# Hebrew transliteration to Arabic



## jdotjdot89

(Feel free to respond to this in English or Hebrew; I write in in English so all forum-visitors will understand this.)

I was looking at the website of the Academy of the Hebrew Language today because I was curious at some of the choices for official transliterations.  Does anyone know why:



צ is transliterated as تس instead of as ص, which is really more correct?  Or even څ, from Pashto?  And backwards, ص is transliterated as ס' instead of as צ', which should really be, as צ was originally velarized?
Same question for ط and ט - why isn't ט transliterated as ط, given that ט was originally velarized?  ק and ق are transliterated as each other, even though absolutely no one pronounces ק that way.  (Note: from Arabic to Hebrew, it is transliterated as I would expect-- from ط to ט.)
ג is transliterated as چ, which doesn't even make that sound in the language it comes from, Pashto?  ج would have achieved the same thing in most dialects.  (or have I answered my own question here, because in Palestinian Arabic it makes a "j" sound)
Better question--why isn't ג just transliterated as گ, from Farsi, which _always_ makes that sound?  Or ګ, from Pashto?
Relevant documents can be found here.


----------



## elroy

Of course, I am not the one who made these decisions, but here are the reasons I _suspect_ are behind them:

Because we are dealing with *Modern* Hebrew here. In Modern Hebrew, צ is pronounced تس and not ص. As for transliterating ص, that sound does not exist in Modern Hebrew, and ס - not צ - is the closest approximation. 
Again, ט is not pronounced ط in Modern Hebrew, but ت. The ط sound does not exist in Modern Hebrew so theoretically it could be transliterated as ת or ט, since both are just approximations that sound the same as each other, but I guess ט was chosen because it is closer etymologically.
I don't know any Pashto, but in Arabic, چ is frequently used to represent the ג sound. Contrary to what you imply, ج is not pronounced ג in most dialects; Egyptian is probably the only one in which it is. It is pronounced _j_ or _dj_ in both standard Arabic and the majority of dialects.
Neither of those graphemes is ever used in Arabic to represent foreign sounds, so most Arabic speakers would be confused. چ, on the other hand, is widely familiar. 
I suppose I could sum up my thoughts by saying that I think the official transliteration rules were guided above all by practical considerations, as opposed to etymological or purely linguistic ones.

Note: What I don't have an explanation for - besides an etymological one - is why the official transliteration of ק is ق, given that ק is actually pronounced ك, but I can tell you that this "rule" is often violated in real life (on road signs, for example).  That ق is transliterated as ק is not surprising, as the ق sound does not exist in Modern Hebrew so only an approximation can be used (cf. ط).


----------



## jdotjdot89

Your answers all fit with what had been my original guesses, except one:

I wasn't aware that Arabic-speakers had any more familiarity with چ than they would with any other Persian add-ons (or for that matter, any other language's).  If that is the case, is it also that Arabic-speakers tend already to have been familiar with پ orۋ) ۋ especially surprises me, given it's from Uighur).  For that matter, when is چ used among Arabic-speakers, that it would be familiar and have taken on a /g/ sound rather than its original sound?  That's very interesting to me.

I'm curious--are you familiar with څ? It makes the sound of צ or تس.


----------



## elroy

jdotjdot89 said:


> [...] is it also that Arabic-speakers tend already to have been familiar with پ orۋ) ۋ especially surprises me, given it's from Uighur).


 We are familiar with the former, which we use to transliterate the פ/_p_ sound, which does not exist in Arabic. But we do not use ۋ, but ڤ,to transliterate the _v_ sound. Are you saying that ۋ is the official transliteration of that sound? Because that would surprise me. I've only ever seen it transliterated as ڤ. 





> For that matter, when is چ used among Arabic-speakers, that it would be familiar and have taken on a /g/ sound rather than its original sound?


 It is used in words of foreign origin, to represent the ג sound. غ and ج are sometimes used as well, but only چ is always unambiguous.

