Talk:Malé Latin

The page currently does nothing but slam the romanization. How about a word from the people who created it? Jpatokal 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there is just "slamming the romanization." Communication by boat in the Maldives was (and it still often is) irregular and hazardous, especially during stormy seasons. The people who created the romanization were well-meaning by their vision that a telex machine in every island would facilitate faster messages between Male' and the islands. The problems with the romanization were two:

1-It was done in a hurried manner, without proper research, so it was not readily learnt by people used to the existing scripts which were more phonetic and consistent.

2-It was enforced within a very short time-frame, instead of allowing for a long transition period (see prologue to Dhivehi Bahage Qawaa'idh).

At any rate the people who created it are welcome to put an extra word.Mohonu 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical fact

This article reflects a historical fact. All throughout India there were initial Roman transliterations done by the first Christian missionaries. These served a purpose for a while, but later were found to have defects or incompatibilities with the linguistically related languages of neighboring groups or states. When more comprehesive and serious research of Sanskrit and other Indic languages was undertaken by (mostly German) linguists in the 19th century, they came up with the Standard Indic transliteration.

In Maldives all this previous research was ignored, even though the Latin transliteration was done in the 1970s. It was certainly not done by linguists, but (by express official orders from the president) in a hurried manner by some obscure government officer who has remained anonymous. Therefore what you ask for "How about a word from the people who created it?" is impossible. If one reads carefully Clarence Maloney's book, one will see that his attitude is positive and that he only laments that a new script for a nation was so flawed already at the beginning. He is not slamming the romanization itself.

The fact is that then President Nasir wanted to have a quick alphabet. It was his way. The article doesn't slam the romanization, but reflects the sad historical fact about how things are not done reflectively and with consultation in dictatorships. Anyway this flawed Maldivian transliteration was finally dropped. Now it is used in an unofficial way. Mohonu 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Description?

The problem with this new article is that originally it was just a section of Maldivian writing systems, the article presenting the different Maldivian scripts. In that context it was OK, for it was an explanation about how there had been a brief period when the present-day Maldivian script had been replaced by a Latin script. But here there is no description at all about how that romanization was, just that bare comment from the other article has been pasted under a new heading. What it needs is a description of the romanization to start with. Mohonu 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You've still being completely POV. Please provide citations for your claims. Jpatokal 10:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No dispute, no controversy

I am not sure what is POV. But one just has to picture the Maldivian high officials, mostly learned old gentlemen, of the scattered 200 inhabited islands of the Atolls at the time of the script change and enforcement. They had been traditionally using two alphabets simultaneously, the Thaana script and the Arabic script (note that all were well versed in the Quran which was a prerequisite to be a Katiibu, Mudiimu or Atoll chief). Suddenly these old or middle-aged men were required to use only one totally new script and thus became illiterate overnight. They had to learn the new script and master it in a hurry in order to be able to perform their most elementary duties.

The historical fact is that it was a traumatic period and that these old government officers were indeed relieved when the romanization was revoked. There is no controversy. One only has to have some understanding of the situation and put oneself in the place of the concerned officers to realize that it was indeed a hard time for them to find themselves in their old age in such a predicament. Mohonu 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Haywood J.A. etc really say "weird combinations" when describing the rendering of Arabic? Does Gair, James W. really call the short vowels "unfortunate"? Does Clarence Maloney really use the words "indiscriminate" and "crude inconsistencies"? These are highly loaded terms: if they're quoted directly, they should be in quotation marks, and if they're not, they're your opinion and they should be removed. Jpatokal 03:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Maloney says literally:

• "Maldivians have recently begun using th and dh to represent the dental consonants, but this is confusing, as in Indic languages they would be read as aspirated consonants. The standard Indic transliteartion is preferred in this volume because of its accuracy and a long tradition of acceptance." " (Preface, pages x-xi)

• "Unfortunately the system favoured is misleading (th, dh for unaspirated dental consonants, but lh for retroflex l); standard Indic transiteration, as in this book, would be phonetically preferable. (page 96)

Haywood J.A. doesn't say "weird". He reflectivelly follows the linguistic standard. His book is an excellent academic reference book. What is weird in my opinion is what contradicts the established academic standards. What other word would you suggest? Mohonu 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still not being neutral. According to the quotes above, Maloney does not "lament ... inaccuracies" or "wonder why", he just states that those two dental consonants are "confusing" and "misleading" and that he prefers standard Indic. Jpatokal 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read Maloney well and you didn't read the whole book. You are judging the situation only from my quotes. He refers to the adding of an 'h': (th, dh for unaspirated dental consonants, but lh for retroflex l). That is what makes it confusing and misleading, that there is no consistency in the adding of the 'h's (no h for retroflex 't' and 'd', but an h for the retroflex 'l') plus the point of the unaspirated dentals you made above.Mohonu 09:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

HCP Bell

This sentence is useless:

H.C.P. Bell describes well the diffident attitude of Maldivian government officers towards the upsetting of traditional mores in his Excerpta Maldiviana.

