Re: discussing the QAC rule - acronyms

[Munzir Taha <munzirtaha at newhorizons dot com dot sa>]

On Yaum al-Sabt 29 Jumaada al-Awal 1425 09:24 pm, Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj wrote:
> --- Munzir Taha <munzirtaha at newhorizons dot com dot sa> wrote:
> > On Yaum al-Sabt 29 Jumaada al-Awal 1425 07:24 am, Isam Bayazidi wrote:
> > > - Translitration is used for localized versions of many products.. for
> > > example, when you log to microsoft.com site with the Arabic
> > > localozation, you will see a translitration for almost all the product
> > > names.
> >
> > Just point me to such a link and I will be convinced. I logged into the
> > site and can't find any arabic transliteration of their soooo many
> > products
>
> Alright, how about this:
> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/saudi/default.mspx

I wonder how you dared to post this link ;). On the link _you_ posted you see
عائلة المنتجات
Windows
Office

خدمات MSN Arabia
لماذ الترقية من Windows NT Server؟
مقارنة Windows XP Professional مع الإصدارات السابقة من windows
نشر وتوزيع Windows XP Professional
السماح لـ Outlook بالقيام بالمهام بالنيابة عنك.
مركز مطوري NET_Framework.
الانضمام إلى مناقشات ASP.NET
مزيد عن Windows...
مزيد عن Office...

they never translated their product names. If you want by posting the link to 
point that they translated their name Microsoft to Arabic it's because that 
this arabic name refers to another saudi company called مايكروسوفت السعودية 
and they have it registered and own this copyright. For magazines and 
articles, it's something loosy they do what they want and this doesn't prove 
any thing.



> Its worth noting, (although I could not find pages that prove this) is that
> some companies aren't consistent whether they translate, transliterate, or
> transcribe. So just citing one example where some company transcribes its
> product names doesn't mean we should do that always. If you remember right,
> Windows 3.1 was released under the name نوافذ, but nowadays its become
> ويندوز. Its because these most companies are not consistent in what they
> do that _we_ chose to be consistent, as I'm sure you will agree.

It's not that they are inconsistent. It's that they have a great experience 
and found after many years that it's better not to use translation and stick 
to it. May be we are going to go in this cycle also :(

> Munzir, please understand that the QAC don't make these decision
> off-handedly. They would not have made the decision to transliterate if
> there was not a good reason for it.

This is why I am arguing here. I still feel QAC supports logical discussions. 
If I do not believe in this (at least up to the minute ;)) I will not post 
regarding the subject. Afterall, I have many issues regarding using the 
Arabic interface.

Just a Note: I am not yet a member of QAC and would like to see QAC from 
outside. I hope every one who understand the issue to contribute. If no one 
would support my logic, I would be happy to flag myself non-QAC compatible 
and try to see other issues on which I can do something good. Simple?

Finally, I know people always don't like to change their mind. It's very hard 
I know. But let's try to not being biased. All - you and me.

-- 
Munzir Taha  PGP Key available
gpg --recv-keys --keyserver www.mandrakesecure.net F0671821

Telecommunications and Electronics Engineer
Linux Registered User #279362 at http://counter.li.org
Mandrake Club member
Maintainer of the Open Arabic Bugs Project at
http://wiki.arabeyes.org/OpenBugs
CIW Designer, ICDL, MOUS
New Horizons CLC
Riyadh, SA