This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 10 October 2014, At: 15:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

On Chinese Romanization and Syllable Aggregation

a b
Qianli Hu MLSIS
a
State University of New York Downstate Medical Center , Brooklyn
b
LaGuardia Community College , E-mail:
Published online: 03 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Qianli Hu MLSIS (2005) On Chinese Romanization and Syllable Aggregation, Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly, 40:2, 19-32, DOI: 10.1300/J104v40n02_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n02_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 On Chinese Romanization
and Syllable Aggregation

Qianli Hu
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

ABSTRACT. This paper recommends that the Library of Congress and

other libraries adopt Chinese syllable aggregation as it can help users un-
derstand Chinese records. It explains the practice of the four tones in the
Chinese language. It suggests that catalogers should be consistent to cat-
alog Chinese materials. It also makes comments on the Library of Con-
gress’ latest Pinyin Conversion Project report, and other articles on this
topic. It suggests libraries learn Queens’ public library system in order to
allow users to retrieve, display, and print Chinese records with both Eng-
lish and Chinese characters. [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Chinese Romanization, syllable, aggregation, word di-

vision

With great efforts, the Library of Congress and other institutions

have been converting Chinese records from Wade-Giles to Pinyin for-
mat in recent years. The results are very impressive on the following ar-
eas:

Qianli Hu, MLSIS, is Librarian, State University of New York Downstate Medical
Center at Brooklyn and Adjunct Reference Librarian at LaGuardia Community Col-
lege (E-mail: ghu@lagcc.cuny.edu).
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 40(2) 2005
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/CCQ
 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J104v40n02_04 19
 20 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

• adding an umlaut over the letter « in the syllables lue and nue;
• using apostrophe in joined syllables,1 e.g., Fang’an;
• using of Shaanxi to distinguish from Shanxi, as these are two prov-
inces with similar pronunciation in China;
• aggregating Chinese first name, etc.

Despite these great accomplishments, some problems remain to be

solved. For example, Chinese syllables are separated in the most places,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

but aggregated in some other places; some Chinese places are input in
English while others in Pinyin. This may cause confusion for library us-
ers. Now the Library of Congress’ online catalog can display both Eng-
lish and Chinese, but most libraries online catalogs in this country
display English only. So syllable aggregation is still very important for
users to understand Chinese records.
In this article, I’ll explain the importance of syllable aggregation. I
strongly suggest that the Library of Congress and other libraries adopt
Chinese syllable aggregation as it can help users understand Chinese rec-
ords. I will commend on Chinese four tones, the Library of Congress’
latest Pinyin Conversion Project report, and other articles on this topic.
Now, Queens public libraries’ online catalog system in New York City
allows users to retrieve, display, and print bibliographic records with
both English and Chinese characters. We may learn from them. All arti-
cles I commend here are mainly from the Chinese Librarianship: An In-
ternational Electronic Journal. Its Web site is at www.iclc.us/cliej.

SYLLABLE AGGREGATION
CAN HELP USERS UNDERSTAND CHINESE RECORDS

Chinese language is aggregated. Not only people from the Mainland

China speak Chinese in aggregated format, but also people from Tai-
wan or elsewhere. The following are some examples in Chinese with
some analogies in English. These examples demonstrate why syllable
aggregation should be adopted.
If we aggregate “Mazui,” it stands for “Anesthesia”; if we separate it
as “Ma” and “Zui,” they may stand for “numb” and “drunk.” If we ag-
gregate “Guanjie,” it stands for “joint”; if we separate it as “Guan” and
“jie,” they may stand for “close” “knot.” If we aggregate “Shangfeng,”
it stands for “flu” or “catching cold”; if we separate it as “Shang” and
“feng,” they may stand for “injury” “wind.” From these three simple ex-
amples we can see syllable separation will confuse readers.
 Qianli Hu 21

