Discussion:
SHwediSH
Add Reply
wugi
2018-09-05 20:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Does anyone know where Swedish got its frea-, er, weir-, well, special
sound from shown by the various spellings sj, skj, stj, sk ?

My Hugo (otherwise a good label) 'Swedish in three months' says, as I
had expected, "pronounced like SH in SHALL".

So when we visited Sweden, in 2005 or so, and I was buying some
sandwiches and wanted one with ham, I said to the waiter "mé shinka".
She didn't have a clue what I was asking for! I had to return to English
ham, and then asked her how *she* called that. The answer sounded
something like "HWing-ka", with a quite breathy fricative voiceless H
and an English-like W.

Since then it 'hits' me now and again in Swedish films or series.
Station ~ "staHWo:n" and alike. Special indeed :^O
--
guido wugi
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-09-06 00:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wugi
Does anyone know where Swedish got its frea-, er, weir-, well, special
sound from shown by the various spellings sj, skj, stj, sk ?
My Hugo (otherwise a good label) 'Swedish in three months' says, as I
had expected, "pronounced like SH in SHALL".
So when we visited Sweden, in 2005 or so, and I was buying some
sandwiches and wanted one with ham, I said to the waiter "mé shinka".
She didn't have a clue what I was asking for! I had to return to English
ham, and then asked her how *she* called that. The answer sounded
something like "HWing-ka", with a quite breathy fricative voiceless H
and an English-like W.
Since then it 'hits' me now and again in Swedish films or series.
Station ~ "staHWo:n" and alike. Special indeed :^O
I had an album by a Swedish folk-rock group called Skäggmanslaget ("Group
of Bearded Guys"). I asked a Swedish friend how to pronounce it and
the initial consonant was this thing. It sounded to me like a labialized
voiceless retroflex fricative, but I wasn't doing phonetic research...
Turns out there is actually a special IPA symbol for it [ɧ], but it's
highly variable across Swedish dialects. Ladefoged & Maddieson devote
several pages to it in _Sounds of the World's Languages_, citing basic
studies by Lindblad (1980, in Swedish).

