Zhang Le wrote:
> Sorry for cross posting, but I just want to bring this issue to a wider
> 2. Yeeloong -> Yeloong.
> I think this one is controversial. The e in Yeloong, to me, sounds like e
> in yes, not ee in eel. So that the sound is changed, this action is by
> itself bad. And Yeloong may make people connect it with the word yell,
> which is not quite good a word. Moreover, the original sound is more like
> its Chinese brand name.
For whatever it's worth, please note that the general rule in English is
for "e" to be "long", as in "me" or "eel", whenever there is a single
consonant before the next vowel, and for it to be "short", as in "them"
or "yell", when followed by multiple consonants before the next vowel.
There are, of course, many, many exceptions in English to the general
pronunciation rules, but by default "yeeloong" and "yeloong" would be
pronounced about the same. The only reason to have the extra "e" in
"yeelong" in a transliteration to English would be to emphasize a long,
drawn out "ee" sound. To have the "yell" sound, one would spell it
"yelloong", with two l's. Worst case, the single "e" in "yeloong" would
be collapsed to a "schwa" vowel, more of a short "uh" than an "eh", the
way Americans often do with "the" (or "Lemote").
This is what happens when you ask someone who majored in computer
science but minored in poetry! ;o)