Overleg:Georgisch alfabet

?

Ik denk dat de Nederlandse translitteratie (voorzover "de Nederlande translitteratie" van het Georgisch bestaat) van უ niet u is, maar oe. Zie Zviad Gamsachoerdia e.v.a. Fransvannes 13 sep 2007 22:12 (CEST)

Ja inderdaad, had het al aangepast. Känſterle 13 sep 2007 22:15 (CEST)

Wat is eigenlijk de basis van de 'officiële' translitteratie? Mij lijkt dat (daarvoor) de nieuwste ISO-norm bepalend zou moeten zijn. Eric de Muziekbibliothecaris 23 okt 2008 10:54 (CEST)

Er is geen officiële translitteratie. De ISO-norm is overigens gebaseerd op het Engels als doeltaal, niet op het Nederlands. Fransvannes 14 nov 2008 00:35 (CET)

Boven de eerste translitteratie kolom staat toch echt 'Officiële transliteratie'. Wanneer men in die terminologie spreekt zou mijns inziens de ISO 9984:1996-standaard voor dat predicaat in aanmerking komen (en kan de betreffende kolom verdwijnen). Deze is overigens geen afgeleide van het Engels, maar die in de eerste kolom wel. Eric de Muziekbibliothecaris 14 nov 2008 10:03 (CET)

De eerste kolom kan wat mij betreft inderdaad weg. En je hebt gelijk: de ISO-variant is niet de Engelse, maar de wetenschappelijke variant. Fransvannes 14 nov 2008 10:21 (CET)

Het zou overigens kunnen dat we in de eerste kolom te maken hebben met een translitteratie die de Georgische overheid hanteert. Als dat zo is, heeft die kolom toch wel bestaansrecht, alleen moet er dan een ander kopje boven. En dan zou ik ook wel willen weten of ze die versie alleen in Engelse teksten (moeten) gebruiken, of ook in bijvoorbeeld Franse en Duitse. Of alleen maar op landkaarten, dat zou ook nog kunnen. Zolang we dat allemaal niet weten, lijkt me verwijderen de beste optie. Fransvannes 14 nov 2008 11:00 (CET)

A Nederlandse transliterarie

Is de A uitgesproken als a in kat, of als aa in schaap? Dit zou er duidelijker bij moeten staan.Harmenator (overleg) 5 jan 2013 22:46 (CET)

Bij een transliteratie is dat eigenlijk bijzaak. Zo wordt de Russische в getranslitereerd als v, ook als hij aan het eind van een woord staat waar hij als f uitgesproken wordt. Transliteratieregels zijn geen uitspraakregels. Richard 8 jan 2013 15:36 (CET)

Q

Gebruiker:Kleuske How will it be in Dutch the word "scripts" in plural? Is it "schriften"? Jaqeli (overleg) 28 mrt 2015 00:38 (CET)

I am not mrs. Kleuske, but I can answer your question: script can be translated as 'schrift' or 'geschrift', scripts as schriften or geschriften. So, your original assumption is a correct possibility. Which word I would use, is context dependent. Richard 30 mrt 2015 10:35 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw Thanks. Current title is wrong and can you please move it to "Georgian scripts"? Becasue there are 3 Georgian scripts and they are not used only for Georgian language but for others as well so can you please move it to "Georgisch schriften"? Jaqeli (overleg) 31 mrt 2015 20:01 (CEST)

You mean this article? I would advise against that. First of all, it should remain a Dutch title and Georgian scripts is not. It could be called Georgisch schrift or Georgische schriften, but that would translate more in the line of Georgian handwriting(s). The collection of letters used to write a language is called an alphabet. What's wrong with that? The title of the Georgian article, ქართული დამწერლობა, also translates to 'Georgisch(e) alfabet'. And that this alphabet is not exclusively used in Georgian, is mentioned in the article. Richard 31 mrt 2015 20:34 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw Georgian Wiki article is not translated as alphabet. დამწერლობა is a script/writing system. An alphabet in Georgian is ანბანი (anbani). Script and alphabet differ. Alphabet is letters for writing a language where script is a writing system which those letters belong to. So German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, French all have their own alphabets but all of them are written in one Latin script. Persian also has its own alphabet but is written in Arabic script. Other languages, such as Mingrelian, Svan, Laz have their own alphabets but all of them are written in a Georgian script. I hope I've explained it clearly. Jaqeli (overleg) 31 mrt 2015 21:28 (CEST)

