IpseDixit wrote:Not sure if yom ekhad is used in Hebrew in this context so I used be atìd (in the future).
voron wrote:IpseDixit wrote:Not sure if yom ekhad is used in Hebrew in this context so I used be atìd (in the future).
I want to add a Syrian Arabic translation and I have absolutely the same question: not sure if "yom waḥed" is idiomatic. I am going to use it anyway though, and hope someone can correct it if it is wrong.
vijayjohn wrote:Isn't it shi yom, and would native speakers really talk about someone learning "suriyy" as opposed to just 3arabi?
vijayjohn wrote:Also, can we get rid of the Romanization for Hebrew? It seems odd to use Romanization for only one language but not the others.
voron wrote:"Shi yom" -- I don't know, where did you find it? Does "Syrian Arabic: A Functional Course" have it?
księżycowy wrote:I actually would like to see more of it. Not everyone knows these scripts, and I'm sure we might like to know how these languages sound. Plus it can be a help to learners. (Though also a crutch.)
I tend to supply romanization for Japanese, and I have no plans on stopping that. It helps me, and I'm sure it helps others as well.
Dr. House wrote:Were my Chinese and Japanese translations grammatically wrong or did you just adjust them semantically?
vijayjohn wrote:I feel that Romanization can be misleading. I'm intuitively worried about this for Malayalam especially, where it's common enough to use <nj> for [ɲ] but <j> for [d͡ʒ], for instance. Plus in Dravidian languages, it can make words seem...slightly scarier than they actually are. But I can do that anyway for most of the languages listed here. (I hesitate with Syrian Arabic given that I already mistranscribed one word, and Georgian since I don't know the alphabet or more than a few random words of the language yet).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest