# Is there really Pharyngealized form of r-phoneme in Arabic?



## Tal-Su-Ab

Arabic Pharyngealized form of r- phoneme ???
I have seen an  important  Arabic video concerning the r-phoneme  and its allophones and  want to drop a topic, for discussion if any  …before that you  should know that  Arabs   and/or  Muslims give  unlimited ,ultimate care  to  Qur'an  reciting  correctly as it was recited by the first generations where Qur'an was  revealed .The way of “correct “recitation “ of Qur'an is called  “Tajweed”  (literally means perfect recitation )  and the way of  pronouncing  even  single phoneme or consonants blend must be done  correctly , The principles of Tajweed were conveyed from one generation  to the next ,  through written documents.
Here is a video from  Dr.Swed one of  the authorized  Tajweed teachers ( He has PhD in Arabic  Language ) explaining the way of pronunciation of r- phoneme  .He tells  us that according to “the old documents concerning Qur'an Tajweed  we  have two kinds of 'r' one is called “ Mufexxam “  in other words  'emphatic; , or  heavy ' which comes in  8 cases or positions  of Qur'an  recitation , the other is called “Muraqqeqeh  :soft ,thin ,tender or  maybe light ,and it happens to come in 4 positions .This depends on the  position of 'r' in the word and its  surroundings letters ….etc and  there are only 2 cases which 'r' can be pronounced in either way.
 The  picture  herewith  shows   the tongue shape and position in case of “r-  Mufaxxam” to the right , while “r-Mureqqaqeh “ to the left . He said  precisely that although both 'r's articulated from the same point , but  with Mufaxxam the  tongue takes a special concave shape and  in the same  time the epiglottis retracts  and thus constrict the pharynx.
   One serious conclusion can be built on his explanation :
   Other than the non-emphatic (r)  ,,,the emphatic 'r' has two components  rimary one due to known normal point of of articulation of 'r' ,  other is secondary  and it's due to  Pharynx constriction.
Don't  you think that this is some kind  Pharyngealization of 'r' and with  this then it is  is no longer Sonorant but obstruent ,since Sonorants  contrast with obstruents....It also mean that  Pharyngealization is also  common in Ar. even with 'r' not only with  some emphatics like  [ð̣]   which is written also as  [[ðʕ]  in Arabic ظ?
Ufortunately , as a  new member in this forum ,i am not allowed to put links with this thread  and i have to remove my links which names are still  there .Nevertheless, you can watch the pic. attached herewith.


 Arabic speaking Video for the above-said lecture of Dr. Swed

Another “English speaking  video  ' explaining the  positions  where  'r' must be 
pronounced as emphatic  and the positions  where  it must be pronounced as non-emphatic .

View attachment 15129


----------



## fdb

I do not quite understand why you think that pharyngealisation (tafxīm) is not possible with sonorants.


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

because the Pharynx constriction ,which  accompanying the production of such kind of 'r' will  take it out of sonority ,  according to definition of "sonorants' which is in contrast with obstruents ..... for explanation ,i will  quote  this text from Wiki ""In phonetics and phonology, a sonorant is a speech sound that is produced with continuous, non-turbulent airflow in the vocal tract; these are the manners of articulation that are most often voiced in the world's languages. Vowels are sonorants, as are consonants like /m/ and /l/: approximants, nasals, taps, and trills. In the sonority hierarchy, all sounds higher than fricatives are sonorants """
 also this text """Sonorants contrast with obstruents which do stop or cause turbulence in the airflow "" I think ,this kind of 'r' we are talking about ,tends to fulfill  the specifications  of obstruents rather than sonorants due to the pharyngeal friction accompanying  its articulation .


----------



## fdb

What about the emphatic (mufaxxam) /l/ in الله ?


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

It's only one time where 'l'  comes in "(tafxīm)" position  in Ar. with "Allah الله " this is exception  and not a general case.In other words 'l' has only one component in Ar. and has no secondary articulation except in case  of  "Allah "but  'r '  has  many cases as i  mentioned above.


----------



## fdb

Yes, but you have stated that, as a general principle, sonorants cannot be pharyngealised. A generalised statement like this can be refuted by a single counter-example. Anyway, I would claim that most styles of Arabic pronunciation (not perhaps tajwīd) have a pharyngealised /l/ also in words like ʼaṭlubu أطلب .


