Appendix talk:Arabic script

Three points for discussion with regards to the diacritic nomenclature:

First, The letters ث‎ خ‎ are represented by adding an underbar diacritic ṯ, ḵ, respectively,(a line underneath t, k). The underbar here is in lieu of traditionally adding an h. Like think and khaled.

However, the letter ش is represented by adding the caron, š [a little arrow above the letter s pointing down. Also looks like an inverted hat... Or angry eyebrows?!] in lieu of adding h like shine.

Why does this nomenclature represents different diacritics in lieu of adding the letter h? --

Second, the heavy letters all have an underdot to represent the heaviness, like ص‎ (ṣ), ض (ḍ), ط‎ (ṭ), ظ‎ (ẓ). Meanwhile, the underdot is used to represent other sounds, like the more-throaty sound ح‎ (ḥ). This underdot isn't a "heavy h" as one would assume.

It seems the diacritics were created quite arbitrarily, and I think there isn't a best place on the internet than Wikipedia to discuss global standardization of those diacritics to represent the same phonetic features. For example, in my opinion, adding a heavy characteristic to represent the heaviest four letters in Arabic ص‎ (ṣ), ض (ḍ), ط‎ (ṭ), ظ‎ (ẓ), should be represented by something that would relate to 'heavy.' The circumflex (an arrow above pointing up, or you can say a hat) - would make more sense than an underdot, to represent that, because it points up, which can be mentally associated with 'stronger.' Circumflex is also exactly how the tongue should look like from anatomic side view of the mouth in anatomic illustrations of Arabic phonetics (the middle of the tongue arches to touch or nearly touch the palette in order to add the heavy characteristic in the letter).

-- Third, if this nomenclature created for the purpose of making reading the script easier, I understand th can be either ث or ذ so introducing two distinct phonetic characters is justified ث‎ (ṯ),ذ‎ (ḏ). What I don't understand, why introduce ش (š) when an already existing representation exists in the English language which is 'sh', or at least a cedilla ş, [a small hook beneath it, already used in European languages to represent sh]. In my opinion this is an edit that should be discussed and decided among English linguists themselves, not translators from Arabic to English.

And finally, I wrote

Diacritic nomenclature
Three points for discussion with regards to the diacritic nomenclature:

First, The letters ث‎ خ‎ are represented by adding an underbar diacritic ṯ, ḵ, respectively,(a line underneath t, k). The underbar here is in lieu of traditionally adding an h. Like think and khaled.

However, the letter ش is represented by adding the caron, š [a little arrow above the letter s pointing down. Also looks like an inverted hat... Or angry eyebrows?!] in lieu of adding h like shine.

Why does this nomenclature represents different diacritics in lieu of adding the letter h? --

Second, the heavy letters all have an underdot to represent the heaviness, like ص‎ (ṣ), ض (ḍ), ط‎ (ṭ), ظ‎ (ẓ). Meanwhile, the underdot is used to represent other sounds, like the more-throaty sound ح‎ (ḥ). This underdot isn't a "heavy h" as one would assume.

It seems the diacritics were created quite arbitrarily, and I think there isn't a best place on the internet than Wikipedia to discuss global standardization of those diacritics to represent the same phonetic features. For example, in my opinion, adding a heavy characteristic to represent the heaviest four letters in Arabic ص‎ (ṣ), ض (ḍ), ط‎ (ṭ), ظ‎ (ẓ), should be represented by something that would relate to 'heavy.' The circumflex (an arrow above pointing up, or you can say a hat) - would make more sense than an underdot, to represent that, because it points up, which can be mentally associated with 'stronger.' Circumflex is also exactly how the tongue should look like from anatomic side view of the mouth in anatomic illustrations of Arabic phonetics (the middle of the tongue arches to touch or nearly touch the palette in order to add the heavy characteristic in the letter).

-- Third, if this nomenclature created for the purpose of making reading the script easier, I understand th can be either ث or ذ so introducing two distinct phonetic characters is justified ث‎ (ṯ),ذ‎ (ḏ).

What I don't understand, why introduce ش (š) when an already existing representation exists in the English language which is 'sh', or at least a cedilla ş, [a small hook beneath it, already used in European languages to represent sh]. In my opinion this is an edit that should be discussed and decided among English linguists themselves, not translators from Arabic to English. Jarrarist (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)