# Egyptian Arabic: his (pronunciation)



## estudiantedeespanol

Alahn,

I was hoping someone might be able to provide advice re: the most accurate transliteration of the Egyptian Arabic form of 'his'.

Lonely Planet uses '-u' for the transliteration, but it seems to sound more like '-oh' (or ه) to me. Eg. his book sounds more like 'kiteb-oh' than 'kiteb-u'

Can anyone weigh in?

Thanks!


----------



## Anatoli

كتابه "his book" (kitaabuh(u), kitaabah(u), kitaabih(i))
I learned that the standard way (in MSA) is -uh(u) (nominative), -ah(u) (accusative) and -ih(i) (genitive). The final h is very light but audible.


----------



## estudiantedeespanol

Thanks for your quick response!  I learned it was '-u' in egyptian arabic but listening to a pronunciation online, it sounded a lot more like '-oh' to me.  Have you heard it pronounced?


----------



## Anatoli

Yes, I did but mainly in MSA, some texts clearly pronouncing -h, some very lightly. I heard it in Egyptian Arabic as well but please wait to see if someone else adds on the dialects. As far as I know, it is written and pronounced in dialects but please wait.

Let me correct a bit my previous post. The final -h may have an optional vowel in MSA, which is absent in Egyptian.


----------



## Ghabi

What you heard is correct. The problem is, we can transliterate the colloquial language in a "phonological" way, using the classical three-vowel (a, i, u) system. This is the way most books follow. However, we can also do that in a "phonetic" way, with a five-vowel system (a, e, i, o, u). That's the way many contributors of this forum employ.

[Note: I've omitted the vowels _ee_ (as in _3een_) and _oo_ (as in _noo3_) for an easier discussion.]


----------



## estudiantedeespanol

Thank you Ghabi - this makes sense.  Is his typically represented with ه


----------



## Ghabi

Yes, although the -h is sound is often omitted.


----------



## cherine

estudiantedeespanol said:


> I learned it was '-u' in Egyptian Arabic but listening to a pronunciation online, it sounded a lot more like '-oh' to me. Have you heard it pronounced?


It's because of this confusion you're describing that I usually transliterate the Damma as an "o" when transliteration Egyptian Arabic. Unfortunately, some of the forum members accused me of confusing them and of inaccuracy. 
I'll take your words as a proof I'm right. 

As for the pronunciation of the final ـه it's very light, and sometimes it's just an "o": كتابه ketabo. (also note that I used "e" for the kasra and not an "i" because this is how we pronounce the kasra in Egyptian Arabic).


estudiantedeespanol said:


> Thank you Ghabi - this makes sense. Is his typically represented with ه


Yes, but unfortunately some people write it with a واو as a representation of the pronunciation (and their ignorance?)  It's not correct, but I'm mentioning it here in case you see it somewhere online, so that you'll know where they're coming from.


----------



## Anatoli

Thanks Cherine and Ghabi. Ghabi, I also thought that when "o" and "e" are used they serve the phonetic purpose of rendering the dialect pronunciation or more relaxed if you wish (ie reading in Fus-ha following you native dialect rules). Cherine has just confirmed this. I think letters i and u are used in Fus-ha not just as a convention but to render the more strict pronunciation. Sounds "o" and "e" occur in _some_ foreign words and dialects only, am I right?


----------



## cherine

Anatoli said:


> Sounds "o" and "e" occur in _some_ foreign words and dialects only, am I right?


You mean when speaking in fuS7a? If so, then the answer is yes.
If you're speaking of the dialect, then no.


----------



## Anatoli

Yes, that's what I said,   I only used the English spelling of الفصحى "Fus-ha" (not too common but it seems it has now been anglicised this way, at least it's the most common spelling), not the transliteration - fuS7a or fu97a, more accurate for Arabic but not English.


----------



## Josh_

The question of the "correct" transliteration system for Egyptian Arabic seems to pop up every few months and it is sometimes insinuated that the transliteration system I employ is wrong.  The last few times I have not responded, but I might as well offer up a defense again.

