Translation talk:Taif Agreement

This Wikisource page was referenced in:

Karvala, David (July 2008). "Para Entender La Crisis Libanesa" [To Understand the Lenanese Crisis]. El Viejo Topo (in Spanish) (Iniciativas Editoriales) (246-247).
"Israel/Hizbollah/Lebanon: Avoiding Renewed Conflict". International Crisis Group Middle East Report (59). 1 November 2006.
Aita, Samir (2006). "La Siria Contemporanea: Una Storia di Sconvolgimenti e Construzioni". In Guidetti, Matthias. Siria: Dalle Antiche Città-stato alla Primavera Interrotta di Damasco [Syria: From the Ancient City of Damascus was the Spring Broken] (in Italian). Jaca Book. ISBN 9788816407442.

Shouldn't the name be "Taïf" (with the diaresis on the i) instead of "Taif"? Eclecticology 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there's a main issue with semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew as to whether one should seperate syllabules in order to aid pronunciation. In all the official translations that I reviewed Ta'if was written Taif. I decided that it would be akward to have an entry Ta'if Agreement when the document itself is headlined Taif Agreement. Another thing would be the URL translation Ta%27if which seemed awkward as well. Doug Danner Thu Jun 10 04:41:41 UTC 2004

That's fine. For me the important thing was that you had considered the problem, and were not just blindly following others. I honestly don't know what the original Arabic should be, and whether it includes a glottal stop. Eclecticology 09:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My Arabic is somewhat rusty, but as far as I know glotal stops are just a product of translation to english. I guess the idea is to ensure correct pronunciation. I don't think there's a standard for correct transcription of Arabic to English (as opposed to a formal construct such as Pinyin for Chinese to English). There's none such for Hebrew. Therefore the daily news paper Ha'aretz can also be written Haaretz and Ha'Aretz. Anyway, I was just sticking with the ad-hoc standard as I've seen it on the net. Doug October 4, 2004

"independent" is twice misspelled as "independant" once in the first section, once later on, but the correct spelling is also used. I suspect the Agreement used the correct spelling in its original form, but I'm not certain enough to change it. --134.173.173.15 08:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

UN translation

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.un.int/lebanon/sites/www.un.int/files/Lebanon/the_taif_agreement_english_version_.pdf This appears to be the "official" translation, having been cited in a few books at least. Also uses "independent" despite noted above. -Einstein95 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply