Talk:Arabic diacritics

Changes (2005)

The article needs more serious work than i have given it, or than i can without clarification of what the original author was trying to put across. I left most of it untouched, but heavily copy-edited the lead. I also moved here my best guess at what they were trying to start saying:

In contrast to spelling with a syllabary (e.g., Japanese kana), the letters in the abjad are not ...

I put a period at the end of the last sentence, even tho it may not have been completed.
--Jerzy (t) 17:18, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Redirects

The vowel points (or vowel marks) of Hebrew (Niqqud) are analogs of the harakat, the vowel marks (but AFAIK not called vowel points) of Arabic. I look forward to the time when Harakat is more thoroughly linked by articles (beyond Arabic alphabet), but IMO at present the much larger body of work lk-ing to Niqqud suggests that making vowel mark a dab between Niqqud and Harakat (instead of a redir to Niqqud as currently) would presently be likely to be much more often an impediment than a help, and thus premature. I am adding top-of-page Dab on Niqqud, indicating that some (few) readers may be reaching Niqqud when Harakat is by far more relevant.

(Bear in mind that all this is academic until additional lks are created: i believe all first-instances in an article, of either "vowel point" or "vowel mark", are currently pipes on lks to Niqqud or Harakat (respectively, as the context indicates). The value of the redirects vowel point and vowel mark will be realized only when future editors lk to them. And it will cease again when the lk to the current or future dab is replaced with the link directly to the appropriate article.)

--Jerzy (t) 06:27, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

"non-deep" glottal stop?

What is a "non-deep" glottal stop? The article doesn't mention a "deep" glottal stop, and this is not a standard term in phonology or Arabic linguistics. It's not mentioned in the article on "glottal stop", and I can't imagine what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.101.96 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 October 2006‎

Hamza -- Not a diacritic

This article refers to the letter hamza as a diacritic which is totally incorrect. The glottal stop is a full letter with all the rights and responsibilities that entails in Arabic -- not like weak letters like waaw and yaa' which are not team players. 135.196.27.80 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people consider it to be a diacritic, when it's not a separate letter but a symbol written above or below an alif, above a yaa' or a waaw. As such, it is often omitted, like any diacritic.

For the same reason, some people consider dots under a yaa' to be optional, especially in the final position.

As a learner, I prefer diacritics to be always written. Even some textbooks recommend to ALWAYS write shadda, maddas, hamzas and dots under a yaa'.

(I am new to discussions, sorry if I am not following the correct format)

EDIT: I actually figured out how to indent.

--Atitarev (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

consonantal harakat?

Is consonantal pointing, such as distinguishing b, t, th, or ayin and ghayin, considered part of harakat? If not, what is the term for it? kwami (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion they are not harakat, they must always be written. I don't know the Arabic or English term, perhaps in English they are still called diacritics. The dots under "yaa'" are sometimes optional in the final position, especially in Egypt. Note, I don't mean "ʼalif maqṣūra" - yaa' without dots (ى), but a regular yaa' (normally written with dots) (ي). --Atitarev (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they do not need to be written. If you take a look at kufic, you'll see that in the left-most image, there is no consonant pointing. This is important for Koranic studies, among other things. Even today you'll see inscriptions on buildings without consonant pointing, at least in Turkey. kwami (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see now: i'jam are the consonant dots, and tashkil are the vowel marks. I guess the question then is, are harakat the same as tashkil, or do they cover both? — kwami (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

harakat, tashkil and shakl all mean the same thing 'vowel marks'. niqAT al-i'jAm on the other hand refers to letter dots, which are compulsery. Kufic and calligraphic inscriptions are irrelevant to the discussion as they are only special cases and not to be generalized from. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think the scholars would agree. The harakaat are vowel marks, period. The remaining marks of tashkeel are the sukun and the tanween. Haraka means motion; Sukun ("stillness") is the opposite of haraka. Tanween is a final /n/ sakin ("quiescent", i.e. unvowelled). Then there are the dawabit: shadd, madd, wasl, and qat'. Different writers may categorize these things slightly differently, however; e.g. the sukun might be considered a harakat, even though it means absence of haraka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.24.207 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is broken. The harakat are vowel marks; the other symbols listed (sukun, madd, etc.) are not harakat. This is very clear in traditional manuals of grammar, spelling, etc. 2008 Aug 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.24.207 (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Succinctly: harakaat are the diacritical vowels. tashkeel are the case markings. Sitim.far (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. (I think Kufic is still relevant for its historical interest.) kwami (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is "qat'"? Are the dawabit a subset of tashkiil? kwami (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamzat il-qat3 is one variation of the two variations of hamza. It is the one that appears at the beginning of a word (like the hamza on broken plurals such as '2asaabii3' (weeks)) that you cannot elide when speaking. Hamzat il-wasl, like the hamza on the definite article, 'alif laam', can be elided when speaking if it isn't the first word of an utterance. e.g. 'baytul-7ikma' House of wisdom - no glottal stop. Sitim.far (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The term Harakat

The term harakat (or ḥarakāt) is very seldom used in English. Shouldn't the article be moved to tashkīl (tashkiil, tashkeel, tashkil)? You will find more pages on Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Hamas), if you try to search for it. Please discuss. --Anatoli (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Harakat means movement. They were called so because of the movement of the mouth. And calling an organization a movement is correct too.--BelalSaid (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move: Tashkīl → Arabic diacritics

According to Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Compare with Greek diacritics, for example. FilipeS (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. That would mean merging this article with i'jam. kwami (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged, and rearranged the sections according to the writer above who said that tashkil and hharakat are not synonymous. kwami (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

madda

the section on the madda says that only an alif can have one... as far as I know this is not true as you can have one over a و or a ي codectified (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen this, can you cite an example? Slougi (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

this is only true in the quran where madda serves a different purpose. it lengthens the vowel (4 times a fatha/damma/kasra). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.132.132 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maddas cannot go on waws or yaa's. I will remove that sentence that says it can. Got my degree in Arabic and have taken a year's worth of graduate level classes in Arabic. If we want to include that, it is obviously contentious enough that I think an example or two should be given, or at least context for when it can, since it is decidedly not normal. Sitim.far (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki

can somebody help me? This interwiki on the article cannot be sync by bot user and has to be sync manually, please help me to solve this problem. Aris riyanto (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Romanization in Tashkil example doesn't match!