There are a few problems with transliteration.  Firstly, many sounds in Arabic, in particular vowels, are not exactly like sounds in English, and so we need to merely find an approximate sound in one language to represent the sound of the other language.  Secondly, when we employ a system of transliteration we need to define it, and often different people have different definitions. And thirdly, it is often the case, such as on this forum, that there are many non-phoneticians, not trained in phonetics, who merely write what they believe they hear, finding the closest equivalent based on their understanding, without any in-depth analysis of the sounds.  Most of the time, for everyday,casual purposes, this is fine, but for an in-depth academic treatment these "casual" transliterations may not be as precise as they could be.  I believe that if we recorded the sounds and analyzed them with computer programs, or whatever other means phoneticians employ to analyze sounds, we might be surprised at what we find.  

The native Egyptian lingusitician, El-Said Badawi, has done this and found that there are six vowels used in Egyptian Arabic:


fatHa muraqqaqa (فتحة مرققة) – pronounced low/open and front. He represents this with an "a".
fatHa mufakhkhama (فتحة مفخمة) – pronounced low/open and back. He represents this with a round "a".
(Yes, unlike most, if not all, other transliteration systems, Badawi actually differentiates between the two "a" sounds by using the two different symbols used for the letter -- "a" and "a")
kasra khaalisa (كسرة خالصة) – pronounced high close and front. He represents this with an "i".
kasra mumaala (كسرة ممالة) – pronounced middle/half-close and front. He represents this with an "e".
Damma khaalisa (ضمة خالصة) – pronounced high/close and back. He represents this with an "u".
  Damma mumaala (ضمة ممالة) – pronounced middle/half-close and back. He represents this with an "o".
(I've included Badawi’s explanation of these sounds in the links below.)

Let’s take the word كُتُب, forexample, since it has been mentioned.  I believe that those who prefer to use “o” in transliterating the Damma liken it to the “o” sound in the English “low” or “lobe.”  Yet, this is not quite how the vowel sound in كُتُبis pronounced (at least as I hear it).  It is not pronounced, for example, as a sound-alike of “low-lobe,” but rather the vowels are shorter and not as round, and the mouth is not open as wide as it is with "o" in these words.  There really isn’t an English sound that is exactly like the Arabic one (that I can think of), but they are pronounced high/close and back, as Badawi indicated, similar to the "u" in the word "put." This is probably why he transliterates it with a "u."  It is not exactly like the "u" in "put" but as an approximation, I guess it works.

The sound "o" as is "low" or "lobe" also occurs in Egyptian, as indicated above, in words such as يوم (yoom) and ]لوم (loon) and in a contracted from in closed syllable such as يومها, (yomha) and لومها (lonha).  This sound are not pronounced like in the vowel in kutub, but is further back in the mouth with the mouth slightly more open.  Tthe sounbd is more rounded than the "u".  

Yes, the "o" and the "u" of Egyptian are similar, yet upon analysis we find that they are not the same sound, but are rather two distinct sounds.  This difference may not always be obvious to the untrained ear.  But since they are two different sounds, I choose, like Badawi, to distinguish between them.  Transliterating both sounds with the same symbol, such as "o", would imply that they are the same sound, but upon analysis we find that they are not.  So, I think it is better to represent these two sounds with two different symbols.  

I do not just go off of the word of an academic, but I have done some serious listening myself and I do hear the difference between these two letters, such as in the difference between the vowels in "كُتُب" and the vowel in يومها.  Had I not read what Badawi wrote and did my own investigations I may not have noticed the difference.

The same goes for the issue with "i" and "e."  Badawi says that the “i” is pronounced similar to the "i" in "pin" while “e” is somewhere between "pin" and "pen" with the mouth slightly more open than it is with "i." Since I have been really actively listening I hear the difference between these two sounds, which I believe is easier to make out than the difference between "u" and "o." Like "o" and “u” I choose to represent them with different symbols, since they are two different sounds.  The "e" normally occurs with the contraction of "ee" in a closed syllable, such as "beet" (بيت) being contracted to "betha" (بيتها, her house) when the a pronoun suffix is added.

Here is Badawi’s explanation of the vowel sounds used in Egyptian Arabic:
Image1
Image2
Image3

Of course there are slight variations.  I interact with native Egyptians and listen to a Egyptian audio online every day, and in the case of "i" versus "e" I do sometimes hear what sounds closer to an "e" sound, but by and large I hear what sounds to me closer to an "i" sound the majority of the time.  So I do know that both sounds occur for the kasra in Egyptian.  I chalk this up to the fact that we are all different, after all, and many of us pronounce words slightly different form other people.  There may also be regional pronunciations at play.  I merely consider these slight differences as allophones of the same sound and not worthy of different symbols to represent them.  

