Talk:Nabíl-i-Aʻzam

message: I'm positive the correct transliteration is Nabíl-i-A‘ẓam. That's how it's written in Eminent Baha'is in the time of Baha'u'llah by Hasan Balyuzi. He followed Shoghi Effendi's strict transliteration standards. I'm not an expert at Arabic. here is a link to the Dawn-breakers in Arabic. It lists him as Nabil-i-Zarandi, but someone who can read better than me could probably find the right one easily. According to the transliteration, I believe the Arabic should be نبيل الأعظم. The translation is obviously flexible, and can vary. Cuñado  - Talk 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The matter is that their standards of transliteration differ from ours. I'm putting the MOS-compliant transliteration in the parentheses. --tyomitch 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually read over the MOS again. I wrote most of it and I was careful in doing so. Since Baha'is have a very specific and precise system of transliteration, basically everything is a primary transliteration. You're version is wrong anyway, a hamza at the beginning of a word is never actually transliterated, it's just a place marker for the short vowel. Cuñado  - Talk 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: MOS says that whether a primary transliteration exists or not, a strict transliteration is required in the lead paragraph. (You may see the examples at Cairo and Al-Qaeda, linked to from MOS, which both have primary transliteration, and both have the strict transliteration in their lead paragraphs.) Regarding the hamza, it was you and not me to insert it into everywhere. If you have finally changed your mind, it's all right. --tyomitch 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The difference is not in the hamza, but in the "-i-" that appeared out of nowhere, and in the lack of the two definite articles. --tyomitch 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "-i-" is the Persian pronunciation, which doesn't have the definite article "al-". I think it's really unnecessary and redundant to give Persian and Arabic transliteration. If you want to be more technically correct, I could just remove the definite articles and change the template to say Persian instead of Arabic. Cuñado  - Talk 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the primary transliteration is based on Persian pronunciation of Arabic words, the best we can do is to mention that explicitly. --tyomitch 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transliteration

message: See the example at Akbar. al-A`zam is translated as "The Great". Cuñado  - Talk 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article on Takbir gives "Great", "Greater", and "the greatest" as three possible translations. --tyomitch 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I wrote that exact reference that you're talking about. They can be translated a number of ways, but when used this way they are always translated in the form of John al-A`zam --> John the Great or The Great John. A quick search came up with Sikandar-e-azam (Alexander the Great), Mujaddid-e-Azam (The Great Mujaddid), Mughal-E-Azam (The Great Mughal), Arsh-i-Azam (The Great Throne). Cuñado  - Talk 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The translation I added was from . I don't have it in front of me, so I'll have to quote the page number later. Cuñado  - Talk 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I put that reference in the article as the source for the translation. I also put the LOC guideline on hamza that you cited above into the MOS. See if it's better now. --tyomitch 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK scratch that. It wasn't from Balyuzi's book, it was from Memorials of the Faithful where `Abdu'l-Baha calls him "the Great Nabil". I can't find any other translations. I agree that it can be translated a number of ways, but the intro is already incredibly cluttered, so I'm going to try and move the comments to the footnote. Cuñado  - Talk 07:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The great