Was your question about its historical origins? From the spellings of
the words where it occurs, I'd guess it's a product of palatalization
of *s (and *sk), but I don't know why it assumed the particular phonetically
weird character it now has. Uralic substrate?
wugi
2018-09-06 08:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by wugi
Does anyone know where Swedish got its frea-, er, weir-, well, special
sound from shown by the various spellings sj, skj, stj, sk ?
My Hugo (otherwise a good label) 'Swedish in three months' says, as I
had expected, "pronounced like SH in SHALL".
So when we visited Sweden, in 2005 or so, and I was buying some
sandwiches and wanted one with ham, I said to the waiter "mé shinka".
She didn't have a clue what I was asking for! I had to return to English
ham, and then asked her how *she* called that. The answer sounded
something like "HWing-ka", with a quite breathy fricative voiceless H
and an English-like W.
Since then it 'hits' me now and again in Swedish films or series.
Station ~ "staHWo:n" and alike. Special indeed :^O
I had an album by a Swedish folk-rock group called Skäggmanslaget ("Group
of Bearded Guys"). I asked a Swedish friend how to pronounce it and
the initial consonant was this thing. It sounded to me like a labialized
voiceless retroflex fricative, but I wasn't doing phonetic research...
Turns out there is actually a special IPA symbol for it [ɧ], but it's
highly variable across Swedish dialects. Ladefoged & Maddieson devote
several pages to it in _Sounds of the World's Languages_, citing basic
studies by Lindblad (1980, in Swedish).
Thanks.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Was your question about its historical origins? From the spellings of
Yes. And when: how about, say, early recordings?
I forgot to mention I heard variants up to almost closed "H", kind of
approximant F like "FW".
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
the words where it occurs, I'd guess it's a product of palatalization
of *s (and *sk), but I don't know why it assumed the particular phonetically
weird character it now has. Uralic substrate?
--
guido wugi
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2018-09-06 07:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Over here in Finland it is pronounced [S].
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-09-07 07:01:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wugi
Does anyone know where Swedish got its frea-, er, weir-, well, special
sound from shown by the various spellings sj, skj, stj, sk ?
My Hugo (otherwise a good label) 'Swedish in three months' says, as I
had expected, "pronounced like SH in SHALL".
So when we visited Sweden, in 2005 or so, and I was buying some
sandwiches and wanted one with ham, I said to the waiter "mé shinka".
She didn't have a clue what I was asking for! I had to return to English
ham, and then asked her how *she* called that. The answer sounded
something like "HWing-ka", with a quite breathy fricative voiceless H
and an English-like W.
Since then it 'hits' me now and again in Swedish films or series.
Station ~ "staHWo:n" and alike. Special indeed :^O
Not knowing Swedish I can still say a word on the variations of the expressive
letter S from the angle of my alternative approach to early language. Greek
sigma has cognates in sign signal signature significant, in German sagen
English say, Magdalenian SIG for sign and inverse GIS for gesture. A hissing
Sss can warn, a softer Shh ask for silence. The strong phoneme was ideal
for the branching of words via minor sound shifts and vocal shadings. D-words
and T-words can have comparative forms in S-words, for example DIG for finger,
Latin digitus, has a comparative form in the above SIG, and inverse GID for
give and get in GIS. TYR for the one who overcomes in the double sense of
rule and give became emphatic Middle Helladic Ss Ey R Sseyr on the Phaistos
Disc (Derk Ohlenroth) Doric Sseus (Wilhelm Larfeld) Homeric Zeus. Many English
words have S-versions in German that appears to be an emphatic language,
water Wasser eat essen hot heiss heat Hitze sweet süss nut Nuss better besser
great gross greet grüssen, and so on and onner. Magdalenian PAD means activity
of feet German Füsse, the comparative form PAS everywhere (in a plain), here,
south and north of me, east and west of me, in all five places, Greek pas pan
'all, every' pente penta- 'five'. Inverse DAP means activity of hands and
the comparative form SAP everywhere (in space), here, south and north of me,
east and west of me, under and above me, in all seven places, accounting for
English seven German sieben French sept Latin septem and Greek - hepta,
shifting from S to the softer H (while the sigma remains in sophia 'wisdom'
Latin sapientia 'wordly wisdom' acquired by exploring the world in all seven
places). If I got you wright and not rong the Swedish S pronounced hW might be
another softening of the sharp S on the way from the Stone Age to the Early
Concrete Age.

For the puzzling ways of migration and language spreading see David Reich,
Who We Are and How We Got Here, Oxford 2018, a demanding read but highly
rewarding. The Ice Man 'Oetzi' came from Sardinia. Sardinian famers
contributed to the European genome as of 5,000 years ago, also in southern
Sweden. Ad hoc hypothesis: maybe they brought a whistling language with
them that has a remote echo in the modulation of the sigma phoneme?
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-09-07 07:07:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Not knowing Swedish I can still say a word on the variations of the expressive
letter S from the angle of my alternative approach to early language. Greek
sigma has cognates in sign signal signature significant, in German sagen
English say, Magdalenian SIG for sign and inverse GIS for gesture. A hissing
Sss can warn, a softer Shh ask for silence. The strong phoneme was ideal
for the branching of words via minor sound shifts and vocal shadings. D-words
and T-words can have comparative forms in S-words, for example DIG for finger,
Latin digitus, has a comparative form in the above SIG, and inverse GID for
give and get in GIS. TYR for the one who overcomes in the double sense of
rule and give became emphatic Middle Helladic Ss Ey R Sseyr on the Phaistos
Disc (Derk Ohlenroth) Doric Sseus (Wilhelm Larfeld) Homeric Zeus. Many English
words have S-versions in German that appears to be an emphatic language,
water Wasser eat essen hot heiss heat Hitze sweet süss nut Nuss better besser
great gross greet grüssen, and so on and onner. Magdalenian PAD means activity
of feet German Füsse, the comparative form PAS everywhere (in a plain), here,
south and north of me, east and west of me, in all five places, Greek pas pan
'all, every' pente penta- 'five'. Inverse DAP means activity of hands and
the comparative form SAP everywhere (in space), here, south and north of me,
east and west of me, under and above me, in all seven places, accounting for
English seven German sieben French sept Latin septem and Greek - hepta,
shifting from S to the softer H (while the sigma remains in sophia 'wisdom'
Latin sapientia 'wordly wisdom' acquired by exploring the world in all seven
places). If I got you wright and not rong the Swedish S pronounced hW might be
another softening of the sharp S on the way from the Stone Age to the Early
Concrete Age.
For the puzzling ways of migration and language spreading see David Reich,
Who We Are and How We Got Here, Oxford 2018, a demanding read but highly
rewarding. The Ice Man 'Oetzi' came from Sardinia. Sardinian famers
contributed to the European genome as of 5,000 years ago, also in southern
Sweden. Ad hoc hypothesis: maybe they brought a whistling language with
them that has a remote echo in the modulation of the sigma phoneme?
I forgot to mention SLRYNS for Tiryns on the Phaistos Disc, a softening
of the emphatic Ss in Sseyr (shining Slryns Tiryns being compared to shining
Sseyr Zeus in the spiral text of the Tiryns side or disc, the main emphasis
reserved for Sseyr Zeus).
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 13:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Not knowing Swedish I can still say a word
You would think that, wouldn't you.

