# Transliteration



## Josh_

*Moderator note:*
*The first 12 posts of this thread are split from this thread. Please, everybody, remember to open new threads for side discussions. Thanks *

I know this is off topic, but I just wanted to add that yes, transliterations can be bad if there is no uniformity and everyone uses their own transliteration scheme. But if the transliteration scheme is clear, concise, every letter is represented by one symbol, then it can be an invaluable tool to aid in pronunciation. For MSA we (sort of) have a uniform transliteration scheme on this forum, but of course, not everyone adheres to it. Further, the Arabic alphabet is perfectly suited to represent MSA, but it is ill-suited to handle the many phonological changes that occur in colloquial. These can be better represented by using the Latin alphabet.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

This is a valid and well constructed point Josh. Should there be an consistent system as our premise and there is no ambiguity in the symbols used, then this would indeed be an invaluable tool for pronounciation of colloquial Arabic.

However, for الفصحى we should use the Arabic script for reasons that are intuitive as well as ones that are not. An example of this relates to the spelling of certain words. Further clarification will be given if requested.

Ibn Monjur


----------



## Josh_

Hello Ibn Monjur,

Definitely, if someone wants to learn الفصحى he/she needs to learn the Arabic alphabet and become completely familiar with it, but that does not invalidate the utility of transliteration as a teaching tool.  There are a number of reasons to use transliteration for instructive purposes.  One benefit, I believe, is that a non-native speaker seeing an Arabic word in transliteration, that is in the alphabet he/she is most familiar with, can really visualize and internalize the pronunciation of an Arabic word.  Another reason to use transliteration (when starting out, anyway) is because Arabic is not normally written with vowels so seeing the word as it is normally written and then seeing the transliteration can help clear up any ambiguity (and of course, help committ the pronunciation of that word in the to memory).  A minor reason to use transliteration, on the forum anyway, is because  writing in all the vowels is really time-consuming (for me, at least), more so than writing the Arabic text and the transliteration thereof. 

After writing the above paragraph I just remembered this old thread in which I posted some of my thoughts on transliteration as a teaching tool.  Many of the things I wrote in that thread I related here in this thread, almost word for word.  That was unintentional.  I guess the ideas, and the words used to express those ideas, are burned in my brain.

As far as the Arabic script needed because of the spelling of certain words you could expound on that idea more if you want to because, as far as I can see, transliteration can be used to represent the pronunciation of any word.


To the moderators:  Feel free to move this side discussion to its own thread if deemed appropriate.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Hi Josh.

I am 100% in agreement with you that transliteration can and is a very powerful tool in achieving the correct pronunciation. 

However, as one progresses in the language, it is better to start being familiar with the Arabic script. (At least in my humble opinion)

For example, how would كذلك be written in transliteration? What about هذه? (Is there a distinction made in the transliteration that there are silent alifs here?)

Now let us take a more interesting example.

If one was to place the word مرأة in the middle of a sentence, (the purpose of this is so that it does not change to a ه) how would one write this in transliteration? Would the transliteration be the same if it was spelt مرأت ? As a note, both these spellings have been used in older classical texts and I have read an interesting explanation to the difference in meaning! 

So, in terms of starting and acquiring the correct pronunciation then I agree 100%. But, with time, I think it is better to dispose of it.

Again, this analysis is targetted at Classical and Modern Standard Arabic.

What do you think?


----------



## Josh_

Please note that I am not arguing for not learning the Arabic script (as I said earlier, one needs to), but just that the utility of transliteration cannot be denied (in my opinion).  As one progresses, transliteration should be less and less relied upon, if it was used at all.

Also, before I answer your questions I want to mention that my preferred transliteration is fairly close to the unofficial official transliteration of the forum, but differs from it (namely, I am not a fan of numbers in transliteration).  But since we are using the forum I will use the one used here.



> For example, how would كذلك be written in transliteration? What about هذه? (Is there a distinction made in the transliteration that there are silent alifs here?)


