From: Elie Dib Wardini (eliedw@ulrik.uio.no)
Subject: Re: Latin alphabet to write Lebanese dialect
Organization: Univerity of Oslo, Semitics
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:46:28 GMT

As bassem said we can start by setting up a list of those signs we agree on:

'    (for aleph since Bassem agrees on this one)
b
t
j  (we should leave g to garaj)
d
zal  (does not exist in lebanese)
r
z
s
f
q   (best use on sign)
k
l
m
n
h
w
y   (best to use one sign leaving i for vowel)
g
p
v


As for the other signs I shall present then according to my proposal outside
ASCII (when a lettre is followed by a coma "," it means that a cedilla is
placed under the character, if followed by a caret "^" then a carret is written
above the character), Naji's for ASCII and Bassem:


        Elie    Naji ASCII      Bassem
        ~~~~    ~~~~~~~~~~      ~~~~~~
ceh   non existant in Lebanese    c         (is this meant to represent th?)
Hmar     h,        H              hh
Khayme   x         x              kh
shams    s^        sh             sh
Saida    s,        S              ss
Dayaa    d,        D              dd
Tarii'   t,        T              tt
Zolm     z,        zh             zz (Here I propose that Naji use Z and not
zh)
                                                note zhuur (flowers)
aayn     c         c              aa  (Naji agreed (I suppose?) to use "c")
ghan     g^        gh             gh


These are the letters that we actually have problems with.

Let me tell you why I do not like Bassem's doubling. In semitic and Arabic
doubling of the consonants is a very imporant element of grammar and meaning.

note:
kasal (laziness) vs kassal  (he was/ became lazy)
nazal (something with sickness I forget the exact meaning) vs nazzal
sada (echo) vs sadda (to rust)
aa(a?)dda (he passed by) vs aa(a?)dda (he bit her)


etc. THere are many gramatical forms that use the doubling of a consonat in
order to bring about a difference in meaning.

Form two of the Arabic verb. katab vs kattab
the nominal form denoting a profession himmeel (one who carier),
                                       aaitteel (note the ambiguity in sp.)
etc.

That is why we have to avoid using these doublings except where the grammar
requires it.

What would you do when the grammar requires the doubling of a lettre that you
represent by a double?

e.g.

a bite = aa(a)dddda
Naji's ASCII = caDDa
my non-ASCII = cad,d,a

Note the ambiguity with the use of Bassem's "aa" and Naji and my "c".

Still we have to learn some rule. note what Bassem says:
>Doubled aa (as in long vowel) must be written as a.a or in some other form to
>disambiguate it from the aayn which you write as "A"

I avoid Mazen's 3 since it is used to denote that number three. Otherwise it
would have been better than "c".

As far as "x" = "kh" is concerned, I now that this is the habbit to write it as
Kh (we all know Khaled). Therfore it is a strong argument to keep it as such.

My argument is that once we are making a reform we could just as well reduce
ambiguity as much as posible (yes we will have to learn and this is not
completely intuitive, though the use of "x" for the "kh" sound is widespread
because the "x" represents the greek "xi" which in cases sounds exactly as our
Arabic "kh").

Which ambiguity I am talking about?

khuufe means in my writing system (caves) read as k.h.uu.f.e
while if it "x" were represented by "kh" caves would have to be written in some
special way as not to be misread as kh.uu.f.e

by using "x" we steer away from this possible clash.

khuufe = caves
xuufe = ??
xuure = priest

This is the same reason why in my non-ASCII system I choose to represent "sh"
by s^  (s with a caret on top of it) since:

ashum = shares  a.s.h.u.m.
vs
ashum = ???    a.sh.u.m 

in my non-ASCII system it would be:    ashum vs as^um

Yet due to the restrictions of ASCII, and the complications that the following
coma and caret would bring to writing in ASCII (I started to get used to it
though, and with some practice it goes fine) I accept that in the ASCII system
we use the capital lettres.

Using capitals to me, kept within ASCII, is an acceptable compromise. Note that
some use capitals also in some grammars to denote the Velars (hard sounds).

Speaking about it, the caret folloing the s or g is not so much of a problem to
read or write (once one gets used to it). I see the point about the coma.

s^uuf is not soooo confusing? is it?

I see the point with: mcat,t,al (confusing!) vs  mcaTTal is simpler to read.



elie wardini
Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon