Talk:balozi


 * Thank you, this was a fascinating etymology. A question about the literary Arabic — why did you give the a as short, and not normalise the ō to ū? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Because according to Arabic syllabification rules a long closed syllable is disallowed (counting the full classical endings, so with the ); this is generally really adhered to, and convenient here since Turkish hasn’t got long vowels anyway (the spelling is learned); because of this rule we often have so many anaptyxes like the second a in, which however surely was always also pronounced but the prescriptive Saudi IP removed it.
 * Had the Turkish passed in the era, it surely would be  (and perchance it has been pronounced so by some sometimes), but on the other hand wit blatant foreign words like  and  even in early Medieval times one did not bother and since in Modern times one has more foreign contacts and more deviating dialects enabling speakers to realize foreign sounds we can have and do have more unadapted borrowings in Arabic; it may be  but the point is that the vowel length is arbitrary since a Turkish word is given, however due to the stress on the second syllable the first is likely to be short since Arabic is . Have you already been informed about the Arabic stress rules?
 * 2. o, ō, can appear in Modern Standard Arabic like in the Omani dialect;  I transcribed so because I heard it so in the first video I found about it, that was held in Standard Arabic;  is also normal. I had no opportunity to hear the Arabic word  – who had after ? and who reported on it before when Arabic was subordinate to Turkish? –; but there can be presumed to be multiple pronunciations and there are always hues and cries because of the pronunciation of foreign words in Arabic, like on . I think I gave a transcription that connects the interests of the past and the present well. . Fay Freak (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)