I assume by silent alif you mean the unwritten alif, الألف الصغير in Arabic, sometimes called the _dagger alif_ in English?  I would write those words as _ka-dhaalik_a and _haadhihi_ respectively.  Transliteration should be based on pronunciation and not spelling.  Long vowels are written with two vowels side by side wherever they occur and short vowels are written with one vowel wherever they occur.  ا is represented by _aa_, ي by _ii_, و by _uu_, َ as _a_, ِ as _i_, and ُ _u_.  

As for مرأة I would write in as mar2a, mar2atun, mar2atin, or mar2atan depending on its position in a sentence.  I have never seen مرأت, but like with any other word, I would spell it how it sounds and based on its function in any given sentence.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

It seems that we can agree that in terms of pronunciation, transliteration is fine. However, it will fail to capture the full essence in terms of spelling as transliteration is based on sounds. Hence, there being no difference in the spelling of هاذه and هذه as well as مرأة and مرأت.

This was my original point about spelling in my first post of this thread.


Josh_ said:


> As for مرأة I would write in as mar2a, mar2atun, mar2atin, or mar2atan depending on its position in a sentence.


If we were to transliterate (by pronunciation) then shouldn't this be mar2ah according to your transliteration system? Otherwise, when converting back to the Arabic script, will we not write it مرأَ with a َ on the همزةِالقطعِ?


----------



## clevermizo

Ibn Monjur said:


> If we were to transliterate (by pronunciation) then shouldn't this be mar2ah according to your transliteration system? Otherwise, when converting back to the Arabic script, will we not write it مرأَ with a َ on the همزةِالقطعِ?



A transliteration system used in conjunction with learning Arabic script does not necessarily have to lend itself to converting back and forth. 

It depends on the point of your system. For example, in another recent thread, I wrote the sentence _ruu7 sbit wjuudak_ ("Go, make an appearance," Syrian dialect), and when Elroy added his Palestinian equivalent, _ruu7 2ithbet iwjuudak_, he wrote in an epenthetic vowel _i_ which allows proper liaison between the words _2ithbet_ and _wjuudak_. This vowel is also there in the Syrian sentence, but I chose not to include it because it is not phonemic. Elroy tries to capture every feature in his transcriptions, whereas I have a broader style.

In other words, you can have transcriptions that are extremely broad or narrow depending on what is more important to you. In the case of المرأة, I would not transliterate it as _al-mar2a*h* _with a *h* at the end, because a *h* is not really pronounced (at least not by anyone I know). However, even if the point of my system was to provide a one-to-one correlary for Arabic script, neither would I write *h* as it would lead to confusion with a spelling المرأه rather than المرأة. I might have to invent another symbol for the تاء مربوطة. 

Note, that last point is not silly - creating transliteration systems that convert directly from native characters has lots of uses in computing applications when it is impossible to use Arabic script in your code. However, I don't think such a system has much pedagogical import.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Hello clevermizo

Yes, I agree with the fact that it depends on the purpose of such transliteration. If one was creating it for the purpose of pronunciation then this naturally will lend itself to complications in the spelling department. This was my original point.

If one wanted to incorporate as much as possible in the transliteration and make it exhaustive (in order to achieve perfect harmonisation) then one must resort to the creation of new symbols. This is as you said, "*I might have to invent another symbol for the **تاءمربوطة*".


clevermizo said:


> However, even if the point of my system was to provide a one-to-one correlary for Arabic script, neither would I write *h* as it would lead to confusion with a spelling المرأه rather than المرأة. I might have to invent another symbol for the تاء مربوطة.


In some classical texts, namely the Qur'an, it is incumbent to pronounce this "h". If it is not, then this will constitute an error. (Within the scope of reading the Qur'an correctly!)
This also makes sense logically, as grammatically speaking, if we were to omit its pronunciation, then it is actually the masculine version (mar2un?) in a state of نصب. Hence, the meaning is changed.

I also see its uses in the computer industry. However, for this to be able to work, one needs, as you mentioned a "1-1" map but also needs this map to be "onto" and thus creating an "isomorphism" between the set "Arabic script" and "the script we are transliterating to" (For this case it is Latin plus some numbers). However, if no such isomorphism exists then the computer will be forced into errors. ie. mar2a to مرأَ.


clevermizo said:


> In fact, it's actually good that the spelling _mar2a_ is a little ambiguous, because it forces you to memorize whether it is مرأة or مرأ or something different. A little ambiguity when you're learning makes you check everything twice, at least if you're fastidious.


