Talk:The New International Encyclopædia/Görup-Besanez, Eugen

I'm not so familiar with the phonetic scripting used in this book. 'Besanez' is a spelling for the castle 'Bežanec' (croatian since the mittle of the 19th century) in Croatia. The hungarian spelling was 'Besánecz' and later (after a reform of the orthography) 'Besánec'. The (part of the) german name of the family was fixed to the form 'Besanez' in 1816, when the the father of Eugen became a baron.

(There still exist the hungarian form 'besáneczi Gorup' and the croatian form 'Gorup Bežanski)'--Gorup (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time with the phonetic scripting as well. I refer a lot to Latin characters in Unicode and The New Student's Reference Work/Key to Pronunciation, but I don't always find what I need, and sometimes I just describe what's missing in extra_notes.  I think a transcription of the pronunciation key for this work needs to be done, and that will make things easier. I changed the name of this page to remove "baron".  It is not in the key for the article which I am taking as the boldface component plus the small caps component.  This is just the practice I was following from 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.  There we just used what was in bold and ignored the small caps, which seems insufficient here. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have transcribed the Key to pronunciation for this work. Some of the characters didn't seem to have readily available Unicode counterparts, so I substituted.  I used this to further correct the pronunciation respelling.  In looking at it, I see the pronunciation respelling certainly supports your contention that Gorup is spelled without a diaresis.  With a diaresis, it should have been respelled Gẽrōōp if it were pronounced properly.  So apparently the pronunciation respelling is right even if the regular spelling isn't.  Having the key readily available now will certainly make things easier but my work is still complicated by the fact that archive.org's PDFs for these volumes have legibility problems although their on-line reader seems to provide very clear reproductions.  Your contribution also brings up another style issue.  I think for names of articles when several boldfaced alternative names are given in the key, I would advocate for only the first one being used for the article name.  That seems easiest to me. I changed the next link accordingly. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)