# Definite article



## ayed

Hi, WRPs.
For those who are interested in learning Arabic.Here is a glimpse of the definite article "al":
There are two sorts of definite articles in Arabic : lunar and solar Lams.


1-The Lunar Lam(al-Qamariyyah)is written and pronounced if followed by the following letters .
The adjacent initial letter is undoubled"ghair mushaddad":



*أ ، ب ، ج ، ح ، خ ، ع ، غ ، ف ، ق ، ك ، ل ، م ، هـ ، و ، ى* 
-------------------------------------------------


2-The Solar Lam(al-Shumsiyyah) is written but silent while reading if followed by the following letters .
The adjacent initial letter is doubled"Mushaddad 



*ت ، ث ، د ، ذ ، ر ، ز ، س ، ش ، ص ، ض ، ط ، ظ ، ن ، ل*


*-----------------------------------------*

I hope this could you.
Ayed


----------



## Whodunit

Well, Ayed, that is totally clear, but I wondered why you wrote "al-t..." then. ت   or ط   are sun letters, so you HAVE to say "at-t...", don't you?


----------



## ayed

Whodunit, be with me on this point.
Let me say something before we jump to our point:
For instance, When you want to utter the word _background_, I am sure that you will pronounced "Baground" ,won't you?Just try!.
So, In _The Solar Lam , _you write down the "al" but drop the"L" from the article "al".

The case is as in the word _Know_ ._K_ is written but silent .Hence, we say "now"_not_"Know".

al-Talib : الطالب
you drop "L" and then pronounce it as "at-Talib"
al-Tareekh : التاريخ
at-Tareekh.
You just double the adjacent letter to the"L".

In al-Lam al-Shamsiyyah(ash-Shamsiyyah) , you write the"L" but do not pronounce it .
Let me know if have not understood yet.
Thanks
Ayed


----------



## elroy

I think he understands, Ayed.  I just think it can be confusing when the "l" is always written, since the version with Latin characters is essentially a _transliteration_.  Yes, the "k" in "know" is not pronounced, but that's a pecularity of English.  If I were to transliterate that word into Arabic, I would not use a "kaf."  I think it's important for a transliteration to be as accurate a representation of the pronunciation of the word as possible - not a direct correspondence of letters, even those that are not pronounced.

My two cents.


----------



## ayed

Well, elroy !If the silent _L _is not written in translitration then how could the Arabic learner write the correct word in Arabic.For instance, the word//الطالب// aconsists of the definite article "al"followed by the common noun"Taleb".Hence, if we _phonotransliterate _, then the Arabic leaner is really led to an endless way from where he will get back to the beginning , later on .

Right now let us assume that the Arabic learner has read the word "at-Taleb" and has no any background of this word trying to write it down in Arabic.What would happen?Will he write//اط طالب// or//اططالب// or //اطالب// or //الطالب//?Unless he does know the silent "L" is embedded within "al-".Otherwise ,he will write "at-t"down exactly as he has heard it .
Arabic learner has to be taught that the Solar Lam is written BUT unpronounced .Write-and-Leave way is the case of _Know._How did I know that the "k" is silent ?I used to pronounced it but my teacher asked me not to do it again .Why?because the"K"is silent.This is the way we are taught.Othewise , one could write "at-taleb" as //اطالب//
This is my own view


----------



## Whodunit

ayed said:
			
		

> Well, elroy !If the silent _L _is not written in translitration then how could the Arabic learner write the correct word in Arabic.For instance, the word//الطالب// aconsists of the definite article "al"followed by the common noun"Taleb".Hence, if we _phonotransliterate _, then the Arabic leaner is really led to an endless way from where he will get back to the beginning , later on .



Hm, okay. But I am as advanced so that I know that every time I read "a + sun letter/solar lam + hyphen + word" is to be written "al + word" in the Arabic script. Well, that's an interesting point. Just assumed a moderator on TV would read "Yesterday, two bombs exploded near the Arab town _Al-Taif_." The moderator would defintely read "al-..." and not "at-...", unless he knows the basics of Arabic.