In other words, if we want our readers to understand “Tangniaobing”

is “diabetes,” not “sugar” (Tang) “urine” (Niao) “disease” (Bing); if we
want our readers to know that “Jiaqi” is “vacation,” not “fake” (jia)
“date” (qi); if we want our readers to recognize that “Shouji” is “cellular
phone,” not “hand” (shou) “machine” (ji), we should adopt syllable ag-
gregation.
The Chinese language consists of four tones which we have not taken
into consideration yet. If we add the four tones, they will be transliter-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

ated into more Chinese words with more meanings; therefore, it is hard
for library users to understand what real titles are.
Even though I am a native Chinese speaker, I have had a hard time
figuring out many Chinese bibliographic records with syllable separa-
tion. I think most Americans have the same problems trying to figure
out the meaning of separated syllable titles. The current practice of
pinyin syllable separation won’t serve the best interest of our users.
Separating Chinese words is like separating English words. Victor
H. Mair pointed out this problem in his article.2 Let me add some more
examples here: if you don’t want to catalog “guideline” as “guide”
“line”; “outstanding” as “out” “standing”; “overcome” as “over” “come,”
you should support Chinese aggregation. If you don’t want to catalog
“Manhattan” as “Man” “Hat” “Tan,” “sixteen” as “six” “teen,” “myself” as
“my” “self,” you should oppose Chinese syllable separation because they
are the same issue.
Syllable separation makes it easier for catalogers to catalog Chinese ma-
terials. Nevertheless, it is hard for library users to understand the meaning
of Chinese records. “Easier” here means that catalogers need not to analyze
titles, just transliterate Chinese titles into separated pinyin syllables.
Now let’s look at few real Chinese titles in the separated syllable for-
mat, and see whether you can transliterate them correctly into Chinese
characters:
Kua shi ji de hai ya shen pan
Huang yan liu yan yan yuan
Ar li yi quan ji dao hei bai wei qiang
Liu shi si gua zhong de ren sheng zhe li yu mou lue
If you can transliterate those titles into correct Chinese characters,
you are a Chinese expert. But I don’t think the majority of library users
can do it. We may do a hypothetical survey. If 50% of readers can trans-
literate separated syllable titles into correct Chinese, we keep syllable
 22 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

separation; if more than 50% of readers cannot understand those titles,

but can understand them in aggregated format, we may adopt syllable
aggregation.
To my knowledge, many, if not most, users in libraries find Chinese
books not by the library online catalog, but by browsing Chinese books
on the shelves because that is the easiest way for them to find Chinese
materials. For example, which is the effective way to find this record
“Liu shi si gua zhong de ren sheng zhe li yu mou lue”? To figure out the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

meaning of this title online, or browsing the real book in Chinese

(+/,$9%A.@SJC on the shelf? I guess many users will
choose the second way, especially in New York City as all Chinese
books are placed in a certain area. Some Chinese studies librarians may
argue that there is no problem for them to search online with syllable
separation. Perhaps this is because users have no other choice or are
used to syllable separation. From the above sample, I think most users
prefer syllable aggregation if the online catalog can only display English.
If we catalog the above titles into syllable aggregation, it may be eas-
ier for users to transliterate these titles into Chinese.

Kua shiji de haiya shenpan TRGF=?5*

Huangyan, liuyan, yanyuan KI<I>

Arli yiquan jidao heibai weiqiang OM!8)'QD01

Liushisi gua zhong de rensheng zheli yu moulue

(+/,$9%A.@SJC

Chinese syllable aggregation will and can meet our readers’ needs. In
James Lin’s article “On Pinyin Conversion,” he points out: “Chinese
names in Pinyin form was introduced in 1976. It basically stipulates that
surname and forename should be separated by space and forename
should be joined together. . . In the same year, a guideline for writing
place names was also published. It was not until 1982 that a guideline on
how to write Pinyin form in a text was announced.”3 Once my name was
Hu Qian Li or Hu Qian-li, now Hu Qianli. This standard is easier for us
to distinguish Chinese first and last names. If first names can be aggre-
gated, titles can be aggregated too. If we can implement the aggregation
rule in first names, we can implement this rule in bibliographic records
as well.
 Qianli Hu 23