If one memorised the spelling of this in the Arabic script, there is no need to memorise it again in the Latin one. One would automatically check for the way it was spelt, otherwise one would not be able to even write it down on the page.

However, I still maintain that it is a great way of pronunciation and writing all the vowels in the Arabic script can prove laborious.

Ibn Monjur


----------



## clevermizo

Ibn Monjur said:


> If one memorised the spelling of this in the Arabic script, there is no need to memorise it again in the Latin one. One would automatically check for the way it was spelt, otherwise one would not be able to even write it down on the page.
> 
> However, I still maintain that it is a great way of pronunciation and writing all the vowels in the Arabic script can prove laborious.


I agree; I was only referring to the transliteration as a pronunciation guide in this case.

At any rate, so that this doesn't veer terribly off topic, I think most users on this forum, when they see the transliterations _kaddaab_ and _kazzaab_ are thinking of the pronunciations كداب and كزاب and not of the standard كذاب. So the transliteration works more than adequately for most of us here.


----------



## Josh_

Ibn Monjur said:
			
		

> It seems that we can agree that in terms of pronunciation, transliteration is fine. However, it will fail to capture the full essence in terms of spelling as transliteration is based on sounds. Hence, there being no difference in the spelling of هاذه and هذه as well as مرأة and مرأت.



I see what you're saying, but I think you are misunderstanding me, so I wanted to point out that I am not advocating the use of transliteration instead of the Arabic script, but, as Clevermizo noted, in conjunction with it; as a supplemental aid, as it were.  The only time transliteration could be used by itself is when learning colloquial.  If you use transliteration with the Arabic script then there is no ambiguity as to waht the Latin letters are referring to, and what the sentence means.

Let's take a sentence for example:

 ان الطفل كريم. 


Now I chose this sentence, and intentionally left out the hamza on _inna_ (which occurs frequently in Arabic text), because it is a perfect example of how ambiguous Arabic can be at times. Without Harakaat this sentence can be read two ways.  It can be read as "_The boy is generous_," (what most people will automatically read it as) but it can also read as "The boy moaned like a mountain goat."  Here's the breakdown:


  إنَّ الطفلَ كريمٌ 
inna 'T-Tifla kariimun
The boy is generous

  أنَّ الطفلُ كريمٍ (أي أنَّ مثل ريم) 
anna 'T-Tiflu ka-riimin
The boy moaned like a mountain goat.

So if Harakaat are not available, then transliteration (right underneath the Arabic text) can be helpful.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Josh_ said:


> I see what you're saying, but I think you are misunderstanding me, so I wanted to point out that I am not advocating the use of transliteration instead of the Arabic script, but, as Clevermizo noted, in conjunction with it; as a supplemental aid, as it were. The only time transliteration could be used by itself is when learning colloquial. If you use transliteration with the Arabic script then there is no ambiguity as to waht the Latin letters are referring to, and what the sentence means.


 
I agree with this statement fully! 

In terms, of the example, I always try to put some Harakaat in as that would clarify the meaning straightaway. I always endeavour to add the hamzah too!

If the context does not give rise to the intended meaning, then the addition of tashkeel helps a GREAT DEAL.

For example;

ابن الرجل الوسيم طويل

This would cause a great deal of problem should we wish to translate it. Since, there is no context, the adjective الوسيم could refer to the man or the boy depending on what case it takes.

I wonder if there are more sentences like that. It would actually make us think about the grammatical structure to a deeper level? Do you have any more? 

I wonder if there is already another thread for this, or can we start one?


----------



## Josh_

I also always try to write the hamza wherever it should be written.  I have a few Arabic learning resources in which the hamza is left out.  I don't know why they do this, it can be misleading to learners.  In fact, the Hans Wehr (arguably one of the best Arabic-English dictionaries) is one of them.  Maybe it's to save ink.

I also try to write in the تشكيل when I think there may be ambiguity.

Anyway, I imagine, if one were ambitious enough, one could come up with more sentences like the one I provided.  As a lover of reference books I actually own a dictionary of Arabic homonyms.  Looking into that, maybe I could come up with some of my own sentences.  Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for the sentence I provided.  I actually heard it from one of my Arabic professors. 