If you listen to videos of Egyptian Arabic that have been transliterated, such as those by 99meemo99 on youtube for example, then you will see that he does not use a consistent system of transliteration.  In fact he alternates between the use of "i" and "e" in his transliterations (and does the same with "o" and "u"), which indicates to me that he is merely basing his transliteration off of what he hears at the moment; what English letter he deems that particular sound to be closer to in that particular word.  This also indicated to me that both sounds are used.  As I said above I merely deem them to be allophones of the same sound and do not believe that they both need to be represented in transliteration considering different people pronounce things slightly different. 

Going along with what I wrote above I wanted to comment on this:



cherine said:


> كتابه ketabo. (also note that I used "e" for the kasra and not an "i" because this is how we pronounce the kasra in Egyptian Arabic).


But if you note, estudianteespanol has heard this word online and it appears that he transliterated كتابه as he heard it -- "kiteboh."  So I don’t think we can say that it is only pronounced "e" in Egyptian.  Further, you’ll notice that he transliterated the long alif as "e."  And really, the vowel does sound like an “e,” as in the word "*e*ver" or "*e*veryone," yet we transliterate it as "aa."  At any rate, I think I can take this as proof (along with my own in-depth listening of Egyptian Arabic) that I am right in thinking that both "i" and "e" occur in Egyptian, not just "e," and I'm not the only one who hears it.

Back to the topic at hand: the issue with Damma when it falls at the end of a word, such as in كتابه (kitaabu or kitaabo), is that that there is no following letter.  The voice merely trails off (there is no consonant to confine the vowel so to speak) and so the letter is more susceptible to sounding rounded.  Now, while it does not sound exactly like a “u,” it still does not sound as round as the “o” in “lobe,” in my estimation.  Honestly, I am undecided on how to best represent this, but since it is just a variation of “u” (from ــُهُ), and not "o," (which stems from و), and considering it does not sound as rounded as “o,” I mainly use the "u" to represent it.




estudiantedeespanol said:


> Alahn,
> 
> I was hoping someone might be able to provide advice re: the most accurate transliteration of the Egyptian Arabic form of 'his'.



As you can see from the discussion, the science of transliteration is not clear cut.  It is subjective.  There are many different transliteration systems as there can be many ways to pronounce a letter.  Knowing whether one is accurate or more accurate than another (there may even be more than one accurate one) depends on the transliteration employer’s explanation of how that letter should sound.  Also, as I noted above, the letters of one language may not have the exact same values of another language.  This is the case with Egyptian Arabic and English.  That said, the best way to get the most accurate pronunciation is to listen to a native speaker. Transliterations are merely approximations and should only be used as guidelines.


----------



## cherine

Hi Josh,

I'm sorry you took my words as an accusation to you when I was just confirming what I always say (and what you yourself said!) that in Egyptian Arabic there are more vowels than just a,i,u. It may be true that our representation or understanding of the "e" and "o" is different, but if I understood your words correctly, we do agree that there are "e" and "o" in Egyptian Arabic.

Personally, when I transliterate MSA I keep to (a,i,u) as we all do in the forum. When I transliterate Egyptian Arabic I _*add*_ (e, o) to mark the difference between them and (i,u). And I think I'm consistent with my transliteration style, even if my representation of the sounds is not very accurate, specially that I'm not a phonetician.



Josh_ said:


> Let’s take the word كُتُب, forexample, since it has been mentioned. I believe that those who prefer to use “o” in transliterating the Damma liken it to the “o” sound in the English “low” or “lobe.” Yet, this is not quite how the vowel sound in كُتُبis pronounced (at least as I hear it). It is not pronounced, for example, as a sound-alike of “low-lobe,” but rather the vowels are shorter and not as round, and the mouth is not open as wide as it is with "o" in these words. There really isn’t an English sound that is exactly like the Arabic one (that I can think of), but they are pronounced high/close and back, as Badawi indicated, similar to the "u" in the word "put." This is probably why he transliterates it with a "u." It is not exactly like the "u" in "put" but as an approximation, I guess it works.



