Talk:حروف الهجاء

Is there a technical difference between transliteration and transcription?

For example:

حروف is transliterated as ħurūf, and حُرُوف is transcribed as ħurúːf, in the following links, respectively:

[1]

حَرف (ħarf) m, حروف (ħurūf) pl, أحرف (’áħruf) pl letter (of the alphabet), piece of type حرفًا بحرفٍ (ħárfan bi-ħárfin) — word for word consonant grammatical particle

[2]

حُرُوف الهِجَاء (ħurúːf al-hijáː’) m/pl alphabet

If ħurūf is a correct transliteration of حروف, and ħurúːf is a correct transcription of حُرُوف, then: -could either one, the other, or both types be used so as to provide consistency. -could the transcription be indicated by "IPA".

Thus the type in question might look like the following:

حُرُوف الهِجَاء (ħurūf al-hija) m/pl alphabet

or,

حُرُوف الهِجَاء (IPA: ħurúːf al-hijáː’) m/pl alphabet

Technically speaking, there is a difference. Transcription means writing it in a different alphabet, while transliteration means transcription letter by letter. In this sense, حروف is transcribed as ħurūf, but transliterated as ħruf. In practice, however, the two terms are used synonymously and interchangeably, and we never transliterate حروف as ħruf.

For some time we were trying various transcription schemes, which is why you see these variations. The scheme that we have now finally settled on for Arabic transcribes حُرُوف الهِجَاء as Huruuf al-hijaa’.

Besides the transcription, we also allow a pronunciation section, which uses IPA. In IPA, the pronunciation is given as /ħuˈruːf.ul.hiˈdʒæːʔ/. —Stephen 16:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)