Fletch wrote:But if his name is something difficult to pronounce (by Western audiences) or difficult to spell (with Western keyboards), then maybe just saying Sherpa is the way to go?
Wow...imagine if journalists followed this logic when writing about international topics. "Today a group of Chinese people announced this and that, to which another group of Indian people said this..." Sorry Fletch, but I totally disagree with you here - I think that including a person's name if possible, as difficult as it may be to pronounce, is basic courtesy when writing about other people, and being "difficult to pronounce" is no excuse. If the name is not known and no other information is available, then it's a different story; in that case a descriptor such as "Sherpa" is appropriate, but only in that case.
You may be extrapolating a bit from the article. Sherpa is a word used for a people - and it's a word spelled using a 'Western' alphabet trying to imitate an 'Eastern' sound. If we really wanted to be PC, then we should be using thier languange and their alphabet to call each person by their name - but I'm guessing that other than Bruno maybe, not too many folks on this forum have a keyboard in Sherpa or speak Sherpa. If the dude really is named Fred or Joe or Sally, then yes, the writer of the article should say Fred Sherpa from Kathmandu, who enjoys windsurfing and romantic walks on the beach climbed to 23,000 ft today... blah, blah, blah. But if his name is something difficult to pronounce (by Western audiences) or difficult to spell (with Western keyboards), then maybe just saying Sherpa is the way to go? It's certainly better than making up a name for the guy, right? Remember the intended audience of the article is folks who predominately speak English and live in different places.
Sherpa language, though derivated from Tibetan language, used to be mainly an oral language, and the roman alphabet is the most common way of writing Sherpa words, and English speakers do use the same keyboard as on Sherpa computers.
