ܬܘܪܟܝܐ ܐܘ ܬܘܪܩܝܐ[ܫܚܠܦ]
ܠܡܘܢ ܕܓܫܠܢ ܫܡܐ ܕܬܘܪܟܝܐ ܠܫܡܐ ܕܬܘܪܩܝܐ?--Assyria 90 16:03, 5 ܐܕܪ 2008 (UTC)
Want the long or short explanation? :) --3345345335534 21:30, 5 ܐܕܪ 2008 (UTC)
̱lol, i'd prefer the short explanation. cheers. --Assyria 90 23:51, 8 ܐܕܪ 2008 (UTC)
First, if the spelling is the same (or nearly the same) in both Arabic and Hebrew, then I go with that spelling (this used to be the case for Turkey, but the Hebrew spelling recently changed). Basically, translate:
No matter how else you see it in any modern dictionary. Don't trust modern dictionaries. That's the older method, used in Hebrew but not Arabic (the former being more closely related to our language, especially transliteration-wise). This is the reason "Italy" is spelled ܐܝܛܠܝܐ instead of "ܐܝܬܠܝܐ," the latter spelling would mean it's pronounced like "Ithalia." --3345345335534 03:15, 9 ܐܕܪ 2008 (UTC)
̈̈I find this pretty much incorrect. Taw doesn't always mean to become "th", in a lot of cases taw becomes t as in "Tawra, Qadishat, Meshtaylonutho(two taws with one taw becoming "th"". I think we should revert all incorrect Q back to K. Peace --Assyria 90 18:17, 18 ܐܕܪ 2008 (UTC)
Please, just try to understand what I'm saying at least. Don't just keep using the system you're using now. The point isn't to match up the sounds exactly, the point is to transliterate phonetically contrasting sounds from one language so that they aren't confused with sounds that are in complimentary distribution in our language. Like you said, taw can either be "t" and "th" depending on the situation, so it's the same letter in our language, but Greek, for example, has two separate letters for those sounds. It's not really a "th" that's a taw, it's more like an aspirated t=taw, unaspirated t=teth, aspirated k=kaph, unaspirated k=qoph (this transliteration system was used mainly for Ancient Greek for the letters Θ, Τ, Χ, Κ, respectively, then into other languages like Latin), before the changes in pronounciation of the letters in Modern Greek (e.g., Θ was an aspirated t before it became th). The fact is, that's the way they've been doing it for thousands of years (Check the Bible: Augustus=ܐܓܘܣܛܘܣ, not "ܐܓܘܣܬܘܣ", Caesar=ܩܣܪ, not "ܟܣܪ", and so on). You can see this employed in Greek loanwords: ocean=ωκεανός=ܐܘܩܝܢܘܣ, not "ܐܘܟܝܢܘܣ", key=κλείς=ܩܠܝܕܐ, not "ܟܠܝܕܐ". It's just the method for transliterating (see the chart I made at ܐܠܦܒܝܬ ܝܘܢܝܐ). It's the same method used in Hebrew too. --3345345335534 21:26, 19 ܐܕܪ 2008 (UTC)
ܛܘܪܟܝܐ ܘ ܛܘܪܩܝܐ[ܫܚܠܦ]
The name of this lemma is spelled incorrect, because it is not written as “Turqiya”. I have read the explanation above, but it is not entirely correct what is written. For example: The word "Turkey" in Arabic is تركيا, with a ك “kof” and not a ق “qof”. If it would be spelled with a “qof”, the Arabic word would be ترقيا. I have looked the matter up, in an old dictionary. In the Lexicon Syriacum of Hassan Bar Bahlul, the word “Turkey” is spelled like ܛܘܪܟܝܐ with the Arabic translation تركيا. So the only conclusion which can be made is to change ܛܘܪܩܝܐ into ܛܘܪܟܝܐ. Michaelovic 20:08, 11 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)
- Shlama Michaelovic :),
- a) Why is it spelled with a Teth instead of a Taw? If you're taking it directly from Arabic, shouldn't it be spelled like ܬܘܪܟܝܐ and not like ܛܘܪܟܝܐ? Wouldn't "ܛܘܪܟܝܐ" be spelled "طركيا" in Arabic?