I actually knew one thing about Swedish -- that that weird H-NG phonetic
symbol had been created for it.
António Marques
2018-09-07 13:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Not knowing Swedish I can still say a word
You would think that, wouldn't you.
I actually knew one thing about Swedish -- that that weird H-NG phonetic
symbol had been created for it.
And Czech has a weird r. Could it be the case that there are actually a lot
more of these sounds-only-found-in-a-couple-of-languages, but only European
ones have been given enough study?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by António Marques
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Not knowing Swedish I can still say a word
You would think that, wouldn't you.
I actually knew one thing about Swedish -- that that weird H-NG phonetic
symbol had been created for it.
And Czech has a weird r. Could it be the case that there are actually a lot
more of these sounds-only-found-in-a-couple-of-languages, but only European
ones have been given enough study?
Indubitably.

Check out Ladefoged & Maddieson -- and also the decadal or so revisions
of the IPA chart. As new speech sounds were discovered and reported by
field linguists, new symbols were devised for them.
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-09-08 07:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by António Marques
And Czech has a weird r. Could it be the case that there are actually a lot
more of these sounds-only-found-in-a-couple-of-languages, but only European
ones have been given enough study?
The rolling R can also have meaning. And the humming M given as Mm marks
presence, accounting for moi in French and me in English, opposed to je
and I - the m-words indicate the inner me, je and I the outward me. M is
also present in French mon ma mes, English my mine, and such m-words in
plenty other languages. Then the vowel O indicates a surprise, A a sudden
insight. All these letters or phonemes can be variated. I told several
times the story how me and my first big love spent a midday humming,
just humming, and we understood each other amazingly well - until we went
to the cinema and had to ask for tickets. Variations of the simple M
exchanged between me and her combined with glances and mimics and gestures
worked as a proper language.
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-09-08 07:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You would think that, wouldn't you.
I actually knew one thing about Swedish -- that that weird H-NG phonetic
symbol had been created for it.
Words did not only branch in the remote past, also in the recent past and
in the present. Word branching is of paramount concern in Magdalenian theory.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
You _would_ think that, wouldn't you.
I actually knew one thing about Swedish -- that that weird H-NG phonetic
symbol had been created for it.
Words did not only branch in the remote past, also in the recent past and
in the present. Word branching is of paramount concern in Magdalenian theory.
Does that comment relate in any way to the sentence from me that you
wrote it beneath?

There is no such thing as "Magdalenian theory." There is only humming,
dreaming, and ad-hoc fabrications whenever a word is mentioned in some
other discussion.
Daud Deden
2018-09-08 12:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:14:05 AM UTC-4,
Time is almost pi! Suelrely that is important?!?
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
You _would_ think that, wouldn't you.
I actually knew one thing about Swedish -- that that weird H-NG phonetic
symbol had been created for it.
Words did not only branch in the remote past, also in the recent past and
in the present. Word branching is of paramount concern in Magdalenian theory.
Does that comment relate in any way to the sentence from me that you
wrote it beneath?
There is no such thing as "Magdalenian theory."
Shouldn't there be a trademark/copywriter symbol following?

