Talk:Nabataean script

message: Why is there Hebrew in an alphabet that's derived from Syriac alphabet -_-  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone else looking here interested in the topic, the reason for including Hebrew is that the standard method for transposing Nabataean Aramaic (and indeed all ancient aramaic) is to utilise the modern Hebrew alphabet which alows for ease of reading and standardisation of often eratic epigraphy. Vastiel (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there Hebrew? 

message: I have a quick question.  In the correspondence table, shouldn't the "Sin" correspond to «ﺳ» and «ס», while the "Ṣad" correspond to «ﺻ» and «צ»?... or at least the shape suggest so. CJLippert 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the correspondence table correct? 

message: The Arabic letter given for yaa is not a yaa (ي) but an alif maksoora (ى), a yaa without lower dots.
Also, there is not a common usage of the isolated form of the Arabic letter in the Arabic column; for example haa (ه) is given in its inital form, whereas waw (و) is given in isolated form. This sort of inconsistency is...undesirable.  Msanford  T  04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of concordances 

message: Unfortunately, equating Arabic س sin with Aramaic/Hebrew ס semkat/samekh is highly misleading in the context of the table in this article.  In the Nabatean inscriptions (predominantly Arabic-influenced Aramaic as written by Arabic-speakers) the Aramaic letters ס and ש were already often confused or substituted for each other.  Later on, when when developments of the Nabatean script were used to write Arabic, the letter ס was simply dropped.  So the Arabic letters س and ش BOTH derive from Aramaic/Nabatean ש (and were not distinguished from each other until centuries later, with the introduction of Arabic consonant dotting)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems in the table

message: How can I write Nabataean Kingdom in Nabataean alphabet for use in its article? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly understand Malkûtâ Nabatu on the article.  Malkûtâ is Aramaic for "the kingdom" מלכותא, while Nabatu doesn't seem very Aramaic.  The meaning "Nabatean kingdom" would probably be expressed by a construct-phrase construction, but the word Malkûtâ is not inflected in a way that would allow it to appear first in a construct phrase... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea as I didn't add it. I was planning on replacing that term with an actual term in Nabataean language, could you help?    Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Nabatean language" could have multiple meanings, since they started out attempting to write in Aramaic, but this was increasingly permeated with Arabic as time went on, until towards the end some inscriptions pretty much gave up the effort or dropped the pretense of Aramaic.  You could consult Cantineau's "Le Nabatéen" etc., or a scholarly inscription corpus, but you'd probably need some familiarity with both the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen a number of inscriptions, most of which where written in Aramaic, so I assume that Aramaic letters are considered to have had the greatest connection to the Nabataean alphabet? In any case, Le Nabateen isn't available online and I am not familiar with Hebrew alphabets. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd probably need a little familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet, because early Aramaic and Western Aramaic inscriptions are conventionally transcribed into Hebrew letters in scholarly works.  (Anyway, what we call the "Hebrew alphabet" is technically known as the "square" or "Assyrian" script, and is historically an Aramaic-influenced script which replaced the early "Paleo-Hebrew" script which was uninfluenced by Aramaic...) Not sure I can help you much further without conducting intensive personal researches. AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvm then. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nabataean Kingdom

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Nabataean alphabet →  – It is an abjad not an alphabet. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Srnec -- see my comment of 15:52, 23 July 2016 above... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Austronesier -- As I said on the "Aramaic alphabet" talk page, it's very hard to see how such counts can be useful, since the phrases "Nabatean alphabet" and "Nabatean script" could actually be used with different meanings.  They are not simple synonyms. AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting conjecture which should be easy to verify: there are only 87 sources on JSTOR, and I would be delighted to see a pair of articles where "Nabataean alphabet" and "Nabataean script" are not coterminous. –Austronesier (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fact about the meanings of words (and I don't have JSTOR access). AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have access to the search results, you shouldn't jump to hypothetical conclusions (and repeat them over and over). I have looked into the search results, and haven't found an instance where the choice between "Nabataean alphabet" and "Nabataean script" was related to any hypothetical difference in meaning between "script" and "alphabet". –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My knowledge that the words "alphabet" and "script" can have different meanings does not depend on JSTOR search results (that would be a very strange world)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

text: The term "abjad" itself is not nonsense; it's merely a synonym of "consonantal alphabet".  Some people find the word useful, while other people find it unnecessary, since a perfectly good phrase with exactly the same meaning existed for centuries previously.   However the idea that supposedly somehow "an abjad is not an alphabet"[sic] is basically nonsense with respect to current accepted scholarly terminology, as mentioned by User:Kwamikagami above and discussed previously at Talk:Arabic alphabet.  Therefore, there is nothing to meaningfully "sidestep", and such sidesteppping is not a valid reason to rename the article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that there is a consistent differentiation between scripts and alphabets in current accepted scholarly terminology is also nonsense. Yes, the words have different meanings, but both are ambiguous and they overlap. If scholars do not often call the Nabataean writing system an abjad, they do often call it a script. Srnec (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "alphabet" and "script" have partially-overlapping definitions, but they're not simply synonymous.  This doesn't mean that "Nabatean script" would be an inappropriate title for this article, but it does mean that the mechanical search statistics beloved by Austronesier can't actually be used to prove anything... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read Austronesier's comments. He is not employing "mechanical search statistics". He is demonstrating that "Nabataean script" is preferred in RS to "Nabataean alphabet". And that this it is preferred by our current guideline. The only "mechanical" thing here is your kneejerk canned response to the RM based on the nominator's flawed logic. Srnec (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If he doesn't control for shades of meaning, then he can't prove that anything is preferred to anything.  If term A occurs more often than term B because a meaning associated more often with term A is referred to more frequently than meanings more often associated with term B, that does nothing to prove that term A is preferred to term B in the cases where the two terms have overlapping meanings. AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that I have only have cited two sources does not that I have only inspected two sources. In fact, I have looked into more than a half of the 87 JSTOR search results, and haven't seen a single instance were the choice between the two was anything more than just a terminological preference of the author(s) for either "Nabatean script" or "Nabatean alphabet", without expressing any asserted "shade of meaning". –Austronesier (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Right now, consistency favors no change (Hebrew alphabet etc). AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment - Relisting in the hopes a consensus will emerge given the ongoing discussion. The dialling down of the volume of replies in this discussion would be of benefit to the closer. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other User:AleksiB_1945 proposed renames have gone through, so consistency in that respect would also recommend that this article stay at "Nabatean Alphabet". AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: AleksiB_1945's reasoning has nothing to do with support for this move. Srnec (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 August 2022