Jump to content

Talk:Tifinagh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation of "tifinagh"

[edit]

Can one of you gents please stop criticizing the other just long enough to post the pronunciation for the word "tifinagh"?

Thanks!

In IPA it would be rendered [tifinax]. — mark ✎ 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, don't you mean [tifinaʁ] or maybe [tifinaɣ]? Or am I forgetting some Tuareg phonological rule? - Mustafaa 22:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you may be right — I might be taking into account some Dutch phonological rule :P. I was merely IPA'ing Maarten Kossmann's usual pronunciation of the word. — mark ✎ 19:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[tifinaʁ] is correct. Berber scholars and transliterators commonly use gamma "γ" for the voiced uvular fricative. --Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the transcription broad (phonemic) and shouldn't it therefore be between slashes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because a phonemic transcription is meaningful only within the phonology of a particular language or dialect; "broad" ≠ "phonemic". See Phonetic transcription, especially Narrow versus broad transcription.
"Phonology is viewed as the subfield of linguistics that deals with the sound systems of languages. It should be carefully distinguished from phonetics. Whereas phonetics concerns the physical production, acoustic transmission and perception of the sounds of speech,[1][3] phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages to encode meaning." -- Phonology#Phonology_vs_phonetics
We have a relevant example just above in the interchange between Mustafaa and mark: mark inappropriately applied a final-devoicing rule from Dutch phonology to a Berber pronunciation, where that rule does not apply.
One purpose of phonetic transcription is to convey a pronunciation in one language to speakers of other languages, who are not familiar with the phonology of the source language. That, I take it, is the purpose of providing these pronunciations. --Thnidu (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

translation please....

[edit]

|, |, then 3 dots one below the other, Ο, then 2 dots one below the other, again, 2 dots one below the other, OR is it 4 dots in a square?, a circle like Ο with a dot in the center.

I've been told it means: Nothing but the truth or something akin.

Thank you 66.177.206.71 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode font???

[edit]

how do i activate tifinag unicode font for windows??? --82.101.190.162 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)--82.101.190.162 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, you have to install a font that supports the Tifinagh range. This list is from a report I'm currently writing:
--Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

majority

[edit]

Do you have poll data indicating that a majority of Amazigh activists support Latin? And why is the use of Latin relevant here, in an article on Tifinagh (not on Berber writing systems in general), anyway?

For good examples of the use of Arabic script by Amazigh activists, check out the excellent http://www.tawalt.com . There are quite a few Moroccan Tamazight books published in Arabic, including a translation of the Qur'an (almost entirely devoid of Arabic words), poetry, and short stories. Dismissing it as "supported by Arab nationalists" is simply not accurate. - Mustafaa 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mustafaa,
Tawalt is a Lybian website and association, not a Moroccan one.
The usage of the Arabic script is for the Arabic articles, the headings of the sections are in Tamazight side by side with the Tifinagh script in many pages, feel free to contact them to know the reasons of their choice.
The translations you are referring to are old Manuscripts done by religious sides, and I disagree that "dismissing it as "supported by Arab nationalists" is simply not accurate". As a matter of fact it is one last resort for Arab nationalists who still refuse to acknowledge Amazigh cultural rights.
Regards
E3 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selected opinions and avoiding other ones

[edit]

About the origin of the Tifinagh, the scholars would suggest many opinions. however, the article referred to a one opionion considering it a descendant of a Phoenician script, and given an interpretation of the name (tifinagh) as an undesputed or widely accepted interpretation, while the other opinions were reffered to a french speaking articles followed by a embedded HTML comment asking for not repeating the discussion on the page. [1] and [2]. >No need to repeat that discussion here< Ehhmmm some are authorized by a supernatural power to select the right opionion behind their PC's. I ask god to give me such blessings! Please God.Read3r 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berber Scouting

[edit]

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tifinagh? Thanks! Chris 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply. --Thnidu (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Does somebody know of a working copy for reference 5 (prohibited to use in Libya)? smurfix (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPH 2B Damase

[edit]

This font works for nothing. It affects the GulimChe font I installed for Korean and will turn the Korean font into squares. If I de-install it, the Korean script comes back and reads just fine. Any other font?Kanzler31 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of script in Neo-Tifnagh

