Discussion:
Interdentals in semi-formal Arabic
(too old to reply)
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-11-23 16:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As is well known Urban Levantine Arabic and Egyptian Arabic lack the
interdentals of Classical Arabic and these have become their
corresponding stops. In loanwords from Standard Arabic (or in speaking
low register Standar Arabic) however these are rendered as sibilants, ث
/θ/ is articulated as [s], ذ /δ/ as [z] and ظ /δ./ as [z.]. In Persian
this is precisely the same, except of course for the lack of emphasis
in ظ /δ./ > [z]. This is holds true in Arabic loanwords in Turkish,
with back vowels being associated with ظ /δ./ > [z]. My question is:
Is it plausible that Ottoman Turkish is responsible for the
substitution of sibilants in Standard (Classical or Modern) Arabic
words in the spoken language? Let me note that ض /d./ may be rendered
either as [d] or [z] (with back vowels) in Turkish so this does not
disprove it.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-23 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
As is well known Urban Levantine Arabic and Egyptian Arabic lack the
interdentals of Classical Arabic and these have become their
corresponding stops. In loanwords from Standard Arabic (or in speaking
low register Standar Arabic) however these are rendered as sibilants, ث
/θ/ is articulated as [s], ذ /δ/ as [z] and ظ /δ./ as [z.]. In Persian
this is precisely the same, except of course for the lack of emphasis
in ظ /δ./ > [z]. This is holds true in Arabic loanwords in Turkish,
Is it plausible that Ottoman Turkish is responsible for the
substitution of sibilants in Standard (Classical or Modern) Arabic
words in the spoken language? Let me note that ض /d./ may be rendered
either as [d] or [z] (with back vowels) in Turkish so this does not
disprove it.
You'd want to look at histories of Arabic to see whether it's chronologically
possible -- and also you'd have to ask whether, even after Ottoman domination
of the areas concerned, the general population had much or any contact with
Turkish-speakers who were mangling Arabic.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-11-24 15:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It is extremely difficult to obtain information on Spoken Arabic except for Mudlim Spain until the recent period. Once the substitution of s for th z for dh became socially acceptable in certain regions it continued. Lack of learnüng Turkish is not an argument
Arnaud Fournet
2017-11-23 18:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
As is well known Urban Levantine Arabic and Egyptian Arabic lack the
interdentals of Classical Arabic and these have become their
corresponding stops. In loanwords from Standard Arabic (or in speaking
low register Standar Arabic) however these are rendered as sibilants, ث
/θ/ is articulated as [s], ذ /δ/ as [z] and ظ /δ./ as [z.]. In Persian
this is precisely the same, except of course for the lack of emphasis
in ظ /δ./ > [z]. This is holds true in Arabic loanwords in Turkish,
Is it plausible that Ottoman Turkish is responsible for the
substitution of sibilants in Standard (Classical or Modern) Arabic
words in the spoken language? Let me note that ض /d./ may be rendered
either as [d] or [z] (with back vowels) in Turkish so this does not
disprove it.
I would rather conclude that the substrate of near-eastern Arabic is Aramaic, and that Turks and Persians learned Arabic from Peninsula Arabic speakers, who were little acquainted with Aramaic.
A.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-11-24 15:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Turks started learning Arabic and about Islam from Central Asian Persian speakers and bookish learning through texts.Little contact with actual spoken Arabic except for communities such as the Iraqi Turcoman The words for prophet ablution ritual prayer fast in Turkish are all from Persian not Arabic
Dingbat
2017-12-09 12:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
As is well known Urban Levantine Arabic and Egyptian Arabic lack the
interdentals of Classical Arabic and these have become their
corresponding stops. In loanwords from Standard Arabic (or in speaking
low register Standar Arabic) however these are rendered as sibilants, ث
/θ/ is articulated as [s], ذ /δ/ as [z] and ظ /δ./ as [z.]. In Persian
this is precisely the same, except of course for the lack of emphasis
in ظ /δ./ > [z]. This is holds true in Arabic loanwords in Turkish,
Is it plausible that Ottoman Turkish is responsible for the
substitution of sibilants in Standard (Classical or Modern) Arabic
words in the spoken language? Let me note that ض /d./ may be rendered
either as [d] or [z] (with back vowels) in Turkish so this does not
disprove it.
Algerian Arabic /T/ and /D/ might have complementarily distributed
allophones {[t],[s]} and {[d],[z]}, judging from this:
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic_algerian.htm

I can't think of some other reason why two articulations
are given for each of /T/ and /D/.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-09 13:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
As is well known Urban Levantine Arabic and Egyptian Arabic lack the
interdentals of Classical Arabic and these have become their
corresponding stops. In loanwords from Standard Arabic (or in speaking
low register Standar Arabic) however these are rendered as sibilants, ث
/θ/ is articulated as [s], ذ /δ/ as [z] and ظ /δ./ as [z.]. In Persian
this is precisely the same, except of course for the lack of emphasis
in ظ /δ./ > [z]. This is holds true in Arabic loanwords in Turkish,
Is it plausible that Ottoman Turkish is responsible for the
substitution of sibilants in Standard (Classical or Modern) Arabic
words in the spoken language? Let me note that ض /d./ may be rendered
either as [d] or [z] (with back vowels) in Turkish so this does not
disprove it.
Algerian Arabic /T/ and /D/ might have complementarily distributed
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic_algerian.htm
I can't think of some other reason why two articulations
are given for each of /T/ and /D/.
The two most obvious reasons are geographic variation and social variation, just as in any other variety
of Arabic. Complementary distribution -- i.e., conditioned allomorphy -- is not an option in Arabic.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-12-09 15:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It could be the phenomenon I reffered to. The normal reflexes are stops and the sıbılants are in loans
Dingbat
2017-12-09 17:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
It could be the phenomenon I reffered to. The normal reflexes are stops and the sıbılants are in loans
There seem to be a crazily large number of ways to spell loans:

The phoneme /ɡ/: the word "golf" may be spelled jwlf (mainly in Egypt), ghwlf and kwlf (mainly in the Levant and Iraq), qwlf (mainly in the Arabian Peninsula), ݣwlf‎ (in Morocco) or گwlf (in West Asia).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_phonology

What are those letters that didn't get transliterated to Latin,
that are used in Morocco and West Asia?

I used this to transliterate to Latin:
http://mylanguages.org/arabic_romanization.php
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-12-10 05:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes. Those are recent loans from foreign mostly western languages. The orthography reflects either local reflexes of Classical Arabic phonemes or Turkish and Persian orthography.In Iraq Turkish continued to be used in writing (the spoken language there is a dialect of Azeri Turkish but Ottoman Turkish in writing) until the 1990s. Now in Standard Turkish Roman Script. Sorani Kurdish is co-official written in a script inspired from Persian and Ottoman Turkish. So İraqis are familiar with the extra letters from those languages.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-12-10 06:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
پ for p چ for *ch* in Iraq and perhaps in some Gulf states with a Persian population or whatever the uncommon reflex of jim happens to be elsewhere. This may be *zh* g or j
گ for g in Iraq and perhaps in some Gulf States and in Morocco
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-12-10 11:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ڤ is used widely to represent foriegn v
As qaf ق with three dots instead of two is sometimes used in N Africa for foreign g v as represented previously has its three dots written below in that area

غ ghain with three dots instead of one is sometimes used in the Levant to represent foreign g

Sorani Kurdish ۆ o may be seen in Iraq to reresent foreign o

Sorani Kurdish ێ e: may be seen im Iraq to represent foreign e

Loading...