There is only humming,
dreaming, and ad-hoc fabrications whenever a word is mentioned in some
other discussion.
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2018-09-08 15:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daud Deden
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:14:05 AM UTC-4,
Time is almost pi! Suelrely that is important?!?
Surely it is, because Franz's highest academical accomplishment is, that he has been mentioned in a book called "Pi Unleashed" by Jörg Arndt et al.
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-09-10 06:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does that comment relate in any way to the sentence from me that you
wrote it beneath?
There is no such thing as "Magdalenian theory." There is only humming,
dreaming, and ad-hoc fabrications whenever a word is mentioned in some
other discussion.
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances. An IPA synthesizer could not produce
language. We had this before, and several times. What we need is a physio-
neurological model of the vocal space. And a part of Magdalenian theory is
the connection of the vocal system with word memory. My teachers who studied
linguistics could not answer my questions, which is why I didn't study
linguistics but language, and this led me to alternative ideas and insights
and experiments. When I pronounce a word or compound in the normal way,
over and over, it remains stable, but when I do the same without giving voice,
going through all the motions but silently, a word or compound shifts or slips,
either slowly or abruptly. Which is why I claim that the vocal system keeps
a word stable. Can one day be tested with neurological equipment. And as for
the many things that don't exist: also visual language and animal language
dont' exist for you, and there is no decipherment of the Phaistos Disc,
which is why you find every silly excuse for not even having a look at the
book by Derk Ohlenroth. Ignoring, deliberatly ignoring scientific literature
is a hallmark of a kook, and kooks are also found on the academic side of
the fence.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-09-10 13:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 23:50:58 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances. An IPA synthesizer could not produce
language.
They do, if based on combinations of speech sounds.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
António Marques
2018-09-10 13:40:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances.
A map that precisely chartered its territory would not be much use, would
it? Detail _has_ to be left out. It’s always a matter of how much to
include.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-10 14:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by António Marques
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances.
A map that precisely chartered its territory would not be much use, would
it? Detail _has_ to be left out. It’s always a matter of how much to
include.
And beginning in 1888, the International Phonetic Association (well, it
operated in French in those days) resolved to provide a symbol in the
International Phonetic Alphabet for each sound in a language that could
differentiate words. Thus even before the concept of "phoneme" had been
enunciated, they employed the phonemic principle, and they have not
wavered from it.