----------



## Delvo

If the pharyngealized /r/ and /L/ exist in the spoken language as separate phonemes from plain /r/ and /L/, how are the differences between them and the plain counterparts conveyed in writing? Would these get written as a رع and لع ?... or عر and عل ?... or ر and ل with diacritical marks above or below?... or a ع with either of two separate diacritical marks?...


----------



## Schem

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> It's only one time where 'l'  comes in "(tafxīm)" position  in Ar. with "Allah الله " this is exception  and not a general case.In other words 'l' has only one component in Ar. and has no secondary articulation except in case  of  "Allah "but  'r '  has  many cases as i  mentioned above.



This is not true in dialectal Arabic. Lamed has two allophones in many Arabian type dialects, primarily in Najdi and Gulf Arabic. Ga*l*b (heart) to us is different than galb (in reverse) and the same goes for gha*l*an (they [f.] got expensive) and ghalan (they [f.] boiled) among many examples where there is a distinction between an emphatic and a non-emphatic lamed. A common shibboleth in the parlance of non-native speakers of these dialects, like many artists from the Levant, is their inability to make the difference.


----------



## fdb

Delvo said:


> If the pharyngealized /r/ and /L/ exist in the spoken language as separate phonemes from plain /r/ and /L/, how are the differences between them and the plain counterparts conveyed in writing?



At least in classical Arabic pharyngealised /L/ and /R/ are allophones of /l/ and /r/ respectively, not separate phonemes. However (as Schem has very rightly noted) they are separate phonemes in many (or indeed most) modern dialects, but are not distinguished when the dialects are recorded in Arabic script.




Delvo said:


> Would these get written as a رع and لع ?... or عر and عل ?... or ر and ل with diacritical marks above or below?... or a ع with either of two separate diacritical marks?...



The current version of IPA, with symbols like /tʕ/, propagates the delusion that the pharyngealised consonants in Arabic are some sort of combination of a consonant + ʻayn. In fact, the pharyngealised l in الله is not the slightest bit like /l/ plus /ʕ/ in (for example) yalʻabu يلعب.


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

fdb said:


> Yes, but you have stated that, as a general principle, sonorants cannot be pharyngealised. A generalised statement like this can be refuted by a single counter-example. Anyway, I would claim that most styles of Arabic pronunciation (not perhaps tajwīd) have a pharyngealised /l/ also in words like ʼaṭlubu أطلب .


   There is not any emphatic(dark) /l/ in ʼaṭlubu أطلب .....as far as i know it's wrong to pronounce /l/ in this verb with dark /l/ ....i never heard it , unless in the Colloquial language.


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

It seems that the American English /r/ has also  pharyngeal component ,according to this text i found in a research , titled "Acoustic Analysis of /r/ Production of
British Speakers in New York ''  The researcher says " In American English (hereafter en-US), the liquid /r/ is
articulatorily complex and acoustically unique. It has been shown that /r/ has both vocalic and consonantal gestural  components , and that American /r/ has three simultaneous vocal-tract constrictions: pharyngeal, coronal and labial .""
i have uploaded this research on dropbox  and hope you can reach it on the Link
http://www.dropbox.com/s/ihnndkq656gv20n/Acoustic Analysis of  r Production of-1.pdf?dl=0


----------



## fdb

fdb said:


> I would claim that most styles of Arabic pronunciation (not perhaps tajwīd) have a pharyngealised /l/ also in words like ʼaṭlubu أطلب .



I have noticed now that in Qur’an 7:54 the readers consistently read يَطْلُبُهُ as yaṭulubuhū with an epenthetic vowel after /ṭ/, presumably just to avoid the secondary pharyngealisation of the /l/.

You can listen here: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/


----------



## Delvo

Are there other letters which can represent both a pharyngealized sound and its plain counterpart, or just these two?


----------



## Ghabi

For what it's worth, Nigerian Arabic is said to have an emphatic /m/ (amm "uncle" vs aMM "mother", with the loss of ع in the dialect).


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

Delvo said:


> Are there other letters which can represent both a pharyngealized sound and its plain counterpart, or just these two?



Almost all Arabic emphatics  which is called in Ar. 'Mufexxameh  or "alhuruf al mustaʕliya  :elevated letters ""  have  a secondary articulation mostly due to pharynx beside its  plain counterpart , there are the five emphatics in Ar. for example   “tˤ ط .....which plain counterpart is 't'    and [sˤ] (in Arabic, Mizrahi Hebrew) its plain counter part is  's'  , notice that the symbol ʕ in Ar. ع  refers to the contribution of pharynx in producing these emphatics "" simultaneously " with its plain counterpart ...... ... others  you can find on  these  links 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_consonant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngealization

and for more reading i would recommend  this book ,which i have uploaded on dropbox ,PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL ASPECTS  OF ARABIC EMPHATICS AND GUTTURALS
see page 21(pdf) to  know what is meant by emphatics besides (q قاف ) of course which is guttural or uvular 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qtros9ps6c34fet/WR forum ArabicEmphatic Bin Muqbil - Kopie.pdf?dl=0


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

Ghabi said:


> For what it's worth, Nigerian Arabic is said to have an emphatic /m/ (amm "uncle" vs aMM "mother", with the loss of ع in the dialect).


  I have never heard an emphatic /m/ in any Ar.  which I know ...are you sure that "m' in Nigerian Ar. is pharyngealized ?Knowing that pharyngealization is performed simultaneously  with the plain counterpart  not  after , not before, otherwise there is no  use  to speak about 'Tafxeem " in other cases than simultaneouse articulation or, in other words primary and secondary articulations must be involved simultaneously with any emphatic  phonemes  .


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

fdb said:


> At least in classical Arabic pharyngealised /L/ and /R/ are allophones of /l/ and /r/ respectively, not separate phonemes. However (as Schem has very rightly noted) they are separate phonemes in many (or indeed most) modern dialects, but are not distinguished when the dialects are recorded in Arabic script.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current version of IPA, with symbols like /tʕ/, propagates the delusion that the pharyngealised consonants in Arabic are some sort of combination of a consonant + ʻayn. In fact, the pharyngealised l in الله is not the slightest bit like /l/ plus /ʕ/ in (for example) yalʻabu يلعب.



  This is not delusion , i guess ,  because it's really  true that the Arabic emphatics has pharyngealization  with their own plain counterpart as i  said in my reply to Delvo....as you can see above.
Moreover here is a simple experiment i did  myself to be sure if Ar.tˤ  ط has really two components :
I used "Audacity sound recorder/editor : it is fantastic multi track  software from sourceforge.net  ""
I recorded the sound of 't' followed by /e/ or fatha as called in Ar. as normally pronounced on one track , on the other track, I recorded the sound of /ʕ/: ain" followed by /e/ as well ... but with the tongue on same articulation of 't' "without releasing 't' of course "" i.e only keeping the tongue there ,while "ain" is produced and recorded on the 2nd track.
since Audacity has  a good feature to move any the waveforms on their own  track as you want  ""left or right"" ,patiently working , I found the point where the two consonants started simultaneously ,it was unbelievable that the resultant combination of these two sounds was Ar. tˤ +/e/ 
Here you can hear the resultant voice .
http://www.dropbox.com/s/yp8mc37skw9rv8y/t+ain (with tongue always in oneposition).wav?dl=0
I sent this result to a professor in phonetics , he told me to repeat the experiment with /u/ following the 't'  and 'ʕ' , but unfortunately it was so difficult to perform the same situation as with /e/above.....then he recommend this """The standard way we approach this problem is to become more like Fant and Stevens. The basic idea is to focus on the effect of the C-V transition, and keep the consonant closure and vowel steady state constant. A waveform-editing version of this approach is to copy out the stop before the release and the vowel at some suitable point after the consonantal effect, and then create an artificial C-V transition and sew the parts back together. Or, use a waveform synthesizer to modify a recorded utterance to suit. Praat has both articulatory and acoustic (Klatt) synthesis, and it might be worth your while to learn how to manipulate either of these tools. """"
I had unfortunately left this experiment because i  have not that good experience with Praat (Klatt synthesis).....any one including you ,can help me in this proof  if  he would have good experience with Klatt synthesis  !!!!!


