Disputatio:Translitteratio linguae Hebraicae

Actually, I wonder if this is more of a transcriptio than a translitteratio, being as it is pretty unscientific. When you see a Greek word in Latin form, you can generally reconstruct the original Greek, with only slight uncertainty. This is not really the case for Hebrew, especially once vowels come into play (though this is largely because the dialect of Hebrew the ancients based their transcriptions off of was apparently not the same one recorded in the Massoretic texts). --Iustinus 23:16, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, @Iustinus, when I connected this at Wikidata, I came up with the following:

Three "Romanization" (English, Catalan, Hebrew) — the Hebrew is litun, meaning "latin-alphabet-ization," so I take that to be the same

Litun! What a great word. I hadn't seen it before. --Iustinus (disputatio)

I've also never seen "littun". -- Margavriel — Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam 68.175.55.167 scripsit (68.175.55.167 • conlationes) 23:24, 4 Iulii 2016 (UTC).[reply]

16:27, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

One "transcription" (French)
One unknown (Arabic, which I don't speak and can't recognize)

For the record, it's نسخ naskh, which means, among other things, "copying" or "transcription". Lesgles (disputatio) 18:26, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No "transliteration"

I don't see a strong need to rename here, though. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:28, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]