Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Persian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 2 March 2007

Might it be worth starting this from scratch? - Francis Tyers · 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. A look through the arabic one shows that the big part of guideline is correct only for arabic. Persian is not just Arabic + some extra alphabets. The whole discussions there on articles etc are wrong when it comes to persian. Almost all the information before Persian section is irrelevant to Persian. Sangak 12:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Beside those differences that you mentioned, I think instead of the strict transliteration, we should focus on the proper transcription. Jahangard 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see the Guidelines for English And Irish language. Sangak 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I will take a look when I get some time --Rayis 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about this page, so apologies about the lateness of this reply. I have a pretty good understanding of both Arabic and Persian, and I've worked on transliteration and romanization schemes of Persian before. Having said that, I think the current draft has way too much baggage from the Arabic manual to be useful. I suggest we start from scratch, as has been suggested above. We can certainly get some ideas from the Arabic manual, but we can also look at Persian alphabet and especially Persian grammar (replacing <æ> with <a>) for a sane romanization that is already commonly used for Persian. –jonsafari 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Tajik transliteration I think we should use the Tajik Latin orthography of 1929. With the possible exception that 'ғ' -> 'ƣ' may be replaced with 'gh' or 'ğ'. - Francis Tyers · 13:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, it could get confusing. We should probably go with Russian transliteration, except for ғ ('gh' or 'ğ'), қ ('q'), ҳ ('h'), ӯ ('ū'), ҷ ('j'). - Francis Tyers · 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any good source for that? I am not familiar with it. Sangak 13:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically its something like BGN/PCGN in Transliteration of Russian. I've no problem with adding 'š' 'č' and 'ž' to that though. - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for modern Tajik figures, the names should be transliterated from Tajik alphabet, and for that purpose, I think the BGN/PCGN method for Russian Cryllic transliteration (plus the standard transliteration of ғ, қ , ҳ , ӯ, ҷ and "yo" for "ё") is good enough. We can decide about the proper transcription of them later (because it is related to the Tajik phonology). Jahangard 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)

Please refer to the Persian again and Persian (continued) threads for complete discussion.

Proper Transcription, not the strict transliteration

In Wikipedia, we don't need strict transliteration (because the original script is shown in the first sentence and there is no need to show the exact spelling of the word). Instead, a proper transcription should be used (to give the reader an idea about the original pronounciation). So, for example, we need only one letter for "s" (not 3), and one letter for z (not 4). Jahangard 08:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion about Wikipedia policy ("we don't need strict transliteration") is debatable, & should be discussed on the MOS talkpage, where it will be open to wider scrutiny. Otherwise there's a risk that all Persian & Iran-related articles will end up following a separate rule.

I'm not saying that you're wrong—just that you need to convince other editors that your proposal to scrap the strict transliteration is correct. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the proposal

The current proposal uses a strict transliteration which I think should be replaced by a proper transcription.