----------



## fdb

That is an interesting experiment. Maybe there is something wrong with my ears, but your overlap of /ta/ and /ʻa/ does not sound to me anything like /ṭa/. First of all, /t/ is aspirated in Arabic, while /ṭ/ is not. Second, /ṭ/ causes pharyngealisation of the adjacent /a/ vowel, but that does not occur here. I hear [tha], not [ṭɑ]. I cannot hear the /ʻ/ at all. In fact I do not see how you can produce /ʻ/ if your tongue is in the position for /t/. But maybe others might disagree.


----------



## Ghabi

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> I have never heard an emphatic /m/ in any Ar.  which I know ...are you sure that "m' in Nigerian Ar. is pharyngealized?


No first-hand knowledge on my part. But Nigerian Arabic has been described to have both emphatic /l/, /r/ and /m/, according to the works of Jonathan Owens. (I may be mistaken, of course; you should go check the relevant works.)


----------



## hadronic

Most importantly, `ayn and Hâ' are pharyngeal consonants but are precisely not emphatic... 

Moreover, from a non arabic native ear, emphatic t, d, s... sound nothing like separate consonants on their own, but rather  plain consonant with a "back" vowels. (only q and l are really different in their emission). So instead of saying that now Arabic dialects have emphatic m, r, l, p, b, what have you, wouldn't it be more economical to say that Arabic dialects now developed a new set of  vowels? The historical consonantal nature of Arabic (roots etc...), works against this new accept ion, but not knowing anything about dialects, if the root mechanism somewhat eroded or not, can this be valid to posit?


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

fdb said:


> That is an interesting experiment. Maybe there is something wrong with my ears, but your overlap of /ta/ and /ʻa/ does not sound to me anything like /ṭa/. First of all, /t/ is aspirated in Arabic, while /ṭ/ is not. Second, /ṭ/ causes pharyngealisation of the adjacent /a/ vowel, but that does not occur here. I hear [tha], not [ṭɑ]. I cannot hear the /ʻ/ at all. In fact I do not see how you can produce /ʻ/ if your tongue is in the position for /t/. But maybe others might disagree.


1-Being aspirated or not has not any effect on this  experiment , also you can't generalize the aspiration of Ar.'t' because it's like in Eng. depend on the position it comes through . Overlapping /superimposition  is a well-known feature of sound waves ,it can happen in an open-space or in a closed tube like the Vocal tract so what's the peculiarity  here ???
Forget my statement about keeping the tongue tip on 't' point of art. while releasing "  'ʕ'  on the 2nd track .....it was only a  precaution to simulate the actual situation when producing  ط , otherwise the result is the same when  we  forget this extra  precaution . 
 Explain me please how  " /ṭ/ causes pharyngealisation of the adjacent /a/ vowel"  i  hadn't got it !!!
2- Moreover , you can neglect this simple experiment  as  if it was nothing ,Do you have good  expertise in Praat (Klatt synthesis)to  synthesize something like ط and check the reality about its components !!!!


----------



## fdb

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> Explain me please how  " /ṭ/ causes pharyngealisation of the adjacent /a/ vowel"  i  hadn't got it !!!



I was referring to the tafxīm of [a] to [ɑ].


----------



## hadronic

Do you hear the same vowel in /taa/ vs. /Taa/  (plain vs. emphatic "t" )  ?


----------



## fdb

[a:] and [ɑ:] are allophones of the same phoneme /ā/.


----------



## hadronic

Sorry, i was talking to Tal-Su-Ab, your message squeezed in.
Since he's a native speaker of Arabic, he may not perceive this phenomenon, I just wanted to make sure.


----------



## Delvo

Delvo said:


> Are there other letters which can represent both a pharyngealized sound and its plain counterpart, or just these two?





Tal-Su-Ab said:


> Almost all Arabic emphatics  which is called in Ar. 'Mufexxameh  or "alhuruf al mustaʕliya  :elevated letters ""  have  a secondary articulation mostly due to pharynx beside its  plain counterpart , there are the five emphatics in Ar. for example   “tˤ ط .....which plain counterpart is 't'    and [sˤ] (in Arabic, Mizrahi Hebrew) its plain counter part is  's'


Those examples use two letters apiece: one for the plain sound and one for the emphatic sound. Are there any other examples like ر and ل are described in this thread, with *one* letter representing *both* sounds?