I don't really liken the "o" to any English word in particular, I only mark the difference between this kind of Damma and the MSA Damma, which we transliterate with a "u". My thinking process is just to say that we don't pronounce كُتُب (in 3ammeyya) as k*u*t*u*b [close Damma] but a more open one, so I can only used "o".


> The sound "o" as is "low" or "lobe" also occurs in Egyptian, as indicated above, in words such as يوم (yoom) and ]لوم (loon) and in a contracted from in closed syllable such as يومها, (yomha) and لومها (lonha). This sound are not pronounced like in the vowel in kutub, but is further back in the mouth with the mouth slightly more open. Tthe sounbd is more rounded than the "u".


You're right that the Damma in yomha, lonha, lomha... is a bit different from the one on كتب but it still not a close one, this is why I prefer using "o" for both than to transliterate the Damma on كتب using a "u".


> Yes, the "o" and the "u" of Egyptian are similar, yet upon analysis we find that they are not the same sound, but are rather two distinct sounds.


That's what I said we agree upon. I think the difference between our two opinions is in how/when to use which of the two letters.


> Transliterating both sounds with the same symbol, such as "o", would imply that they are the same sound, but upon analysis we find that they are not. So, I think it is better to represent these two sounds with two different symbols.


Which I do ya Josh. I hope you don't think that I only use "o" when transliterating.


> Of course there are slight variations. I interact with native Egyptians and listen to a Egyptian audio online every day, and in the case of "i" versus "e" I do sometimes hear what sounds closer to an "e" sound, but by and large I hear what sounds to me closer to an "i" sound the majority of the time. So I do know that both sounds occur for the kasra in Egyptian.



I too use "e" and "i" to mark two different sounds. For example, a verb like اِمْشِ (the imperative of مَشَى) I transliterate it: "emshi" because the first kasra is different from the last one.


> But if you note, estudianteespanol has heard this word online and it appears that he transliterated كتابه as he heard it -- "kiteboh." So I don’t think we can say that it is only pronounced "e" in Egyptian. Further, you’ll notice that he transliterated the long alif as "e." And really, the vowel does sound like an “e,” as in the word "*e*ver" or "*e*veryone," yet we transliterate it as "aa." At any rate, I think I can take this as proof (along with my own in-depth listening of Egyptian Arabic) that I am right in thinking that both "i" and "e" occur in Egyptian, not just "e," and I'm not the only one who hears it.



No, Josh, you're not the only one. I hear that difference too.
As for "e" representing the alef, you reminded me of a friend of mine, who's half-Algerian: she writes her name "Ines" إيناس when most of the Egyptians write it "Inas". I think her writing is more accurate, but when our boss saw this for the first time he was surprised and asked her why she wrote it with an "e" not an "a", she told him: because this is how it's pronounced.


----------



## Josh_

cherine said:


> Hi Josh,
> 
> I'm sorry you took my words as an accusation to you when I was just confirming what I always say (and what you yourself said!) that in Egyptian Arabic there are more vowels than just a,i,u. It may be true that our representation or understanding of the "e" and "o" is different, but if I understood your words correctly, we do agree that there are "e" and "o" in Egyptian Arabic.


I guess I erroneously thought you were referring to me, since I cannot recall anyone having ever accused you of confusing them or inaccuracy. I don't believe I've done so either, but we have discussed our respective transliteration systems in the past, particularly in reference to whether the "i" or the "e" should represent the kasra and whether the "o" or the "u" should represent Damma, so I guess I thought your comment may have been a reference to me.  So I apologize for that.



> Personally, when I transliterate MSA I keep to (a,i,u) as we all do in the forum. When I transliterate Egyptian Arabic I _*add*_ (e, o) to mark the difference between them and (i,u). And I think I'm consistent with my transliteration style, even if my representation of the sounds is not very accurate, specially that I'm not a phonetician.


Yes, I don't think the one I use is completely accurate either, particularly since the vowels in EA do not hold quite the same value as they do in English.  But I think that both yours and mine are accurate enough for one to get an understanding of the sound system.  Of course, as we have noted before, the best way is to listen to native Egyptians speak.




> I don't really liken the "o" to any English word in particular, I only mark the difference between this kind of Damma and the MSA Damma, which we transliterate with a "u". My thinking process is just to say that we don't pronounce كُتُب (in 3ammeyya) as k*u*t*u*b [close Damma] but a more open one, so I can only used "o".
> 
> You're right that the Damma in yomha, lonha, lomha... is a bit different from the one on كتب but it still not a close one, this is why I prefer using "o" for both than to transliterate the Damma on كتب using a "u".


