Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Armenian)

message: I create this page with the model of Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. Of course, this is only a work stub. Everyone has the possibility to modify it or to add suggestions. Švitrigaila 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a stub 

message: === -yan or -ian ? ===
Agree with this simplified transliteration system since it's the one used by most of the contributors to the two-volume history The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (ed. R.G. Hovannisian, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). On the other hand, I'd like clarification on the use of -ian or -yan in surname endings. The book I mentioned favours -ian except after a vowel. --Folantin 15:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is precisely why should this ending would have a separate rule? The յ letter is pronounced as a consonantical y English sound in every position it stands. After a consonant or after a vowel, there is no difference. So there is no need to decide a separate rule for it. Švitrigaila 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book says that -ian is the traditional rendering of Armenian surnames. Since the book (a reliable source) adopts this method, so should we. It's the most common way of rendering Armenian names in English. The noted Armenian expert R.G.Suny also uses the -ian spelling. --Folantin 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different transcription systems, with different results. Kocharyan is the result of one system, while Kocharian is the result of another. This page shows that both can be used. I see no reason why we should use the other system when there is no practical nor scientifical reason for that. I see no reason why we should call the prime minister Serzh Sargsian. Švitrigaila 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The transcription of մեր by meyr was a mere mistake of mine. I fix it. This example was only about the transcription of the letter ք. Maybe a better example could be found to show the duality of the system. Švitrigaila 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another table can be written for Western Armenian, but it'll be far more difficult. Firstly because several combinations of letters can be taken separatly (իւ, եա...) Secondly because some different letters can have the same sound and then I suppose they must be transcribed by the same English letter (ե and է...) Thirdly because a lot of "Western Armenians" emigrated to Europe and America and acquired another nationality with a local spelling of their name ; that local spelling must then be used, I think. Švitrigaila 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe rr is ռ while r is ր, but that it's not mandatory to use rr for ռ.-- ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Րաֆֆի the only Armenian name that starts with Ր? So translating the rest of the names that start with Ռ as Rr wouldn't be useful. Do we even have Armenian names that start with Ռ? Most if not all are barrowed from Latin or Arab languages. --VartanM 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeap, nothing else other than Րաֆֆի. I don't like the idea of "rr" very much. With Ռ we have Ռազմիկ, Ռշտունի, Ռոստամ and then the Germanic, Romance and Semitic names.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the distinction of r / rr, it's only to show the difference between ր and ռ without using another diacritic mark. If you can find a better system, why not (rh ? r’ ?...) The result sounds odd in proper names, but that's the reason I propose to use r in the simplified system that is to be used for articles' titles and for isolate proper names. To summerize the aim of a two systems transcription, the simplified system is to be use to quote names and words in an English context, while the normal one is to be used to show most practically and efficiently the prononciation of a word. Švitrigaila 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just stick with simple r. We aren't trying to convey all the subtleties of Armenian pronuciation. In fact, I suggest we use the system used by most of the scholars in Armenian People to avoid accusations of original research. --Folantin 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, I think it's important to keep the distinction between the two r's because they are pronounced differently. But in practice, it has no great implications: nearly all practical usage of this table will be using the simplified system. I think the form Rruben will nearly never be employed. Švitrigaila 11:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you agree if instead of rr for leter ռ we used r’ ? I mean in the "normal transcription"; in the "simplified transcription", ռ and ր are still both r. Look at this example to see what effect it makes. Švitrigaila 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One month passed and no answer... So I take the responsability to change it myself and I change r’ for rr. Švitrigaila (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions, Suggestions and Comments 

message: Agree with this simplified transliteration system since it's the one used by most of the contributors to the two-volume history The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (ed. R.G. Hovannisian, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). On the other hand, I'd like clarification on the use of -ian or -yan in surname endings. The book I mentioned favours -ian except after a vowel. --Folantin 15:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is precisely why should this ending would have a separate rule? The յ letter is pronounced as a consonantical y English sound in every position it stands. After a consonant or after a vowel, there is no difference. So there is no need to decide a separate rule for it. Švitrigaila 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book says that -ian is the traditional rendering of Armenian surnames. Since the book (a reliable source) adopts this method, so should we. It's the most common way of rendering Armenian names in English. The noted Armenian expert R.G.Suny also uses the -ian spelling. --Folantin 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different transcription systems, with different results. Kocharyan is the result of one system, while Kocharian is the result of another. This page shows that both can be used. I see no reason why we should use the other system when there is no practical nor scientifical reason for that. I see no reason why we should call the prime minister Serzh Sargsian. Švitrigaila 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''-yan'' or ''-ian'' ? 

message: Why is mer transcribed as meyr? -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcription of մեր by meyr was a mere mistake of mine. I fix it. This example was only about the transcription of the letter ք. Maybe a better example could be found to show the duality of the system. Švitrigaila 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''meyr'' or ''mer'' ? 

message: This applies to Eastern Armenian only right since all the examples are in EA? -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another table can be written for Western Armenian, but it'll be far more difficult. Firstly because several combinations of letters can be taken separatly (իւ, եա...) Secondly because some different letters can have the same sound and then I suppose they must be transcribed by the same English letter (ե and է...) Thirdly because a lot of "Western Armenians" emigrated to Europe and America and acquired another nationality with a local spelling of their name ; that local spelling must then be used, I think. Švitrigaila 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Western Armenian ? 