It is true that a title can be aggregated two, three, or even more ways.
This problem can be solved. For example, if we don’t know whether we
should catalog Hanyu pinyin or Hanyupinyin, use simple and short
form, i.e., Hanyu pinyin. Both are better than Han Yu Pin Yin. Let me
give you another example: if we cannot decide Da Zidian (Big dictio-
nary) or Dazidian (Big dictionary), we may choose the first one. The
first one also follows English concept with two words. Both are much
better than Da Zi Dian.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

As to Chengyu–idiom, classical Chinese–Gu Hanyu/Wenyan, such

as “Chu jiang ru xiang,” syllable separation will be used as each word
stands by itself. There is no argument for this. I don’t think Chinese uses
many classical Chinese or idioms in their titles. I learned that RLIN uses
syllable aggregation. About 95% of records work, 5% of records do not
work. Can we solve these 5% records manually? We cannot let 5% dif-
ficult materials mess up the whole Chinese language. I also learned that
OCLC uses syllable separation. There is no problem for them. But this
is from a technical point of view, not from users’ point of view.
For those ambiguous or flexible titles, just use syllable separation.
For example:

Shui Ji (Water prostitute) (;3)

Tian Shang (Heaven injure) (2&)

If the above example is still too simple, let’s try a difficult one. Sup-
pose we have a title “Xia Yu Tian Liu Ke Tian Liu Wo Bu Liu”
("P2B62<7#B). This title is hard to catalog without cor-
rect punctuation. One cataloger may think it should be “Xiayutian,
Liuketian, Liuwobu, Liu.” Another cataloger may think it should be
“Xiayutian, Liuke, Tianliu, Wo, Buliu.” With different punctuation, the
result will be totally different. If we cannot find an agreement on this rec-
ord, at least we can aggregate “Xiayutian” as both catalogers agree with,
and separate others. “Xiayutian” will be unique for this record.
From technical point of view, correct use of syllable aggregation en-
hances speed of searches. In my article “How to distinguish and catalog
Chinese personal name,” I quoted Tao and Coles’ article published 14
years ago that: Pinyin preserves the word flow. If we take the English
word “committee,” in Wade-Giles the word becomes divided into three
units–“wei yuan hui”–which is confusing, whereas the English word
“committee” in Pinyin becomes “weiyuanhui,” which is as it should
 24 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

be.4 In that article, I further explained that if you divide “Weiyuanhui”

as three separate words, you will find many false drops in search, be-
cause each word has so many different characters with the same pronun-
ciation.5
Victor H. Mair wrote two articles, “Pinyin Orthographical Rules for
Libraries” (see: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl10.htm) and “Pinyin Ortho-
graphical Rules for Libraries: A Recent Literary Review” (see: http://www.
iclc.us/cliej/cl11.htm). He pointed out that “Sorting, searching, order-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

ing, and other types of information processing operations will all be

much simpler and faster when we treat Sinitic languages as having
‘words’ rather than merely having syllables.”6 Computers can locate
records quickly if the records are aggregated. If you are familiar with
Chinese software, you know that when you enter a Chinese word in
pinyin format, you’ll find many popular words with the same pronunci-
ation. Sometimes it pops up more than 100 words. If you enter a Chi-
nese phrase or syllable aggregation in pinyin format, it may list only one
phrase. The result is clear. Syllable aggregation is more accurate.
Karl Lo also pointed out that pinyin and word division are twin.7 If
we separate syllables or words in bibliographic records, it is harder to
understand them without Chinese characters. Catalogers may have orig-
inal Chinese books in their hands, but readers do not have those books in
their hands. Our users can only judge records either by the online cata-
log or books on the shelves. If we separate syllables, it can add more
problems, confusion, and headache. Syllable aggregation can help users
understand our records better.
Then why do the Library of Congress and other libraries prefer Chi-
nese syllable separation? Perhaps it is a compromised way to adopt
Pinyin. Perhaps most of libraries are used to syllable separation. Per-
haps they don’t want to change the policy they made in early 20th cen-
tury.
In “Pinyin Romanization: Word Division Recommendation,” Philip
Melzer asserted: “Although the government of China has issued stan-
dards for word division, publishers and authors often do not conform to
its guidelines. Dictionaries published in China do not follow consistent
word division practices.”8 In 1991, the Library of Congress considered
that: “a major difficulty impeding the adoption of Pinyin is the lack of
standards for word division.”9 From his article, we learned that the stan-
dards exist. Some Chinese don’t follow the standards, perhaps because
they are not familiar with Chinese romanization and word division stan-
dards; perhaps because Chinese materials are always in their hands, and
Pinyin or word division is their supplementary tool only. We should fol-
 Qianli Hu 25