----------



## elroy

ayed said:
			
		

> Well, elroy !If the silent _L _is not written in translitration then how could the Arabic learner write the correct word in Arabic.For instance, the word//الطالب// aconsists of the definite article "al"followed by the common noun"Taleb".Hence, if we _phonotransliterate _, then the Arabic leaner is really led to an endless way from where he will get back to the beginning , later on .
> 
> Right now let us assume that the Arabic learner has read the word "at-Taleb" and has no any background of this word trying to write it down in Arabic.What would happen?Will he write//اط طالب// or//اططالب// or //اطالب// or //الطالب//?Unless he does know the silent "L" is embedded within "al-".Otherwise ,he will write "at-t"down exactly as he has heard it .
> Arabic learner has to be taught that the Solar Lam is written BUT unpronounced .Write-and-Leave way is the case of _Know._How did I know that the "k" is silent ?I used to pronounced it but my teacher asked me not to do it again .Why?because the"K"is silent.This is the way we are taught.Othewise , one could write "at-taleb" as //اطالب//
> This is my own view


 
I understand your points, but a transliteration is not intended for those trying to learn how to write Arabic.  A transliteration is intended for those who cannot read the Arabic, so that they know how the word is to be pronounced.

For those learning how to write Arabic, the best way is to write the word in Arabic and explain what is pronounced and what is not pronounced.


			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, okay. But I am as advanced so that I know that every time I read "a + sun letter/solar lam + hyphen + word" is to be written "al + word" in the Arabic script. Well, that's an interesting point. Just assumed a moderator on TV would read "Yesterday, two bombs exploded near the Arab town _Al-Taif_." The moderator would defintely read "al-..." and not "at-...", unless he knows the basics of Arabic.


 
That's exactly right.  A TV reporter isn't interested in what the word looks like in Arabic, but rather simply in how it's pronounced.  Writing the "l" therefore misleads him.


----------



## Outsider

If they don't speak Arabic, I doubt that they'll ever pronounce Arabic names correctly. At best, they'll manage to approximate the actual pronunciation.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> If they don't speak Arabic, I doubt that they'll ever pronounce Arabic names correctly. At best, they'll manage to approximate the actual pronunciation.


 
Well, yes, of course.  But we should help them get as close as possible to the correct pronunciation!


----------



## Outsider

I'm not so sure about that. A slight mispronunciation in foreign media will not be a problem. Those reporters who wish to pronounce the words correctly can always ask someone who speaks the language to tell them the right pronunciation, and then it won't matter that much how they are written. Meanwhile, a transliteration that is closer to the written form in the original language will make it easier to associate the transliterated form with the original form, if necessary.


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> If they don't speak Arabic, I doubt that they'll ever pronounce Arabic names correctly. At best, they'll manage to approximate the actual pronunciation.



Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:

s like in "sit"
s like in "sit" but with an emphasization
second s in "sarcasm"

for those who don't use the English transcription:

th like in that
th like in thick

That's really difficult.

And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really differ between these words:

adjal - 3adjal
umoomii - 3umoomii
chilaal - 7ilaal
futoor - fotoar (breakfast)
nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط]
kaal - qaal
fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ]

I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that. A slight mispronunciation in foreign media will not be a problem. Those reporters who wish to pronounce the words correctly can always ask someone who speaks the language to tell them the right pronunciation, and then it won't matter that much how they are written. Meanwhile, a transliteration that is closer to the written form in the original language will make it easier to associate the transliterated form with the original form, if necessary.


 
A slight mispronunciation is not the end of the world, but that shouldn't justify an incorrect transliteration.  What about reporters who have nobody to ask?  Besides, that was just one example.  There are many others who might be exposed to transliterated versions - people who are simply interested in pronouncing the word as correctly as possible and do not know how to read Arabic.

You say "to associate the transliterated form with the original form, if necessary."  I cannot imagine a situation in which one is interested in the original form only to compare it with a transliteration.  It is much more likely that a foreigner will want to decipher the Arabic, in which case a more faithful transliteration is more helpful.

Furthermore, even if someone were to compare, say, "at-taawila" to the written form, it would be very doable for somebody to simply point out that the written "l" is not pronounced but rather is left out and replaced with a second "t" (hence the double "t" in the transliteration).  In fact, it would be more confusing for the person to see the "l" and be told that it is not pronounced.  ("Why is it written in the transliteration?" he might ask.)

