# Arabic+Hebrew: Alifbaa->Alephbet



## Ginnungagap

I'm currently learning Arabic and I'd like to think I have a decent command of the alphabet's phenotics (MSA, of course). Basically, I'm curious as to what hebrew characters correspond to what arabic characters. Obviously they aren't the same language, but I understand the phonetics are very similar.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello Gin,
....and welcome to the WR forums!  

Phonological comparison of two languages can involve a proto-language whence the two have descended.  This is clearly the case for Hebrew and Arabic.  I provide a link to a chart on Proto-Semitic sound correspondences where the phonology of each Semitic language is linked to that of the supposed Proto-Semitic.


----------



## cherine

I hope Hebrew speakers won't kill me for interferring in what I don't know  But I really feel like sharing this. 


Ginnungagap said:


> Basically, I'm curious as to what hebrew characters correspond to what arabic characters. Obviously they aren't the same language, but I understand the phonetics are very similar.


I remember learning this alphabet, but don't know where, when nor why. Maybe it's because we use the Hebrew alphabet's order for numbering (like a. b. c. ...). There's even an Arabic song, of Layla Murad, about the trouble a girl's having in learning, and she starts the song with ab*g*ad hawwaz 7otti kalamun (in Egypt we pronounce the gimel as "g" not "j" as in MSA and other dialects) .

So, here how we say it :
أبجد هَوَّز حطي كلمن سعفص قرشت
abjad hawwaz 7oti kalamun sa3faS qarshat 

You can sure notice 2 things :
1- there's a difference in the letter's order,
2- there are letters in Arabic alphabet that don't have there correspondent in Hebrew (like the ث-ذ-ض-ظ for example). Arabic alphabet has 28 letters, while Hebrew has 22 letters).


I know that modern Hebrew speakers don't pronounce the "khet" as ح , nor do they pronounce the "ayin" as ع ; but as your question was basically about correspondents not about pronounciation, I think that this may have some value.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello Cherine,

What does "abjad hawwaz 7oti kalamun sa3faS qarshat" mean?

I realise س and ס (samekh) make phonological pair but these letter forms have different origins.


----------



## cherine

Flaminius said:


> What does "abjad hawwaz 7oti kalamun sa3faS qarshat" mean?


Hi Flaminius,
This is a way of pronouncing the letters together, to make them easier to remember. (a nice mnemonic technique).
So, for the first four letters (*a b g d*), we add vowels between them (you know that in Arabic there has to be a vowel, short of long, between each two consonants) and then we pronounce them together. Hence, we have *ab*a*g*a*d*.  Same with the following *h w z* (where "w" is vav, not known in Arabic, so it's the correspondent of the Arabic letter و waw). Pronounced together we have *h*a*w*a*z*, whereas the "w" is stressed to keep the same rythm as "abgad", so we say hawwaz. And so on... 


> I realise س and ס (samekh) make phonological pair but these letter forms have different origins.


I wouldn't dare go as far as to pretend discussing the origins . I'm barely sharing a song


----------



## MarcB

Wiki has these  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_alphabet#The_Semitic_alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language


----------



## Flaminius

About Samekh from the same source:


> *Samekh* or *Simketh* is the fifteenth letter in many Semitic alphabets, including Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic, representing /s/. The Arabic alphabet, however, uses a letter based on Phoenician šin to represent /s/ (see there).


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Flaminius

The "Samekh" link that you provided is very interesting. The Aramaic equivalent of "Samekh" is very close to the Arabic س . If you invert it then you have a س . Also, the Phoenician version also seems to have three lines but on both sides, just as the Arabic س has three lines sticking out like that. Now, I suppose that their decision for saying that the س comes from something based on the Phoenician "shiin" is the similarity in pronunciation. So, even though the س resembles the Aramaic and Phoenician Samekh graphically, it resembles Phoenician Shiin phonetically, and it appears that phonetic resemblance was given preference over the graphic resemblance, ... or maybe there were other factors that they considered, I don't know.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello,

Again, Wikipedia thus spake; "In Arabic, the same sound values as in Hebrew are needed, but the letters descending from šin are counted as two different letters, šīn ﺵ‎ appears in twenty-first position in the common abjadi order, while sīn ﺱ‎ is at the fifteenth position, replacing Samekh, which became obsolete due to the Arabic merger of Proto-Semitic š and s into s."

This supports my point that Hebrew Samekh has no corresponding letter in Arabic script.

Flam


----------



## Abu Bishr

I'd really appreciate it if you could point out to me the difference between the Hebrew Samekh & Siin phonetically, that is. Also, I've seen some of the links give ש as a single Shiin value. My point is why use the Siin when you can use the Samekh or vice versa? Could it also be that the Hebrew Samekh is the equivalent of the Arabic Saad (ص) ? I see that some links give the Tzadik as the equivalent of the Arabic Saad, but then why not of the Arabic Daad (ض) , instead.