The section on Tashkil (which should be Romanized as Tashkīl/Tashkiil/Tashkeel) gives an example of a vocalized text from the Qur'ān:

⟨ بِسْمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحْمٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ⟩ bism Allāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm

However, the romanization follows a standard Anglicized version of the phrase, rather than the actual vocalization! In a section that explains that the reason for vocalization is to help pronunciation, wouldn't it be better to include the actual pronunciation as indicated by the tashkīl instead of a version that's been dumbed down for English speakers? This would be as follows:

⟨ بِسْمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحْمٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ⟩ bismi Llāhi l-Raḥmāni l-Raḥīmi

While it's true that this isn't as immediately readable, it matches the original Arabic diacritics more closely.

Andrew John Bayles (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Someone was a bit overzealous when changing DIN transliteration into ALA-LC, without taking into account assimilation and the like. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Combinations / Stacking of diacritics

Quranic Arabic seems to have many complex combinations, up to such things as - in 2:72 - فَٱدَّٰرَْٰٔتُمْ where no less than four diacritcs are stacked on one base letter. Is there any information on the stacking of diacritics - which combinations are allowed, on which letters, and in which order the symbols should be arranged? Different typesetting engines (in different text editors, word processors and browsers) seem to disagree on what to do with such combinations. -- 89.182.86.90 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way I checked the mentioned word فَٱدَّٰرَْٰٔتُمْ in a printed Quran edition and unless I'm quite mistaken the correct order in this case seems to be: fatha above the stem of the letter on the right, and above the left tail, from bottom to top: dagger alif - hamza - sukun. Neither Firefox 45.0 nor Chrome 49.0, nor Apple Safari on iOS 7.1.2 (I don't own a newer iOS capable device), nor Windows Editor from Windows 10, nor Word 2010, nor Internet Explorer 11 nor Microsoft Edge from Windows 10 (November 2015 version) get it right - the first two at least put all on one letter in an orderly stack, but they mess up the order (in two different ways), Apple Safari displays all four diacritics in one place so that you just get a smear, while the rest don't even manage to combine them at all. Haven't checked ArabTeX or anything else yet. -- 89.182.69.92 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No answer after 5½ years, unfortunately. Anything new? Is there any documented algorithm, even an "incomplet and inkorrekt" one as they say, anywhere, regarding how to handle such cases? 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

loaded word?

"The Arabic script is an impure abjad," would it be accurate to say "a partial abjad" instead of using a loaded word, "impure"? IOW if the terminology is translated from Arabic, is there another equivalent to the word translated "impure" that wouldn't give people the impression that there was something wrong with it? 100.15.120.122 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arabic diacritics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228153112/http://qamoos.sakhr.com:80/ to http://qamoos.sakhr.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Abnormal pronunciations of English?

I don't know enough about this topic to dare to make any edits, but someone who does needs to examine the English words used as pronunciation guides because some seem odd. Examples are using "up" to represent the sound of short a, which is rarely the case, and the claim that the oo in "wood" and "took" are pronounced differently. Does the author think that "wood" rhymes with "food"? 198.255.236.207 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ٮ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ٮ. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Old Hijazi

So, as many of us know, many of these diacritics - such as the nunation marks - were developed to regularize the Quranic consonantal text, which is written in Old Hijazi Arabic, to the pronunciation of Classical Arabic. (I recommend checking out the Wikipedia article on Old Hijazi Arabic to learn more.)

However, the existence of Old Hijazi Arabic, and its phonological differences from Classical Arabic, are never mentioned in the article, despite being extremely relevant. 73.207.3.240 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What's up with the Alif waṣlah section?

I'm not a native speaker of any form of Arabic and what I do know is pretty rusty, but most of the section on alif waṣlah seems so confusingly written to me that it almost implies the opposite of what is actually meant. If you really parse it out carefully most of the info is, generally speaking, accurate. It's just not written in a way that would be useful to someone who didn't already know all of the information that it presents. There is a hyperlink to Wasla which presents a much clearer definition (although it could be expanded a bit). I'm not sure there's much utility in having a separate page for waṣlah in the first place, so maybe that page should just undergo a few edits and then replace the existing section on this page? Thoughts?

The one thing though that particularly jumps out at me is the assertion that "...no Arab word can start with a vowel-less consonant..." when in fact the opposite is true - at least in standard Arabic, not only all words but all syllables MUST start with a consonant (see the "Phonotactics" section in Arabic phonology). Although actually, looking at the examples it seems like the writer was trying to say something more along the lines of "no Arabic word can (or syllable) can start with a consonant cluster". But of course that's not what is actually written and the examples don't really clarify it that much unless, once again, you already understand the concept and are also actively trying to rewrite it in your head to make it make sense.

Anyway, it's a mess and it needs fixed. Anyone takers? Andyharbor (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)