low the standards not because those people who don’t follow, but be-
cause the standards really help people understand Chinese records.
Philip Melzer did a thorough research, and found that the British Li-
brary separates all syllables . . . others either use Wade-Giles or sepa-
rate . . . words from each other with hyphens. Then he wanted to
“propose a system that best meets our needs.”10 As we know, Britain
and Australia adopted Pinyin a long time ago. Their efforts should be
appreciated. Time has been changed. Technology has been changed.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

We need to improve our practice. For example, Chinese first names are
now aggregated. If you check British or Australia’s original records, I
am not sure that they aggregated Chinese first names 20 years ago. So
we cannot just follow their old practices. As the LC has adopted Pinyin,
they may reconsider the policy of the word division.
In Melzer’s article, he mentioned that the National Library of Austra-
lia . . . has adopted the Library of Congress’s proposes. Within these 5
proposes, it listed that . . . Separating most syllables would make it pos-
sible for records to be changed to suit other institutional needs (i.e., it
would allow for future syllable aggregation or connection).11 Unfortu-
nately we have not seen syllable aggregation yet.
I think that institutional needs should be defined as the needs of their
library users first. It is time to implement syllable aggregation. If more
and more users complain that they can hardly understand the meaning
of Chinese bibliographic records in their English-only online catalog,
we should listen to them and make changes. We were lagging behind
Britain and other countries libraries on pinyin conversion before. We
were lagging behind other departments and agencies in the United
States for about twenty years. It is time for the Library of Congress to
take the lead, and make new guidelines in Chinese syllable aggregation.
We should not just follow others’ footsteps. The Library of Congress
can negotiate, coordinate with other institutions and libraries, and find
out the best way to serve our users.
I don’t think money and technology are the main issue. The main
point is that whether we want our users to understand our records. Let’s
look at the recent Library of Congress’ Pinyin Conversion Project re-
port (June 2003), the machine already converted all place names into
syllable aggregation, such as “diqu,” “Zizhiqu.” The Library of Con-
gress wants to manually convert to “di qu,” “Zi zhi qu.” (More detail is
below.) Please don’t waste time and money. Just keep “diqu,” and
“Zizhiqu” as they are. This will save a lot of work. More important, it is
easier for readers to understand.
 26 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

Now that the Library of Congress’ online catalog can display both
English and Chinese, syllable aggregation seems not urgent and impor-
tant to them. If you cannot figure out the meaning of a title, you can go
to that record in Chinese. To find out their Chinese version is not easy
because their Chinese version icon is invisible. You may go to their
Web site at http://catalog.loc.gov. After finding a Chinese record, move
the cursor to the right side of Marc tag, the invisible tag displays
“Non-roman test.” Click on it, you will see the record in Chinese.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

I also checked the 5-borough public library online catalog in New

York City, and found that 4 of 5 boroughs’ online catalog displays Eng-
lish only, only Queens borough online catalog can display Chinese rec-
ords in Chinese format. All libraries from the City University of New
York online catalog cannot display records in Chinese. The State Uni-
versity of New York has the same situation. Queens Public Library is
the only library whose online catalog (www.queenslibrary.org) can dis-
play Chinese, as well as 7 other foreign languages. Its OPAC is better
than the Library of Congress’ one. My search shows that most libraries
in this country display Chinese records in English only.
In the Queens public library system, when you enter a Chinese au-
thor’s name or title in Pinyin format, the screen automatically converts
the record into Chinese. If you click Vernacular Display, it displays
the record in pinyin format. Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island pub-
lic library online catalog can only display Chinese records in pinyin for-
mat. Brooklyn library online catalog can display Chinese records in
Wade-Giles format only. The Library of Congress may contact Queens
public library and learn from them. I have learned that the Queens pub-
lic library OPAC is Data Research Associate (DRA) system. Though
Queens library system is the best one I have found so far, users still need
to input Pinyin for searching Chinese materials. This means syllable ag-
gregation is still useful.