----------



## Ihsiin

hadronic said:


> Do you hear the same vowel in /taa/ vs. /Taa/  (plain vs. emphatic "t" )  ?



I hear the same vowel.

I think it can be said that in Iraqi Arabic there exists an emphatic /b/ and an emphatic /m/ (as well emphatic /l/, of course), though I cannot recognise an emphatic /r/.
For example we can distinguish between بابا _ḅāḅa_, "dad" and بابه _bāba_, "his door".


----------



## hadronic

That's funny. /taa/ sounds like /eh/ (French è) and /Taa/ sounds like /aw/ (French open o) to me, hence the whole difference is 100% based on the vowel difference. Frankly, try to pronounce /T/ with the /a/ quality of /taa/. Can you produce that?


----------



## Ihsiin

This is a question of imāla, which is when /a/ becomes softened, getting closer to /e/. The way imāla is applied differs from dialect to dialect. In my dialect we never apply imāla to the long /ā/, so طا and تا have exactly the same vowel sound. In other dialects imāla may be applied to تا but not to طا. Physically speaking, I can put any vowel you like after both.

Anyway, the emphatics are clearly distinct for native speakers regardless of the vowel. As plosives /t/ and /ṭ/ are ill-suited to demonstrate this. Instead, /s/ and /ṣ/ can be contrasted without producing any vowel at all, and the distinction is evident.


----------



## hadronic

If /a/ doesn't get "darker" after /T/,  how would you explain the "emphasis spreading" phenomenon? Does your dialect have such a thing?


----------



## rayloom

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> .
> Here is a video from  Dr.Swed one of  the authorized  Tajweed teachers ( He has PhD in Arabic  Language ) explaining the way of pronunciation of r- phoneme  .He tells  us that according to “the old documents concerning Qur'an Tajweed  we  have two kinds of 'r' one is called “ Mufexxam “  in other words  'emphatic; , or  heavy ' which comes in  8 cases or positions  of Qur'an  recitation , the other is called “Muraqqeqeh  :soft ,thin ,tender or  maybe light ,and it happens to come in 4 positions .This depends on the  position of 'r' in the word and its  surroundings letters ….etc and  there are only 2 cases which 'r' can be pronounced in either way.



Just to clarify, when you say cases or position, it doesn't mean locations in the Quran, it means situations in which the /r/ is pronounced in one allophone or the other.
The Classical Arabic /r/ is pharyngealized in general.
The situations in which it is not:
1) Most notably when it is followed by a kasra (i) or a long ī in all positions.
2) A medial /r/ sākina (not followed by a vowel) is muraqqaqah when preceded by a kasra and not followed by an emphatic.
3) A final pausal /r/ is pronounced muraqqaqa if preceded by a kasra i or a sukūn preceded by a kasra.


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

rayloom said:


> Just to clarify, when you say cases or position, it doesn't mean locations in the Quran, it means situations in which the /r/ is pronounced in one allophone or the other.
> The Classical Arabic /r/ is pharyngealized in general.
> The situations in which it is not:
> 1) Most notably when it is followed by a kasra (i) or a long ī in all positions.
> 2) A medial /r/ sākina (not followed by a vowel) is muraqqaqah when preceded by a kasra and not followed by an emphatic.
> 3) A final pausal /r/ is pronounced muraqqaqa if preceded by a kasra i or a sukūn preceded by a kasra.



Yes that what i meant  and i agree  about what you said ""it means situations in which the /r/ is pronounced in one allophone or the other""


----------



## Qalawri

fdb said:


> I have noticed now that in Qur’an 7:54 the readers consistently read يَطْلُبُهُ as yaṭulubuhū with an epenthetic vowel after /ṭ/, presumably just to avoid the secondary pharyngealisation of the /l/.
> 
> You can listen here: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/


I think what is actually occurring is the pronunciation of the _qalqalah_ which must appear after a ṭā' which is followed directly by another consonant. The qalqalah is basically a schwa, so what they are reciting is yaṭəlubuhu which is how it should correctly be recited in classical Arabic.

The qalqalah appears after all of these following consonants which are followed directly by anther consonant (with no vowel in between) - ب د ج ط ق


----------



## fdb

You are right; my explanation was wrong. The epenthesis occurs after (historic) voiced stops.


----------

