This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 21 December 2014, At: 08:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technical Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

An Assessment of Arabic TransliterationSystemsDavid R. Lawson MSLS aa Florida International University , Miami, FLPublished online: 15 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: David R. Lawson MSLS (2010) An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems,Technical Services Quarterly, 27:2, 164-177, DOI: 10.1080/07317130903547493

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317130903547493

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Technical Services Quarterly, Vol. 27:164–177, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0731-7131 print/1555-3337 online

DOI: 10.1080/07317130903547493

An Assessment of ArabicTransliteration Systems

DAVID R. LAWSONFlorida International University, Miami, FL

The American Library Association and the Library of Congress cur-

rently use a cooperatively developed Arabic transliteration method

that incorporates the use of diacritical marks native to neither

Arabic nor English. This study seeks to investigate whether the

adoption of an alternate Arabic transliteration system can in-

crease user access to library materials. The various systems are

evaluated based upon phonetic and spelling accuracy, as well as

usability and the adherence to not using non-native diacritics.

KEYWORDS transliteration, Arabic language, use studies

INTRODUCTION

Transliterating a foreign script into Roman characters is a complex pro-cess that requires adherence to the original language’s phonetics withinthe confines of the English alphabet. Many non-Romance languages includenumerous sounds not native to English, nor easily represented within thestandard 26 characters used in English. This makes it difficult to accuratelyexpress in Roman script the sounds and letters of a language that originatesfrom somewhere other than Western Europe.

Because a number of patrons likely to use an Anglophone library’s on-line public access catalog (OPAC) have been exposed to an Indo-Europeanlanguage other than English, it is rare for a cataloger to have to take stepsto ensure that someone can understand an acute diacritic ( 0 ) in French or atilde (�) in Spanish. However, knowing what a bracket sitting at a 90-degree

Received 29 January 2009; accepted 3 March 2009Address correspondence to David R. Lawson, MSLS, Serials Cataloger, Florida Interna-

tional University, GL820A, Miami, FL 33174. E-mail: dlawson@fiu.eduThe author wishes to thank Dr. Ronald Bergquist of the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill for his valuable assistance.

164

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 165

angle above a letter means, g, or what a dot below a letter, s. , is meant toconvey, can be a very different story.

Arabic characters can have up to four different forms, with the shape ofthe character dependent upon the letter’s placement within the word. Theplacement types are initial, medial, final, and isolated. Many of these lettersdo not translate well to an untrained English speaker, as some of these letters,and the sounds they produce, have no Roman characters that can act asphonetic matches. This lack of easy transition from Arabic consonant soundsto those found in English has paved the way for a number of discrepanciesbetween transliteration systems.

Vowels play a less important role in the divisiveness, but they deservemention in order to better understand what part, or lack thereof, they playin a Romanization scheme. There are five long vowels in Arabic and allare printed in standard writing along with the consonants. However, thethree short vowels, along with the ‘‘sukun,’’ which indicates the absence ofa vowel sound between consonants, are not printed. It is assumed that aperson literate in the language will know what short vowels are to appear.

An English example would be ‘‘bsktbll.’’ The short vowels are not printed,but it is obvious to a native speaker that the word is ‘‘basketball.’’ Thereare some notable exceptions to this ‘‘no short vowel’’ rule in Arabic—bookcovers, title pages, and holy texts amongst the most important—but patronswill rarely find Arabic monographs or serials with full diacritics throughout.

The need for this evaluative study becomes apparent when looking atthe substantial list of transliteration options, with no one system particularlydominant in terms of overall prevalence. The reason all these systems stillexist is because they are all still in use. Thus, some sort of process to deter-mine the relative strengths and weaknesses of them must be employed notonly for the good of library patrons and catalogers, but also for participantsin other fields where non-Roman transliteration is in any way related to theprofession.

The most important relation would be access to materials. Currently,because OCLC uses the ALA-Library of Congress (LC)/United Nations groupof experts on geographical names (UNGEGN) transliteration method, localILS platforms such as Millennium, Aleph, and Voyager use that method aswell. This means that if patrons conduct an author or title search usingRoman characters, the results are almost guaranteed to be incomplete orblank altogether, as names written in ALA-LC/UNGEGN will not necessarilybe found through a query that uses a non-diacritics-based transliteration. Thisis critically important to library patrons conducting any sort of search throughan OPAC. It literally means that typing an Arabic writer’s name in, verbatimin Roman characters, may not result in a complete list of his available worksbeing displayed.

