Talk:Malé Latin

message: The page currently does nothing but slam the romanization. How about a word from the people who created it? Jpatokal 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

message: This article reflects a historical fact. All throughout India there were initial Roman transliterations done by the first Christian missionaries. These served a purpose for a while, but later were found to have defects or incompatibilities with the linguistically related languages of neighboring groups or states. When more comprehesive and serious research of Sanskrit and other Indic languages was undertaken by (mostly German) linguists in the 19th century, they came up with the Standard Indic transliteration. 
In Maldives all this previous research was ignored, even though the Latin transliteration was done in the 1970s. It was certainly not done by linguists, but (by express official orders from the president) in a hurried manner by some obscure government officer who has remained anonymous. Therefore what you ask for "How about a word from the people who created it?" is impossible. If one reads carefully Clarence Maloney's book, one will see that his attitude is positive and that he only laments that a new script for a nation was so flawed already at the beginning. He is not slamming the romanization itself. 
The fact is that then President Nasir wanted to have a quick alphabet. It was his way. The article doesn't slam the romanization, but reflects the sad historical fact about how things are not done reflectively and with consultation in dictatorships. Anyway this flawed Maldivian transliteration was finally dropped. Now it is used in an unofficial way.
Mohonu 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical fact

message: The problem with this new article is that originally it was just a section of Maldivian writing systems, the article presenting the different Maldivian scripts. In that context it was OK, for it was an explanation about how there had been a brief period when the present-day Maldivian script had been replaced by a Latin script. But here there is no description at all about how that romanization was, just that bare comment from the other article has been pasted under a new heading. What it needs is a description of the romanization to start with.
Mohonu 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've still being completely POV.  Please provide citations for your claims. Jpatokal 10:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description?

message: I am not sure what is POV. But one just has to picture the Maldivian high officials, mostly learned old gentlemen, of the scattered 200 inhabited islands of the Atolls at the time of the script change and enforcement. They had been traditionally using two alphabets simultaneously, the Thaana script and the Arabic script (note that all were well versed in the Quran which was a prerequisite to be a Katiibu, Mudiimu or Atoll chief). Suddenly these old or middle-aged men were required to use only one totally new script and thus became illiterate overnight. They had to learn the new script and master it in a hurry in order to be able to perform their most elementary duties.
The historical fact is that it was a traumatic period and that these old government officers were indeed relieved when the romanization was revoked. There is no controversy. One only has to have some understanding of the situation and put oneself in the place of the concerned officers to realize that it was indeed a hard time for them to find themselves in their old age in such a predicament. Mohonu 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Haywood J.A. etc really say "weird combinations" when describing the rendering of Arabic?  Does Gair, James W. really call the short vowels "unfortunate"?  Does Clarence Maloney really use the words "indiscriminate" and "crude inconsistencies"?  These are highly loaded terms: if they're quoted directly, they should be in quotation marks, and if they're not, they're your opinion and they should be removed. Jpatokal 03:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarence Maloney says literally: 
*"Maldivians have recently begun using th and dh to represent the dental consonants, but this is confusing, as in Indic languages they would be read as aspirated consonants. The standard Indic transliteartion is preferred in this volume because of its accuracy and a long tradition of acceptance." " (Preface, pages x-xi)
*"Unfortunately the system favoured is misleading (th, dh for unaspirated dental consonants, but lh for retroflex l); standard Indic transiteration, as in this book, would be phonetically preferable. (page 96)
Haywood J.A. doesn't say "weird". He reflectivelly follows the linguistic standard. His book is an excellent academic reference book.
What is weird in my opinion is what contradicts the established academic standards. What other word would you suggest? Mohonu 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're still not being neutral.  According to the quotes above, Maloney does not "lament ... inaccuracies" or "wonder why", he just states that those two dental consonants are "confusing" and "misleading" and that he prefers standard Indic. Jpatokal 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No dispute, no controversy

message: This sentence is useless:
: H.C.P. Bell describes well the diffident attitude of Maldivian government officers towards the upsetting of traditional mores in his Excerpta Maldiviana.
If that's the case, then quote him. Jpatokal 03:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HCP Bell 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malé Latin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822075208/http://www.maldives-ethnography.com/scripts.html to http://www.maldives-ethnography.com/scripts.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no such thing as a SAMT romanization. The page about it (now deleted because uncited) simply had a chart of Dhivehi sounds with their ISO 15919 equivalents. I have no idea what romanization scheme was used for the "extra letters" section. They seem to have been selected from the  chart of Arabic romanization to the maker of the article's liking. If this statement is untrue, or if there are actual academic sources using this romanization method, anyone is invited to confirm this so as to remake the SAMT article. 43.231.28.163 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile, the "SAMT romanization" will be replaced by the ISO 15919 method. 43.231.28.163 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "SAMT romanization"