Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
- If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
أهلا وسهلا بك في ويكاموس. شكرا لمساهماتك. أتمنى أن يروقك هذا الفضاء وأن تقرر المساهمة على الدوام. هذه وصلات مفيدة للمشاركين الجدد:
- دليل ويكاموس
- كيف أحرر صفحة ما
- كيف أنشئ صفحة ما
- منهاج التنسيق
- معايير قبول الصفحات
- ساحة لعب ويكاموس (حيث يمكنك تجريب الصيغ بأمان)
- ويكاموس ليس ...
- أسئلة مكررة
أتمنى أن تستمتع بالمساهمة هنا وبانضمامك إلى فريق الويكاموسيين! بالمناسبة، يمكنك التوقيع باسمك في صفحات النقاش والتصويت باستعمال أربع موجات، هكذا ~~~~، تولد هذه الصيغة اسمك وتاريخ التحرير آليا. إذا كان لديك أي سؤال، اطلع على صفحات المساعدة ولا تتردد في طرحه على الميدان أو علي مباشرة في صفحة نقاشي. مرة أخرى، أهلا بك!
I can you see you know Arabic. Welcome on board. Anatoli 01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about fr: (I'm pretty sure the policy's the same), but at en:, there is a strict "Interlanguage link go only to the exact same word" policy. Circeus 10:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, didn't know about that. Thanks. --Beru7 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Beru7, did you have any luck with your editor? Perhaps it's worth adding additional letter/number combinations for the complex stuff. I have been looking for the easy tool to enter vowelised Arabic. It is handy. Anatoli 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't fixed the bug you found yet. What complex stuff are you talking about ? Beru7 10:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean لأ or لإ or other you may come across. If you use l2a or l2i for those, it may work but I haven't studied your code. Anatoli 11:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please talk to User_talk:Aghniyya about the romanisation. You have different views about the romanisation. I have invited Aghniyya to your romanisation proposal but he hasn't replied. Anyway, we need to agree how to romanise, so that we could also your tool efficiently. Anatoli 22:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with what you're saying about romanization. These are all just your own personal judgments. None of what you say is back up by normal scholarly practice in English language books. The gold standard of Arabic translation, which all Anglophone Arabic learners are told to buy in their classes, is the Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary. This dictionary uses two forms of an apostrophe to indicate the ayn and the hamza (similar to ' and `), and it simply uses "a" for taa marbuuta.
- There is not a single scholarly transliteration system that uses your suggestions, at least none that I've ever seen in any of the many books I've read (I'm a grad student in Mideast studies). There are a couple ways of expressing the ayn, but a 3 is never used, except in chat, which is not a scholarly system. Secondly, "a(t)" is never used at all. The reason why it is not, I think, is that this makes an unnecessary point about grammar. Yes, the taa marbuuta is untied in an idaafa. But you need to know Arabic grammar to know what an idaafa is at all! The point of a translation is not to teach Arabic grammar, just to the give the word. --Aghniyya 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please continue the discussion Wiktionary_talk:About_Arabic#Romanization_proposal. We need to have some standard. Anatoli
- We should add Category:Arabic roots if the root is the same as the page name, indeed ! Beru7 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Romanisation of `ayn (ع)
I see you correcting the عمان entry, meaning that you insist on using 3. The number 3 causes problem if there are more than one transliteration starting with it, the display becomes really screwed. Anatoli 03:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Show me the problems and I'll fix them. There is no problem on عمان. Right now 3 is what should be used. I've been wanting to change that, but cannot get any support from you except for `, which is not acceptable in my opinion, nor in Stephen G. Brown's, for reasons that have been explained over and over.
