Talk:Neauphle-le-Château

message: Mr User:Hamid Hassani, Please avoid from vandalism.
خیابان فرانسه
Transliteration: [xyʾbʾn frʾnsh]
Transcription: /xijaban e franse/
Romanisation: Chijaban e Franse
X.goodarzie 22:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir! As my profession requires, I am pretty familiar with the subject and the terms (in addition to their differences) you mentioned. Better to know and learn more about the dissociation and similarities between "transliteration", "transcription", and "Romanization/ Romanisation". Your changes on this article are incoherent, inharmonious with the obvious rules and principles of Persian Romanization. Chijaban e Franse is not a suitable Romanization for the Persian name  not at all, and truly it is entirely false. Furthermore, please never confuse the Persian language, Iranian languages and dialects with Middle Persian and so on. I just left you a message on your talk page. With all my respects, Hamid Hassani (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  ".... Chijaban e Franse is not a suitable Romanization for the Persian name  not at all, and truly it is entirely false...." Your expression is a subjective discussion on a linguistic debate. I'm pretty sure that you are not profoundly familiar with the different recommended (not compulsory verdicts or rules) systems of Transliteration, Transcription and Romanisation of the Iranian languages. I should recommend you to read about subjectivity and objectivity.X.goodarzie 19:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS Your preferred system of Romanisation is an Anglicized/Americanised oriented system. Furthermore, there isn´t any standard (compulsory) system for Romanisation of the Persian language regulated by the Persian Academy (Fræhængestan e Zæban ...).X.goodarzie 19:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you own a good level of understanding the English language. So, please do not copy-paste my opinions (and sentences). Imprimis, it seems that, unfortunately, you are often falling off with misapprehension and accusing others. Secondly, Chijaban e Franse is not a reagent Romanization form for ; because, this may mislead people to ! I agree with -ija-, but ch could be read more as Persian  than ; and  has a fatḥah, i.e., the Persian vowel æ (cf. here). So, there is no initial consonantal cluster in the standard Persian language. Thirdly, I use both American and British system. Fourthly, please always SIGN your statements. Fifthly, I think that you are talking about The Academy of Persian Language and Literature. I am not sure about your awareness about what that Academy does. Good luck! Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  1- It seems that you're confused on the Persian language and the Arabic or Turkish phonology due to your emphasis on the lack of initial consonant cluster. If you personally could not utter/articulate, it would be another debate. The Iranian languages historically have a bunch of initial consonant clusters. If the Perso-Arabic script or even the Aramaic consonant base scripts could not reflect the phonemic values, it doesn't matter to the historical phonology of the Persian language. It seems that you are insisting on the traditional prescriptive Arabic-oriented phonological approach that denies the ICC for Iranian languages. The lack of initial consonant cluster is an Altaic and Semitic phonological phenomenon. You should improve and modify your knowledge on Phonologia Persica. 2- On historical digraph of "ch" and its phonetic values in Romance and Germanic Latin-based alphabets: the digraph "ch" is the Latin rendition/rendering of the Greek letter "chi" e.g. Character (Gk. χαρακτήρ). Your interpretation of the phonological value of the digraph "ch" reflects your limited knowledge on History of Latin and Greek alphabets and their usage in modern European languages. Yours X.goodarzie 05:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcription of the street's name in Persian