The only other (somewhat) comparable example I can think of off hand that relies on proper تشكيل and إعراب for understanding is one given to us by our very own dear moderator, Elroy.  It is:

جمال جمال جمال

These things are best related as riddles, so rather than explaining the answer here I will let you try to figure it out.  I will provide the answer below in white-colored letters between the dotted lines.  Just highlight the words with your cursor to see what it is supposed to say, if you can't figure it out.

-------------------------
l
جَمالُ جِمالِ جَمّالٍ

jamaalu jimaali jammaalin
The beauty of the camels of a cameleer.
-------------------------


----------



## Mahaodeh

There was a sign I used to see in Baghdad near the University, it says: مكتبة جامعة بغداد الثانية; I remember noting when I first so it that how can we tell which is the second, is it the Library, the University or Baghdad? However, I don't think adding 7arakat will do much good here, you will just have to figure it out from either the context or your previous knowledge.

Edit: On second thoughts, if it's sifa it won't do much diference but if it's iDafa then it would.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

I think the Harakaat will be really useful here and will give us the meaning straightaway.

مكتبةُ جامعةِ بغدادَ الثانية

So if الثانية had a ضمة on the end then it (an adjective) would relate to the library and if it had a كسرة, it would relate to the university or Baghdad but I doubt it would be that since from context, it cannot be "the second Baghdad".

Please find a grammatical breakdown of this below if it was a ضمة

*مكتبةُ جامعةِ بغدادَ الثانيةُ*

 " مكتبةُ " اسمٌ مرفوعٌ وعلامةُ رفعِهِ الضمةُ ومضافٌ

 " جامعةِ " مضافٌ إليهِ مجرورٌ وعلامةُ جرِهِ الكسرةُ ومضافٌ

" بغدادَ " مضافٌ إليهِ مجرورٌ وعلامةُ جرِهِ الفتحة  لأنه ممنوعٌ من الصرفِ

" الثانيةُ " صفةٌ للمكتبةِ مرفوعٌ وعلامةُ رفعِهِ الضمةُ

Using this breadown, the sentence would translate to, "*The second library of the Univerisity of Baghdad*".

I hope that breakdown helps.

ابن منظـــور


----------



## suma

I would disagree vehemently with regard to the utility of transliteration for even colloquial Arabic.
Especially so for English speakers, since our spelling conventions do not accurately reflect the sounds and pronounciation of English, how then could we expect to use the same alphabet and writing styles we are familiar with to accurately represent Arabic speech?

Only well trained linguists who are familiar with the phonetic alphabet would do justice to transliteration.


----------



## Josh_

Well, if you reference my first post you will note that I said that transliteration can be bad if there is no uniformity.  This not only includes letters or other symbols used to represent the sounds, but also an explanation of the sounds that the symbols are supposed to represent.  If there is no explanation of the sounds used and one were transliterating haphazardly using the first symbol to come to his/her mind, then I would tend to agree. But with a well constructed explanation of what sounds represent what symbols I believe there is little ambiguity. 

Without exception every single academic resource I have seen that makes use of transliteration (Arabic and otherwise), has copious explanatory notes on what sounds the Latin letters are supposed to represent (or the closest approximations) as it concerns the language represented.  By familiarizing oneself with the transliteration system and the sounds the symbols represent there should be little confusion as to what a symbol is supposed to sound like within the given framework.  I can PM you some images of a transliteration scheme explained if you would like, so you can see what I mean.

Perhaps we could compare it to a legend on a map. We would not know that a thick red is supposed to represent an interstate highway, a thin red line represents a state highway, squiggly green lines represent a swampy area, brown dots represent sand dunes, a dotted line represents a walking path, or the myriad number of other symbols that can occur on maps, without an explanation of what the different symbols mean.

So in essence, yes, in addition to choosing appropriate symbols for a transliteration scheme we need to give meaning to those symbols chosen in order for them to make sense, otherwise we are just shooting in the dark.


----------



## suma

That's true Josh, but in my experience none but the very bookish academicians bother to learn the transliteration scheme. Most folks just spell or pronounce things according to their own conventions.

