En réponse à Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>:

> But they're not known for their skill in pronouncing foreign names.

It reminds me of the change in spelling from Peking to Beijing, and suddenly all
journalists began pronouncing the name ['beIdZiN], although it's only the
spelling which change and not the pronunciation of the name (which was correctly
approximated by the first common spelling). Of what a "correct" transliteration
can provoke :) .

> John
> means that's how the Burmese word transliterated as {myanmar} is
> pronounced
> by the Burmese, whose spelling conventions seem to rival those
> Christophe
> is proposing for his current conlang  :)

I hope not :)) (poor Burmese! :) ). But that's impossible if Burmese has a
regular orthography. One of the characteristics of Maggel is that besides
nightmarish regular spelling rules, a "rule" in Maggel means: "a phenomenon that
has relative majority in the language" :)) . Also, the spelling is the very
contrary of self-segregation, so it adds to the confusion :)) .

> {Burma} was the way the unrhotic Brits of the Indian Raj recorded the
> name
> when they heard it pronounced (they had no inclination to learn the
> Burmese
> script  :)

Hehe, those British journalists seem to understand nothing in changes of
transliteration :)) .


Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.