If that's the case, then quote him. Jpatokal 03:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In HCP Bell, Excerpta Maldiviana; (page 173) 3. Maldivian Rejection of Free English Education, from Journal, Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon) Vol. XXXIII. The diffident attitude is described. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 07:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I have erased the comment because it is better to concentrate on the not useless aspects of the article, like linguistics. I have drawn a list for the consonants and vowels, that is, after all, the Maldivian Latin. Everything else could be deemed kind of useless. Mohonu 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong angle criticisms

Jpatokal's (supposedly equanimous, but in fact aggressive) comments are coming from the wrong angle since the beginning. At any rate the article describes what in military terms would be a defeat. The Maldivian romanization was revoked in 1978. No one has an axe to grind against it. The linguists and anthropologists merely investigated the reasons why the Maldivian romanization was a failure.

Not only no one shed a tear for it in the Maldives, but there has been no movement for the restoration of the romanization, especially since the computers that came after Telex machines became obsolete were able to use Maldivian and Arabic fonts.Mohonu 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are actually two separate issues here, and the article doesn't really distinguish between them. One is the 1976-1978 imposition of Malé Latin in place of Tana/Arabic, which, as you say, is just history at this point. However, the second issue is that the script is still used as the main method of romanizing Dhivehi today. I'd like to see these separated completely, as in Hepburn romanization: one section on the legal status, controversy, etc, with people's opinions, and another on how the romanization actually works, with no snide commentary, just the facts. Jpatokal 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and advice on moderation

The first and foremost rule in Wikipedia is to be polite. Jpatokal had a point in asking Mohonu to moderate his language. The wrong thing though was that he didn't practice what he preached. Before exercising criticism one should begin in a constructive manner by saying something positive about the article. Only after that initial step is taken the errors should be pointed out. In order to encourage the Wikipedian or Wikipedians who have knowledge about the subject matter like Mohonu to contribute constructively and in a positive spirit, harsh language should be avoided. Stuff like: page currently does nothing... or This sentence is useless are unacceptable when not moderated or qualified.

In order to encourage neutrality and moderation, the person doing so has to be moderate and neutral himself or herself. Signed: A concerned Wikipedian 116.68.65.87 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to blow sunshine up anybody's ass: I came here looking for information on Male Latin and was disappointed to find a terrible article. It has now improved considerably thanks to the chart and the citations, but the structure is still a mess, the lack of verifiability of the cites is worrisome (opinions from scholars should be quoted in their own words, not paraphrased) and User:Mohonu's POV regarding the "failures" of the system constantly shines through. Jpatokal 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the system for writing Male in the Latin alphabet failed, didn't it? So where is that virulent POV you talk about? Where are your sources to prove user mohonu wrong?116.68.65.87 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the move to replace Tana with Male Latin failed, just like the move to replace Chinese characters with pinyin failed. But Male Latin is still today the most popular system for romanizing Dhivehi, just like pinyin is still the most popular system for romanizing Chinese, so Male Latin (or pinyin) as a whole cannot be considered a failure.

As for POV, just look at these negatively loaded words: "officially-enforced", "aberrant", "traumatic", "relieved", "not done by experts", "small group of Maldivians belonging to the elite", etc. These need to be either referenced back to reputable sources or rewritten. Jpatokal 07:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This Jpatokal is totally POV by claiming that Male' Latin was successful. In Maldives tourists and other sundry foreigners use it because there is nothing else.

So you agree that a) it's still used and b) there's nothing else, which means that Male Latin is the romanization method of choice for Dhivehi. Jpatokal 05:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We use Thaana and only very rarely we use the Latin and only if we absolutely have to. That is not a measure of success. It is like saying: "they had to eat cowdung during the famine and it is a successful food."

The Chinese write Chinese in Chinese characters and only use pinyin when they have to. Does that make pinyin a failure? Jpatokal 05:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Latin is not very rarely used. It is currently used as a "chat alphabet" in all social media apps such as viber and facebook, and is used in names for islands in all maps and people's names as well. I have even seen some websites entirely written in it [1], and the name "Dhivehi" itself is in it. Then there's the Standard Alphabet of Dhivehi Transliteration. It's only used by linguists, and is like 0.01% used locally. I'll say no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.231.28.161 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, just think of a system that makes you write the name of your island as Hagngnameedhoo. If you are from this island would you consider it successful? We Maldivians don't need anyone to come from Finland to patronize useless stuff we don't even want. Totally POV this Jpatokal.59.92.118.46 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Male Latin often looks ridiculous. But warts and all, it's still the only game in town, and so Wikipedia must document it. Jpatokal 05:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malé Latin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822075208/http://www.maldives-ethnography.com/scripts.html to http://www.maldives-ethnography.com/scripts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"SAMT romanization"

There is no such thing as a SAMT romanization. The page about it (now deleted because uncited) simply had a chart of Dhivehi sounds with their ISO 15919 equivalents. I have no idea what romanization scheme was used for the "extra letters" section. They seem to have been selected from the chart of Arabic romanization to the maker of the article's liking. If this statement is untrue, or if there are actual academic sources using this romanization method, anyone is invited to confirm this so as to remake the SAMT article. 43.231.28.163 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the "SAMT romanization" will be replaced by the ISO 15919 method. 43.231.28.163 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)