# "i" and "e" in transliterations



## Abu Rashid

Split from here.

I think Arabs often misuse the vowel "i" when transliterating. into English. "i" should be reserved for longer vowels like in my name Abu Rashid, the "i" representing the letter ي in رشيد

The vowel "e" on the other hand would represent a shorter version of that sound as would be the case here I'd think. I'm sure there's different conventions when transliterating, and the vowels in English don't necessarily have any uniform sound or length. However, as a native English speaker, when I see your transliteration, it makes me vocalise it in a very weird sounding way (which sounds nothing like it should).


----------



## elroy

I meant "i" as in the word "pig" (in American English, which I also speak as a native language). That's exactly what the vowel sounds like. 

I use "ii" for the sound in your name. 

I am well aware of the difference in pronunciation between "e" (as in "hen") and "i" (as in "pig"). I use "e" where appropriate - "bashtgh*e*l" (I work), for example.


----------



## Abu Rashid

I know you meant the sound that occurs in pig, but what I was trying to say is that it wouldn't be rendered like that by a native speaker of English with little knowledge about Arabic.

I've never come across "ii" being used in transliteration. I've seen "ee" but never "ii". The name is spelt in English as either Rashid or Rasheed. The reason is probably that 2 i's never appear together in English (not that I'm aware of anyway) and therefore it has no meaning to the average english speaker.



> I am well aware of the difference in pronunciation between "e" (as in "hen") and "i" (as in "pig"). I use "e" where appropriate - "bashtgh*e*l" (I work), for example.


I don't think Arabic recognises that difference, and as far as I'm aware the sound in bashtghel and the sound in bte7ki should be about the same. Therefore I'd think "e" would be the perfect choice for both. Even if not, my original point was just that "i" would make the sound a little too long the way an English speaker would try to render it. From the way I've heard Palestinians say it, it's not like that. Then again I mostly speak with Ghazans, so maybe they have a different accent to yourself.


----------



## elroy

Abu Rashid said:


> I know you meant the sound that occurs in pig, but what I was trying to say is that it wouldn't be rendered like that by a native speaker of English with little knowledge about Arabic.


 This is a huge generalization, and one I disagree with. In fact, many native speakers of English (of American English, at least) would in fact render it with an "i" because as I said that's precisely what it sounds like.


> I've never come across "ii" being used in transliteration. I've seen "ee" but never "ii". The name is spelt in English as either Rashid or Rasheed. The reason is probably that "ii" never appear together in English (not that I'm aware of anyway) and therefore has no meaning to the average english speaker.


 You are right. "ii" is not used in transliterations of proper nouns, or any other words that get accepted into English - but on this forum it's very common when phonetic precision is expected. That is, when I'm chatting with Arab friends online in transliterated Arabic, I use "i" or "ee" but here on the forum I use "ii" for the sake of our learners. 


> I don't think Arabic recognises that difference, and as far as I'm aware the sound in bashtghel and the sound in bte7ki sound be about the same.


 It depends on which variety of Arabic you are talking about.

In MSA, only "i" exists so "e" is not used in transliterations (except maybe in some foreign proper nouns).
Palestinian Arabic definitely recognizes the difference - both sounds exist and are distinguishable. We say "bashtgh*e*l" and "bt*i*7ki." We do not use the same sound in both words. 


> Then again I mostly speak with Ghazans, so maybe they have a different accent to yourself.


 It is quite possible that Ghazans pronounce both of them the same way. I do not know any Ghazans so I can't say for sure. But in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah, and the Galilee (and everywhere else I've been, really) there is a clear distinction that is very audible to my ears.


----------



## HKK

The transliteration used on this board isn't phonetic. For instance the difference between the aa in man and the aa in bar is not shown. They are two distinct sounds (phones) but represent the same letter (two allophones of one phoneme aa). Instead the transliteration tries to keep a 1:1 relation to the Arabic alphabet: one transliteration can only render one Arabic word, and one (vowelized) Arabic word only gets one transliteration. That means it is phonemic.

kasra -> i
fat7a -> a (or e in non-msa)
Damma -> u (or o in non-msa)

My next exam is General Linguistics, so sorry is this is audaciously off topic.


----------



## elroy

You are right, HKK.  The transliterations used here are not 100% phonetic, but they are pretty close.

It would be nice if we introduced a system to differentiate between the two "aa" sounds.


----------



## HKK

It would be nicer still to understand the system in that case. I'm starting a thread about it


----------



## Abu Rashid

Well I'd think of it as being between two words like lint and lent. To my ear, Palestinians (and other Levantine Speakers) would render bte7ki like lent, not like lint, also note that you're using "i" to transliterate the ي at the end of the word too and at the end of 3arabi, so that makes it even more confusing.


----------



## elroy

The sound in bt*i*7ki and 3arab*i* is the same.

How you suspect that most speakers of Levantine Arab might perhaps transliterate the sound is completely irrelevant.