Yes, I see your point.  My main purpose in using both is just to differentiaite between the two sounds (even if the difference is only slight), and also to show that the vowel in كتب is a kasra, while the vowel in يومها is a waaw.



> That's what I said we agree upon. I think the difference between our two opinions is in how/when to use which of the two letters.


As I said above, in addition to showing the two vowels, it is my purpose to show the two slightly different pronunciations, that is that the vowel in كتب is slightly more closed and less rounded than the vowel in يومها.



> I too use "e" and "i" to mark two different sounds. For example, a verb like اِمْشِ (the imperative of مَشَى) I transliterate it: "emshi" because the first kasra is different from the last one.
> [/FONT]


Yes, the kasra at the end is slightly differernt from a kasra in the middle of a word.  It is a shortened version of the MSA ـيّ -iyy (e.g. مصريّ, miSriyy), which is long.  And since it is long, the stress fall on it.  In EA, this long vowel is shortened to a simple kasra, and therefore is not pronounced long as in "miSriyy," but rather is pronounced "masri."  Accordingly, the stress shifts to the previous syllable.  Thus, it is another allophone of the kasra, which is why it is usually transliterated with an "i." 


> No, Josh, you're not the only one. I hear that difference too.
> As for "e" representing the alef, you reminded me of a friend of mine, who's half-Algerian: she writes her name "Ines" إيناس when most of the Egyptians write it "Inas". I think her writing is more accurate, but when our boss saw this for the first time he was surprised and asked her why she wrote it with an "e" not an "a", she told him: because this is how it's pronounced.


Yes, that is an interesting story.  I have noted that is some older books, such as Wright's grammar of Arabic, he transliterates both the fatHa and the alef with an 'e.'  I always thought it was strange (since I am used to transliterating it as "aa"), but I guess it makes some sense, since it does sound like the "e" as in "ever."  All these transliteration systems just go to show that the Arabic vowels are not quite like the English ones, and so English transliterations are only an imperfect way to represent them.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Ghabi

Ya Josh (I like your picture, by the way), I just think it might interest you: my EA dictionary (by Socrates Spiro) actually uses a seven-vowel system: "his book" would be _kutuboh_, and the vowels in _3een_ and _noo3 _are represented by _ê _and_ ô_ respectively. His system is not exactly like Cherine's, though similar.

By the way, two different "a"s are also used in _A Pocket Dictionary of The Spoken Arabic of __Cairo _(by Virginia Stevens and Maurice Salib, who acknowledge the authority of Badawi's work in their preface, and follow his suit in this aspect).


----------



## Josh_

Thanks for the props on the picture.  I thought I would be show a little Halloween spirit.

Thanks for the information.  Yes, another transliteration.  Sometimes I think to myself that it is too bad there is not a standard transliteration.  But, really, it is ok, because most of the time the transliterations are similar enough for one to be able to make out what is meant. I guess the important thing is that the consonants be clear.  Most transliterations seem to generally use the same English consonants to represent Arabic consonants and so it is fairly easy to make out a word.


----------



## Anatoli

As a learner I find some problem not just in the lack of standard transliteration but in the lack of pronunciation standards as such in Arabic.

Which authority can say that you should say kutubuh or kutuboh? The first sounds more standard. Even a vocalised Arabic text won't give that information. Damma stands for both -u and -o and MSA is supposed to lack *-e* and *-o* sounds but they are pronounced, especially in foreign names but inconsistently and different speakers say the same word differently. It's not just vowels but the usage of *g*, *p* and *v* is also not regulated but used often. One announcer keeps pronouncing دكتور as French _docteur_, not _duktoor_ (long o), the sound which is irrelevant to Arabic. It sounds cool but is it correct?

I can hear dialectal and standard Arabic words mixed on the radio, reflecting the local accent of speakers. Short vowels are not always the same in some words, creating a few variants, especially foreign proper names. I think there is a need in the pronunciation dictionary for Arabic or enhancement, especially for place names, the variations a, i, u, e, o and foreign consonants would need to be included. The Arabic Wikipedia is the best place to start such a practice but they never provide phonetic information, let alone transcription. Note that the English (IPA or phonetic respelling), the Russian (word stress), the Japanese (Hiragana in brackets) Wikipedia do this often, and sometimes Chinese (Pinyin) but Chinese reading is very consistent despite its complexity.


