There are a number of currency interpretations with which I don't necessarily agree in the Numista catalogue but in particular, what language is Kopeck? As far as I can make out, the English translation is correctly spelt as Kopek and unless we are going to call them "копе́йка" perhaps we should stick to the standardised English version - what do you think?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
it's a translation from Cyrillic into English so there's bound to be a few interpretations of spelling as people took their best guess of how it should be spelled. Like my name is Celtic and can be spelled Neil, Nial, Neill, etc
This is not an example of inconsistency, this is correct grammatical way to say 1 Kopeck, 2 Kopecks, 5 Kopecks... it is spelled differently because it is pronounced differently.
This is not an example of inconsistency, this is correct grammatical way to say 1 Kopeck, 2 Kopecks, 5 Kopecks... it is spelled differently because it is pronounced differently.
This is like arguing which one is right, color or colour. The answer is - they are both right and both have been used by the USSR/Russian government.
For example, here is a state-issued mint set, where we see Rouble and Kopecks.
and here is another officially sealed set, where they're called Ruble and Kopek:
Even in cbr.ru's marketing materials, they used Ruble (for example: http://www.cbr.ru/publ/Coins/coins_cbr_2006_pr.pdf), so just because you see Rouble used in another place on their site does not really mean anything.
Google Translate offers both versions, but defaults to Ruble (eng) and Rouble (fr) and Kopeck for both. Russia does tend to use French transcriptions due to pre-1917 cultural influence (most educated people in the upper classes spoke French).
So, it doesn't really matter which one you use, but if you insist on using just one of the two possible translations, just pick it and stick with it.
I've always used Kopeck or Rouble so I guess I've spent the past 50+ years being half right. I'm perfectly comfortable with Kopek or Ruble though and like the colour / color example above I've probably used both interchangeably. I just try not to do it in the same sentence :)
I agree entirely with My Ham above, it simply doesn't matter as long as it's consistent and uses a term which is intuitively understood by everyone.
I my humble* opinion it's a huge mistake to try to make the catalog seem exotic or sophisticated by using off the wall renderings of non Latin alphabets, like the копе́йка example used by Rick. How is anyone searching for Kopeck (or even Kopek) ever going to find an entry with a denomination like that? Well that's exactly what's happened to the Islamic part of the database where all the commonly understood denominations were replaced by gibberish. Nobody wanted the change, nobody was consulted, it just happened and despite almost unanimous objections it still remains. A substantial portion of the Numista database has been rendered functionally useless and for what reason?
Keep it simple, keep it compatible and keep it widely understood. I'm going to keep repeating this until you %%%%%%'s** listen.
Excellent question my dear Rick and excellent responses. I'm gratified to find others are pondering the same things.
* Just kidding.
** @ Ben, you're welcome.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
And you will notice that it's impossible to write this spelling in English. "Копейка" sounds like "kapéika", but with soft "p" (as I know, there's no soft "p" in English).
Writing -ck- where you only hear -k- is a bad habit in certain Germanic languages. Some Roman languages prefer -qu-, which is even more distracting.
This spelling is a historic relic, and I advocate that new words borrowed from other languages, like geographic or currency names, should get the easiest spelling, disregarding the historic spelling of 'native' words.
So I'd say make it Kopek and Rouble.
'Ruble' would easily be mispronounced by someone who doesn't know better. Come to talk of it: the exchange rate of the Rouble is developing in such a way that Russia could be better off switching to rubble for small change.
The question is not how it is correct, this question is answered, the question is how it is used at this very site catalog and used properly everywhere.
For example it would be strange to see in one book, let's say in the SCWC, that exactly the same currency in Transdnestria, Poland, Belorussia and the USSR have different spellings.
Citeer: "cyprusalexander"By the way to Houseofham Posted: 19-Sep-2015, 08:36PM
the picture of the mint set 1973 has a fake. That is why it is impossible to use the spelling as a testimony.
Fake what? It's just a random picture from E-Bay. I didn't look at it very closely.
It is obvious. The text is not from the USSR Authorities. That is why it can not be used to solve this delicate question. In the USSR there was no such question at all, for there exists just one way of spelling.
Citeer: "cyprusalexander"The question is not how it is correct, this question is answered, the question is how it is used at this very site catalog and used properly everywhere.
For example it would be strange to see in one book, let's say in the SCWC, that exactly the same currency in Transdnestria, Poland, Belorussia and the USSR have different spellings.
May you please enlighten us as to what is the correct way in your view.
Citeer: "cyprusalexander"It is obvious. The text is not from the USSR Authorities. That is why it can not be used to solve this delicate question. In the USSR there was no such question at all, for there exists just one way of spelling.
Please do take the time to look through the English section of cbr.ru (Central Bank of Russia), especially the pdf publications. What you will find is that different documents use different spelling.
Here is the earliest known official USSR mint set. As you can see, here we have yet another translation, "copeks":
and here is the next official set, still with "copeks" and "Rouble":
Then, in the 1970s we start seeing "kopeks":
and finally, we have an unofficial (US) Franklin Mint-packaged set with "kopeks" and "ruble": http://www.ebay.com/itm/Coin-Sets-of-All-Nations-USSR-Russia-All-coins-1979-UNC-w-card-/191686901204
Citeer: "neilithic"You can imagine the first conversation
Englishman: So what is this coin called?
