Wiktionary talk:About Arabic/Egyptian

Emphatic ṛ, ḷ, and ṃ
Mahmud, thank you so much for looking over this page and correcting things. I wanted to discuss your removal of ṛ, ḷ, and ṃ, because as you have left it, the current romanization is incapable of correctly producing the IPA for cases like مية [ˈmɑjjɑ] or الله [ɑlˈlɑːh]. Most robust analyses of Egyptian Arabic that I've seen include these phonetically non-pharyngealised but phonemically emphatic letters. If nothing else, we will need to use them for input, even if they are normalised to r, l, and m for display. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mahmudmasri explained this before, but I can't remember where or when (and whether it was here or on Wikipedia). Basically what I think I remember him saying is that the distribution of emphatic ṛ, ḷ, and ṃ differ widely within Egyptian itself, so there is no way to pick them for standard Egyptian. But I might be remembering completely wrong. Let's wait and see if he responds here. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: we will definitely need more than one "Egyptian" input; this is meant to be for Cairo specifically. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * /ɾˤ mˤ lˤ/ do not exist and therefore using any transliterations for them is pointless.
 * The consonants' pronunciation does not change.
 * Having the back vowel [ɑ] in a word rather than [æ] does not have a strict rule based on the existence of pharyngealized consonants and some people may use a more or a less emphasis spreading in a given word. It doesn't mean in any way that they pronounce other consonants differently.
 * Transliteration/transcription is supposed to simplify things, not make them unnecessarily complicated.
 * It's just that one linguist assumed that Egyptians could have /ɾˤ mˤ bˤ lˤ/ (actually /ɫ/) as additional emphatic consonants.
 * Example: روحلها/روح لها r U ḥlaha /ɾ U ħˈlaha/ could be any of these: [ɾoħˈlæhæ, ɾoħˈlɑhɑ, ɾoħˈlɑhæ] (also [ɾʊħˈlæhæ, ɾʊħˈlɑhæ, ɾʊħˈlɑhɑ]). Pronouncing [ɑ] has a relation to the form رايح rāy I ḥ [ˈɾɑːjeħ]. A note is that the Nile Delta pronunciation tends to use less emphasis spreading.
 * What do you say of the inability to construct endless words who don't fall into the case?
 * فافى [ˈfɑːfi] "sissy"
 * يهوهو [jeˈhɑwhɑw] "to bark"
 * حه/حاء [ħɑ(ːʔ)], خه/خاء [xɑ(ː)ʔ] "(names of 2 letters in the Arabic alphabet)"
 * أى [(ˈ)ʔɑj(j)] "ouch"
 * آه [ʔɑː(h)] "yeah, oh".
 * --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like what you're saying is that it would be better to indicate the "emphatic" vowels in the transliteration, rather than the emphatic consonants. --WikiTiki89 20:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Back vowels to be indicated in IPA, only. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole point of this exercise is to produce a romanisation that can lead to IPA unambiguously. That means that you either have to accept my preference (emphatic consonants that cause emphasis spreading but are pronounced identically) or Wikitiki's suggestion of indicating emphatic vowels. Onomatopoeias are not really an argument for or against, because they tend to break phonological rules in all languages, and will have to be special-cased regardless. An advantage to my preference is that it allows for a compromise: we could type in  so the module could get the IPA right, but the module could convert it so that the user merely sees allāh as the romanisation. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should have a basic knowledge of a language's phonology (or be aided by a guide) to construct an IPA. Otherwise, re-creating a language does not add up. I don't have to repeat that some words have alternative emphasis spreading pronunciations. Transliterating them with dotted letters makes things worse. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "re-creating a language". Alternative emphasis spreading is a potential problem, but it seems to me that the norm in Cairo is fairly clearly limited, and ideally we can write up appendix material on this kind of thing that the template can link to for interested readers. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you must add dotted letters, then they shouldn't be visible outside of the editor. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my compromise suggestion. :) I'm honestly not sure whether we want to show romanization at all alongside IPA, so it might be moot. But we still need to distinguish for input, so I will put them back on the page. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

[ʒ]
I suggest that we use the letter j to transliterated that sound, because it is nearly always from English or French loanwords which are either pronounced with [d͡ʒ] (approximated to [ʒ]) or [ʒ]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to retain cross-dialectal consistency. --WikiTiki89 20:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Loanwords in Egyptian Arabic, if used in other dialects as well, should be the same, which means they should use j. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In pronunciation sections, it won't be visible if you use "ž" or "j" but "j" will give the standard (MSA) [d͡ʒ] and "ž" will give [ʒ], which is common for many eastern dialects. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wikitiki. Except for systems that are fundamentally different, we should consistently use symbols to represent certain sounds. We are not trying to represent diphonemes for various Arabic topolects — this is about what works best to describe one specific dialect. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like you already have a stance. I have to tell you that there is no point at all of adding ž, since it is spelled with a normal ج most of the time. If you've ever used Arabic of any dialect, including Literary Arabic, you'd not see a point of adding ž. The named easterners you mentioned would (mis)pronounced our [ʒ] as [d͡ʒ].
 * Usually, the separation between spoken dialects and the Literary language is really blurred. It's diglossia that you're probably unfamiliar with how it is to have that situation. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Luckily, we could use j as an alternative input and still get the same result. I don't know of any Arabic topolects that distinguish j and ž, although I would expect that Khorasani Arabic does. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check, which has both /d͡ʒ/ and /ʒ/. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me explain why we may need to use ž, not j. The letter "j" is already taken to represent [d͡ʒ], if we make "j" to represent [ʒ], then we break the existing system. Alternatively, j could be used for selected dialects for [ʒ] but this will complicate the module. We are very familiar with the diglossia - write in a language no-one speaks (well, almost) and speak in a language non-one (well, almost) wants to write in. Try to also think from a development point of view and please consider that we are trying to significantly boost dialect presence here, not to murder them. The success of the Chinese dialects is impressive but we need to cooperate, not bicker. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ى|ʾalif maqṣūra - The use for [i] is the norm in the Nile Valley, but is spelled as ي in other regions.

