Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a251524e8bac4628

Jump to content

Talk:Lyulka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago by TSRL in topic Name (and merging)

re-directed away from corporate stub.Petebutt (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Name (and merging)

[edit]

Do we have a Russian reader who can tell us if the correct transliteration is Lyulka or Lyul'ka? Is it a hard or soft sign (ъ or ь) after the second л in Люльҝа?TSRL (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been in touch with an English speaking Russian physicist colleague, who says the apostrophe looks strange and doesn't usually appear. He also says he would write the name as Lulka, without the y since Lyu is said bu.. Both l's are soft.TSRL (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Further discussions yield: the lyu is sounded closer to lu, as in lumen, with no y in it; but agreement that the standard though unhelpful way of Romanising it is Lyulka, no apostrophe and unsounded y. So a merge should in my view be into Lyulka not Lyul'ka. The articles surely need merging.TSRL (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've just been discussing this with one of our Profs of Russian, who points out there are several systems both of transcription and of transliteration. It turns out my Uni's preferred transliteration would give Lul'ka. But there are clear Wki guidelines at Wikipedia: Romanisation of Russian, and these give Lyulka as the soft sign is dropped in most cases, including here. It's a transcription scheme rather than a transliteration.TSRL (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply