«ܘܝܩܝܦܕܝܐ:ܬܪܥܐ ܕܟܢܫܐ»: ܦܘܪܫܐ ܒܝܢܝ ܬܢܝܬ̈ܐ

:::'''Rafy''': I know about the Dutch letters having different sound values from English but, like I said, I don't think we should go for 100% native phonetic accuracy. I ''used'' to write like that (e.g., [[ܙܝܓܡܘܢܕ ܦܪܘܝܕ]] used to be [[ܙܝܓܡܘܢܬ ܦܪܘܝܬ]] since a final "d" is pronounced like "t" in German), but not anymore. Remember the ܬܫܪܐܢܘܘ = "Toronto" example I gave? Also, think of how we use Teth, not Taw, to write English "t". I think if the Hebrew and Arabic equivalents are identical, then we should match them regardless of the native pronunciation. If the Arabic/Hebrew spellings differ and one is closer to the native pronunciation, ''then'' I think we should side with the native pronunciation. I think it's the same with biblical names: if Arabic/Hebrew translate, we translate; if they transliterate, we transliterate; if they differ, then we transliterate (i.e., go with the native pronunciation). Of course, if you pick one over the other in any of these situations (transliterating vs. translating, native pronunciation vs. English/Semitic pronunciation), then it couldn't hurt to make redirects. E.g., for "Isaac Newton", Arabic translates (إسحاق) while Hebrew transliterates (אייזק), so I think we should follow the Hebrew example in this specific case and transliterate. Currently, the article on Isaac Newton translates ([[ܐܝܣܚܩ ܢܝܘܛܢ]]), so I would be in favour of moving it. Had Hebrew used יצחק instead of אייזק, then I would be fine with the way it is now. --[[ܡܦܠܚܢܐ:334a|334a]] ([[ܡܡܠܠܐ ܕܡܦܠܚܢܐ:334a|ܡܡܠܠܐ]]) 03:45, 17 ܒܐܝܠܘܠ 2011 (UTC)

::::We pronounce it as Finland, since it's a well established well known word. Plus, unlike [v], there's no other letter for [f]. In the case of פיג'י, though, I'm sure that most Hebrew speakers who first encounter that word written pronounce it as Piji. [[ܡܦܠܚܢܐ:TFighterPilot|TFighterPilot]] ([[ܡܡܠܠܐ ܕܡܦܠܚܢܐ:TFighterPilot|ܡܡܠܠܐ]]) 05:56, 17 ܒܐܝܠܘܠ 2011 (UTC)

 

[[ܣܕܪܐ:ܘܝܩܝܦܕܝܐ]]