334a
Joined 30 ܒܟܢܘܢ ܐܚܪܝ 2006
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←ܫܠܡܐ ܐܚܝ a334 ܘܐܚܝ assyria90: ܡܢܬܐ ܚܕܬܐ |
||
ܣܪܛܐ 336:
You also talk about how I would spell "bach", you should know that "bach" is a classical Syriac word which is spelled as "ܒܟܼ" and not "ܒܐܟ" as you would spell it. We have a system for these letters where a dot under a Kof becomes a Khof and a dot under Taw becomes Thaw. Taw is Taw and Thaw and Thaw, you must have heard the phrase in Our Father, "Tithe Malkuthokh - ܬܐܬܼܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܼܟܼ" where a Taw is a Taw but where a dot under the Taw is a Thaw. I believe you would spell "Tawa as ܛܐܘܐ" and not as "ܛܒܼܐ" since a "beth" is only a beth in your eyes and not a "v" with a dot under it? Doesn't make sense. I will not write Turqiya as 99,9% of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people denounce that and if you can not agree with me on this one, then I am sorry but we have unfortunately then found eachother in a edit-war. --[[ܡܬܚܫܚܢܐ:Assyria 90|Assyria 90]] 18:05, 26 ܐܕܪ 2010 (UTC)
== ܫܠܡܐ ܐܚܝ a334 ܘܐܚܝ assyria90 ==
<div dir="ltr">
334a and I had a long discussion about the transliteration issue and I still do not digest the idea of using the old method of transliteration. It was and is still used in Hebrew language while it was used in Arabic languages e.g. in Iṭalia (Italy), dimoqraṭia (democracy) but they stopped using it because of the complications that it might cause and they are writing Canada as they say it in the daily life instead of the older method ''Qanada'' and because most of us whom their first language is Syriac speak either Arabic or Farsi or Turkish or English or one of the European languages as a second and educational language, none of these languages use this old method, so we are used to say ''Canada'' not ''Qanada'' and it is very hard for us to accept this pronunciation. The only way that will make us accept this is by having a country that uses Syriac as the only official language with no influences whatsoever as it is the case with Israel where they could implement this method with no difficulty, I would guess, although I am not so sure if they use the old method in saying the words as they write it. In the other hand this method of transliteration is the '''right''' way of transliteration and as in Arabic language there should be an official academy of the Syriac language that would make this huge decision as they would not deal with the Syriac language as a ''dead'' one as the experts in the Western countries’ universities do. Until then I would support using the old method of transliteration!
As for the name of the language, I think using Assyrian or Chaldean or Surath or Turoyo would apply for the different daily used dialects in Beth-Nahren but not to the classical language that we use in this Wikipedia so I would prefer changing the name of this Wikipedia to Aramaic-Syriac Wikipedia for the following reasons
*The scholars in Western countries’ universities use it and they would have a scientific basis for doing so.
*I think we need to stay away from making this historical issue a political one.
*Finally most of us if not all I guess accept the Syriac name.
ܬܘܕܝ--[[ܡܬܚܫܚܢܐ:Basharh|Basharh]] 05:49, 29 ܐܕܪ 2010 (UTC)
| |||