Also, the current proposal only considers the modern Iranian variants of Persian. I think we need at least two methods: one for for the classic Persian (similar to what Iranologists use in texts related to the pre-modern Iranian history and the classic Persian literature), and one for the modern Iranian variant of Persian (for the names of contemporary Iranian people, as well as the geographic names in the modern-day Iran). I think for Afghanistan, because the modern Persian variant is very close to the classic Persian, we can use the same transcription method as for the classic Persian. Jahangard 08:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Dear Jahangard, I had to RV some of your edits, and though I do admire your devotion, but we cannot involve academic research with nationalism, as you put de-Arabisation of the entries. The strict transliteration demands the correct usage of the entries, in which could be deployed for pre-Islamic as well as new-Iranian languages. This guideline was deployed and implemented by Encyclopaedia Iranica, based on “Dānešnāmé Īrān va Eslām” (1975) and it is accepted by consensus among the scholars of Iranian studies. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits? I haven't sterted to edit it yet. Jahangard 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jahangard - My sincere apologies, I meant "Jonsafari". ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jonsafari, I had to RV some of your edits, and though I do admire your devotion, but we cannot involve academic research with nationalism, as you put de-Arabisation of the entries. The strict transliteration demands the correct usage of the entries, in which could be deployed for pre-Islamic as well as new-Iranian languages. This guideline was deployed and implemented by Encyclopaedia Iranica, based on “Dānešnāmé Īrān va Eslām” (1975) and it is accepted by consensus among the scholars of Iranian studies. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think my edits were in any way influenced by nationalism. I'm a pragmatic linguist (with a good understanding of and respect for Arabic). There is nothing correct or even coherent about using 'θ' as a latin-script rendering for the Persian 'ث'. As far as I know ever since Persian adopted the Arabic script it has never used /θ/ in its phonology. And 'δ' is an even weaker argument. This is a lower-case Greek delta, which is a hackish substitution of the more conventional IPA representation of standard Arabic /ð/, which again is not present in Persian phonology. As for 'ḥ', 'ṣ', 'ḍ', 'ṭ', 'ẓ', 'ū', and 'ī', these are mostly semitic-specific romanizations for only phonemic distinctions in Arabic, not Persian. These distinctions are irrelevant in the Latin script for anyone who doesn't read the Arabic script. While we're at it, let's just use IPA for all strict romanizations of Persian. I appreciate your anti-nationalistic vigilance, but you're barking up the wrong tree. –jonsafari 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jonsafari – the above mentioned fricatives (β, δ, š, θ, ž) are not my inventions but are the guideline that is laid out and implemented by linguists and scholars of repute (please see: D. N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, Oxford university Press, (1971) pp. xiv-xviii.), as well as introcution to Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol.1. Eisenbrauns (1985) for transliteration guideline Also please see the discussion bellow with further examples! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 07:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonsafari, a pronunciation is different from a transliteration. IPA is already endorsed throughout all of Wikipedia. On the other hand, transliteration guidelines are still under discussion. - Anas ^Talk? 09:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation is related to the transcription. As I've explained earlier, in Wikipedia, we need proper transcription, not strict transliteration (because we already show the original spelling). For the artices related to the classic Arabic, strict transliteration works very well, simply because in that case, the strict transliteration and the proper transcription are essentially the same (but that's not the case here). Also, for a language like Persian (with a long literary history and several standard variants and accent), it is better to use a unified transcription standard (instead of IPA). The main reason is that for every vowel, there are slightly different pronounciations in different accents which are mapped to different IPA symbols. Jahangard 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with Jonsafari about 'ū', and 'ī'. We need to use them, simply because "i" and "u" are mostly used in the transcription of Classic Persian for ِ- and ُ-, respectively (while in the transcription of modern Iranian names, they are mostly used for ی and و). To avoid the ambiguity, we need to use them. However, I think there is no need for δ, θ, because they are not needed in the transcription of New Persian (which is related to this proposed manual of style), though they are needed for Middle Persian. Jahangard 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anas, thanks for pointing out that the main question under discussion was only about the transliteration. I obviously understand the difference between the two, but I somehow overlooked the fact that everyone in this discussion pretty much agreed on using IPA for pronunciation guidelines. Having said that, there seems to be still lots of loose ends in the proposal: there is no relation between the Avestan Zaraθuštra example and the letter 'ث'. Also, there's not many people in the entire world who would see any relation between the Greek delta 'δ' and the 'ذ' for Persian. It seems we're doing people a disservice using such distracting characters. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing (albeit unscientific) diacritics above and below canonical Latin letters for transliterating, eg. ż, ẓ, ẕ (with 'z' reserved for 'ز' of course), and ṡ, ṣ, and so forth. And I would agree with your post below: just because EI does things a particular way certainly doesn't mean we must as well! Let's use what makes the most sense for our audience and purpose. –jonsafari 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency, elegance & user-friendliness

This whole discussion stems from a perfectly reasonable dissatisfaction with the Arabic-style strict transliteration (TL) on WP:MOS-AR. It would indeed be ridiculous to use Riḍwān instead of Reẓvān in a Persian article.

But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Much though I appreciate the elegance of ž, č, x and š, we ought to consider the internal consistency of Wikipedia. This would argue in favour of retaining kh and sh, which are established in the English-speaking world as TLs of خ and ش , and are already used in all the Arabic, & most of the Persian & Iranian, articles on WP. What's more, sh is just more user-friendly; the same applies to ch, even though that doesn't exist in Arabic. zh is a bit more of a problem, admittedly, but is fairly widely known even to non-specialists via Russian, as in Zhivago.

Should all the varieties of z, s, t and h be indicated at all? Well, I think they should—but only once, at the beginning of the article, and with suitable diacritics, to reflect both spelling and pronunciation. I know that not everyone agrees with this; but would those who disagree use gh for both gh and q, which are pronounced the same? And why bother at all with initial `eyn if all that matters is the pronunciation? Indeed, if you just want the pronunciation, why not use IPA?

It seems to me that we should maintain consistency with the current WP Arabic TL wherever possible (kh, sh, gh), introducing changes only where the Persian pronunciation is very different (3 z letters, 2 s letters, etc). If the short vowels e and o are used (estakhr, otaq), i and u could in principle be used without a macron for the long vowels (Irāni, chāqu); but, again on grounds of consistency, the strict TL in the first sentence should probably use ī and ū (Īrānī, chāqū).

