski in
Polish names, spelling them in both cases -ski. Names ending with "ski" or "cki" or those containing pairs of consonants with a z, i. e., rz, cz, or sz are, as a rule, indicative of the Polish origin of the author, and, consequently, left without transliteration when found in non-Russian journals, as they represent the correct Polish spelling of the name: Krzyzanski, Czemiawski, Bistrzycki, Szeptycki. The letter "i" before a vowel should, at least make one assume the probability that the name is Polish: Piotrkowski, Swiadecki, Zaloziecki. A number of diacritical marks used in Polish could serve to identify Polish names, but they are seldom reproduced in English when proper names are copied from Polish. I t is further necessary to obtain general recognition for the rule practiced by some bibliographical services, according to which the names of Russian authors which occur very frequently in non-Russian publications. especially if they become citizens of another country, should be spelled the way they themselves spell them. Russian names of non-Russian origin should be transliterated as Russian: Pakendorf, not PackendoriT; Gerr, not Herr. The rules for svllabication of Enelish words a ~ ~ " ,. l v . except that groups of letters representing a single Russian letter should be kept together. The softness sign b (') and the hardness sign s (") should be kept together with the consqnant which precedes them. A A
LITERATURE CITED
(1) ANOXYMO~ Imesliye S, Akademii Nauk S . S. S. R., Otdelcnie Khilnicheskikh N ~ u k(Bull. mad, sci. URSS, chsre xi. chim.), 356-60 (1941). ( 2 ) AwONuMoue, Zhurnal Prikladnoi Khimii ( J . Applied Chem.), 1 < -. 271-7 "> . --, - l l O d.-, A
French
German
$1
tsch Tschernow schtsch Schtschitikorr z Zybassow la Jarussowa ,
j,u Ljubm ]e Jefimowa
,A"
( 3 ) CRANE, The Little C. A , , No. 36 (Christmas. 1941). ( 4 ) CRANE,Chem. Eng. Nnus, 21, 1204 (July 25,1943). ( 5 ) DANILOV,Zhurnal Obshchei Khimii (3.Gen. Chem.), 12, 535-67 (1942). ( 6 ) D o ~ n u ~ x s Nefyanoe ~~i, Khozyairtvo (Petroleum Ind.), 19,5ti (1938). ( i )HEILPRIN, The Library Journal, 10, 303-9 (1885); JOEL S u ~ x ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ , " T r a n s l i t efrom r a ttheRussians ion (1902); [also in New Englander and lirlr Review ( M a y , 189l)l.
Jdanov
Chakhov tch Tchemov chtch Chtchitikov ts Tsybassov Iaroussova iou Lioubine ie Iefimova
k)
English
$1 $1
Zhdanov
Shakhov ch Chernov shch Shchitikov ts Tsyhasov yu Lyubin e Efimova
cl
K
Grigorjew lot indicated) Dal
lot indic&d)
Dal
' Dal'
(8) H n o ~ ~ f K nScience, , 97, 243 (Mar. 12, 1943); DUNLAP, ibid., 97, 401 (Apr. 30. 1943); CHESTER,ibid.. 98, 302 (Oct. 1. 1943). (9) H R D L I ~ A . Science. 98, 219 (Sept. 3. 1943); KROTOV, lid., 98, 345 (Oct. 15, 1943). (10) KNOX.Map Curator. General Sta5, "Rules for the Transliteration of Place Names Occurrine on Foreign - Maos." H. M. Stationery Office. London, lG06. (11) KUHN AND VONCAROLSPELD, "Die Transcription Fremder Alphabete," Leipzig, 1897.
(12) PPLURCKE. C h e m Zentr., Generalregister I X , 1934-9, I, V (1941). (13) "Phonetic Transcription and Transliteration According to the Proceedings of the Copenhagen Conference of April. 1925," Oxford University Press, London, 1926. (14) POLLOCK AND OTHERS, "Transliteration 01 Slavonic"; also in "Proceedings of the British Academy," vol. 8, Oxford TTm&rn?G+.r proce T nndon, 1916. .-"", 11.51' M "Kiltdncoe ~N. >. . , S U..&. . ....T , ~ . .a f i a (Catalography). Moscow, 1925. (16) SOLEV.Sovetskaya Nauka (Soviet Science). 160 (1940).
".., -