[edit]

Should it not be essential in an entry on a script to state which direction it is written in? We read about old Tifnagh, but you have to cross reference the symbols on the picture of the town name to work this out for Neo-Tifnagh! - 13:46, 2 February 2011 68.226.139.158

Left to right. Answer added in Tifinagh#Neo-Tifinagh. --Thnidu (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Font

[edit]

Does anyone know a font for the script? I tried several ones founded through the internet, but none works.--Antemister (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Deja Vu Sans shown above works fine. You have to download the Deja Vu font set. I use Chrome so if you do go to Chrome Advanced Settings Web Content Customise fonts and modify the Sans-Serif font setting, which defaults to Arial, to Deja Vu Condensed (which I prefer as closest to Arial). Berber then works perfectly. Sorry I dont know the requirements for other browsers.

Samrong01 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Primitive"

[edit]

In the Origins section the following sentence can be found: "The western variant was more primitive." This should either elaborate on why it's primitive, or be removed, because right now it tells you nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last edited by: (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tifinagh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving infoboxes to the top

[edit]

I was wondering if it was appropriate to move the infoboxes for the writing systems to the top of the article, rather than further down and having an image as the header. This way, it would be more in tune with a typical article on writing systems.

I was also wondering which one to have as the lead. I was thinking of having Neo-Tifinagh at the top, since it's the one in current use, and the rest would be Tifinagh and finally Libyco-Berber. Would this be alright? TangoFett (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown date

[edit]

Did the second era of Tifinagh really start in the 3rd century ce or the date is just unknown? I said for Tuareg Tifinagh that it existed since the 3rd century ce. --47.150.72.56 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tifinagh. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "Tifinagh" in Tuareg Tifinagh and Neo-Tifinagh (recent changes)

[edit]