Thus, this paper will examine the strengths and weaknesses of half adozen Arabic transliteration systems. They will be evaluated for accuracy and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

166 D. R. Lawson

usability. Ultimately, this could prove useful to library patrons and universi-ties by providing them with an objective, ranked look at which transliterationsystems do the best job of adhering to correct Arabic pronunciation whileusing characters that will properly display on the screen.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The current system used in the library world did not have its beginnings atan ALA conference, an LC memo, or even a meeting of Arabic catalogers.Instead, the decree that has landed the Arabic transliteration world in itscurrent predicament came from the United Nations.

In 1972 the United Nations Experts on Groups of Geographical Namesapproved the system created by a gathering of Arabic experts in Beirut ayear earlier.1 And though the author found no information directly linkingthe ALA-LC method to the UNGEGN method, the fact that the two systems’character transliterations are completely identical, save for the shape of thediacritic beneath the , , , , , is very compelling evidence that thesimilarities are more than coincidental.

However, at the time the UNGEGN transliteration method was created,OCLC did not support the Arabic script on its WorldCat interface. Thisoccurred in 1992, when the Research Libraries Group finally implemented it,years after Hebrew and Cyrillic and nearly a decade after Chinese, Japanese,and Korean.2

The UN-ALA-LC-OCLC (termed ALA-LC within the text henceforth) workdid not take place in a bubble. Others were working on their own methodsthat did not necessarily follow the linguist-derived code already set forth.After all, ‘‘in any discussion of Arabic Romanization, one is entering a fieldwhere there is little practical or terminological agreement.’’3 Many of the dis-agreements focus on morphological analysis and other linguistic and naturallanguage phenomena outside this author’s area of competence. However, theaspects of the transliteration problems that do not require expertise in thefield of computational linguistics are easy to recognize. The ALA-LC modelposed an even larger problem fifteen years ago than it does now. Far fewerOPACs and ILS interfaces could display the diacritics in a Romanized script,much less the Arabic vernacular. Thus, from the 1972 launch through ALA’s1997 minor revision, there was plenty of room for something more practicalto come along.4

METHODOLOGY

Each system will be evaluated by two broadly defined components crucial tothe success of any transliteration method for non-Roman scripts—accuracyand usability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 167

Accuracy

Accuracy, for the purposes of this paper, will be an examination of themethod’s adherence to the pronunciation of the original Arabic letter. Inother words, how close does the Roman letter(s) or combination of letterand diacritical mark come to representing the original pronunciation of theArabic character? Systems that use diacritics will be evaluated for phoneticand spelling accuracy without penalty.

Things can of course get tricky in this portion of the process. A goodexample would be the letters and written with the Q and W, respec-tively, on a keyboard. The first letter listed sounds not too different from ,which every transliteration system agrees is a match for the Roman letter D.However, has no direct English equivalent. One can make the sound bysaying daad, which involves elongating the mouth, producing a stressed D,then an AH, the same as the vowel sound in ‘‘ball,’’ and finally popping thetongue off the roof of the mouth for an aspirated D. It is rather difficult toconvey those instructions through the use of a single key.

Thus, with no direct English equivalent, Arabic-to-English transliterationsystems have taken different approaches to this letter. One of them, Qalam,has used a capital D to emphasize the stressed sound. Another, standardarabic technical transliteration system (SATTS), in keeping with its policiesof making adherence to ASCII compatibility and of not repeating charactersmore important than phonetic matching, uses a V. All the rest use a lowercased with some sort of diacritical mark under the letter. These marks are nativeto neither English nor Arabic and they often fail to display properly in anOPAC (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

Another good example of the problems transliteration systems face is thecharacter , produced by typing the letter Y on the keyboard. The isolated,initial, medial, and final forms of this letter look very different from oneanother, as displayed here, in left-to-right order, with thecharacters being attached to other letters in the three non-isolated cases.

Correctly pronouncing this letter involves closing the throat, placing thetongue far back against the roof of the mouth, and then attempting to saya guttural gh’ayn, while forcing the air out at the same time the tongueis dropped back to a normal position. The difficulties of transferring theinstructions of the previous example to a keyboard look tame in comparison.

So, what is a transliteration system to do with this? SATTS uses a capitalG; Qalam and ALA-LC use a gh; Buckwalter uses a g; and ISO 233-2 uses ag with a diacritical mark above (Figure 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

168 D. R. Lawson

FIGURE 2.

As one can see, there is some disagreement, but a general consensuson the sound to be made, which unfortunately comes nowhere close tobeing accurate. Thus, some allowances have to be made for any Arabictransliteration system, as on several occasions no combination of Romancharacters or marks can accurately convey the correct pronunciation of aletter.

