User talk:Sameerhameedy/Archive/2023

Welcome

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 (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; 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.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Apisite (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Tajik

Please, dont consider Tajik as Persian, in this page they're considered different languages (even tho they're technically the same other than the script). btw the code of Tajik is tg. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There are almost no entries in tajik, it's just easiest to copy and paste persian definitions and then change the spelling. I think i just forgot to change the language code. Sameerhameedy (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok 👍 Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, where are you from? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well my parents are from Hazarajat (Afghanistan) and Karachi (Pakistan). I'm from the states. Sameerhameedy (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I am from Peru (and so does my parents) but I have interest in Asian and European languages Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

کابل

Wiktionary transliteration of Persian is based on the Iranian pronunciation, so it should be kâbol, not kâbul. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

But usually the Dari translation is used if the word is chiefly a Dari word and not really an Iranian Persian word. Usually it makes sense to use the Iranian transliteration, being the largest dialect. However It doesn't really make sense to list the Iranian spelling for a city in Afghanistan. Sameerhameedy (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

but u in the transliteration used here corresponds to the long u. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

کوبیدن

Could you add Dari IPA transcription? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Done! Though I cant figure out how to incorporate the [phonetic] transliterations into the fa-IPA template. I just left both for now, unless you think it's better to remove one of them. Sameerhameedy (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

ok 👍 Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Rollback in error

Sorry about the rollback. It was in error. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

کمونیسم

Hi, could you add an IPA transcription and translate the sample sentence from this entry. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Userpage

I recommend you to make a userpage so other users can know more about you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

زمرد

@Sameerhameedy: Could you add the IPA transcription of this word when you have time?, I would do it, but I don't know the Dari vocalization. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rodrigo5260: Done! -Sameerhameedy (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy: Thank you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

معنی

@Sameerhameedy: Sorry, it was a typo, didn't pay attention to it before (or even after) publishing my edit. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you are ok and nothing bad happened to you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's okay i'm fine, thank you though. I've just been busy recently. Sameerhameedy (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Zagreb

@Sameerhameedy I noticed the word for Zagreb in Pashto is زاګرېب (zâgréb), which seems to have been borrowed from English, so, I think the word for Zagreb in Dari would be something like زاگریب (zâgrêb), which seems to be used in Urdu, too. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Rodrigo5260 I just searching up how it's spelt by various news organizations; I can confirm DW Dari and Tolo News use the spelling زاگرب, pronounced Zâgrib. It seems the most common spelling is the same as Iranian Persian. I cannot find widespread usage of any other spellings. -Sameerhameedy (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

oh, I see. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Persian vocalisations of some special cases

Hi,

How would you vocalise قرون وسطی (fa) (qorun-e vostâ) (Middle Ages) if you had to when ی is pronounced "â"? Would you use zebar?

In Urdu they use یٰ as in قُرُونِ وُسْطیٰ (qurūn-e vust̤á) (Middle Ages), compare also مَشْرِقِ وُسْطیٰ (maśriq-e-vust̤á) (Middle East)?

I'll have more questions about pronunciations and vocalisations, if it's OK. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another question:

In Dari, there is apparently a distinction between a long and short and long "i" and "î", short and long "u" and "û".

Macron letters "ī" and "ū" will be replaced with "i" and "u". @Benwing2, correct me if I'm wrong.

Should symbols "î" and "û" be still used for Dari? Or it would make sense to ALWAYS use "î" and "û" for modern Iranian as well (و and ی are always long as vowels) to avoid any confusion?

I made some changes Wiktionary:Persian transliteration. It was then also edited by an IP. It looks OK but I'm afraid we don't have enough coverage for Dari and classical Persian.