Note: Some foreign words and names with a _g_ sound in the original language are spelled with a غ _and pronounced that way_, so the spelling is inflexible - for example, البرتغال (_Portugal_), غانا (_Ghana_), جغرافيا (_geography_). It's where the _g_ sound is retained that there is some flexibility. _Boeing_, for example, could be transliterated as بوينچ, بوينغ, or بوينج. According to Google, بوينغ is the most common, بوينج is a close second, and there are no results for بوينچ. Perhaps using چ to transliterate the ג sound is not common across the Arabic-speaking world, but it is in Israel.





> I'm curious--are you familiar with څ? It makes the sound of צ or تس.


 No.


----------



## jdotjdot89

I apologize.  ڤ is what I had meant to put.  When I copy-pasted the letter, the waw looked close enough that I thought it was that.  What you have is the official transliteration.

Perhaps then, I was also wrong about the origin of the letter.   When I was researching the origin of the character, I found what I had submitted with Uighur.  Looking for the _actual_ letter, the fa with three dots, I can't seem to find it anywhere.


----------



## elroy

It looks like it's used in Malay, but it's pronounced _p_ and not _v_.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Again, ט is not pronounced ط in Modern Hebrew, but ت. The ط sound does not exist in Modern Hebrew so theoretically it could be transliterated as ת or ט, since both are just approximations that sound the same as each other, but I guess ט was chosen because it is closer etymologically.


It might also be relevant as a background information that the modern Hebrew system to transliterate foreign languages is generally based on Ladino and Yiddish orthography (main difference being that א=/a/ and ע=/e/ has been dropped). Admittedly, this should be of little relevance for transliterating another Semitic language but it might nevertheless explain a few choices.

Both Ladino and Yiddish always use ט to transliterate /t/ and ק to transliterate /k/. As far as I know, Ladino doesn't use ת at all, except for Hebrew words (I know Ladino much less than Yiddish so take this with a grain of salt). In Yiddish, ת is normally pronounced /s/, the pronounciation /t/ occurs only in Hebrew words where is written with a dagesh. Similar with ק and כ .כ is normally pronounced "ch" like a chaf.


----------



## jdotjdot89

I am aware of Yiddish orthography, but don't think it the transliteration has much to do with it, for a variety of reasons.  I suspect it's mainly just a matter of working with how Modern Hebrew is actually spoken rather than dealing with etymological accuracy.  Also, do keep in mind both that Yiddish and Ladino are separate languages from Hebrew and that there was a huge anti-Yiddish movement in Israel for a very long time as the country began.


----------



## berndf

jdotjdot89 said:


> I am aware of Yiddish orthography, but don't think it the transliteration has much to do with it, for a variety of reasons. I suspect it's mainly just a matter of working with how Modern Hebrew is actually spoken rather than dealing with etymological accuracy. Also, do keep in mind both that Yiddish and Ladino are separate languages from Hebrew and that there was a huge anti-Yiddish movement in Israel for a very long time as the country began.


 
Absolutely, with the beginning of the Zionist movement, that is why Modern Hebrew pronunciation is based on Separdi rather than on Ashkenasi Hebrew. Yiddish and Ladino transliteration system are quite similar, I mentioned Yiddish because I know it better.
 
There was (or has been? Is it still alive? I have an old book teaching this writing system but have no idea if this is used anywhere today) a tradition to write Arabic with Aramaic/Hebrew letters long before the state of Israel. This tradition differentiated between ק and כ and between ט and ת according to the historic sound values of these letters. In addition it had many diacritical markings to represent the richer set of Arab phonemes.


----------



## jdotjdot89

elroy said:


> It looks like it's used in Malay, but it's pronounced _p_ and not _v_.



Interesting.

I guess some things are just to be left mysteries...


----------



## Flaminius

berndf said:


> There was (or has been? Is it still alive? I have an old book teaching this writing system but have no idea if this is used anywhere today) a tradition to write Arabic with Aramaic/Hebrew letters long before the state of Israel. This tradition differentiated between ק and כ and between ט and ת according to the historic sound values of these letters. In addition it had many diacritical markings to represent the richer set of Arab phonemes.



Here is a table of modifications to the Hebrew script as used for writing Judeo-Arabic.


----------



## berndf

Flaminius said:


> Here is a table of modifications to the Hebrew script as used for writing Judeo-Arabic.


 
Great, thank you so much!


----------