THE ROLE OF FOUR TONES IN CHINESE ROMANIZATION

Pinyin was developed from Zhuyin Zimu (the national phonetic al-
phabet) which was divided into twenty-one consonants and fifteen vow-
els, as well as four tones: (1) Yinping, (2)Yangping, (3) Shagsheng, and
(4) Qusheng.12 The four tones are currently not used in cataloging Chi-
nese materials. This causes a problem to understand Chinese contents.
The Chinese language is full of homophones and homonyms. Many
words, if not most words, have several different meanings even when
 Qianli Hu 27

they are in the same tone. For example, “Xing Shi Bai Wen” can be
transliterated into “Hundred questions on family names” or “Hundred
questions on sexual matters.” If you don’t have the Chinese book in
your hands, you cannot find the right answer except from subject head-
ings. In fact the book I have is on Chinese family names (4:EN), not
on sexual matters.
There are several methods to solve the four-tone problem. For exam-
ple, Chinese government changed Shanxi to Shaanxi in order to distin-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

guish two different provinces in China with similar pronunciation, i.e.,

Shaanxi and Shanxi. I like this kind of change. But Shaanxi is 3rd tone.
If we add “a” to 3rd tone, how about 1st, 2nd, and 4th tone? What char-
acters should be used? The Chinese peers need to solve this problem.
Chinese officially uses “-” as the 1st tone, “/” as the 2nd tone, “v” as
the 3rd tone, and “\” as the 4th tone. If we adopt it, Hanyu Pinyin will
be Han(\)yu(v) Pin(-)yin(-). To save time and procedure, we may sug-
gest that they drop “-” for the 1st tone. Then Hanyu Pinyin will be
Han(\)yu(v) Pinyin.
In China, the popular way to express four tones is to use number 1-4,
i.e., 1 for the 1st tone, 2 for the 2nd tone, etc. For example, Hanyupinyin
will be Han4yu3 pin1yin1, you will pronounce it correctly and under-
stand it correctly even without Chinese characters in most situations.
Let’s add 4 tones for the above titles, and see whether you can figure out
real Chinese titles without Chinese characters:

Kua4 shi4ji4 de4 hai3ya2 shen3pan4

Huang3yan2, liu2yan2, yan3yuan1

Ar1li3 yi4quan2 ji1dao3 hei1bai2 wei2qiang2

Liu4shi2si4 gua4 zhong1 de4 ren2sheng1 zhe2li3 yu3 mou2lue4

Now, without Chinese characters, most Chinese readers can translit-

erate them into correct Chinese. But it is hard to be accepted because
there will be too many numbers within Chinese romanization. We may
send this question to Chinese peers, and let them find the best way to
solve this problem. Perhaps this is a long-term project.
Pinyin syllable separation, syllable aggregation, and syllable aggre-
gation with four tones can be considered as good, better, and best
method to understand Chinese materials in Pinyin format. If we cannot
 28 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

choose the best now, at least we should choose a better way, i.e., sylla-
ble aggregation.
There is another problem related to Chinese romanization. In the
above sample titles, the last title has “moulue.” Moulue’s “lue” is the
same as the LC’s recommendation that the letter « in the syllables
should be lue, but now the meaning and pronunciation are totally differ-
ent. In this case, perhaps we may use “ui,” “uu,” or another letter to dis-
play “«” because there are many Chinese words under “lue.”
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

I have not paid attention to Chinese Romanization for several years,

especially the discussion on this topic in 2000, as I am not a cataloger
for Chinese materials. Recently I have read those articles on this topic in
Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal (www.iclc.
us/cliej). The following comments may be out of date as many articles
were published several years ago. The following is my personal opinion
only.