Also, should words like اسپانیا be transliterated like "espâniya" or "espânya" for modern Iranian? Is "i" short here? Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev My script pre-canonicalizes all macron letters to circumflexes, so ī and ū will be replaced with î and û. Later on, î and û get replaced with i and u opposite ی and و respectively (and short i and u get replaced with o and e), if neither of the words "Dari" and "Classical" appear on the line. This replacement happens only in it's able to match the entire Persian script term with the corresponding translit. Benwing2 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 That's fine, but is there anyway to have alternate transliterations elsewhere, like in the pronunciation section? So speakers of Eastern dialects won't be as confused to see "i" or "u" representing a long vowel, or "e" and "o" as short vowels. -Sameerhameedy (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev I would vocalize قرون وسطی as قُرُونِ وُسطیٰ. In all fairness though, In Iran ـُو is often (but not consistently) used for ou/ow as و is always pronounced as ū/û in Iranian Persian. Also the "dagger alif" (/alef) diacritic in "یٰ" is not very common in writing, but afaik it's the only way to indicate that a ye should be pronounced as an Alif. Sometimes یَ will instead be used, but I believe that should be avoided as that causes confusion as to whether ye is acting as an alif (-â), or is paired with a short vowel (-ya). -Sameerhameedy (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It makes sense. BTW, I didn't receive your ping (notification). {{ping}} and your signature (~~~~) should be in the same edit. FYI, @Benwing2. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps safer to use قُرونِ وُسطیٰ without the 2nd zamme (pish) to avoid the reading "qorown-e vostâ"? Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that at Module:fa-translit/testcases کُروز correctly recognises as "koruz" but کُرُوز is misread as "korouz" (should be "korowz" per latest translit. conventions). It seems leaving و unmarked is the best way. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Audio Links

I think it would be a good idea for you record Persian words with Dari pronunciation (ofc only if you can and want), since all Persian audios on this page are Iranian, you can use the Record Wizard of LinguaLibre. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I would love too. However, I don't know if i'm comfortable recording my voice. Also growing up in the US my pronunciation may not be super accurate. I could possibly ask my family members, who grew up in Afghanistan, about recording pronunciations... Unless it has to be my own voice? Sameerhameedy (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedyok 👍 tho if you a make a relative record their voice make sure to indicate that is another speaker other than yours. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Vocalisation question

Hi. Should ملیت (melliyyat) be fully vocalised as مِلِّیَت or مِلّیَت? I don't think I can describe this case well, when a kasre/zir should be "e" and when "i" before ی + vowel (or less commonly a sokun, as in مریم).

I think the occurrence of "i" (not "e" before "yy" + vowel should be both in the translit and pronunciation modules, when it is described well. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about Iranian Persian but in Dari this would be مِلِّیَت /mɪllijat/. In Dari the diacritic zēr اِ is usually /ɪ/ except before /j/ in which case it is /iː/ or /ij/ (if the ی is acting as a consonant). Though in Iranian Persian اِی represents /ej/, I think it's different when ی is acting as a consonant. So I think in this situation it may be voiced the same as Dari. سَمِیر | sameer (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, normally اِی represents /ej/ (or "ey" in the translit), so this may be the exception, the case like اسپانیا (espâniyâ) we talked about earlier. If the rule is zēr + ye + vowel is (usually or in 90% of cases) "iy" + vowel, then it can be applied to the translit and pronunciation modules and the policy page. I understand there could be exceptions from that rule as well. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I've got another vocalisation question. Sokun seems to be disliked in the vocalisations or deemed unnecessary. What about words like لغو (lağv) or نحو (nahv), what are the popular options, assuming that sokun is normally unnecessary? is it لَغْوْ, لَغْو, لَغوْ or simply لَغو?

Most online Persian vocalisations lack sokun but it may still be necessary if we automate Persian translit/IPA. Do you (still) agree? I am not 100% sure if there should be definite cases where sokun would be redundant, like in Arabic final consonants (including w/y, if they are unambiguously consonants)

FYI, @Benwing2, hope you're still interested in working on Persian translit/IPA and headwords :) Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree their are situations where sukoon is necessary (I had to use sukoon for Module:fa-cls-translit else I couldn't get it to work properly)

as for your examples, not sure about Iranian Persian, but in Dari there is no real distinction between "w" and "ū", AFAIK. "w" is really just how "ū" is pronounced near other consonants. (like دیو "dew" is really pronounced as [deː.uː], but دیوانه is pronounced as ~/deː.wɑː.na/). as for لغو, that pronunciation was probably from an Iranian dictionary because it is pronounced lağwa/lağū in Dari.