Basically, the only argument I have heard about the utility of the "l" in the transliteration is for those who would like to match up the transliteration with the original.  But that's not the purpose of the transliteration.  Those who are interested in how the word is written in Arabic (as opposed to how it is pronounced) should not rely on transliterations in the first place - which are close approximations at best. 

I hope what I'm trying to say is clear...  if not, I'll be happy to elaborate further.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:
> 
> s like in "sit"
> s like in "sit" but with *emphasis*
> second s in "sarcasm"  Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that.  There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that.
> 
> for those who don't use the English transcription:
> 
> th like in that
> th like in thick I'm confused; what is this referring to?  The ذ and the ث ?
> 
> That's really difficult.
> 
> And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really *differentiate* between these words:
> 
> adjal - 3adjal yes, of course.  The letters ا and ع are pronounced differently.
> umoomii - 3umoomii ditto.
> chilaal - 7ilaal yes. ح and خ are also different letters.
> futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be?
> nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط] yes, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowels.
> kaal - qaal what is the first word?
> fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ] yes, again, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowel.
> 
> I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.


 
Answers to your questions...


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:
> 
> s like in "sit"
> s like in "sit" but with emphasis
> second s in "sarcasm"  Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that. There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that. Okay, but I was really referring to the "z", because in German, for intstance, "z" is always an "s".
> 
> for those who don't use the English transcription:
> 
> th like in that th = ذ
> th like in thick I'm confused; what is this referring to? The ذ    and the ث    ? th = ث
> 
> That's really difficult.
> 
> And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really differentiate between these words:
> 
> adjal - 3adjal yes, of course. The letters ا and ع are pronounced differently. Okay, would you pronounce ع and أ (hamza) differently?
> umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange.
> chilaal - 7ilaal yes. ح and خ are also different letters. Yes, but even if you speak fast?
> futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English.
> nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط] yes, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowels. I was referring to the consonants ...
> kaal - qaal what is the first word? kaal = he measured; qaal = he said
> fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ] yes, again, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowel. And the consonants?
> 
> I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.
> 
> Answers to your questions...



My answers ...


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> My answers ...
> 
> Originally Posted by *elroy*
> _Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:
> 
> s like in "sit"
> s like in "sit" but with emphasis
> second s in "sarcasm" Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that. There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that. Okay, but I was really referring to the "z", because in German, for intstance, "z" is always an "s".  Ok, but German doesn't have an emphasized "s."  Are you talking about different possible Arabic pronunciations for the Latin "s" or different interpretations of a transliterated "s"?
> 
> for those who don't use the English transcription:
> 
> th like in that th = ذ
> th like in thick I'm confused; what is this referring to? The ذ  and the ث  ? th = ث  My question was general, referring to both.  I assumed this is what you were referring to.
> 
> That's really difficult.
> 
> And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really differentiate between these words:
> 
> adjal - 3adjal yes, of course. The letters ا and ع are pronounced differently. Okay, would you pronounce ع and أ (hamza) differently? yes
> umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange. nonetheless true
> chilaal - 7ilaal yes. ح and خ are also different letters. Yes, but even if you speak fast? yes
> futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English. I still don't know what the second word is supposed to be.  I know only one word for breakfast.
> nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط] yes, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowels. I was referring to the consonants ... yes, different too, but it's the difference between the vowels that you hear most strongly.
> kaal - qaal what is the first word? kaal = he measured; qaal = he said yes, different, vowel as well
> fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ] yes, again, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowel. And the consonants? same as above
> 
> I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.
> 
> Answers to your questions..._


 
Bitte schön...


----------



## Outsider

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:
> 
> s like in "sit"
> s like in "sit" but with an emphasization
> second s in "sarcasm"
> 
> for those who don't use the English transcription:
> 
> th like in that
> th like in thick
> 
> That's really difficult.


Since I do not speak Arabic, I probably would not pronounce them correctly, even if you wrote the emphatic _s_ with a dot below it, as is sometimes done. 