----------



## clevermizo

I think Josh and Cherine's individual approaches both have their merits.

Josh's system is phonemic. In other words, since e is an allophone of i and o is an allophone of u, you can by convention write simply "i" and "u" and understand that their actual realization depends on phonetic environment.

Phonemic transcriptions (broad) have their merit because they can better preserve certain grammatical properties in writing. For example, consider كاتب and طالب. These are both اسم فاعل of the form فــــا عـــل. So the shape, with the alif in the middle in and the kasra in the final syllable, create the morpheme, in this case the active verbal participle.

If you choose to write _keeteb_ and _Taaleb_ in order to be closer to the phonetic realization, you loose the fact that /C1aaC2eC3/ means "active participle". 

However, if you write both as _kaateb_ (_kaatib_) and _Taaleb_ (_Taalib_), the information remains: both are obviously the form _faa3el_ and can be recognized as such in transcription. You simply have to learn, as a student, that /aa/ has more than one phonetic realization, depending on the surrounding consonants.

In the case of short /e/ and /o/ these vowels are definitely distinct from short /i/ and /u/ in Syrian Arabic (Damascus). In fact they participate grammatically:

_bəmsek _I grab (مضارع)
_mseek_ Grab! (أمر)

The vowel is lengthened in the imperative form from e>ee. The rule is _lengthen the vowel in the final syllable_ when making the imperative. There are three possibilities: a, e and o, and three possible imperatives with aa, ee and oo.

This does not lengthen to _ii_ so we cannot say that here it is simply an allophone of _i_.

This is morphological/grammatical reason which supports the 6 short vowel system for Syrian (Damascus) Arabic. 

Furthermore vowel quality changes depending on phonological contexts. e>i or ə and o>u or ə under stress shifts and this sound change is audible.

I think the best transcription system depends on the goal. Since I am a student of Arabic, I want a slightly broad phonemically based system that doesn't obscure the rules of grammar in transliteration, which too narrow a phonetic system would do. I want to be able to look at a word in transliteration the same as I would look at a word in Arabic script and immediately recognize its grammatical form.

Nevertheless, there should be some correlation to actually realizations in speech because otherwise Arabic script would suffice. Part of the argument for including transliteration in learning a spoken dialect is because the dialects may have more vowels or processes not well represented by Arabic script or Arabic script alone.

Now, if Cherine as a native EA speaker hears both vowels in كتب the same as [k*t*b] and she knows that * is similar to  but not quite the same (perhaps there are words in EA where short  is actually articulated as such?), then she chooses to label * as "o". This doesn't have correlation to what "o" means in English, and I think that's partly her point.

However, if short  is never articulated as such and it is always [o] or something similar, then, like Josh, you could write them all as  and just learn that in short environments it's a more open vowel.

The only problem arises when people use a system inconsistently which can create confusion.


----------



## Josh_

Thank you, Clevermizo, for your contribution. I enjoyed your lucid and post.  I really should study up on linguistics so I can be in a position to better express myself.  Often, when discussions turns to linguistics, I am not sure of how to express exactly what I want to say.


----------



## cherine

Sorry for the delay in replying to this thread.
Josh, I believe we agree that there's a difference, but we express this difference in a different way. 
Mizo, thanks for the head up. Like Josh -or maybe more than him-, linguistics is a difficult thing to me.
Anatoli, I understand your frustration, but unfortunately there can be no solution, at least for the moment, because every group of persons use their own scheme of transliterating. This is why listening is very important, because it solves the problems created by the confusing variety of transliteration systems.


----------



## Anatoli

cherine said:


> ...
> Anatoli, I understand your frustration, but unfortunately there can be no solution, at least for the moment, because every group of persons use their own scheme of transliterating. This is why listening is very important, because it solves the problems created by the confusing variety of transliteration systems.


Thanks, Cherine, but I meant that there are obviously more than one way of _pronouncing _words this time, dialect or standard or mixed, especially with foreign words.


----------



## cherine

Well this makes it even harder, no?
Looking at the bright side: we can consider this as a richness of the language.


----------