SUGGESTION ON LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

PINYIN CONVERSION PROJECT
CONVERSION AND CLEANUP TASKS:
STATUS REPORT, JUNE 4, 200313

This may be the LC’s latest project summary. To read the full-text,
please go to www.iclc.us/cliej/cl16.htm Web site. Here are my com-
ments:
In item 3, under Completed Tasks, Province was replaced by Sheng. I
feel Province is better than Sheng because our database is mainly used
by American people, or people who know English, and Pinyin. If that is
the case, I feel that English is easier to understand. If we catalog Jiangsu
Sheng as Jiangsu Province, even people who cannot pronounce Jiangsu
will immediately know this is a specific province in China.
If we keep “Sheng” as Province, I found they keep “Region,” not
“Diqu” in the other place. Cataloging should be consistent. If we use
“Sheng” as “Province,” we should use “Diqu” as “Region.” For exam-
ple, in Item 4, they changed manually to Tangshan Region (Hebei
Sheng). In fact, I prefer the method of using Pinyin in place names and
using English to express other parts, such as region, city, or province.
This may be the best way for American readers, and readers who know
English, to understand.
 Qianli Hu 29

When we catalog American materials, we don’t add State. For exam-

ple, we catalog Massachusetts State as Mass., Washington State as
Wash. If we follow this rule, we need not to use either Province or
Sheng for Chinese materials. Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology has cataloged their Chinese materials without either Prov-
ince or Sheng.14 I believe that they have omitted “Sheng” because they
tried to follow AACR II’s rule. But if we keep them (city, region, prov-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

ince), it is easier for readers to locate the place.

I also found that the Library Congress has dropped all “Shi” (City) in
the place names.
In Item 4, in Pinyin format, Uygur may be Weiwuer; otherwise keep
the conventional name.
In Item 5, the Library of Congress used Taiwan di qu. I prefer “diqu”
to “di qu.”
In item 6,15 if it is not a typo, xingzhengquan should not be hsing
cheng quan as hsing cheng quan are in Wade-Giles format. This item
shows that the machine can convert syllables into aggregated format.
From Item 13, 16 we see the machine converted Changjiang,
Huanghe, Zhujiang aggregately. They will change back to Chang Jiang,
Huang He, and Zhu Jiang. On the other hand, they will aggregate
Gaoyuan, Yunhe, Pendi, and Shamo. We should be consistent, and let
other catalogers follow easily.
In Item 14,17 the Library of Congress changed Zhonghua Min Guo to
Zhonghua Minguo. I like this change. If we can catalog this record into
aggregated format, the other records can be cataloged in this way. Con-
sistency is important.

SUGGESTION ON LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

PINYIN CONVERSION PROJECT:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS18

I support the Library of Congress to keep Tokyo, not Dongjing, and

New York, not Niuyue.19 I think all original English names or place
names should be kept original terms when they are transliterated back to
English.
I support the Library of Congress to use Shaanxi, not Shanxi.20 This
is a good way to distinguish two provinces with similar pronunciation in
China.
 30 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

COMMENT ON ROBERT MILLER HIATT’S

“CHINESE PLACE NAMES” 21

If we use “Village” as a recommended heading, we may use “Prov-

ince” instead of “Sheng.”
I agree that we should keep original place names in Hong Kong, such
as Kowloon, Mong Kok.22 At the same time, we may make a reference
that allows people from the Mainland China to understand, e.g.,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

151 –0 $a Kowloon

451 –0 $a Kelong

As the places in Inner Mongolia, if you adopt Pinyin, Hohhot23 may

be Huhehaote; Hulun Buir Meng may be Hulunbu Meng; otherwise
keep conventional or “established” names, and make a reference in
pinyin format.
As for the place names in Tibet, I prefer to use conventional names
with a reference in pinyin format, e.g.,

151 –0 $a Lhasa

451 –0 $a Lasa

SUGGESTION ON “COMMENTS
ON THE LC’S PROPOSAL
OF CHANGING FORMS OF HEADING
FOR CHINESE PLACE NAMES” 24

The article suggested that we should use “Nei Mongol Zizhiqu.” If it

is not typo, Mongol in Pinyin format should be Menggu.