Most recently take for example the various spellings and pronounciations of the infamous prison in Iraq: AbuGhraib, Aboo Qraib, Abu Greb, Abughreib, abuqarib, 

Or even: al-Qaeda, Qa'ida (pronounced by most as al-Kayda) or Kaa-eeda


----------



## Josh_

That's all right for the lay person, or the casual reader who does not have any need to know the exact pronunciation of an Arabic word.  But it would behoove any person serious about learning Arabic, and using a book that uses transliteration, to become familiar with that transliteration.  In my experience it is not that hard. 

Since this forum is meant to help learners of Arabic it would be nice if every one used the same transliteration scheme, but unfortunately this is not the case.   So, as far as the forum is concerned, transliteration may not be an effective tool.

I am only advocating for a precise transliteration in a serious learning setting, not a casual reading session.  Also, I want to point out that I am not advocating that transliteration should be used to learn Arabic, but that if a learner would find it helpful he/she could make use of one.  In my experiences it has been immensely helpful.


----------



## Andrew___

I completely agree with Josh.   When writing new words in my notebook I often add the English transliteration beside the Arabic simply to help remember the word.  

I think it helps, because the mind benefits from seeing the word in different forms and from different angles.  As it is used to processing things in English, is likely to remember the word better this way.  For this reason I don't like using numbers, because it is counterproductive from the memorization point of view!

It is a shame that there is no unified transliteration system, however let's not exaggerate - it's usually pretty obvious really.  The only big exception are people who write the ع as a ' (which can easily confuse with ء) and people who never distinguish between long vowels and short vowels (for example who would write مكان makan.  This really annoys me! )


----------



## Ander

Al Sulhafa said:


> For this reason I don't like using numbers, because it is counterproductive from the memorization point of view



I agree with you.



> It is a shame that there is no unified transliteration system


I don't agree with you. In academic teaching the transliteration of Arabic is more or less the same in English, French and German.
Take modern textbooks of Arabic and you will see.

The few differences that still exist don't disturb people used to the stydy of languages.


----------



## besalt

An example in my own experience. I learned Hebrew as a kid. In my retirement years I wanted to renew my knowledge and since I only learned to read and write and not much translation into English, I found the Webster New World Dictionary Hebrew to English a huge help. For so long , it's just easier to ease into reading Hebrew by thinking of words in terms of the English characters for the sounds and use the English order to look it up. 

I think I'm going to do the same with Arabic. I want to first get an English ordered alphabet with the Arabic character. I already know how to manage languages my own way. This would work for me immediately. That way I could practice writing and reading Arabic thinking English sounds and transliterating. 

I also just started thinking this way last month. Yesterday, I look at Arabic cursively and suddenly it all looked like my Gregg Shorthand. So I can customize my own learning with my life learned tools. Since I learned Hebrew young, reading from right to left is a nobrainer and never has been.


----------



## clevermizo

suma said:


> Especially so for English speakers, since our spelling conventions do not accurately reflect the sounds and pronounciation of English, how then could we expect to use the same alphabet and writing styles we are familiar with to accurately represent Arabic speech?


Well, we have to divorce using Latin characters from "English," which I admit may be difficult for many to do. But as to its benefit in colloquial Arabic - for one, colloquial Arabic often has more vowels than standard Arabic, which are subject to different grammatical processes. Secondly, there is no standard way to spell many colloquial words in Arabic script. Transliteration is often very helpful. A process such as: byuTl*o*b but byuTl*u*ba where [o] changes to [u] upon addition of the suffix -a in Lebanese Arabic would be difficult to describe fully with only Arabic script, even with full vowelling. 

I suppose on the flip-side, you could learn that if Damma ُـُ is post-tonic it is [o] and if it is stressed or pretonic it is [u], and if kasra ـِ is post-tonic it is [e] and if stressed or pretonic it is _, but that might be taxing for the new learner._


----------



## psxws

clevermizo said:


> In other words, you can have transcriptions that are extremely broad or narrow depending on what is more important to you. In the case of المرأة, I would not transliterate it as _al-mar2a*h* _with a *h* at the end, because a *h* is not really pronounced (at least not by anyone I know).