Then consider this: Latijns schrift, Arabisch schrift, Grieks schrift, Hebreeuws schrift, Cyrillisch schrift are all redirects to ... alfabet. In Dutch, the term alfabet can be used as almost a synonym for alfabetisch schrift. Richard 31 mrt 2015 23:39 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw I understand. Can we in this case at least move it to its plural form then? How will "Georgian alphabets" be in Dutch in plural? Let's move it to that. Can you move it to that? Jaqeli (overleg) 1 apr 2015 00:00 (CEST)

I can, but why would I do so? The primary subject of the article is one alphabet. That said alphabet is used in multiple languages is of no consequence. That asomtavruli letters are not part of that alphabet, is mentioned as well. Richard 1 apr 2015 09:29 (CEST)

PS: I cannot use 'google translate url's' on this page, but while the word 'დამწერლობა' is indeed translated as 'writing', the phrase 'ქართული დამწერლობა' is translated as 'Georgian alphabet'. Google translating proves nothing, of course, but this is food for thought. Richard 1 apr 2015 09:36 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri are also used for writing Georgian and these two are officially used by the Georgian church. All 3 Georgian scripts are in use and it's singular title as it is now is wrong. Jaqeli (overleg) 1 apr 2015 12:45 (CEST)

Until a few moments ago, the name Mchedroeli was not in the article. According to the article, some modern writers have experimented with the use of Asomtavruli-letters as capitals. That's all there is on Asomtavruli. The wordt Nuskhuri is nowhere in the article. So, the name of the article is in line with the contents of the article. It's the article itself that is incomplete.

If you could provide an overview of Nuskhuri (for example, here on this discussion page) and how letters in Mchedroeli, Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri relate to each other, an overhaul of the existing article could be a serious consideration. A new name could be part of that overhaul. Richard 1 apr 2015 13:01 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw I've added the Nuskhuri letters and chronologically put the scripts in order. It would be better if you could expand it a bit from English wikipedia. Jaqeli (overleg) 2 apr 2015 12:56 (CEST)

It's a pity that Nuskhuri doesn't display on my screen (neither on my PC nor on my tablet). I will use the image I found on the English wikipedia instead and see what I can do. To be continued. Richard 2 apr 2015 13:07 (CEST)

As far as I can see, I'm done for now. I have not imported the information on history etc. – just named the three scripts and the relation between them. Richard 2 apr 2015 13:45 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw Why did you remove the Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri letters which were in Unicode block? Jaqeli (overleg) 2 apr 2015 16:09 (CEST)

Because they are already in the image. Unlike (see my post from 13:07) the unicode characters, the image is visible for everyone. Richard 2 apr 2015 16:12 (CEST) To include them twice seemed redundant. I did forget something else though (which I am going to correct soon). Richard 2 apr 2015 16:12 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw Unicode letters cannot be in any way redundant. And also panorama picture works better. for the preview of the scripts. Jaqeli (overleg) 2 apr 2015 16:34 (CEST)

Since the tables only attempt (but possibly fail - I have tried a number of workplaces in various configurations) to show the glyphs and don't contain ANY information on location in Unicode tables they ARE redundant with the image. Originally, I tried a panorama picture. It didn't quite work out in the place where it was. After expanding the text above the image I forgot to try again. It does work now. So, let's keep the image as it is now, but leave out the tables. Richard 2 apr 2015 16:43 (CEST)

PS: it might be possible to expand the table and list assomtravuli, nuskhuri and mkhedruli side by side. That would require four extra columns in the table: two for the glyphs and two for the corresponding unicode locations. Richard 2 apr 2015 16:46 (CEST)

Gebruiker:Richardw Good work. Now we can move this article to the plural form. Jaqeli (overleg) 4 apr 2015 15:50 (CEST)

We can, but we won't. The way the article is written, supports a singular title. One alphabet, written in three sets of glyphs. Richard 4 apr 2015 20:53 (CEST)