The point is that the closest approximation to the sound in bt*i*7ki is the English "i" as in "pig," and the closest approximation to the sound in "bashtgh*e*l" is the English "e" as in "hen." Of course, I am only referring to my own variety of Arabic and the ones I'm familiar with - that is, the Palestinian Arabic spoken in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Galilee. The pronunciation may be different in other parts of the Levant. 

Furthermore, most Arabs are not native speakers of English, and are thus not necessarily familiar with the differences between "i" and "e." 

What would in fact be utterly confusing to a learner would be to systematically render both "i" sounds and "e" sounds with the same character.


----------



## ayed

My scales are these:
Long vowel "*ee*" as in "meet"
Short one "*i*"as in "bit"pig"sit.
Rash_*ee*_d (*رشيد*)
Rash*i*d (*راشد*)


----------



## elroy

ayed said:


> Long vowel "*ee*" as in "meet"


 The problem with that is that it can be confused with the colloquial "ee" as in "beet" (بيت).  That's why I prefer "ii."


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Rash*i*d (*راشد*)



This should really be Raashid or probably better Raashed. Normally Rashid means رشيد Try doing a search for "Harun Rashid" on google for instance.


----------



## elroy

Abu Rashid said:


> This should really be Raashid or probably better Raashed. Normally Rashid means رشيد Try doing a search for "Harun Rashid" on google for instance.


 I agree that the "a" should be doubled.  As for the second vowel, it depends.  In MSA it's "i" but in some dialects it's "e" so it depends on what you're trying to transliterate.

As for "Harun Rashid," once again remember that the way we transliterate things here is meant to be phonetic and not necessarily conventional.


----------



## Tajabone

To add fuel to the flames (the debate is already ... brisk), the French way for Arabic transliteration is pretty different from the English one.

 We didn't speak about the position of the sounds in a linguistic sequence (word, sentence, etc.) and this point is crucial as it distinguishes - in many cases - phonetics from phonology.

 As long as a sound is not "distinctive" (meaning is difference as Saussure put it), we move from phonology to sociolinguistics, that means to understandable variations which could be "perceived" or not, according to the speaker/listener's competences and performances.

 I would rather formulate the problem in this way: does "i" (which must be accurately defined) produce a semantic variation in the word X instead of "e" at the position A, B or C (mainly initial, medium and final) ?

 If not, so it's a sociolinguistic variation related to class, gender or geographical factors.

 e.g. Haniy*eh* in Palestine while it's pronounced Haniy*a* in North Africa and should be written 7aniyeh (if we stick to the Palestian way).

 It seems that in this debate, it has been proceeded from top to bottom. I think it is linguistically _pointless_ to talk about "sounds" if they are not included in a differentialist and semantic perspective. Otherwise, it would be an endless talk. *Language is a form and not a substance* Saussure said and it's the hardcore of the scientific (let's say accurate) approach to languages.

 A grammarian looks what is "precise", "closer to" a norm; a linguist describes according to a problem: do we have a semantic change ? if yes, it's internal to the language and hence reliable; if not, it's an external (social) factor and we need to know if the variation is perceived and how it is used just because *a variation is not (always) a difference*.

 The good thing with theory is that it helps you to grasp or drop the various elements that assault you so that you can move from the jungle of *data* to the architecture of *facts*.


----------



## Josh_

HKK said:


> The transliteration used on this board isn't phonetic. For instance the difference between the aa in man and the aa in bar is not shown. They are two distinct sounds (phones) but represent the same letter (two allophones of one phoneme aa). Instead the transliteration tries to keep a 1:1 relation to the Arabic alphabet: one transliteration can only render one Arabic word, and one (vowelized) Arabic word only gets one transliteration. That means it is phonemic.
> 
> kasra -> i
> fat7a -> a (or e in non-msa)
> Damma -> u (or o in non-msa)
> 
> My next exam is General Linguistics, so sorry is this is audaciously off topic.



I have an Arabic dictionary in transliteration that actually notes the difference.  They use "*a*" for the 'a' in 'man' and "a" for the 'a' in father.  For instance:

حاول would be rendered *Haawil*
and
فاوض would be *f*aa*wiD*

Maybe something like this could be adopted on the forum.  Of course it would involve switching between fonts which might become tedious.


----------



## ayed

elroy said:


> The problem with that is that it can be confused with the colloquial "ee" as in "beet" (بيت). That's why I prefer "ii."


In this case, it is better to find an equivalent pronunciation of a word such as:
Bay "khaleej" and then add the rest of consonants/or vowels .So, (*بيت*)would be 

*Bay.t *and the like


----------



## elroy

ayed said:


> In this case, it is better to find a closer pronunciation of a word such as:
> Bay "khalee" and then add the rest of consonants/or vowels .So, (*بيت*)would be
> 
> *Bay.t *and the like


 That is not the colloquial pronunciation though (at least not mine). "Bayt" is MSA.


----------