It could be that both languages developed an additional (s) sound in the form of Siin, over and above the Samekh, and then Arabic dropped its equivalent of the Samekh, as the Siin would obviate its use. In Hebrew though it remained on which is sort of what you are saying, am I correct?


----------



## MiamianIsraeli

Abu Bishr said:


> I'd really appreciate it if you could point out to me the difference between the Hebrew Samekh & Siin phonetically, that is. Also, I've seen some of the links give ש as a single Shiin value. My point is why use the Siin when you can use the Samekh or vice versa? Could it also be that the Hebrew Samekh is the equivalent of the Arabic Saad (ص) ? I see that some links give the Tzadik as the equivalent of the Arabic Saad, but then why not of the Arabic Daad (ض) , instead.
> 
> It could be that both languages developed an additional (s) sound in the form of Siin, over and above the Samekh, and then Arabic dropped its equivalent of the Samekh, as the Siin would obviate its use. In Hebrew though it remained on which is sort of what you are saying, am I correct?


There isn't any phonetic difference between samekh and siin, however the same can be true for other letters as well. There's also no phonetic difference between chet ח and chaf כ. Note that the difference between siin and shiin and between chaf and kaf is the n'kuda (dot) in/on the letter that changes the pronounciation. Just to complicate things, conventional Hebrew does not print the n'kudot. You just have to remember which letters have them and which ones don't.

Part of the reason is the morphology of words, especially verbs. I don't speak Arabic, but from what I understand, verbs are based on roots that appear in different conjugations, correct? The pronounciation of certain letters changes through conjugations and tenses, with letters taking and dropping the n'kudot. For example, the verb to build is based on the root בנה. The infinitive is לבנות, pronounced livnot. However, conjugated as in I build it's בונה, pronounced bone (masculine) or bona (feminine). The letter ב has a n'kuda in the conjugated form and is thus pronounced with a "b" sound. The infinitive does not have a n'kuda and thus has a "v" sound.


----------



## Flaminius

Abu Bishr said:


> I'd really appreciate it if you could point out to me the difference between the Hebrew Samekh & Siin phonetically, that is.


There is none.



> Also, I've seen some of the links give ש as a single Shiin value. My point is why use the Siin when you can use the Samekh or vice versa?


A single ש without a niquda or context is understood as Shin.  When getting a niquda on the left shoulder (שׂ), it is commonly called Sin.  In contrast, one with a niquda on the right shoulder is always understood as Shin (שׁ).  

Now, Sin is today pronounced the same as Samekh or the Arabic Siin, yet historically it represented ś, which is considered to have been a voiceless alveolar lateral fricative.  When ancient Israelites started using a near-idential variation of Phoenician alphabet, šin was assigned with two phonemes, /š/ and /ś/, because Phoenician alphabet did not have a separate letter for the latter.  That Israelites did not invent a new letter for it can be viewed as evidence of conservativeness of an established writing system.



> Could it also be that the Hebrew Samekh is the equivalent of the Arabic Saad (ص) ? I see that some links give the Tzadik as the equivalent of the Arabic Saad, but then why not of the Arabic Daad (ض) , instead.


Could you provide some of the links that treat Samekh as an equivalent of Saad?  According to the chart I have provided a link to in #2 (Proto-Semitic sound correspondences), the only phonetic counterpart of Samekh is Siin; what value does the row Arabic contain for columns where Hebrew has "s"?



> It could be that both languages developed an additional (s) sound in the form of Siin, over and above the Samekh, and then Arabic dropped its equivalent of the Samekh, as the Siin would obviate its use. In Hebrew though it remained on which is sort of what you are saying, am I correct?


Development of sibilants in Semitic languages is a complicated topic.  As far as Hebrew is concerned, old phonemes /s/ and /ś/ (still reflected in the writing system) are pronounced as [s] at least from the time of Mishnaic Hebrew.


----------



## Ginnungagap

Thanks for the help, all.


----------



## yotg

> I remember learning this alphabet, but don't know where, when nor why. Maybe it's because we use the Hebrew alphabet's order for numbering (like a. b. c. ...).
> 
> So, here how we say it :
> أبجد هَوَّز حطي كلمن سعفص قرشت
> abjad hawwaz 7oti kalamun sa3faS qarshat


 
We have a matchig phrase in Hebrew:
אבגדה וזחטי כלמנסע פצקרשת
*'*a*v*a*g*a*d*a*h* *v*a*zkh*a*ti* *k*a*l*a*m*a*ns*a*'* *p*a*tzk*a*r*e*sh*e*t*


----------