Russian: копейка
Englishman: <blink blink> riiiiiight, and how do you spell that
Russian: к...о...п...е...й...к...а
Englishman: OK.....Kopek it is
The thing about this is that копейка is that it's pronouced "ka-pyiy-ka", and the plural forms копейки and копеек is pronounced "ka-pyiy-kye" and "ka-pyeek", so then it should've been spelled "kapyek" in English.
Citeer: "cyprusalexander"It is obvious. The text is not from the USSR Authorities. That is why it can not be used to solve this delicate question. In the USSR there was no such question at all, for there exists just one way of spelling.
Please do take the time to look through the English section of cbr.ru (Central Bank of Russia), especially the pdf publications. What you will find is that different documents use different spelling.
Now, for some more pictures from...
Eng: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/sovietset/sovietset.htm
Rus: http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=8323
Here is the earliest known official USSR mint set. As you can see, here we have yet another translation, "copeks":
and here is the next official set, still with "copeks" and "Rouble":
The thing with this set is that translation from Kopek to copek is nonsense. In Russian this would be Sorek. I write rouble not ruble.
Citeer: "bam777"The thing with this set is that translation from Kopek to copek is nonsense. In Russian this would be Sorek. I write rouble not ruble.
I'm sorry, but no. "Copek" is in Latin alphabet and the "c" at the beginning of a word is still going to be pronounced as "K". How it's spelled in English makes little difference (and certainly does not affect Russian spelling), as long as it's phonetically correct given the limitations of the English language, which doesn't have certain letters/sounds/grammar forms of Russian.
Anyhow, the pictures above were just to provide further evidence that even USSR/Russian government used multiple spellings and there is not one correct spelling that everyone must abide by.
From the point of view of these words' etymologies, you have the Oxford Rouble and Kopeck, which were taken directly as-is from French, and you have the mostly North American Ruble and Kopek, which like many other Americanized words drop unnecessary letters.
My personal opinion is that since most of this site's English-speaking members are from the US (or, at least, the US is the English-speaking country with the most members), we should go with the Americanized spelling.
Citeer: "Houseofham"My personal opinion is that since most of this site's English-speaking members are from the US (or, at least, the US is the English-speaking country with the most members), we should go with the Americanized spelling.
Well THAT is nonsense! Why should we go with the Americanised spelling, when there is a correct spelling?
Citeer: "Houseofham"My personal opinion is that since most of this site's English-speaking members are from the US (or, at least, the US is the English-speaking country with the most members), we should go with the Americanized spelling.
Well THAT is nonsense! Why should we go with the Americanised spelling, when there is a correct spelling?
Why do you think any of these spellings is not correct? Just because it was once written one specific way in an Oxford dictionary doesn't mean that's how it's used now. How many Americans here would use the "Oxford comma" or write colour/armour? All these translations have all been in use at one time or another, but none of them is perfect. I am simply suggesting that we go with the one that's used by the largest part of the site's audience.
If you really wanted something that matches Russian the closest, you'd have to abandon them all in favor of something like 1 rubl' (soft l) / 2-3-4 rublya / 5 rublei and 1 kopeika / 2-3-4 kopeiki / 5 kopeyek - and I don't think anyone would support that idea.
OK, well, to go back to the original question. The subunit is called, and spelled, "kopeek". The singular form is "kopeyka" and the seong plural form is "kopeyki" (for 2 and 3). It is also possible to choose the simplified "English" version of "kopek" and "kopeks".
The currency is called Ruble. The translitterated spelling is Rubl' (for 1), Rublya (for 2) and Rubley (3 and up). Even here you can use a simplified English spelling, which is "ruble" (or "rouble") and "rubles" (or "roubles) in plural.
But since we can't keep track of the plural forms of the currencies of Russia, Lebanon, Egypt, e.g., so it might be easier to go with 1 Kopek, 2 Kopeks, and 1 Ruble, 2 Rubles.
Citeer: "ngdawa"The subunit is called, and spelled, "kopeek".
Wrong. "Ee" in English is pronounced as one sound "i:". But that's only in English. In Russian the first "e" is pronounced like "e", and also it makes the previous consonant softer. And the second "e" sounds as "ye", because it goes after another vowel. The unstressed "o" sounds as "a". And so, the word is pronounced as "k - a - p' - e - ye - k"
Citeer: "ngdawa"The subunit is called, and spelled, "kopeek".
Wrong. "Ee" in English is pronounced as one sound "i:". But that's only in English. In Russian the first "e" is pronounced like "e", and also it makes the previous consonant softer. And the second "e" sounds as "ye", because it goes after another vowel. The unstressed "o" sounds as "a". And so, the word is pronounced as "k - a - p' - e - ye - k"
Listen: http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BA/#ru
Well. I know Russian, so I pass that one to the ones who doesn't.
I had also written other translitterated versions, just so you know ;)
In other areas of Russia, the "o" is pronounced as a very clear, hard "o".