Talk:بذلة

"biḏla" is in Almaʿāny but not in H. Wehr (English, 4th edition). Where did you see it in HW? When there's a difference between the two, I prefer to trust Wehr. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is in the Hans Wehr (German, 5th edition). Palaestrator verborum (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * . OK, thanks. Then you need to add it as a new pronunciation as well - . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : Also, please review the plural forms. In my edition they are not given but I modelled them on - "badalāt" and "bidal". If you don't, I will match them. Sorry for the confusion. It's "badalāt", not ""badlāt" - fixed now.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the 5th edition of the German Hans Wehr the plural forms of are also not given. Only, as I see by comparing this my printed edition with the 4th English edition on ejtaal.net, the first vowel of the singular form has been adjusted. I would say we could delete the form “”, as this strongly indicates that the editor of the dictionary has found it wrong, but the absence of plurals in the dictionary is problematic and makes the matter seem insecure. And I can claim to know a priori that we won’t find many usage examples in audio or vocalized text, as a satisfactory amount of samples would have effected the editors of the Hans Wehr to include the plural forms in the dictionary. So we can only check other dictionaries, which is unlikely to be conclusive for such a peripheral alternative form, other than ask natives which are also hard to locate in the proper sense (because of the diglossia in the Arab world). Maybe nobody has first-hand knowledge about what the plural soothfast ist. But if we are allowed conclusions from, the sole plurals are most likely  and ‏. I mean, the phonetical motives that have lead Arabs to pronounce the singular without the [a] and the plural with [a] should have brought about this analogon. If this is too audacious, we can also point out the editors’ trouble, e. g. by using words like “the plural forms are probably”; this would at least make the reader as knowledgeable as we are now, instead of letting him research this question without a conclusion like we. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : I found and its plural  elsewhere, in an Oxford English-Arabic dictionary. Otherwise, the approach is correct, if certain forms are conjectures, then we can make a note on it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find in Юшманов А. С.: Большой арабско-русской словарь — 250 тысяч слов и словосочетаний, Moscow 2010: “‏ мн. ‏ или мн. ”. And Nurko Karaman: Arapsko-Bosanski rjećnik za đake i studente, Zenica 1997, gives only the sg.  and the pl., but not even , it is a very meager dictionary of 302 pages. Is there a warning template so we can emphasize that the vocalizations hugely differ across sources? Palaestrator verborum (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : I am not aware of such templates but you can describe issues under the Usage notes header. You can add topics to WT:RFT. I haven't received much assistance with Arabic lately, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)