message: Why is Ռուբեն/Ruben being translated as Rruben? VartanM 16:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe rr is ռ while r is ր, but that it's not mandatory to use rr for ռ.-- ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Րաֆֆի the only Armenian name that starts with Ր? So translating the rest of the names that start with Ռ as Rr wouldn't be useful. Do we even have Armenian names that start with Ռ? Most if not all are barrowed from Latin or Arab languages. --VartanM 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeap, nothing else other than Րաֆֆի. I don't like the idea of "rr" very much. With Ռ we have Ռազմիկ, Ռշտունի, Ռոստամ and then the Germanic, Romance and Semitic names.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the distinction of r / rr, it's only to show the difference between ր and ռ without using another diacritic mark. If you can find a better system, why not (rh ? r’ ?...) The result sounds odd in proper names, but that's the reason I propose to use r in the simplified system that is to be used for articles' titles and for isolate proper names. To summerize the aim of a two systems transcription, the simplified system is to be use to quote names and words in an English context, while the normal one is to be used to show most practically and efficiently the prononciation of a word. Švitrigaila 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just stick with simple r. We aren't trying to convey all the subtleties of Armenian pronuciation. In fact, I suggest we use the system used by most of the scholars in Armenian People to avoid accusations of original research. --Folantin 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, I think it's important to keep the distinction between the two r's because they are pronounced differently. But in practice, it has no great implications: nearly all practical usage of this table will be using the simplified system. I think the form Rruben will nearly never be employed. Švitrigaila 11:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you agree if instead of rr for leter ռ we used r’ ? I mean in the "normal transcription"; in the "simplified transcription", ռ and ր are still both r. Look at this example to see what effect it makes. Švitrigaila 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One month passed and no answer... So I take the responsability to change it myself and I change r’ for rr. Švitrigaila (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''r'' and ''rr'' ? 

message: #I vote for. Švitrigaila 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: #Conditionally oppose. DBachmann is quite right; we cannot roll our own naming standards; we write to be understood. Acceptable provided this page defers to English usage where it exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: What we should do with this is exemplified by the first lime of Aram Khachaturian:
:Aram Khachaturian (Armenian: Արամ Խաչատրյան, Aram Xačatryan; 
This is not, and should not be used as, an excuse to move the well-known composer or respell his name to to  Xačatryan, to which most readers, even those who know him well, will say "Is that Mayan?". It should be used, as here, to represent Armentian text in the English alphabet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point to replace an unspeakable foreign letter with another unspeakable foreign letter? In this case, what's the point to replace չ with č, rather than ch? (in fact, the most "scientific" transcription is even č' ). The reason for which we keep the article's name as Aram Khachaturian is that this form is the transcription of his Russian name Арам Хачатурян, not from his Eastern Armenian name. Russian language was the official language of the Soviet Union. For the same reason, Ferenc Liszt's article is Franz Liszt. That explains why there is a u in Khachaturian even if it is neither heard nor written in Armenian. Švitrigaila (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that English-speakers, myself included, do actually spell 1them Liszt and Khachaturian, and will recognize those strings even if they pronounce them badly or not at all. (My ear hears the u in Khachaturian as a schwa.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature and purpose of a transliteration convention

message: Wikipedia:Romanization of Armenian is being used as the main article for the public, and this article has been voted to use as a reference for edits in Wikipedia. I disagree with the preference for the ISO standard, but this is subject to voting. What is not subject to voting is the WP:Redirect of BGN/PCGN romanization of Armenian - that is simply unacceptable.
Regarding this page as a reference for Armenian transliteration work inside Wikipedia, I understand that the redirection of the page Wikipedia:Romanization of Armenian to this page is due to the Armenian alphabet not being currently used for other languages. I think that the latter page should be created mirroring the page Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian - the reason being is that the transliteration of Russian from the Cyrillic alphabet inside Wikipedia is outlined in the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as being a modified version of BGN/PCGN for Anglophone speakers, which is currently used despite the ISO standard, which is in turn simply not used anywhere else than Wikipedia. Nevertheless, this idea should be subject to a further consensus here beforehand, but I will remove this redirection too if no one objects in the future. --92slim (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal and redirection 

message: Dear fellow editors, I need some clarification on when the tables on this page are to be used, as I'm not sure if the discussions here from many years ago still hold and the page itself doesn't shed much light about when (if ever) the ISO transliteration should be used; I almost never see it used on Armenian-related articles. I still don't know what transliteration system is preferred for bibliographical information, and whether the transliteration or transcription table should be used for introducing terms and romanizing names at the beginning of articles. For example, should this article begin with "Avan ()" or "Avan ()"? Revolution Saga (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear @MarshallBagramyan, since you commented on this in an edit I wanted to get your advice on this. Should the "loose transcription" detailed on this page be used for bibliographical information, or something else? Thanks in advance. Best, Revolution Saga (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on our readers. We have to strike the correct balance between our lay and scholarly audiences. I think for subject matter relating prior to about the mid-eighteenth century, it's generally fine to use the H-M system for bibliographical information. It gets trickier when getting to the post-1750 - present-day period. No consensus exists among scholars (nor so far as I know does one exist on Wikipeda). But given how much of Armenian history overlaps with histories of the Russia Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, etc. we also have to take into due consideration other prevailing systems of transliteration (no simple task), especially when some may want to cross-reference names written in Russian or Turkish with the Armenian original. The easiest way to do that is to do away with the complex diacritical marks. As a basic rule, I tend to follow the Library of Congress' transliteration system. Imperfect as it is, it is the best we got IMO. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Yes, I tend towards the Library of Congress' system as well for sources in my recent edits, although at other times I've used H-M. It would be good to have a single transliteration standard for transliterations in both the article text itself and bibliographical information, for the sake of consistency, but we'll work with what we have. Revolution Saga (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would indeed be ideal, but alas what I consider logical and accurate to the degree possible is not what others necessarily consider. I realize some compromise may be needed in case you or others disagree. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration/transcription distinction