Talk:Romanization of Arabic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

I finally wrote this article per this discussion on the Arabic alphabet article. — J’raxis 01:02:58, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

Contents 1 Headings 2 Comparison table 3 al- or Al- or al or Al 4 Diacritics not showing 5 Merge from Hans Wehr transliteration 6 Ney to the merge 6.1 Merge 7 "SM" system 8 SATTS 9 Template 10 Scientific transliteration 11 Using Saddam Hussain as example 12 Romanization of Arabic 13 Online web transliteration service

[edit] Headings

I have rearranged the headings since having a distinction between 'common' (whatever that means) and 'academic' transliteration without any content seemed rather pointless. If someone cares to rearrange later content that way, please do! — Moilleadóir 05:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison table

The structure (names, IPA, etc.) is based on the tables at Arabic alphabet. If corrections are required you might like to start there. It would be worthwhile expanding the table to show the vowels more completely as in this comparison table. — Moilleadóir 08:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] al- or Al- or al or Al

Does anyone know whether there is an emerging scholarly consensus on how to render the Arabic definite article (and its various "soft" variants) in English? And should it be handled differently in proper and common nouns? If anyone does know this, I think it should be incorporated into the article. Babajobu

The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) is currently under construction, and it's trying to make a consensus around such issues. CG 14:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics not showing

is this a browser issue? I cannot see any diacritics, ṭ etc. in the table. The table on ISO 233 renders correctly for me, with all underdots for emphatics, underscores for fricatives and ǧ for gim, ġ for ghayn. Non of these work for me in the table here. dab (ᛏ) 16:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be a browser issue...what browser are you using?

The difference between the two is that some of the characters with diacritics in the ISO 233 table have been converted to numeric entities (Ṡ instead of ṣ). I'm hoping it's not going to be necessary to convert every accented character as this would make editing anything intolerable.

If the page encoding is showing up as UTF-8 and you have fonts that include these characters, I'd consider getting another browser.

—Moilleadóir 02:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Hans Wehr transliteration

The article Hans Wehr transliteration was recently created by 24.76.5.124. It's not very presentable in its present form, but I have requested that we consider merging it into this article. Now, I'm not sure as to what degree Hans Wehr's system could be called a standard, albeit many Arabic students have his dictionary. It is certainly more of a standard than that ridiculous SATTS thing (which I believe should be removed, or demoted). Please post your thoughts here. --Gareth Hughes 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ney to the merge

I think the Hans Wehr transliteration system deserves its own page. Because the transcription should be explained, because it is a very important transliteration system for those who are studying Arabic. If we merge it with the transliteration article then we either lose lots of info, of the details of the transliteration system or we fill a page about Arabic transliteration with too much information about a specific transliteration system. So for the sake of navigatability of each page it should have its own page. BUT it is not a bad idea to add the Hans Wehr transliteration system to that chart that compares transliteration systems. We need the Hans Wehr transliteration system to have its own page.

[edit] Merge

I agree that Hans Wehr transliteration ought to have it's own article. The current one is rather barebones, but that can be fixed. Kerowyn 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "SM" system

With this edit, user 24.76.5.124 added a new system called "SM", but didn't identify what that system was. Is anybody familiar with what SM stands for? (I'm presuming this is unrelated to the Hans Wehr system mentioned above.) --Arcadian 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SATTS

Does anyone know if the SATTS transliteration for ﺔ changed? As I learned it in the mid-90s, it was a "?", not a "@". (Which is why we used the "$" to signify an actual question mark. Gotta love military logic...) I haven't used SATTS in quite a while so it might have changed, and it's also possible that they taught us jarheads differently. Just wondering if anyone else knows.

Also wondering why, on the chart, it show the final form of the letter, when all the other letters in the chart are shown in their stand-alone form. Shouldn't it be ﺓ? Kafziel 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I have created {{ArabDIN}} for tagging DIN 31635 transliterations ({{DIN 31635}} seemed too impractical to remember), corresponding to {{IPA}}, {{IAST}}, {{PIE}} etc. These should be used instead of generic {{Unicode}}, e.g. {{ArabDIN|ʾal-luġatu-l-ʿarabīyatu}} ʾal-luġatu-l-ʿarabīyatu. I am not sure if this is "the most widely used" transliteration, but it seems to have some de-facto prevalence on Wikipedia (see Arabic language, Arabic grammar). See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Writing_systems#transliteration. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific transliteration

The article mentions "scientific transliteration", but doesn't define the term. Which of the systems in the table are "scientific" transliteration?

I'm asking because I created an article for scientific transliteration thinking that the term is only applied to a particular system for the Cyrillic alphabet, but then scientific transliteration began to show up for other writing systems, but I haven't found a definition for the term.

The scientific transliteration system for the Cyrillic alphabet is universally used in linguistics, and rarely seen in other fields. The term applies to a specific system, developed in the late nineteenth century in Europe, which has varied very little. Is this the case for Arabic scientific transliteration? —Michael Z. 2006-02-17 04:45 Z

[edit] Using Saddam Hussain as example

Does anyone else see a problem with having the name of Saddam Hussain being the first exmaple in this article on Arabic transliteration? BjarteSorensen 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm sure 'Saddam Hussein' was chosen because it is well known. I suggest replacing that example with something a little more palatable. I've been doing disambiguation on various places called Al Mansurah (disambiguation page), which has a quite large number of variant spellings. Otherwise, we might go for a poet like Ahmed Shawqi (but there are not so many variants), or someone on the list of Islamic studies scholars. — Gareth Hughes 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. BjarteSorensen 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization of Arabic

I propose to move this article to Romanization of Arabic. Please see. This would bring the article title nomenclature into line with the other articles. -- Evertype·✆ 12:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online web transliteration service

Further to existing external links, adding a free transliteration service link to http://www.latkey.com/translit which provides free transliteration service for Microsoft Office, and matches Wiki guidelines.

I suggest reviewing other links as some contain commercial insertions of Google adwords. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa (talk • contribs) .

Sure there are other inappropriate links, people just keep adding them, you know. Those need to be removed too, you can help. It does not matter if it's "free" or "useful". Linking to download sites for Microsoft Office plugins to use the online service of a company is not appropriate. There is no encyclopedic content on the site, and it does promote other products of that comany. If you reference Linksearch: *.latkey.com and the corresponding user contributions, you'll see that there were repeated attempts to place links in several articles, despite all warnings not to re-add them (including the ignored warning on your own talk page). Not only to the transliteration service but also to the company main page, with link descriptions promoting the keyboard stickers. You will not add any more links to latkey.com, i-keyboard.com, or related domains. Femto 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)