Re: discussing the QAC rule - acronyms

[Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj <alarfaj0 at yahoo dot com>]

--- Munzir Taha <munzirtaha at newhorizons dot com dot sa> wrote:
> On Yaum al-Sabt 29 Jumaada al-Awal 1425 09:24 pm, Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj wrote:
[...]
> > 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.

I'm completely lost Munzir. Did you ask for a link where they _translated_
their product names, or one where they _transliterated_ their product names? If
your worried about us translating product names then stop worrying. It won't
happen. The QAC rule says _transliterate_.

>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.

My good friend, I am perfectly aware of that. But didn't you say that if we're
going to start transliterating product names then we should mention to people
that we are doing something that no one has _ever ever_ done before? Well,
thats why I posted those links. Organizations, Companies, Magazines, they've
all done it before us.

I fail to see what your point is. Why does it make a difference if Microsoft
Saudia transliterates and the other Microsoft doesn't? One of them does. You
demanded precedent and here it is.

[...]
> 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 :(

Thats a pretty far-fetched assumption. Do we know that for a fact? That they
changed their methods out of experience? Anyway, its not important, because in
the case that I was talking about, they switched from translation to
transliteration, not from transliteration to transcription. Which case are you
making here? Do you want Arabeyes to transliterate instead of translate or
transcribe instead of transliterate?

> 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.

No comment Munzir ;)


Here is a glossary for those confused and confounded by this thread:
Translation: Replace a word with its equivalent meaning in another language.

Transliteration: Write a certain word of a certain language using the alphabet
of another language.

Transcription: Writing the word as it is using the alphabet of its own language.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com