@M.Bitton I personally prefer the recent version by @Petertshomela, since it seems cleaner to me. I like that it has the Tuareg Tifinagh and Neo-Tifinagh version exactly once in the lead, and all in one place. What do you think? Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what cleaner means in this context given that Tifinagh predates neo-Tifinagh (they are obviously different and the opening sentence explains this to the reader). Also, Petertshomela kept removing content without explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my view of the edit (correct me if I'm missing something):
- In the current version, the Tuareg Tifinagh spelling (ⵜⴼⵏⵗ) is in the lead sentence, but the Neo-Tifinagh spelling (ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ) is in a later sentence. In Petertshomela's edit, the Neo-Tifinagh spelling is moved to be in the lead sentence, adjacent to the Tuareg Tifinagh spelling. This keeps the different ways to write "Tifinagh" in one place (in the lead sentence).
- The deleted sentence ("The name Tifinagh is stylized as Tifinaɣ in the Berber Latin alphabet, and in the Neo-Tifinagh alphabet it is written as ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, while in the Tuareg people's traditional Tifinagh it is written as ⵜⴼⵏⵗ.") essentially only contains the Berber Latin / Neo-Tifinagh / Tuareg Tifinagh spellings of Tifinaɣ, ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, and ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, all of which were present in the lead sentence with the edit ("Tifinagh (Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ; Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, Berber pronunciation: [tifinaɣ])"). So the sentence didn't have any content not already present in the page, and deleting it avoids repetition in the lead section.
Apologies if I worded this confusingly, I can try to re-word it if it's hard to parse. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In their edit, they put neo-Tifinagh before Tifinagh. I don't see why neo-Tifinagh shouldn't be mentioned later on; after all, the article is about Tifinagh, an alphabet that has been used by the Tuaregs for centuries. M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's about the order, how about:
"Tifinagh (Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ; Berber pronunciation: [tifinaɣ])"
for the lead sentence?
Otherwise, how about:
"Tifinagh (Berber pronunciation: [tifinaɣ]) is a script used to write the Berber languages. Tifinagh is descended from the ancient Libyco-Berber alphabet. The traditional Tifinagh, sometimes called Tuareg Tifinagh (Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ), is still favored by the Tuareg Berbers of the Sahara desert in southern Algeria, northeastern Mali, northern Niger and northern Burkina Faso for use writing the Tuareg Berber language. Neo-Tifinagh (Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ) is an alphabet developed by Berber Academy to adopt Tuareg Tifinagh for use with Kabyle; it has been since modified for use across North Africa."
to keep it consistent?
(I personally prefer the first one, but prefer either over the current version.) Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what's the issue with having Tifinagh (the subject and name of the article) mentioned first. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Tifinagh and Tuareg Tifinagh are mentioned before Neo-Tifinagh in these edits, or am I misunderstanding?
As for the format, my comparison would be to the Chinese characters page; traditional characters came first, and have been in use for thousands of years. Simplified characters are basically a modern invention (used starting in the 1950s). The lead sentence of the page is:
"Chinese characters (traditional Chinese: 漢字; simplified Chinese: 汉字; pinyin: hànzì; Wade–Giles: han4 tzŭ4; Jyutping: hon3 zi6; lit. 'Han characters') are logograms developed for the writing of Chinese."
It's just listing all the common ways to write "Chinese characters" (the subject) in Chinese characters in one place at the start. To me that's the same thing as the proposed edit for this page: it's just listing all the major ways to write "Tifinagh" (the subject) in Tifinagh in one place at the start. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I guess either suggestion would do. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool! Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain why I moved "Neo-Tifinagh" and it's characters to the lead line. That's the way it is everywhere else on similar Wikipedia pages or sections related to place-names. And the excuse of "[Tuareg] Tifinagh" is older is useless, therefore it should be isolated or placed first is useless; in cases where there are multiple scripts and/or names, the arrangement is based on NUMBER OF SPEAKERS/USERS. So @Blueshiftofdeath we also need to address the issue of arrangement. Petertshomela (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not delete it altogether while you're at it? As for the "number of speakers", that should be easy since unlike the Tuareg languages (Tamasheq, Tamahaq, etc), nobody speaks Tamazight (not even the people who invented the artificial language). M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a Wikipedia standard for the order-- I actually could only find the Chinese characters page as an example to go off of.
For Chinese, my guess would be that there's currently far more users of simplified Chinese, since it's the official script in mainland China which has a population of 1.4 billion. But it's still listed second... I personally think that makes sense because it's a recent derivative based on the (still widely used) traditional Chinese. By the same logic I like having Neo-Tifinagh second, since it's the derivative of Tuareg Tifinagh, which is still in use after an uninterrupted history from the original Libyan script.
If either of you @Petertshomela @M.Bitton have examples of other similar pages that imply we should use a different order, it could be useful to list that here. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of Berbers do not belong to the Tamasheq-speaking (sub-)groups, nor is there any indication that the majority of the literature in or usage of [Neo-]Tifinagh is from these groups. These are facts. Additionally, the claim that "nobody speaks Tamazight (not even the people who invented the artificial language [whatever the "artificial language" in question is meant to be])" is simply false and ridiculous. You seem to have a predisposition to bias towards the Tuaregs, which explains your rude tone. As much as it is true that the Tuaregs' Tifinagh is the oldest, they are not the originators nor are they the only ones with connection to the script as it stands, nor is Tamazight (?) an "invented artificial language".
Secondly, @Blueshiftofdeath there is no standard for the order. I noted M.Bitton said he was going by the Chinese Characters page (the only example I could also find); however, I was going by such pages as Souss-Massa, Agadir, Rif, and basically every other page similar to them, which base the languages and/or scripts for the names based on the dominant language concerning it (even if the pages themselves aren't related to scripts because, again, there is no standard). Though, I will note that I don't mind things as they stand even though I don't see how it can be preferable (again, Neo-Tifinagh is more widely used and prevalent); I had two problems and the main (that "Neo-Tifinagh and "Tuareg Tifinagh" and their characters were not in the lead line as is always done elsewhere, despite meaning the same thing) has been solved. Petertshomela (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterative inconsistency

[edit]

There seems to be an incomprehensible inconsistency regarding the dating. I already provided a citation arguing for the continuous use of Tuareg Tifinagh till this day, and yet the dating in the infobox keeps getting edited to "extinct by the 8th century AD". If that was the date for Libyco-Berber, fair enough, but the infobox is clearly titled "Tifinagh". Besides, it contradicts repeated statements along the article, and the heading itself. Can we get this right, eventually? Il Qathar (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tifinagh&oldid=1259535954"