COMMENT ON PHILIP MELZER’S

“NEW CHINESE ROMANIZATION GUIDELINES”25

Some American names or place names are transliterated into Chinese

materials by pronunciation. When we catalog them, we should use orig-
inal personal names or place names. For example:
 Qianli Hu 31

Nikesen should be Nixon

Zhijiage should be Chicago

Dongjing should be Tokyo

The reason is simple. If we insist Pinyin here, people think they are 2
different places, or 2 different people. In fact, they are the same person
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

or same place. We learned that French, Spanish people, even Russian

people all keep Tokyo as is even though the pronunciation is different.
So we should transliterate Suo’er Bailou’s name26 into his original Eng-
lish name, not in Pinyin format.
The latest report of the LC shows that they have adopted Chicago, not
Zhijiage; Tokyo, not Dongjing. This is a good decision.

COMMENTS ON LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

PINYIN CONVERSION PROJECT:
AN OUTLINE OF PINYIN CONVERSION
WHAT CONVERTED, WHAT DID NOT CONVERT,
AND IMMEDIATE CLEANUP TASKS27

In Scope of Conversion, if it is not a typo, China (Republic : 1949-)

should be China (Republic : 1912-).
In “Updated Instructions,” the LC changed jing ji Te qu to Jingji
Tequ.28 This is good example for syllable aggregation. Hope they still
keep all records this way.
I agree that we keep Taiwan’s place names in Wade-Giles. But does
that conflict to the new Taiwan Natural Pinyin system? If it does, per-
haps we need to make a reference.
I like the Library of Congress’ decision that they keep Chiang,
Chin-kuo as is. At the same time, we may add a reference in Pinyin for-
mat. Confucius is in this category too. Making references are a good
method to solve those ambiguities, and let more and more users under-
stand our records.

Received: February, 2004

Revised: May, 2004
Accepted: May, 2004
 32 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

NOTES
1. “Proposed Changes in Chinese Romanization Guidelines,” 11 (June, 2001).
Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
2. Victor H. Mair, “Pinyin Orthographical Rules for Libraries,” 10 (2000). Avail-
able from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
3. James Lin, “On Pinyin Conversion,” 4 (December, 1997): Available from
World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
4. Hanyu Tao and Charles Coles, “Wade-Giles or Hanyu Pinyin: Practical Issues
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:34 10 October 2014

in the Transliteration of Chinese Titles and Proper Names,” Cataloging & Classifica-
tion Quarterly 12 (1990): p.112.
5. Qianli Hu, “How to Distinguish and Catalog Chinese Personal Names,” Cata-
loging & Classification Quarterly 19 (1994), p.44.
6. See Note 2.
7. Karl Lo, “A Comment on the Use of Hyphens to Aggregate Pinyin Syllables,”
2 (June, 1996): Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
8. Philip Melzer, “Pinyin Romanization: Word Division Recommendation,” 2 (De-
cember, 1996): Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
9. Ibid.
10. Philip Melzer, “Pinyin Romanization: Word Division Recommendation,”
2 (December, 1996): Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
11. Ibid.
12. See Note 4, p.110.
13. “Library of Congress Pinyin Conversion Project Conversion and Cleanup
Tasks: Status Report, June 4, 2003,” 16 (December, 2003): Available from World
Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
14. Min-min Chang, “Chinese Place Names,” 6 (December, 1998): Available from
World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
15. See Note 13, p. 5.
16. Ibid., p. 6.
17. Ibid., p. 6.
18. “Library of Congress Pinyin Conversion Project: Frequently asked questions,”
Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin/placefaq.html>.
19. Ibid., p. 3.
20. Ibid., p. 4.
21. Robert Miller Hiatt, “Chinese Place Names,” 5 (June, 1998): Available from
World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
22. Ibid., p. 2.
23. Ibid., p. 2.
24. CEAL Committee on Chinese Materials, “Comments on the LC’s Proposal of
Changing Forms of Heading for Chinese Place Names,” 11 (June, 2001): Available
from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
25. Philip Melzer, “New Chinese Romanization Guidelines” 7 (June, 1999): Avail-
able from World Wide Web: <http://www.iclc.us/cliej>.
26. Ibid., p. 7.
27. “LC Pinyin Conversion Project: An outline of Pinyin Conversion What convert,
what did not convert, and immediate cleanup tasks,” Available from World Wide Web:
<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin/conversion.html>.
28. See Notes 27.