Except insofar as they provide diacritics to indicate subphonemic phonetic
properties. It would be interesting to know whether the "dental" vs.
"alveolar" diacritics were included before or after the phonology of
Malayalam became known. Did Caldwell hear it, in his groundbreaking
work on the Dravidian family, in the 1850s? Perhaps not, because it
is likely that what he dealt with was the written form of each of the
four literary languages plus Old Tamil. (In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-09-25 20:08:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by António Marques
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances.
A map that precisely chartered its territory would not be much use, would
it? Detail _has_ to be left out. It’s always a matter of how much to
include.
And beginning in 1888, the International Phonetic Association (well, it
operated in French in those days) resolved to provide a symbol in the
International Phonetic Alphabet for each sound in a language that could
differentiate words. Thus even before the concept of "phoneme" had been
enunciated, they employed the phonemic principle, and they have not
wavered from it.
Except insofar as they provide diacritics to indicate subphonemic phonetic
properties. It would be interesting to know whether the "dental" vs.
"alveolar" diacritics were included before or after the phonology of
Malayalam became known. Did Caldwell hear it, in his groundbreaking
work on the Dravidian family, in the 1850s? Perhaps not, because it
is likely that what he dealt with was the written form of each of the
four literary languages plus Old Tamil. (In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
I don't think that is the subject of the book. He gives a detailed account of the orthography.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-25 20:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by António Marques
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances.
A map that precisely chartered its territory would not be much use, would
it? Detail _has_ to be left out. It’s always a matter of how much to
include.
And beginning in 1888, the International Phonetic Association (well, it
operated in French in those days) resolved to provide a symbol in the
International Phonetic Alphabet for each sound in a language that could
differentiate words. Thus even before the concept of "phoneme" had been
enunciated, they employed the phonemic principle, and they have not
wavered from it.
Except insofar as they provide diacritics to indicate subphonemic phonetic
properties. It would be interesting to know whether the "dental" vs.
"alveolar" diacritics were included before or after the phonology of
Malayalam became known. Did Caldwell hear it, in his groundbreaking
work on the Dravidian family, in the 1850s? Perhaps not, because it
is likely that what he dealt with was the written form of each of the
four literary languages plus Old Tamil. (In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
I don't think that is the subject of the book. He gives a detailed account of the orthography.
Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley does provide that sort of information -- and
Standard Arabic was much more in contemporary use that Biblical Hebrew was.
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-09-25 20:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by António Marques
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The IPA leaves out innumerable nuances.
A map that precisely chartered its territory would not be much use, would
it? Detail _has_ to be left out. It’s always a matter of how much to
include.
And beginning in 1888, the International Phonetic Association (well, it
operated in French in those days) resolved to provide a symbol in the
International Phonetic Alphabet for each sound in a language that could
differentiate words. Thus even before the concept of "phoneme" had been
enunciated, they employed the phonemic principle, and they have not
wavered from it.
Except insofar as they provide diacritics to indicate subphonemic phonetic
properties. It would be interesting to know whether the "dental" vs.
"alveolar" diacritics were included before or after the phonology of
Malayalam became known. Did Caldwell hear it, in his groundbreaking
work on the Dravidian family, in the 1850s? Perhaps not, because it
is likely that what he dealt with was the written form of each of the
four literary languages plus Old Tamil. (In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
I don't think that is the subject of the book. He gives a detailed account of the orthography.
Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley does provide that sort of information -- and
Standard Arabic was much more in contemporary use that Biblical Hebrew was.
I don't understand what you mean? Details of connecting the letters?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-26 03:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
I don't think that is the subject of the book. He gives a detailed account of the orthography.
Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley does provide that sort of information -- and
Standard Arabic was much more in contemporary use that Biblical Hebrew was.
I don't understand what you mean? Details of connecting the letters?
ORTHOGRAPHY. When to use Alif maqsura, when not; when to use the other
three unusual alif markers; seat of the hamza; etc. -- writing Arabic is DIFFICULT!
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-09-26 19:45:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
I don't think that is the subject of the book. He gives a detailed account of the orthography.
Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley does provide that sort of information -- and
Standard Arabic was much more in contemporary use that Biblical Hebrew was.
I don't understand what you mean? Details of connecting the letters?
ORTHOGRAPHY. When to use Alif maqsura, when not; when to use the other
three unusual alif markers; seat of the hamza; etc. -- writing Arabic is DIFFICULT!
Alif maqsurah is etymological, otherwise when to use to use is learned when you learn the patterns.

There are only a handful of words written in dagger alif outside of the Qur'an.

Orthography of the hamzah is subject to some variation when non-initial.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-27 03:05:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(In those days, acquaintance
with the related spoken languages was not considered necessary. Theodor
Noeldeke did magnificent work on all the Near Eastern / Islamic languages
without being able to speak any of them; he may never even have met a
speaker of Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. The still standard
grammar of Arabic, by Wright, of 1898, gives no information at all on
how to write the language -- which is not a simple matter.)
I don't think that is the subject of the book. He gives a detailed account of the orthography.
Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley does provide that sort of information -- and
Standard Arabic was much more in contemporary use that Biblical Hebrew was.
I don't understand what you mean? Details of connecting the letters?
ORTHOGRAPHY. When to use Alif maqsura, when not; when to use the other
three unusual alif markers; seat of the hamza; etc. -- writing Arabic is DIFFICULT!
Alif maqsurah is etymological, otherwise when to use to use is learned when you learn the patterns.
There are only a handful of words written in dagger alif outside of the Qur'an.
Orthography of the hamzah is subject to some variation when non-initial.
And you can't get any of that from Wright's grammar. He tells you how to
interpret them, not when to use them.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2018-09-07 15:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Not knowing Swedish
Not knowing Swedish, you could shut the fuck up.

Da du keinen blassen Schimmer vom Schwedischen hast, sollst du besser das Maul halten, Möngi.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-09-07 23:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Not knowing Swedish
Not knowing Swedish, you could shut the fuck up.
Da du keinen blassen Schimmer vom Schwedischen hast, sollst du besser das Maul halten, Möngi.
He's always so nice and friendly, that's basically the problem with
him.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-09-08 07:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
He's always so nice and friendly, that's basically the problem with
him.
A problem for certain people who must realize the power of ideas and scientific
arguments contrasting with the seeming power but actual weakness of invectives.
Loading...