Further adding to the difficulty is the fact that Moroccan Arabic is asclose to Iraqi Arabic as English is to Swedish. The consonant roots andthe verb formations lead most educated people into seeing there is somecommon basis, but the dialects are so far apart that transliterated names areoften written with completely different Roman characters. The g used forthe ghayn character above may actually cause problems for Egyptians, asthey pronounce with a hard ‘g’ sound (‘‘Geem’’ with a G as in ‘‘get’’),whereas all other Arabic-speaking countries use a ‘j’ sound (‘‘Jeem’’ with aJ as in ‘‘jet’’). Thus, it is easy to see that not only do the Arabic sounds notnative to English make a perfect transliteration system a near impossibility,but the dialect variations within Arabic itself may very easily cause a system’sstrength to vary, to at least some degree, from country to country.

Examples of this problem can be seen in Name Authority CooperativeProgram authority files for past Arabic writers, some of whom have seentheir names transliterated any number of ways. This problem reaches a levelof absurdity with the name of the acting head of Libya, as there are at least32 different ways to transliterate his name; a few follow.5

Muammar QaddafiMo’ammar GadhafiMuammar KaddafiMuammar QadhafiMoammar El KadhafiMuammar GadafiMu’ammar al-QadafiMu’ammar QadafiMoamar GaddafiMuammar Khaddafi

Ultimately, these points illustrate the need for finding a universally adoptedtransliteration method, one which will inevitably have to balance accuracywith usability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 169

Usability

The usability portion of the evaluation process will examine each system’suse or non-use of diacritical marks non-native to either language in question.When patrons or catalogers encounter a letter with an unfamiliar diacriticalmark above, beneath, or beside it, it is logical to assume they will probablyignore it. The second most likely outcome is that they will recognize themark as a modifier but will not know how it changes the pronunciation ofthe letter in question. The research revealed no precedent for a numericalevaluation of non-Roman transliteration systems. Therefore, a new methodwas developed by the author.

EVALUATION

Transliteration systems under study here were selected for evaluation basedupon the presence of unique attributes. Methods which incorporate non-native diacritical marks and methods that may not accurately convey thecorrect pronunciation of every letter were not discriminated against. How-ever, where there are multiple methods that are identical to another one inexistence, only one is listed here. The more prominent and more widely usedsystem is named in the case of systems that are identical save for the title.

Each system receives a score from 0 to 60, with 30 points allotted tophonetic accuracy and 30 points allotted to usability. Each point is awardedon a simple yes/no basis, i.e.,

Usability: Is this transliterated character an accurate representation of thepronunciation of the vernacular?

Accuracy: Does this character use non-native diacritics?

The evaluation results are to be captured below in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3. Usability and Accuracy Scoring Metric.

All transliteration systems are given credit for finding a ‘‘best fit’’ forArabic characters that simply cannot be transliterated without writing out theword, such as the story of , , and discussed earlier. It is perhaps bestto think of a non-English speaker learning the letter W. Every other English

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

170 D. R. Lawson

letter is a simple monosyllabic utterance that does not require multiple voweland consonant sounds, i.e., A, G, N, Y, etc. A single character is able todenote a single sound from each. In Arabic, there are more of the W-likeletters, for which a single character has to serve as the representation ofmore than one sound, the same as W representing ‘‘Double-you.’’

Thus, taking everything under consideration, the Arabic transliterationsystems to be evaluated are as follows, with the first five systems (ISO233-2, Qalam, SATTS, Arabic chat alphabet [Arabesh], Buckwalter) orderedrandomly, and ALA-LC, as it is the current standard for Anglophone Libraries,coming last.

ISO 233-2

ISO 233-2 is the 1993 revised Arabic transliteration system created by theInternational Organization for Standards.6 When creating a transliterationsystem, the non-governmental organization claims, ‘‘views of all interests aretaken into account: manufacturers, vendors and users, consumer groups, test-ing laboratories, governments, engineering professions, and research organi-zations.’’7 The company’s profile leads one to believe entities relying uponUnicode may find this method useful. However, Arab governments and U.S.government entities do not currently use this system.

Despite the system’s lack of usability, with 11 instances of the use ofnon-native diacritics, it does prove to have significant value in its adherenceto correct phonetics. This transliteration method lines up 16 characters one-to-one, with no diacritics. However, there should be 17. In what appears tobe an effort to conform to the speech patterns of Egyptian Arabic, which isspread through the country’s media dominance throughout the Arab world,ISO 233-2 has used a g instead of a simple j for (Figure 4).