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> A slight mispronunciation is not the end of the world, but that shouldn't justify an incorrect transliteration.
> 
> [...]
> 
> You say "to associate the transliterated form with the original form, if necessary."  I cannot imagine a situation in which one is interested in the original form only to compare it with a transliteration.  It is much more likely that a foreigner will want to decipher the Arabic, in which case a more faithful transliteration is more helpful.


I disagree with the terms "incorrect transliteration" and "faithful transliteration". The main purpose of a transliteration is not to represent the pronunciation of a word in its original language. There are phonetic transcriptions, for that.

If I were learning Arabic, sometimes written with the Latin alphabet, I might find more useful a transliteration that spelled out all the letters that are written down in the Arabic script, whether they are pronounced or silent, than a purely phonetic transcription, because the transliteration would give me an accurate description of how I must spell the word in the Arabic script, which the phonetic transcription will not do.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Since I do not speak Arabic, I probably would not pronounce them correctly, even if you wrote the emphatic _s_ with a dot below it, as is sometimes done.
> 
> 
> I disagree with the terms "incorrect transliteration" and "faithful transliteration". The main purpose of a transliteration is not to represent the pronunciation of a word in its original language. There are phonetic transcriptions, for that.
> 
> If I were learning Arabic, sometimes written with the Latin alphabet, I might find more useful a transliteration that spelled out all the letters that are written down in the Arabic script, whether they are pronounced or silent, than a purely phonetic transcription, because the transliteration would give me an accurate description of how I must spell the word in the Arabic script, which the phonetic transcription will not do.


 
Ok, ok - so maybe my usage of the technical terms may be a little bit off.  Either way, I still maintain that it makes a lot more sense to "spell out" an Arabic word the way it is pronounced.  I really don't see that the alleged usefulness of such a system really overrides the inevitable confusions.

If you were learning Arabic, you would want to learn how to read and write correctly.  You would need to be cognizant that the transliterations/transcriptions are only intended as an aid, and you should by no means rely on them exclusively - whether to pronounce the Arabic or to know how to write it.  My simple solution: Learn the 28 letters in Arabic, know which one is "l," and therefore know how to write and recognize it.  When you stumble upon a word in which it is written but not pronounced, *refer to* (but do not rely on) a transliteration/transcription that uses "at" (let's use that letter for the sake of argument) instead of "al" to help you recognize which letters are pronounced and which ones are not.  Seeing "al" will only lead to confusion.  While that may perhaps show you how to spell the word in Arabic, you should not be using the Latin version as your basis for writing Arabic but rather start working with the Arabic version and use the Latin as necessary.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:
> 
> s like in "sit"
> s like in "sit" but with emphasis
> second s in "sarcasm" Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that. There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that. Okay, but I was really referring to the "z", because in German, for intstance, "z" is always an "s".   Ok, but German doesn't have an emphasized "s." Are you talking about different possible Arabic pronunciations for the Latin "s" or different interpretations of a transliterated "s"? I'm talking about both of them: How can all the different Arabic "s's" and z's" be transcribed with the Latin alphabet.
> 
> for those who don't use the English transcription:
> 
> th like in that th = ذ
> th like in thick I'm confused; what is this referring to? The ذ    and the ث    ? th = ث  My question was general, referring to both. I assumed this is what you were referring to. Ok, problem solved.
> 
> That's really difficult.
> 
> And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really differentiate between these words:
> 
> adjal - 3adjal yes, of course. The letters ا and ع are pronounced differently. Okay, would you pronounce ع and أ (hamza) differently? yes
> umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange. nonetheless true But why do you pronounce it "ditto" here, and not in the first example? Because of the vowel "u"?
> chilaal - 7ilaal yes. ح and خ are also different letters. Yes, but even if you speak fast? yes
> futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English. I still don't know what the second word is supposed to be. I know only one word for breakfast.  Once again: The first word should mean "limpness" [فتور] and the second one "breakfast" [فطور]. Got it?
> nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط] yes, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowels. I was referring to the consonants ... yes, different too, but it's the difference between the vowels that you hear most strongly.
> kaal - qaal what is the first word? kaal = he measured; qaal = he said yes, different, vowel as well
> fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ] yes, again, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowel. And the consonants? same as above
> 
> I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.
> 
> Answers to your questions
> 
> Bitte schön...



There you go. I think everything's clear, except for the the "breakfast" thing.