For نحو I would probably vocalize it as نَحْو, as the sukoon marks that there is no following vowel, so the waw can't be a vowel because of it. نَحْوْ is also correct but the second sukoon is unnecessary, since vowel diacritics generally (excluding some very uncommon ones) indicate the following sound not the current one. سَمِیر | sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^بحث) 03:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes sense with نَحْو and I think it should be the same case with لَغْو, since in Iranian Persian, it's 'lağv', not 'lağva'. لَغْوَ would be for the Dari transliteration. In this case it's the same with Arabic, omitting the final sokun is OK, since it "و" can't be a vowel. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

So one correction, after asking my family members about the pronunciation, they all said they would read it as "lağū". So i'm not sure why so many Dari dictionaries say "lağwa", perhaps "lağwa" is standard but uncommon in speech? I listed both on the page. سَمِیر | sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^بحث) 19:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Dari

از ویرایش هایتان به زبان دری متشکرم.--Saranamd (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

یک‌رنگ

Could you add the transliteration of this quote whenever you can? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Classical Persian quotes using Iranian transliteration

I noticed many Classical Persian quotes use the Iranian transliteration (or have no transliteration at all) instead of the Classical one that they should use. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, additionally It seems many were originally using classical transliteration and were converted by wingerbot. So i'm not sure if it is worth changed them back until after a quotation template is made for Persian (where we'd be able to mark what transliteration is being used). The only way to keep the transliteration from being touched is using the xlit with the fa-cls-transliteration module... but it would be a bit much to put that module everywhere.

Lucky Benwing said the fa-cls-translit module would be implemented eventually. سَمِیر | sameer (^بحث) 22:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

ok 👍 Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

جنت

Maybe the reason why it's marked with no gemination is that it was copied from an older dictionary which transcribes the speech of some Pashto-influenced Dari dialect (it seems gemination is not phonemic in Pashto) or maybe I'm just being dumb) Rodrigo5260 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

yes that's definitely possible i'll have to look into ti سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^بحث) 21:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You're probably going to get to this eventually...

but your edit to Module:ur-translit at 22:46 (UTC) broke transliteration for everything with ṇ so it throws an error on line 297 "invalid capture index %2 in replacement string". Please take a few minutes and fix it so we can clear those 100+ entries from CAT:E. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Sorry I didn't notice this. I just fixed it, at least there is no longer a visible error message on any of those pages. The category hasn't updated yet though. سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 01:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

محی الدین

I found this new entry in Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters because {{fa-IPA}} is outputting a variant of the entry name in place of IPA, but I have a hunch that the underlying problem is something with the spelling of the entry- possibly hidden characters or non-Persian look-alike characters. The entry creator obviously didn't fully understand what they were doing, but then, neither do I. This needs someone who knows more about both Persian and the technical issues involved than I do. Please take a look. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz the entry should be fixed now, fa-IPA doesn't support vocalized Persian input yet which was the cause of the problem; Though I was thinking about adding support soon, it currently needs the input text to be latin. Let me know if there are any other issues. - سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 03:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:fa-conj-aa-tan

This template should be modified at some moment, goven that its interface is different from the other persian conjugation templates (especially the hover mouse over the inflections to see the conjugation thing, which doesn't work on mobile). Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

IPA appears to break on this page

No idea whats up here and I tried poking around in previews to try and fix it but I have no idea. The IPA is bugging out and throwing a ð inbetween a bunch of Persian text. NorthTension (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Persian respellings

Hi,

I liked the way the re-spellings worked in {{fa-IPA}}, even if I saw some imperfections. Did you remove them permanently? I didn't notice, which edit did that, though.

Keep up the good work. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Atitarev, they were removed by @Fenakhay at the request of @Saranamd. Note that Saranamd had informed me on discord about this prior to asking for its removal. I had some reservations but I never opposed it so Fenakhay made the change. - سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 02:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not on discord and I don't know the pre-history. Let me ask here, if it's OK.

@Saranamd, @Fenakhay: If this functionality was removed because of the imperfections, then I would agree to put it on hold. If it's considered misleading because it's not matching the actual spelling or you'd prefer to see the actual correct Persian vocalisations, let's discuss it. In my opinion, the actual, correct vocalisations should have the priority over phonetic respellings but respellings can be useful and don't cause any additional problems.

