Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Arabic/Archive 3

message: I think it's a mistake to extend this policy to cover Persian, and certainly to Urdu. There are several problems Urdu introduces. First of all و can represent 4 different phonemes (v, ū, o, au) as can ی (y, ī, e, ai), though this isn't a greater problem than Arabic vowels. The larger problems are with consonants: Urdu can have x different combinations whose base Latin consonant would be T, t, tʰ, ʈ, and ʈʰ from Hindustani and tˤ and θ from Arabic - though the latter are pronounced as allophones to other Urdu phonemes. These combinations arise because Urdu orthography takes into account retroflex and aspirated distinctions from Indic languages and Emphatic ones from Arabic - and aspiration is a particularly important phoneme, usually indicated by an h. However, this would result in confusion between th تھ and th ث in the current proposal (I've seen formal Urdu transliterations that use ṯ for the latter). Conflicts would arise for any consonant that is written with an h-digraph in the current proposal.
Accommodating these complications would clutter up run-of-the-mill Arabic transliterations greatly, and so I think extending this policy to cover Urdu, or even Persian, is a mistake. Moszczynski 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as I commented above. There should be separate style manuals for Persian and Urdu. --Cam 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I don't know much about Urdu, but all the complications you mentioned are not unique to Urdu. In Arabic the و can represent ū, u, or au, the ی can represent y, ī, i, ai... and this page already deals with the case of  تھ vs ث , see the tables. There are a few consonant differences, like the  و is pronounced as a "V" instead of a "W" when used as a consonant, but those differences are not extensive and they are already noted. Not to mention that a large percentage of words in both Persian and Urdu come directly from Arabic. Cuñado - Talk 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned that I agreed that the vowel problem wasn't greater than for Arabic. It's the consonants. To accommodate Urdu in a single standard we would have to abandon th for ث, so we'd have to use something like ṯ, which is decidedly non-optimal. And what about ڈ? Would we use another diacritic like...ƭ? Our transliteration system would wind up needing a transliteration system of its own. It would be best if Urdu used its own system, with Arabic letters (which our rarer and allophones) as the ones with diacritics Moszczynski 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The many problems of Urdu 

message: Above someone mentioned:
:"pronounced ibn in the Middle East and bin in North Africa."
I'm not incredibly familiar with this, but I've noticed that most wikipedia articles use ibn, but the MOS currently says to use bin. If it's true that it's pronounced ibn in the Middle East then we should change the page. Cuñado - Talk 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the dialects, but as I understand it, the rule is that when bin is part of a name (as in Osama bin Laden), bin is the pronunciation, but when it starts a name in its own right, (as in Ibn Battuta) the i is pronounced. This is because the Arabic word for ibn starts with hamza al-wasl, which is assimilated when preceded by another word...although the various western usages (the bin Laden family specifies that bin should always be used, for example) have muddied this up a fair bit. I think it'd be tricky to put down a hard and fast rule, though from what I've noticed modern usages favour bin, as ibn is hard to pronounce for most Westerners Moszczynski 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ibn/bin 

message: I have been trying different things on many Arabic articles, and the best appearance of the hamza and ayin appear to be the half turned commas, or ... ‘  ’
In small font you can't tell the difference, and the current proposal to use the acute accent ` looks kind of funny. Would anyone object if I re-worked the standards so the half turned commas are used in the standard transliteration? Cuñado - Talk 07:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hamza and ayin 

message: In the "Alphabetization" section, the first point says "Alphabetize by family name in modern cases where there is one, otherwise by the first component in the commonly used name, e.g. ibn Khaldun under i, Mu'awiya under m." Shouldn't ibn Khaldun be alphabetized under K? Point 4 says to ignore ibn. If so, perhaps we should use a different example, such as Abdul Aziz.
Speaking of which, what's the standard and strict translation of Abdul Aziz? Abd al-Aziz? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely, Abd ul-Aziz.  And technically, the term is transliteration, since it is alphabets we are switching between, and not languages, really. --Fsotrain09 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transliteration, yes, that's the word I mean. I'm not convinced "Abd ul-Aziz" is correct. The guideline says that the definite article should be written "al-" and not "ul-". – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct transliteration is either `Abd al-`Aziz or `Abdu'l-`Aziz (ignoring long vowels). In strict transliteration it would be ‘Abd al-‘Azīz or ‘Abdu’l-‘Azīz. Nobody has decided that one form or the other is better, one being phoneticly correct and the other ignoring combination of words. Cuñado - Talk 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not ‘Abd ul-‘Azīz, which both respects word boundaries and is phonetically correct? --tyomitch 08:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I may be wrong, but no standards out there transliterate that way. ALA-LC uses ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, and many many others use ‘Abdu’l-‘Azīz. This is supposed to be based on what academic and international standards exist, and as far as I know none of them would use ‘Abd ul-‘Azīz. Cuñado - Talk 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible error in the guideline? 