----------



## elroy

Originally Posted by *elroy*
_Just consider all the different "s's" in Arabic. Would you pronounce them correctly if you read "s" in a transcription. It could be pronounced as follows:

s like in "sit"
s like in "sit" but with emphasis
second s in "sarcasm" Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that. There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that. Okay, but I was really referring to the "z", because in German, for intstance, "z" is always an "s".  Ok, but German doesn't have an emphasized "s." Are you talking about different possible Arabic pronunciations for the Latin "s" or different interpretations of a transliterated "s"? I'm talking about both of them: How can all the different Arabic "s's" and z's" be transcribed with the Latin alphabet.  Oh, I see.  I can see how that might be a problem in German.

for those who don't use the English transcription:

th like in that th = ذ
th like in thick I'm confused; what is this referring to? The ذ  and the ث  ? th = ث My question was general, referring to both. I assumed this is what you were referring to. Ok, problem solved.

That's really difficult.

And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really differentiate between these words:

adjal - 3adjal yes, of course. The letters ا and ع are pronounced differently. Okay, would you pronounce ع and أ (hamza) differently? yes
umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange. nonetheless true But why do you pronounce it "ditto" here, and not in the first example? Because of the vowel "u"? "Ditto" is English and means "The same here." 
chilaal - 7ilaal yes. ح and خ are also different letters. Yes, but even if you speak fast? yes
futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English. I still don't know what the second word is supposed to be. I know only one word for breakfast. Once again: The first word should mean "limpness" [فتور] and the second one "breakfast" [فطور]. Got it?  Ok, that makes things clearer!   Yes, of course there is a difference.  By the way, فتور  to me doesn't really mean "limpness" but rather "the quality of being lukewarm" [فاتر = lukewarm]_
_
nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط] yes, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowels. I was referring to the consonants ... yes, different too, but it's the difference between the vowels that you hear most strongly.
kaal - qaal what is the first word? kaal = he measured; qaal = he said yes, different, vowel as well
fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ] yes, again, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowel. And the consonants? same as above

I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.

Answers to your questions..._


----------



## Whodunit

Once again our awfully long letter:

_s like in "sit"
s like in "sit" but with emphasis
second s in "sarcasm" Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that. There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that. Okay, but I was really referring to the "z", because in German, for intstance, "z" is always an "s".  Ok, but German doesn't have an emphasized "s." Are you talking about different possible Arabic pronunciations for the Latin "s" or different interpretations of a transliterated "s"? I'm talking about both of them: How can all the different Arabic "s's" and z's" be transcribed with the Latin alphabet.  Oh, I see.  I can see how that might be a problem in German. Yes it WAS. I make progress, I think.    

for those who don't use the English transcription:

th like in that th = ذ
th like in thick I'm confused; what is this referring to? The ذ  and the ث  ? th = ث My question was general, referring to both. I assumed this is what you were referring to. Ok, problem solved.

That's really difficult.

And Elroy - a bit off-topic - would you really differentiate between these words:

adjal - 3adjal yes, of course. The letters ا and ع are pronounced differently. Okay, would you pronounce ع and أ (hamza) differently? yes
umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange. nonetheless true But why do you pronounce it "ditto" here, and not in the first example? Because of the vowel "u"? "Ditto" is English and means "The same here."  Of course, gosh! Either you don't understand English anymore or I used the wrong word order. I meant "why do you pronounce it the same way here?" [it = ع and ا] I repeated your word "ditto" in quotation marks, because it sounded so fine, so that I had to repeat it. Sorry abou that confusion.
chilaal - 7ilaal yes. ح and خ are also different letters. Yes, but even if you speak fast? yes
futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English. I still don't know what the second word is supposed to be. I know only one word for breakfast. Once again: The first word should mean "limpness" [فتور] and the second one "breakfast" [فطور]. Got it?  Ok, that makes things clearer!   Yes, of course there is a difference.  By the way, فتور  to me doesn't really mean "limpness" but rather "the quality of being lukewarm" [فاتر = lukewarm]_ What does "being lukewarm" have to do with "limpness"? My dictionary proposed limpness, but maybe just because there's no German equivalent for "being lukewarm".    
_
nabat (he grew (up) - nabot (it bubbled) [نبط] yes, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowels. I was referring to the consonants ... yes, different too, but it's the difference between the vowels that you hear most strongly.
kaal - qaal what is the first word? kaal = he measured; qaal = he said yes, different, vowel as well
fadhdh [فذ] - fozz [فظ] yes, again, mainly in the pronunciation of the vowel. And the consonants? same as above

I'm speaking about colloquial pronunciation - but not about Palestinian-Arabic.