If you decide to remove only because you consider Persian vocalisations don't have any place. Then I oppose this move but I don't think it's the reason. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I disliked the functionality for the following reasons:

• It was swapping full letters, e.g. ع was being rewritten with ئ or initially with just ا. This is not what is done in any other dictionary, whether monolingual or bilingual; it's alien to the Persian lexicographic tradition.
• The Classical Persian rewriting was showing the intervocalic fricative allophones in the phonetic respelling, which is also not done in any other resource.
• They were taking up a lot of vertical space. Readers are most interested in the definitions, and it was just a hassle to get through for little benefit (especially given the issues above).--Saranamd (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Saranamd: Thanks. I'll take your points. It may be even time-consuming to work on this, if it's not going to be liked or used.

However, I'd like to see more vocalised Persian, for each variety which still needs to be tweaked and perform better or agree on cases where the module won't do the transliteration with 100% accuracy but apply the vocalisation to the reset of the word. There is no reason Persian can't be automated or semi-automated the way Arabic and now Urdu are. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Perso-Arabic ـه and ـت

RE – I just wanted to make sure you and @Saranamd know this thrilling 1995 paper about doublets in these Persian words, where the author counts about 1500 only in modern Persian within this “dichotomous form class”, constituting one quarter of all the Arabic loanwords and seven percent of the total vocabulary in general use, “inclusive of more than 800 items in -a and almost 700 in -at, and about forty pairs of doublets.” Further “more than 200, or 25 percent, of the words now ending in -e were originally incorporated in -at, and have 'shifted' (i.e., lost final /t/).” Meaning differences are also regarded. Fay Freak (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is probably related to the fact that ة (-at or -a), was formerly a common letter in Persian (it can be seen in old manuscripts) but is now archaic. - سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} · ^بحث) 00:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

xerife

The final -e of this word can simply be explained as an epenthetic vowel added to circunvert a phonotactical limitation. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

NVM it seems you meant the first e, which is the result of the imāla present in Andalusian Arabic (and also in modern-day Moroccan and Levantine Arabic). Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Persian entry consistencies

Hi!

Regarding my edit, which you have reverted with a ping on جاروبرقی. I couldn't respond earlier.

Please see also Module_talk:fa-IPA#Iranian_ق, which I have asked but you haven't answered.

If this term, as it is labelled, is an Iranian Persian. (I am not sure if the term is used in Dari and can also have a classical Persian)

1. جاروبَرْقی (jârubarği) currently produces "jârubarği", the same is displayed in the Pronunciation section - "jârubarği"
2. If this is also Dari/Classical, then the correct vocalisation and transliteration would be different: جَارُوبَرْقِی (jārūbarqī)

Now, you have not only changed "ğ" to "q" but also added a zir (kasra) before a ye, so that an Iranian translit produced جاروبَرْقِی (jârubarğey) "jârubarğey".

You yourself changed "q" to "ğ" and you know that Iranian zir + ye would give "ey", not "i".

I don't mind switching completely to classical vocalisations in the headword, if this is what you really insist on, so that the rest - Classical, Iranian and Dari can be automated later but the headword changes haven't made yet. We can still agree on what it should it look like in the preparation for the switch. I am not sure about your intentions, though, if you don't share them. I'd like to have some consistency and clarity, mixing voclaisations and transliterations doesn't look good. If we were to use the classical vocalisation and transliteration, it would be جَارُوبَرْقِی (jārūbarqī) with, more diacritics, macrons and "q" "jārūbarqī", not circumflexes and "ğ" as in the Iranian example. @Saranamd, @Benwing2: FYI. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev Okay just to add, the terms is used in Dari, I was attempting to figure out if it is also used in Tajik before adding that though, which it seems like it is not. It seems as though the term used in Tajikistan is чангкашак (čangkašak)

I didn't add any diacritics when I reverted it, I reverted to an older edit where you added the diacritics.

I think it's fine to use ğ in terms labeled as (more or less) exclusive to Iranian Persian, though this word is not. - سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} · ^بحث) 04:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy:

Hi. Thanks for responding. In diff you added a zir after .

