Talk:Nabíl-i-Aʻzam

Nabíl-i-A`ẓam or نبيل العزام‎?

The Arabic script doesn't match the transliteration, which would be Nabīl al-‘Azzām in this case. Or, if it really translates to "Nabil the Great", then the script should be نبيل الأعظم‎ (Nabīl al-’a‘ẓam). Or maybe, this is in some other language, and not in Arabic as it displays now. I don't know whether the Arabic script or the transliteration is wrong, so I'm not changing anything; just leaving a note here. --tyomitch 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. The arabic script is incorrect. Please fix it. Cuñado - Talk 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is really confusing. If it is really Nabil the Great, then it should be نبيل العظيم (Nabīl al-‘Azeem), which is quite different. I think that نبيل الأعظم‎ (Nabīl al-’a‘ẓam) would be the most correct name. Problem is that the current transliteration is slightly different. Should we change to نبيل الأعظم? ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary gives أعظم as the elative form of عظيم, thus translating نبيل الأعظم‎ as Nabil the Greater. As to current transliteration, it was originally contributed by Cuñado, and I have no idea whether it's accurate or not. --tyomitch 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually in this case it translates Nabil the Greatest. أعظم can be used in the superlative and comparative forms, but here there is no comparison, and the ال, is used for the superlative (similar to the the in English). The current transliteration is definitely wrong, I will change it. We just need a reliable source to verify his original name. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I can't read Persian or Arabic, I can't really help out, but there are English sources which have been translated such as:

"It was during those days that Nabíl, recently honored with the title of Nabíl-i-‘Azam" (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 176) [1]

This source has been translated into Persian here and Arabic here. Maybe you could find the reference on page 176 in those pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this (page 212, line 13) is the sought-for reference?

“ وفي غضون تلك الأيام شرف حضرة بهاء الله النبيل بلوح خاص أنعم فيه عليه بلقب النبيل الأعظم ”

If yes, then the correct title is النبيل الأعظم‎ (an-Nabīl al-’A‘ẓam). --tyomitch 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the help Jeff. Good job people. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration

I'm positive the correct transliteration is Nabíl-i-A‘ẓam. That's how it's written in Eminent Baha'is in the time of Baha'u'llah by Hasan Balyuzi. He followed Shoghi Effendi's strict transliteration standards. I'm not an expert at Arabic. here is a link to the Dawn-breakers in Arabic. It lists him as Nabil-i-Zarandi, but someone who can read better than me could probably find the right one easily. According to the transliteration, I believe the Arabic should be نبيل الأعظم. The translation is obviously flexible, and can vary. Cuñado - Talk 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The matter is that their standards of transliteration differ from ours. I'm putting the MOS-compliant transliteration in the parentheses. --tyomitch 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually read over the MOS again. I wrote most of it and I was careful in doing so. Since Baha'is have a very specific and precise system of transliteration, basically everything is a primary transliteration. You're version is wrong anyway, a hamza at the beginning of a word is never actually transliterated, it's just a place marker for the short vowel. Cuñado - Talk 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

MOS says that whether a primary transliteration exists or not, a strict transliteration is required in the lead paragraph. (You may see the examples at Cairo and Al-Qaeda, linked to from MOS, which both have primary transliteration, and both have the strict transliteration in their lead paragraphs.) Regarding the hamza, it was you and not me to insert it into everywhere. If you have finally changed your mind, it's all right. --tyomitch 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I'm saying that the initial hamza is not transliterated, so the strict transliteration is already in the article. See note 8 of this romanization guide. It says "In initial position, whether at the beginning of a word, following a prefixed preposition or conjunction, or following the definite article, hamza is not represented in romanization. When medial or final, hamza is romanized as ’" Cuñado - Talk 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is not in the hamza, but in the "-i-" that appeared out of nowhere, and in the lack of the two definite articles. --tyomitch 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The "-i-" is the Persian pronunciation, which doesn't have the definite article "al-". I think it's really unnecessary and redundant to give Persian and Arabic transliteration. If you want to be more technically correct, I could just remove the definite articles and change the template to say Persian instead of Arabic. Cuñado - Talk 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the primary transliteration is based on Persian pronunciation of Arabic words, the best we can do is to mention that explicitly. --tyomitch 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The great

See the example at Akbar. al-A`zam is translated as "The Great". Cuñado - Talk 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But the article on Takbir gives "Great", "Greater", and "the greatest" as three possible translations. --tyomitch 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wrote that exact reference that you're talking about. They can be translated a number of ways, but when used this way they are always translated in the form of John al-A`zam --> John the Great or The Great John. A quick search came up with Sikandar-e-azam (Alexander the Great),[2] Mujaddid-e-Azam (The Great Mujaddid),[3] Mughal-E-Azam (The Great Mughal),[4] Arsh-i-Azam (The Great Throne).[5] Cuñado - Talk 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sikandar-e-azam: first, it refers to a Wikipedia clone; second, it states explicitly that it is in Urdu and not Arabic. Mughal-E-Azam is the name of a movie taken in Bollywood, so it is also likely in Urdu (and absolutely unlikely in Arabic). The two other references give no indication that they are in Arabic, but in fact both refer to Indian culture, again, so they may be in Urdu just as well. Anyway, the greatest was inserted by User:Anas Salloum who is a native speaker of Arabic. I don't know how can you disregard the knowledge of a native speaker in favor of such inconclusive sources. --tyomitch 07:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Google can't find any sites that refer to him as "Nabil the Great", except for Wikipedia and its clones, and none that use "Nabil the Greatest", either. I'm concluding from here that there's no primary translation, so we can use whatever makes the most sense. If you happen to find an authoritative source that translates Nabil's surname in a certain way, please do mention that source in the article. --tyomitch 07:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The translation I added was from Balyuzi, H.M. (1985). Eminent Bahá'ís in the time of Bahá'u'lláh. The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton. ISBN 0853981523.. I don't have it in front of me, so I'll have to quote the page number later. Cuñado - Talk 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put that reference in the article as the source for the translation. I also put the LOC guideline on hamza that you cited above into the MOS. See if it's better now. --tyomitch 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK scratch that. It wasn't from Balyuzi's book, it was from Memorials of the Faithful where `Abdu'l-Baha calls him "the Great Nabil". I can't find any other translations. I agree that it can be translated a number of ways, but the intro is already incredibly cluttered, so I'm going to try and move the comments to the footnote. Cuñado - Talk 07:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)