For the other 14, ISO 233-2 does a stellar job in terms of finding a way todifferentiate the sound of one character from another. It separates fromas well as from from . However, diacritics native to neither Englishnor Arabic are used in every case.

Thus, it becomes clear that the system the International Organization forStandards has made contains more bad in it than good. The numbers bearthat out (Figure 5).

Qalam

Qalam is a morphological Arabic-Latin-Arabic transliteration system that seeksto ‘‘transliterate Arabic script for computer communication by those literatein the language.’’8 It can be transliterated in both directions, by humans andby automation. It also does not incorporate a single non-native diacritic. Theonly non-lettered transliterations are for the and the , both of which fallinto the category of non-Romanizable characters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 171

FIGURE 4.

The one-to-one matches used by ISO 233-2 are present, as are a fewtwo-English-letters to one-Arabic-character equivalents. And, rather than us-ing non-native diacritics that an OPAC may not display, and that few butlinguistic professionals will understand, Qalam has put capital letters in theirplace. For example, is no longer t., but instead T. As mentioned earlier,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

172 D. R. Lawson

FIGURE 5.

patrons and catalogers will almost certainly ignore diacritics they cannot read.A capitalization will, at the very least, alert the reader to the fact that thougha ‘T’ sound is involved here, it is not a direct match. Admittedly, on that frontthe benefit may be very slim, but at the very least the difference is expressedwithout compromising OPAC compatibility. However, on a negative note,the capitalization is not as phonetically accurate as a diacritic, costing Qalamfive letters in the accuracy portion (Figure 6).

FIGURE 6.

SATTS

SATTS, the Standard Arabic Transliteration System, is a Latin Morse methodmost often employed by the military and communications companies.9 At-tempts to date the creation and to identify the source of its origination haveyielded little information.

Like Qalam, SATTS completely eliminated the diacritics that plague ISO233-2 and ALA-LC. However, unlike Qalam, every single Arabic character ismatched one-to-one with a key on a standard English keyboard. Thus, thereis zero confusion as to which Arabic character writers intend to representwhen they input text.

However, there are of course multiple phonetic problems in this situa-tion. Though the characters used are completely compatible, a U does notrepresent the ‘‘ta’’ sound of and a colon does not represent the ‘‘shin’’sound of a (Figure 7).

Arabic Chat Alphabet (Arabesh)

The Arabic chat alphabet, which is known as ‘‘Arabesh’’ in some circlesand as ‘‘Arabizi’’ in others, is the natural offshoot of native-Arab speakers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 173

FIGURE 7.

using technological interfaces that do not, or at least once did not, supportthe Arabic vernacular.10 Before the Mid-East adapted cell phone technology,much of the region was dependent upon devices that supported only Englishtext. In addition, not all computer operating systems, especially a decade orso ago, supported Arabic vernacular.

As this author can attest, texting was alive and well in Dubai in 2003,and more often than not the messages high school and college age studentswere exchanging were in either English or Arabesh.

Obviously, to use the tools above, Arabesh uses no diacritics. However,it is prone to phonetic inaccuracies, as users sometimes substitute numbersin the place of letters that have no direct English equivalent.

A problem in the evaluation of this aspect is that the language is not set.It varies from user to user and some letters can have as many as four differentcharacters representing it. Thus, the author concluded that using what is mostlikely to be the most common form of the language (ascertained throughpersonal experience in the Mid-East) to score its accuracy component wouldbe the most prudent course of action. However, since there are no statisticson such matters, this portion of the Arabic chat alphabet system’s score is atleast somewhat subjective (Figures 8 and 9).

FIGURE 8.

Buckwalter

The Buckwalter transliteration method, developed at Xerox in 1990, ‘‘isused for representing exact orthographical strings of Arabic in email andother environments where the display of real Arabic script is impracticalor impossible.’’11,12 This system, like Qalam and Arabesh, does not usediacritics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

174 D. R. Lawson

FIGURE 9.

The drawback to the Buckwalter method is that it incorporates severalinstances where the character used to match an Arabic letter is nothing closeto the original pronunciation. Buckwalter does not do this as often as SATTS,but it is a negative nonetheless. In addition, much like Qalam, Buckwalteruses capitalization to emphasize the presence of a different pronunciation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 175

from another Arabic character that uses the same Roman letter, only in lower-case form. While this helps a user differentiate one from another, completephonetic accuracy requires a diacritic (Figure 10).

FIGURE 10.

ALA-LC/UNGEGN

The transliteration system for ALA and LC, which is also used by OCLC,differs from the system created by the UNGEGN only in terms of the shapeof the diacritical mark placed beneath five letters. For the and

there is a dot beneath in ALA-LC and a curved line for UNGEGN. Each isintended to convey the presence of an emphatic consonant. Because thereis only this superficial distance, at least for basic character transliteration, thesystems have been combined.