message: They cannot be ommitted, and they must be different. They both strongly affect pronunciation, and in different ways. We could use the grave accent: ` and the apostrophe  ' , both located on the keyboard, but people think the grave accent is ugly, especially when it's in the middle of a word (compare Shi`a vs Shi‘a). Another option is the half rings ʿ and ʾ, but they're not supported by Explorer browsers and turn into squares. I suggest using the typed turned comma ‘ and typed apostrophe ’, both on the clickable insert tab. They are the choice for ALA-LC, UNGEGN and other prominent standards. Cuñado - Talk 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hamza and ayin

message: I just made these words up, I'm not sure what the technical term is. I strongly suggest using the phonetically correct version, which is easier to pronounce and carries the same information. Cuñado - Talk 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: phonetic and grammatic

message: For the same reasons, I suggest incorporating the changes brought by solar letters. For non-native speakers, they will have no idea that al-Nasir is actually pronounced an-Nasir, and it carries the same information. Cuñado - Talk 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: solar letters

message: As an aside, I suggest we vote on whether to use Turkish or Arabic standards for Turkish people under the Ottoman Empire. I suggest Arabic, unless someone makes clear guidelines on Turkish, which currently don't exist. Cuñado - Talk 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman Turkish

message: The standard transliteration uses a systematic convention of rendering Arabic script into English which is used and standardized by academics and linguists. The current proposal for the standard transliteration from Arabic to Roman letters is found below.
: This is blatantly false/misleading. Academic and scholary works always use a strict tranliteration (including the overlines, underdots and half rings), see the list of reference at al-Khwarizmi. The standard tranliteration is only used in low quality print works and on the internet (probably both due to technical limitations). —Ruud 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "always" is rarely true. In fact, some scholarly works use a less strict translation that does not distinguish between every set of various characters. See, for example, the ISO 233-2 standard. But I see your point. Perhaps the paragraph should be changed? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need something in between strict and chaos. It would be impractical and undesirable to use the dots and underscores in the article text. Having no standard results in reverts and chaos, as there are literally hundreds of possible ways of spelling things. See Muammar al-Qaddafi. Cuñado - Talk 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard transliteration is useful and should stay. The question is, should the introductory paragraph describing it be rewritten? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  "Always" might have been an overstatement, but "usually" would have been an understatement :) Could you give a few examples where a standard would be preferable over strict translitartion AND a primary transliteration is not available? I agree it would be unnecessary to consistently use Shīʿah instead of Shi'a. But I would consider the latter to be a primary transliteration. —Ruud 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example is the one I gave above: Muammar al-Qaddafi. The strict transliteration would read Mu‘ammar al-Qadhāfī and no primary transliteration exists (there are more than 32 ways of spelling it). Keeping it with diacritical marks throughout the article would be cumbersome and unless it is universally applied, it would remain forever inconsistent. So an in between is Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi, which can be typed on the keyboard and read by any browser. I would support using a stricter standard, but as you can see by Striver's comment below, there are two extremes that have never agreed on this issue. Striver is advocating getting rid of any kind of standard at all. ~Cunado
Guys, i hate to see Shīʿah instead of Shi'a. Every time i see Shīʿah or Nikāḥu’l-Mut‘ah, i start to have high blood preasure. I want to see "Shi'a" and "Nikah Mut'ah". I do not want to see 'Umar or 'Ali, rather Umar and Ali. I dont mind seeing the hated version in a etymology section, but not everywere in the article. And there is a loot of people supporting my view, just see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/names. We are divided in two sections. I do understand why you people prefer 'Umar, its more accurate to the Arabic version. But thing is that we do not care for that. Why cant we have an etymology section were we go though the pronounciation, the strict Arabic and whadever more, and then use the relaxed version in the rest of the article? --Striver 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard transliteration 