Actually, it is probably pronounced even by you, though you don't notice it.
Record yourself saying any word that ends in a vowel مدينة مكتبة or even in English or Spanish, (try taco) then play it backwards. You'd be surprised as to what you'll find in the beginning 

Same goes for words starting with a vowel. More likely than not when reversing it it will start with a hamza.


----------



## clevermizo

psxws said:


> You'd be surprised as to what you'll find in the beginning



That's an artifact of pronunciation, not a phoneme or at all an integral part of the word and it is different from what was described above as a mandatory part of some Qur'anic reading traditions. The reason that this 'h' occurs is because vowels start their production in the glottis, so obviously there is some friction in the glottis (voiceless or voiced ). As you finish a word, the voicing time has some duration. You continue pronunciation milliseconds after the voicing has ceased (because there is no stop consonant to , well, stop it). This is more-or-less inaudible without a following segment. I would not call this , but rather voiceless [a] (a whispered sound before you completely stop sound production).

When you play it in reverse, you hear the voiceless segment more clearly because it has a following segment, the voiced [a] sound in reverse. Thus you are likely to hear something that sounds like an .

If you say the word [taco] in a natural way a number of times in a row, the magnitude and duration of this  in the reverse waveform will vary quite a bit I imagine, from near total absence to its presence. This is markedly different from a sound which is perceived as an integral part of the word. If you try (and you can) to pronounce [taco*h*], the waveform even in reverse will look quite different. 

I do not think that reversing waveforms to reveal linguistically insignificant (though not phonetically insignificant) artifacts of sound production is of particular importance here.


----------



## hiba

There is a decent Wikipedia article for this issue. It has resources for standards of transliteration. There are several ways to go about it. I can't post a link.. just search for 'Arabic transliteration' on the site.


----------



## psxws

Clevermizo, I am aware that it is not phonemically significant but I assumed that this is the reason that the ta marbuta looks like a هاء, my understanding was that the letter was created due to the fact that it would be pronounced as an تاء in some contexts and in others as a هاء.

So I know that it is strictly phonetic but I assumed upon reading this that this was a phonetic distinction that classical Arabs could discern.


----------



## Tilmeedh

My two cents:

As a blind learner of Arabic, I always find the inclusion of transliterations very helfpul. The screenreading program I use reads the Arabic script imperfectly, and I find it a bit frustrating when I would like to file something away in the language compartment of my brain but cannot do so because I have no idea how to pronounce the word or expression correctly.

So, if whenever you write in Arabic you include as precise a transliteration as possible I would be much obliged.


----------



## MarcB

This is very important Tilmeedh. How does your program pronounce the vowels, and the consonants that do not exist in English? As you know bint and bent both represent girl.


----------



## Tilmeedh

If you mean in transliteration, it reads the doubled vowels in a way that's hard to convey over the Internet, or, if they have diacritics, it may read the accent (e.g., â = a circumflex for alif) or may not (e.g., if the accent used is a macron). In the case of foreign consonants, it reads them as best it can: 2 (hamza), 3 (3ayn), and 7 (7a) as numbers, and H (7a)/S (Sad)/D (Dad)/T (Ta)/Z (Za) as the capitalized equivalents of the respective letters.

If you mean in the Arabic script, the following might be informative:

In the table below I try to show how JAWS, my screenreading program, reads each Arabic letter by including (real or hypothetical) English words as pronounced by a native speaker of the "standard" American or Canadian variety. In these English "words", h after a vowel is not pronounced; e.g., beh is bed without the d.

Arabic letter = How JAWS reads it
أ = [silence]
ا = a leff
ب = beh
ت = teh
ث = theh
ج = jeem
ح = hah
خ = kah
د = dahl
ذ = thahl (reading it dhahl would be better)
ر = reh
ز = zie (rhymes with tie; zane would be better)
س = seen
ش = sheen
ص = sad
ض = dad
ط = tah
ظ = zah
ع = ain (rhymes with aim)
غ = gain
ف = feh
ق = calf
ك = calf (no distinction between this and the preceding letter)
ل = lamb
م = meme
ن = noon
ه = heh
و = wow
ي = yeh

short vowels (when included), shedda, sukûn = not read at all

Hope this helps and wasn't too ghamaD.


----------

