Talk:ʾiʿrāb

Pronunciation
The pronunciation on this page includes symbols that should not be used because they are not in the English pronunciation appendix.

Tea_room/2018/March

—Darxus (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–April 2018
Please provide citations showing this spelling is normalized English, or change the spelling.
 * It certainly appears often enough in English texts and articles. However, everything I have found puts it in italics (or hides it behind a paywall). Kiwima (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–June 2018
Requesting a restoration of ʾiʿrāb a loanword from Arabic, an important term in reference to the Arabic grammar. Asking kindly to provide citations. The current spelling is hard to search for but there are many hits with "iʿrāb" or "irāb". Perhaps it could be lemmatised as iʿrāb, which is probably more appropriate than "ʾiʿrāb". The initial hamza, transliterated as "ʾ" can probably be ignored, as is normally the case in borrowings from Arabic but the second "ʿ" must be kept as the normalised spelling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See Talk:ʾiʿrāb. Calling the person who initiated the RFD and deleted the entry:, please review, we just need to keep it under "iʿrāb", minus initial "ʾ". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You will need to find examples that are not italicized. DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This was not RFD'd, it was RFV'd. I could not find unitalicized citations of before, and I cannot find unitalicized citations of  now., you will need to provide the citations if you want this restored. Kiwima (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we add this as an Arabic romanisation entry? Per utramque cavernam 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * : Thanks but I oppose creation of Arabic romanisation entries. This term is always used by learners and teachers of Arabic, by grammarians and in references, it's just having trouble being assimilated as English. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Stays deleted, as a . If something fails RFV, it is a waste of time to ask it to be undeleted in another venue. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–December 2023
Undelete as full entry previously deleted English term. See Talk:ʾiʿrāb. Now uses. I believe it can now be cited in Google books. The term is quite common among Arabic experts, even the actual spelling of the term may not be exact. This is just the most common attestable English spelling or transliteration. is a spelling when hamza is not spelled and transliterated. E.g. compare Arabic (with a hamza) vs  (without a hamza) Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If it can be cited, it can be restored, but since the issue before was that it couldn't be cited and failed RFV, this is an RFV matter, no? - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is backwards: first add the citations to the citations page, then ask for undeletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Moved from RFD to RFV because this is a question of whether attestation exists. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * And since no-one has added cites, the entry stays deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)