- By the way... Publicly supporting a policy and then, a few weeks later, deliberately violating it in an attempt to have it changed is not very honest in my opinion, and not in the spirit of the wiktionary, either. Beru7 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think you are too harsh on me? I always talked nicely to you and it doesn't cost much. You mostly ignore my questions in your talk page or in the Arabic transliteration page. I asked and waited before changing عمان. Yes, I had issues with numbers and I still think 3 may not be the best option. You were away for too long and I am keen to keep adding Arabic translations, whether I get answers to my questions or not. Nevertheless, I see the need to have some formal standards of romanisation. Let's try and discuss how we can do it without hurting each other. Again, if you ignore me again, I'll have no choice but to do what seems to be right. Perhaps, the standards should be discussed with a broader audience and with a vote. Although, in my opinion, only the active editors should have the decisive vote. Anatoli 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not trying to be harsh but see no point in repeating the same arguments over and over. This has been discussed on "about arabic", in the beer parlour, on aghniyya's page... and basically, your main argument has been that you prefer ` , which is simply not relevant to the discussion. So yes, I stopped talking to you about this topic specifically. If you have something to say, then say it ! 126.96.36.199 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Arabic pages for deletion
- Thanks for deleting these at last ! Beru7 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Beru7. Just wanted to say hi. --Meno25 09:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, hi, then ! Beru7 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we please not use such an ugly system of transliteration for Arabic? For one thing, Arabic is the only language on here that we don't use a more scientific approach for. Just because it's easier to type 7alaaS, that doesn't mean it's better. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- there is nothing "unscientific" about the transliteration system we use. It is, in fact, in use in some reference books I own. It even has a name: qalam. It also maps the arabic spelling quite unambiguously, in this regard it does as well as the DIN system. The only problem I see with it is the use of 3 for ع, simply because it is controversial. Unfortunately most alternatives use symbols that are very nearly identical to the ones used form ء, and barely distinguishable from each other on a computer screen. That is why we (mainly Stephen G. Brown and I) ended up choosing "3". At one point, fed up with the controversy, I proposed that we use ʕ or even ɛ, but it was rejected by the ` die-hards so we ended up with status-quo.
- Now I understand this system is not to the taste of everyone (you, for example, find it "ugly" !), but believe me, no arabic transliteration system is. Even in the "reference" dictionary, Hans Wehr's, different editions use different symbols for some letters. Beru7 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just think it looks silly to use mixed up numbers and lowercase and capital letters... it looks so amateurish to me. :( That's my main problem with what we have currently. I also prefer to use symbols like those in the IPA, because they're easier to tell apart from each other. Sometimes I mix up the letters ح and خ, and it would be nice to not have to worry about stuff like that... If nobody can agree on a currently existing system, I wouldn't mind working on something new. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks amateurish to you but have a look at this: A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic, written by Pr. Ryding of Georgetown university. It is pretty much the standard arabic grammar written in english today, and it uses a system close to ours. Except for the number 3 which we should change as soon as we reach a consensus, but there are very few arabic editors right now. The lower/upper case use is very common, including in scientific literature. You can ask Stephen Brown's opinion on this if you still do not believe me !
- To reply to your example, خ and ج are transliterated to kh and j respectively, which is as natural as it gets for westerners. Contrast this to the DIN system which uses ḥ for ح, ḫ for خ and h for ه. Converting to an IPA-ish system would be even stranger and unusual for people who are used to reading arabic scientific literature written in western languages. Beru7 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oops I didn't mean ج, but ح. I have a hard time remembering which of ح and خ is /ħ/ and which is /x/. It's not that I don't believe that the system with simplified characters is used. My issue is how casual and mutable it is. IPA symbols are easy to use for transliteration, but not all 'fancy' systems use IPA symbols. For example, we have our system for Hindi which is based on IAST, see WT:HI TR.
- For what it's worth, in many Routledge publications on Standard Arabic, systems with diacritics are more frequently used than simplified systems - and Routledge gets serious with their language materials. I also think the systems with diacritics look more serious. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- More serious but harder to type. That's all what this is about. Lazy Arabic contributors :D --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this discussion on "seriousness" is quite pointless because, because it relies on the very subjective notion each of you has of what looks serious. The system we use might not look serious to some of you, but it is serious.
- it has a precise mapping for each arabic letter - no ambiguity. That also means it can be machine-translated to nearly any other system.
- it is actually used in scientific publications
- whenever possible, it also uses common transliterations, that most people will recognize because they're used in the press and elsewhere. This is important because wiktionary is not for linguists. Linguists do not read wiktionary. I know many and believe me they don't care at all about us. "ordinary" people are the ones who read us, mostly.
- it's easy to type, true, and I think it's a nice bonus to all of the above.
Now I have made these points over and over and will not reply anymore to anyone who doesn't have better arguments than "I don't like it", "I think it's ugly", "it doesn't look serious", or "that's not how it is in my favorite dictionary". Let us get serious, folks ! Beru7 11:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- "This is important because wiktionary is not for linguists. Linguists do not read wiktionary." This is one of the silliest things I've ever read, and I'm now thoroughly convinced that you are unwilling to hear or take seriously other points of view. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is silly, ok, fine. I have met mostly amateurs and hobbyists here, but if I am wrong, I am wrong, sorry. At least I have tried to answer your points seriously. I just wish you had done the same. But whatever, just keep on mixing randomly 10 systems of transliteration with IPA, if that looks more serious to you. Beru7 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I speedy deleted this as fundamentally against the principles of Wiktionary. If the Egyptian Arabic exists it can have a section; otherwise it may not. It would be like deleting Middle English entries because they have the same meaning as Modern English. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)