Answers to your questions..._[/I]


----------



## elroy

I pruned our "letter" so it doesn't look SO dreadful.  

_



s like in "sit" 
s like in "sit" but with emphasis
second s in "sarcasm" Neither of the Arabic s's is pronounced like that. There is a separate letter, "z," that is pronounced like that. Okay, but I was really referring to the "z", because in German, for intstance, "z" is always an "s".  Ok, but German doesn't have an emphasized "s." Are you talking about different possible Arabic pronunciations for the Latin "s" or different interpretations of a transliterated "s"? I'm talking about both of them: How can all the different Arabic "s's" and z's" be transcribed with the Latin alphabet. Oh, I see. I can see how that might be a problem in German. Yes it WAS. I *am making* progress, I think.  
Of course you are!





umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange. nonetheless true But why do you pronounce it "ditto" here, and not in the first example? Because of the vowel "u"? "Ditto" is English and means "The same here." Of course, gosh! Either you don't understand English anymore or I used the wrong word order. I meant "why do you pronounce it the same way here?" [it = ع and ا] I repeated your word "ditto" in quotation marks, because it sounded so fine, so that I had to repeat it. Sorry abou that confusion."Ditto" is an expression that is used only by itself.  You can't pronounce something "ditto" or do something "ditto."  As for your question: I don't pronounce it the same way.  I meant "ditto" as in "same as above."  I pronounce them differently. 

futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English. I still don't know what the second word is supposed to be. I know only one word for breakfast. Once again: The first word should mean "limpness" [فتور] and the second one "breakfast" [فطور]. Got it? Ok, that makes things clearer!  Yes, of course there is a difference. By the way, فتور to me doesn't really mean "limpness" but rather "the quality of being lukewarm" [فاتر = lukewarm] What does "being lukewarm" have to do with "limpness"? My dictionary proposed limpness, but maybe just because there's no German equivalent for "being lukewarm".  What about "lauwarm"?  All I was saying is that I've never heard or used the word to mean "limp." 

Click to expand...

 _


----------



## Whodunit

Here's appearing our dreadful letter again:  



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> _umoomii - 3umoomii ditto. Strange. nonetheless true But why do you pronounce it "ditto" here, and not in the first example? Because of the vowel "u"? "Ditto" is English and means "The same here." Of course, gosh! Either you don't understand English anymore or I used the wrong word order. I meant "why do you pronounce it the same way here?" [it = ع and ا] I repeated your word "ditto" in quotation marks, because it sounded so fine, so that I had to repeat it. Sorry abou that confusion."Ditto" is an expression that is used only by itself. You can't pronounce something "ditto" or do something "ditto." As for your question: I don't pronounce it the same way. I meant "ditto" as in "same as above." I pronounce them differently. I know, I know. I was just making fun of that word. Got it? Topic closed._
> 
> _futoor - fotoar (breakfast) what is the second word supposed to be? breakfast, I didn't know how two write that special long "o" in English. I still don't know what the second word is supposed to be. I know only one word for breakfast. Once again: The first word should mean "limpness" [فتور] and the second one "breakfast" [فطور]. Got it? Ok, that makes things clearer!  Yes, of course there is a difference. By the way, فتور to me doesn't really mean "limpness" but rather "the quality of being lukewarm" [فاتر = lukewarm]_ What does "being lukewarm" have to do with "limpness"? My dictionary proposed limpness, but maybe just because there's no German equivalent for "being lukewarm".  What about "lauwarm"? All I was saying is that I've never heard or used the word to mean "limp." Okay, okay, "lauwarm" doesn't have to do anything with "limp" either, so I think this topic is closed as well.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Here's appearing our dreadful letter again:


 
I don't understand...why did you post that??


----------