As stated from the beginning of this paper, ALA-LC/UNGEGN uses non-native diacritics. Though this system does this less than ISO 233-2, thesemarks against it, six non-native, harm what would otherwise be a usefulsystem. This method does not shy away from using two letters to convey anArabic sound when needed, and it does a solid job of making sure no twocharacters could be mistaken for one another after transliteration.

There is one odd anomaly, however, as the alif, ( ) the most commonletter in Arabic, is omitted. It is simply not printed if it stands alone ormodifies a consonant. The alif is only printed when it is being modified byanother long vowel or when it is supporting a hamza, .13

That said, the rest of the system is very accurate, phonetically, but itsinsistence on diacritics native to neither language means that it simply cannotbe effectively used by many universities’ OPACs, catalogers, and patrons(Figures 11 and 12).

FIGURE 11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

176 D. R. Lawson

FIGURE 12. Final tally.

CONCLUSION

As the numbers above show, Qalam emerges as the winner, though ALA-LC claims a very respectable second. Nevertheless, the recommendationmade here is that ALA, LC, the UN, and OCLC should at least take underconsideration the possibility of abandoning their own transliteration methodin favor of Qalam, which avoids all diacritics while maintaining almost thesame level of phonetic accuracy.

By making such a move, ALA-LC, OCLC, and the UN will be givingnon-linguists the best access to information written in transliterated Arabic.The characters are familiar to English speakers, and the letters and symbolscan be displayed on any OPAC. In order to make access to Arabic materialseasier for people who are not experts in the language, this is a positive step.

Also noteworthy, as the Accuracy/Usability Scores show, achieving highmarks in both usability and accuracy is a near impossibility. The differencesbetween English and Arabic are simply too great to make any one translitera-tion system a seamless transition from one to the other. Perhaps for linguists,ISO 233-2 or ALA-LC may be the most useful, but for American libraries,catalogers, and patrons, neither fits as well as a system with no diacriticsand a very, though not perfectly, accurate phonetic transliteration.

Finally, seeing that Arabesh, created more or less by Arab teenagerstexting and IM’ing one another, beats out three scientifically engineeredsystems lends credence to the statement by T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence ofArabia):

Arabic names won’t go into English exactly, for their consonants are not

the same as ours, and their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district.

There are some ‘‘scientific systems’’ of transliteration, helpful to people

who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a washout for the

world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are.

NOTES

1. UNGEGN Working Group on Romanization Systems. (2003). Arabic. Report on the Current

Status of United Nations Romanization Systems for Geographical Names, Version 2.2.

Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ar.htm.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

An Assessment of Arabic Transliteration Systems 177

2. J. Eilts. (1995). Non-Roman script materials in North American libraries: Automation andinternational exchange. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions,

61st general conference. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla61/61-eilj.htm.

3. K. Beesley. (1998). Romanization, transcription, and transliteration. Retrieved March 27,2008, from http://ftp.xrce.xerox.com/competencies/contentanalysis/arabic/info/romanization.html

4. R. K. Barry. (1997). ALA-LC Romanization tables: Transliteration schemes for non-Roman

scripts. Washington: Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress. Retrieved March21, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf

5. C. Adams. (1986). How are you suppose to spell Muammar Gaddafi/Khadafy/Gadhafi? The

straight dope. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/513/how-are-you-supposed-to-spell-muammar-gaddafi-khadafy-qadhafi

6. ISO 233. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_233

7. International Standards Organization. ISO—Standards development processes. RetrievedMarch 26, 2008, from http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/how_are_standards_developed.htm

8. A. Heddaya. (1985). Qalam: A convention for morphological Arabic-Latin-Arabic translit-eration. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://langs.eserver.org/qalam.txt

9. Standard Arabic Technical Transliteration System. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Arabic_Technical_Transliteration_System

10. Arabic Chat Alphabet. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 7, 2008, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_chat_alphabet

11. T. Buckwalter. (2001). Buckwalter Arabic transliteration. Retrieved March 24, 2008, fromhttp://www.qamus.org/transliteration.htm

12. Arabic Transliteration/Encoding Chart. (2008). Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://www.xrce.xerox.com/competencies/content-analysis/arabic/info/translit-chart.html

13. Ibid (4). ALA-LC Romanization tables.

14. B. Whitaker. (2002). Lost in translation. The Guardian. Manchester: Guardian News andMedia Limited. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/10/israel1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

8:05

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14