message: I propose that, for transliteration of the Ottoman Turkish language, we go with the ALA-LC standards now outlined in the table found on the Ottoman Turkish language page. It is not only the ALA-LC's standard, but is also used in many standard textbooks of Ottoman Turkish in Turkey, and can to an extent be considered to have gained general acceptance, as can be seen—to give just one example—in its being fundamentally the same as the transliteration system used on the Ottoman Text Archive Project. It is also more accurate a reflection of Ottoman Turkish pronunciation (as per, for example, Omniglot) than the Arabic- (or even Persian-) based standards that have been proposed.
Any opinions on the issue? —Saposcat 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the third or fourth time I've said this: nobody has opposed this idea, and everyone seems to support it. But nobody has actually contributed to the policy pages. I suggest someone passionate about this should edit the current page and add a section about Ottoman Turkish, in the same manner that Persian and Urdu are handled. At the very least, write out the details of the policy, like what standards to use, where to find them, and some details on what articles would require Turkish instead of Arabic or Persian, or any other language. Cuñado - Talk 06:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it, don't worry. صبر صبر ... —Saposcat 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: تمامدر ... it's done (with a slight glitch because the solar letter table is at the very bottom—any idea how to fix up positioning & appearance on that?). —Saposcat 09:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Proposal for Ottoman Turkish standards 

message: The article at Mohamed Atta al-Sayed was recently moved to Muhammad `Ata as-Sayyid. There's discussion here on whether this was the right thing to do or not. Any input would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohamed Atta 

message: I'll try to summarize the poll above regarding the standard transliteration. Forgive me if I made a mistake. On some of the issues, I didn't side with my original proposal. Cuñado - Talk 03:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not support the transliteration of hamzat al-wasl (the  '  in  'n)!! "`Abd an-Nasir" is not "grammatic" in any sense (Abdu n-Nasir is grammatical, while I suppose "`Abd an-Nasir can be called "orthographical"). I really think the poll should be redone by someone who is aware of the subtleties of Arabic grammar and orthography. dab (ᛏ) 14:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm plenty familiar. I've been following the standards already mentioned several times. Most of them use the orthographical (I just made "grammatical", I did't know what the correct word was), and Encyclopedia of Islam uses the phonetic version and always transliterates the hamza when it's not the initial letter of the word. After we had this discussion I went and read through a book on Arabic grammar and the definite article. There is definitely a hamza there, but in pronunciation and combined with the previous word, it becomes a hamzatu'l-wasl and is not pronounced, unless the previous sound is a vowel, then it becomes a different kind of hamza and is pronounced. I've never seen anyone use the form of "`Abdu n-Nasir", and you haven't shown any evidence that it's used by anybody. Cuñado - Talk 19:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll results

message: Use the "phonetic" (`Abdu'n-Nasir) instead of grammatic (`Abd an-Nasir). Support: Jeff3000, Dgl, dab. Oppose: Tyomitch, Cam, Cunado19
:I did not support the transliteration of hamzat al-wasl (the  '  in  'n)!! "`Abd an-Nasir" is not "grammatic" in any sense (Abdu n-Nasir is grammatical, while I suppose "`Abd an-Nasir can be called "orthographical"). I really think the poll should be redone by someone who is aware of the subtleties of Arabic grammar and orthography. dab (ᛏ) 14:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm plenty familiar. I've been following the standards already mentioned several times. Most of them use the orthographical (I just made "grammatical", I did't know what the correct word was), and Encyclopedia of Islam uses the phonetic version and always transliterates the hamza when it's not the initial letter of the word. After we had this discussion I went and read through a book on Arabic grammar and the definite article. There is definitely a hamza there, but in pronunciation and combined with the previous word, it becomes a hamzatu'l-wasl and is not pronounced, unless the previous sound is a vowel, then it becomes a different kind of hamza and is pronounced. I've never seen anyone use the form of "`Abdu n-Nasir", and you haven't shown any evidence that it's used by anybody. Cuñado - Talk 19:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definite article