It's still inconsistent. The original transliteration "jârubarqi" is Iranian, not classical or Dari, so it won't work with a zir (kasra) after "qâf" and "q", instead of "ğ"

To fix:

Please choose one or the other, we can't have both:

1. {{fa-noun|head=جاروبَرْقی|pl=جاروبرقی‌ها|tr=jârubarği}} (modern Iranian way) (less diacritics, "ğ", circumflexes)
2. {{fa-noun|head=جَارُوبَرْقِی|pl=جاروبرقی‌ها|tr=jārūbarqī}} (classical Persian way) (more diacritics, "q", macrons)

Also, please decide if you continue to use "ğ" specifically for Iranian transliterations.

You also "corrected" me on the Persian Qur'an entry:

Classical Persian قُرْآن (qur'ān) vs Iranian Persian قُرْآن (ğor'ân) (macron or circumflex, "q" or "ğ"?). Let's stick to one version, not a mix of the two. The choice is easy, if we are consistent.

BTW, The same should apply to alt forms, synonyms, etc. in my opinion. E.g. جارو بَرْقِی (jâru barqi) is incorrect for the same reasons. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev well I prefer the second one, though I figured switching transliterations before @Benwing2 adds support for multiple transliterations would be problematic. If it wouldn't then I suppose we can switch right now? But just to clarify again, I did not add any diacritics, I reverted to diff which already had diacritics. Though I should've checked the diacritics first.

Also, I'm pretty sure قُرْآن being transliterated as qur'ān is more accurate than qur-ān, since I thought we used - for ZWNJ (i.e. certain morpheme boundaries)?? IIRC آ (ʔā) in Arabic is just the equivalent of ئَا (ʔā), so it should be treated as such (unless there is a morpheme boundary, then it should be treated as a ZWNJ). - سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} · ^بحث) 04:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The controversy was not around "qur'ān" vs "qur-ān" (I also prefer the hyphen as a separator) but around "qur'ān" vs "ğor'ân" - same vocalisations but three letters are different.

We can still have an agreement on the preferred vocalisation and transliterations. Please make your suggestion (with the current, not the future setup). I can compromise on using just the classical vocalisation and transliteration in the headword, I can see you preferred that (classical over Iranian) and it's also easier to add both classical and Iranian translit later, when the automation comes in (per agreed future headword). However, I don't like the mix (inconsistency) and the transition to the automated translit would be difficult if we have a mess in entries.

In my observation, the majority of existing entries used the Iranian transliterations, which is also more available but as I said, I'm willing to compromise, since deriving classical from Iranian won't be possible.

Any decisions and changes should also be reflected on WT:FA TR

Hope you're still motivated to close some unresolved test cases :) Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Sameerhameedy The great majority of English learners of Persian are learning the Iranian pronunciation, as can be suggested by the fact that more-or-less all undergrad textbooks for Persian use Iranian translit unless they're specifically about Dari. I'm also learning Persian as part of my degree, so I'm speaking from experience here.

Note that even in pure academic contexts, e.g. the International Journal of Middle East Studies which is the gold standard in English-language academia, Persian is transliterated largely according to Iranian pronunciation. Well, to be more exact, it is transliterated "as if it were Arabic," but the end result is that the majhul vowels are not represented.

My feeling is that if any translit is kept in the header (I think it's ok to even leave the header blank as is done in Chinese), it should be Iranian. For ⟨q⟩ vs. ⟨ğ⟩, on the other hand, I think it's ok to keep Iranian pronunciation/vocalisms while retaining the orthographic difference between the two letters. This was what was done in Wiktionary so far.--Saranamd (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Saranamd: Thanks. You contradict yourself when saying 1) "it's ok to even leave the header blank" and 2) "this was what was done in Wiktionary so far" (about keeping the translit).

I wasn't a big fan of "q" to "ğ" but it makes sense for Iranian Persian and we have a number of consonants with identical pronunciations.

Removing transliterations would be taking away what was there already. I personally favour ADDING vocalisations as well, even if it wasn't the practice before, especially, if both classical and Iranian transliterations can be automated based on the classical vocalisations.

At Wiktionary_talk:About_Persian#Template:head_allows_etym_languages we agreed on what the future headword might be (input and output). Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Right so if the future headword is going to show both values, I don't see a very pressing need to change the current Iranian translit to a classical one, when this will be temporary anyways.--Saranamd (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

فضولی کردن

is the ye at the end of فضولی supposed to be a long ē? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)