Whichever system is eventually adopted, the bottom line should be: Are we making the articles more, or less, reliable and accessible for the average non-specialist user? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your suggestions. I support using the more user-friendly khs and shs in strict transliterations, as I have previously pointed out in our discussion in WP:AMOS. As you have indicated, the strict transliteration's purposes are to show how a word is transliterated (spelled) in English, and how it is pronounced, which makes it more helpful than a pronunciation if used correctly, of course. I also agree that consistency should be maintained as much as possible, and I strongly support using the diacritics for the long vowels. Indeed, I believe that consistency and user-friendliness are the better routes to take, even if some compromises have to be made. I hope that this can be taken into serious consideration before setting the guidelines for strict transliterations. - Anas ^Talk? 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use sh or kh in place of š and x in “Standard transliteration” won't be any problem, but if we are talking about “Strict transliteration” which is for the academic usage sh and kh would be incorrect. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The academic usage? The trouble is that there seem to be several different schemes. Do you mean one used by Iranian academics? Kh & sh are certainly used by several universities in the UK & the USA, the Library of Congress, etc. Do they count for nothing? How is the casual WP user meant to know that x stands for kh? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Strict transliteration” is not for casual WP user, or menat to be a user firendly. When I stated academic establishement, I meant real academic establsihement (publications) specialised in Iranian studies such as “Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum”, “Encyclopaedia Iranica”, “British Institute of Persian Studies”, “Royal Asiatic Society”, etc., which all are using š, x, ž, θ, δ. instead of sh, kh, zh, th and dh. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this useful information. I had a quick look at the EI website, but couldn't read the TL without downloading their font. Are there any online examples of the BIPS or RAS transliteration? Does everyone agree that WP needs to use the same TL for Old Persian & Modern Persian? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - some of EI articles are in PDF format such as Āb (LINK), would confirm the above. The BIPS yearly journal is known as Iran with no on-line publication, as well as “Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum” which is available only in hard copy format. Also, the most comprehensive website about ancient Iran is also follows the same guideline, which used to be part of University of London (see: LINK, or this one by Professor MacKenzie LINK). ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 07:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ParthianShot, although you present a very legitimate and valid point, I'd have to disagree with you. As Nigel indicated, and as you probably know, there are several schemes or systems for Persian transliterations. According to this document, most systems, including the ALA-LC, the Encyclopedia of Islam, and the United Nations propose using kh and sh. I understand that the more academic suited x and š are used by other establishments, but a huge and probably bigger portion of these establishments use khs and shs. Not only this, but it is more what the Wikipedian community would want; I've seen many name discussions and "polls" go this way; the English-speaking dominant community will always favor what suits them the most. Believe me, I would love to use š, x, ž, θ, δ but maybe there needs to be a little compromise. Cheers! - Anas ^Talk? 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ::::::Pronounciation is related to the transcription. As I've explained earlier, in Wikipedia, we need proper transcription, not strict transliteration (because we already show the original spelling). For the artices related to the classic Arabic, strict transliteration works very well, simply because in that case, the strict transliteration and the proper transcription are essentially the same (but that's not the case here). Also, for a language like Persian (with a long literary history and several standard variants and accent), it is better to use a unified transcription standard (instead of IPA). The main reason is that for every vowel, there are slightly different pronounciations in different accents which are mapped to different IPA symbols.    [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 ::::::I also disagree with Jonsafari about 'ū', and 'ī'. We need to use them, simply because "i" and "u" are mostly used in the transcription of Classic Persian for  ِ- and ُ-, respectively (while in the transcription of modern Iranian names, they are mostly used for ی and و). To avoid the ambiguity, we need to use them. However, I think there is no need for δ, θ, because they are not needed in the transcription of New Persian (which is related to this proposed manual of style), though they are needed for Middle Persian. [[User:Jahangard|Jahangard]] 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
+::::::Anas, thanks for pointing out that the main question under discussion was ''only'' about the transliteration.  I obviously understand the difference between the two, but I somehow overlooked the fact that everyone in this discussion pretty much agreed on using IPA for pronunciation guidelines.  Having said that, there seems to be still lots of loose ends in the proposal:  there is no relation between the Avestan Zara'''θ'''uštra example and the letter 'ث'.  Also, there's not many people in the entire world who would see any relation between the Greek delta 'δ' and the 'ذ' '''for Persian'''.  It seems we're doing people a disservice using such distracting characters.  On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing (albeit unscientific) diacritics above and below canonical Latin letters for transliterating, eg. ż, ẓ, ẕ (with 'z' reserved for 'ز' of course), and ṡ, ṣ, and so forth.  And I would agree with your post below: just because EI does things a particular way certainly doesn't mean we must as well!  Let's use what makes the most sense for our audience and purpose.   –[[User:Jonsafari|jonsafari]] 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 == Consistency, elegance & user-friendliness ==