- b) On the spelling of the adjective, even Bar Bahlul uses the variant with a Qof (ܛܘܪܩܝܐ ) on page 799 under the entry for ܛܘܪܝܩܝ.
- c) Also on the spelling of the adjective, in Jessie Payne Smith's old dictionary, she lists ܛܘܪܟܝܐ, ܬܘܪܩܝܐ, ܬܘܪܟܝܐ, and ܛܘܪܩܝܐ (the exact page can be found here). Which one has precedence, Payne Smith or Bar Bahlul? Furthermore, which spelling has precedence?
- I look forward to your replies, --334a 15:21, 12 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)
- a) you are absolutely right about this point. Personally I prefer the use of ܬܘܪܟܝܐ because it’s the most phonetically word from the originally Turkish word Türkiye. I pointed out the Arabic because “3345345335534” (oh whait, that is you?) did also and I did not agree with him.
- b)I must say, you are totally right again :-)
- c)To answer the question which spelling has precedence, I would say ܬܘܪܟܝܐ, because this spelling is most consistent with the Turkish spelling. (BTW, do you speak eastern syriac or turoyo? just curious :) )Greetings Michaelovic 22:14, 13 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)
a) Yes, 3345345335534 is me. I did not understand your point, however. Where did I point out the Arabic spelling? I think you misread me there: I said "[regarding spelling names of countries] if the spelling is the same (or nearly the same) in both Arabic and Hebrew, then I go with that spelling". I did not say that "Turkey" is spelled "طرقيا" in Arabic.
b) What is your opinion on the correct spelling of "Italy" (and other old borrowings)? ܐܝܛܠܝܐ or "ܐܝܬܠܝܐ"? Should we change the old spellings to suit the "modern" way or have all the old borrowings spelled the same way and only spell new borrowings in the modern way?
c) I speak eastern Syriac, but we try to use classical Syriac in this Wikipedia (so as not to favour one dialect over others). I'd like to think that we also use classical standards for transliteration, hence ܐܝܛܠܝܐ and not "ܐܝܬܠܝܐ". You have to ask yourself why there are different spellings (some of which aren't phonetic and line up with my system of transliteration) in Bar Bahlul and Payne Smith's dictionaries.
The "modern" system of transliteration represents a very narrow understanding of phonetics and phonology. It's also potentially highly ambiguous: the last names "Bach" and "Back" would be spelled the same in that system (as ܒܐܟ), while different in the old system (as ܒܐܟ and ܒܐܩ). It doesn't really matter that they're not 100% phonetically accurate (as that's impossible to do anyway if you're borrowing names from other languages), what matters is that the system is consistent and that the words are phonologically distinct enough for them to be differentiated. --334a 16:18, 14 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)
Hi 334a. I must admit to you, now that I have read your explaination about the one and the other, I agree with you. It is best to use the Classic Syriac spelling, but in the articles itself, there should be a second 'modern' spelling to show that both spellings are possible. We do this also for example in the Dutch Wikipedia. You can find an example  (the bold words). do you agree with that? . Michaelovic 17:11, 14 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to read and understand my point, Michaelovic. As for putting a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) modern spelling into the article then yes, I agree with you, as long as a) it's not the title of the article, b) it's not the first bolded word (which should be the title), and c) it should only be written once in the article (in the first line), any other references to the name should be the same as the title and first bolded word. We also need to create redirects with the modern spelling to the article (I try to do that already). --334a 15:52, 15 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)
Yw! About the second modern spelling: ofcourse it should be only written once and it has to be the second bolded word. I agree with that. I will try to help as much as I can. Michaelovic 15:58, 15 ܚܙܝܪܢ 2010 (UTC)