Buckwalter transliteration online dating
It is certainly more of a standard than that ridiculous SATTS thing (which I believe should be removed, or demoted). --Gareth Hughes , 16 October 2005 (UTC) I think the Hans Wehr transliteration system deserves its own page.Because the transcription should be explained, because it is a very important transliteration system for those who are studying Arabic.-- Evertype·✆ , 20 November 2006 (UTC) Further to existing external links, adding a free transliteration service link to which provides free transliteration service for Microsoft Office, and matches Wiki guidelines.I suggest reviewing other links as some contain commercial insertions of Google adwords. Linking to download sites for Microsoft Office plugins to use the online service of a company is not appropriate.— Moilleadóir , 23 July 2005 (UTC) Does anyone know whether there is an emerging scholarly consensus on how to render the Arabic definite article (and its various "soft" variants) in English? The table on ISO 233 renders correctly for me, with all underdots for emphatics, underscores for fricatives and ǧ for gim, ġ for ghayn. dab The difference between the two is that some of the characters with diacritics in the ISO 233 table have been converted to numeric entities (Ṡ instead of ṣ).
9abdulla , 12 April 2007 (UTC) The article Hans Wehr transliteration was recently created by 184.108.40.206.
BUT it is not a bad idea to add the Hans Wehr transliteration system to that chart that compares transliteration systems.
We need the Hans Wehr transliteration system to have its own page.
I agree that Hans Wehr transliteration ought to have it's own article. (Which is why we used the "$" to signify an actual question mark. I am not sure if this is "the most widely used" transliteration, but it seems to have some de-facto prevalence on Wikipedia (see Arabic language, Arabic grammar).
The current one is rather barebones, but that can be fixed. Gotta love military logic...) I haven't used SATTS in quite a while so it might have changed, and it's also possible that they taught us jarheads differently. Also wondering why, on the chart, it show the final form of the letter, when all the other letters in the chart are shown in their stand-alone form. Kafziel , 22 December 2005 (UTC) I have created for tagging DIN 31635 transliterations ( seemed too impractical to remember), corresponding to , , etc. See also Wikipedia_talk: Wiki Project_Writing_systems#transliteration. dab , 7 January 2006 (UTC) The article mentions "scientific transliteration", but doesn't define the term.