 * A while ago we have agreed to follow a strict spelling in Arabic. The use if ى|ʾalif maqṣūra instead of ي|yāʾ is not just an (Nile Valley) Egyptian (or Sudanese feature), far from it. Let's continue to be consistent. is just an alternative, relaxed spelling of, no matter - MSA or dialects. Please let me know if you disagree and please see my suggested format of alternative forms e.g.  - please notice the lack of diacritics in my version. The same should be applicable to اه‏ vs اة‏, IMO. The former is just a relaxed version of the latter. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. Including alternative forms entries for dotless yaa' will make it easier for people to find the correct entry. — Eru·tuon 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do you agree that the treatment of the Egyptian ʾalif maqṣūra should be the same as MSA? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ach, I thought this was about MSA, because I didn't notice which page I was on. I'm not sure what I think, now that I know it's about Egyptian Arabic. If we did not distinguish between yaa' and alif maqSuura, it would be harder to treat Egyptian Arabic under the Arabic header. There might have to be a separate entry in the undotted form, only containing Egyptian and perhaps a few other dialects. That's pretty messy. But it seems potentially misleading to put Egyptian in the entry for the dotted form, if dotted yaa' is basically never used in Egyptian Arabic. It might depend on how the information is presented. — Eru·tuon 01:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Then we also get into other complications, such as the fact that Maghrebi dots the letters faa, qaaf, and nuun in different ways (which were recently added to Unicode, and do not display properly for me yet: faa ࢽࢽࢽ ࢽ, qaaf ࢼࢼࢼ ࢼ, nuun ࢻࢻࢻ ࢻ; basically these three letters are dotless in isolated and final positions, and in other positions, the faa has a dot under it and the qaaf has one dot over it). We might want to use these characters for Maghrebi, or we might not. I don't know what's better. Likewise for Egyptian and ی (even though ی for final and isolated yaa is not only used in Egypt, still in Egypt it is the only form of yaa that is used). --WikiTiki89 22:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, at least in regards to Egyptian. It's a style, not a rule. Mahmudmasri's edits might suggest it's the case too. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a style. But in Egypt it's the exclusive style. --WikiTiki89 22:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How is that different from ё vs е in Russian? Yes, Russians use е for ё but we, as a dictionary use ё, same with the Arabic hamza and the final yāʾ. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there is no Russian-speaking country that does not use ё at all. --WikiTiki89 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you so certain that Egyptian writers don't use the final dotted yāʾ at all? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not going to say that absolutely no Egyptian writers ever put dots under the final yaa, but in all the places you would expect the fullest and most careful writing, such as dictionaries, they don't dot the final yaa. --WikiTiki89 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's important to differentiate the dotless final yāʾ and ʾalif maqṣūra conceptually, even if they look the same (with a preceding kasra, not fatḥa). If we don't write the dots out, we don't provide the full information, just like failing to write vocalisations, hamza or dots over tāʾ marbūṭa. We do add vocalisations even on loanwords, even if they are frowned upon by some. I suggested above to have soft-redirects with dotless final yāʾ forms. Otherwise we will have create separate Egyptian entries to accommodate this style. BTW, Egyptians use dotted a final dotted yāʾ when they write for other/all Arabs and a dotted final yāʾ is relatively new in Arabic, so it's being gradually introduced but it hasn't yet become a rule in Egypt. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Guys, if you speak Literary Arabic and you're very familiar with it, you'd know that you can figure out very easily which pronunciation to expect based on context and form. Don't forget that almost all Arabic (and Hebrew) words are read by context since diacritics are normally omitted.

In Egypt, we normally never use the dotted ي finally, even in the most official, legal and religious texts, but we know how they are used if needed. You may think of the use of s rather than z in words like "analyze".

If a given word is exclusively an Egyptian Arabic word, I see no reason why we should spell it with final dotted ي.

I'm trying to imagine an Egyptian Arabic text with diacritics. That's so rediculous. I can't even imagine two people chatting and using diacritics! Please don't forget about the situation of use. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The example of مصرى: You may pronounce it very differently, yet use the same spelling: --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * [ˈmɑsˤɾi] (Egyptian Arabic)
 * [ˈmɪsˤɾi] (Literary Arabic)
 * [ˈmɪsˤɾiː] (very careful Literary Arabic)
 * [mɪsˤˈɾij(j)] (poetic, classical, liturgical)


 * Thanks but how about a word, which is shared by MSA and most topolects? You're not suggesting to remove diacritics (used for the formal Arabic)? And wouldn't the alternative spellings with the dotless final yāʾ serve as Egyptian spellings? Pls note that I didn't use diacritics on . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some spellings will have to be different no matter what. That will not be hard to handle if we were to merge everything into the macrolanguage, and it's even easier to handle while we have different L2s. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If I should be labeled with edit conflict, I don't know what was the point of inviting me to the discussion. Nothing else to add. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. It's a flag that I tried to post my message before the next person (you) answered, that's all! :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A quick update: a textbook of the Egyptian Arabic - "Colloquial Arabic of Egypt: Jane Wightwick, Mahmoud Gaafar" uses a dotted final ي|yāʾ throughout, although it has a lot of romanisations. A co-author Mahmoud Gaafar is also Egyptian. Just FYI. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)