This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There is No Such Language It is a Dialect.
Give Me One book Just one book describing the rules of this language. There isn't. Or a well known Arabic scholar acknowledge "Masri".
The work of greatest Egyptians writers is consider the greatest Arabic Literature Do You know the Nationality of The Dean of Arabic Literature? Do You know the Nationality of the Prince of Poets?
Wikipedia Stop spreading lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.36.43 ( talk) 08:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Sa'idi Arabic is clearly distinguished from Egyptian Arabic in ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue as well as in the linguistic literature. Comments that are specific to Sa'idi should be placed on the page for Sa'idi. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
41.233.46.9 ( talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's juxtapose two claims from the article in its current form:
1. "The distinction between short and long vowels is still phonemic".
Thus we should assume that there are still 4 types of syllables in EgAr: CA, CAA, CAC, and (rare unless resulting from vowel reduction in unstressed posttonic syllables) CAAC, all of them occurring both in stressed and unstressed syllables.
2. "Unstressed long vowels are shortened, and stressed short vowels are usually lengthened", "Long vowels in closed syllables are reduced to their short version".
Thus we should assume that all the CAAC --> CAC, all unstressed CAA --> CA, and most stressed CA --> CAA, which makes the former claim an overstatement -- vowel length proves to be phonemic never in pretonic syllables (no long vowels there), only partly in tonic (never before long consonants, only sometimes before short ones) and virtually never in posttonic (well, the posttonic long [i]'s don't undergo the change into [e]'s after shortening /"If long /iː/ is shortened, it becomes → /ɪ/~/e/, but, this is usually restricted to those vowels when appearing in the middle or beginning of words. "/, but in this position there can't be any remnants of ClassAr short [i]'s, so we can call this a positionnaly conditioned pronunciation, without referring to vowel length in ClassAr).
So the correct form of the first statement would in my opinion be "The distinction between short and long vowels is still phonemic only in open stressed syllables, and even there it has/had tendency to obsolesce". However, my knowledge of Arabic (let alone its dialects/daughter languages is so far too scarce to determine whether the data given in this section is itself correct, so I don't consider myself a person competent to correct it. I mark it with the "contradict" template. 85.222.86.17 ( talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
OK man, thanks for the explanation. I've felt that part needed reform & what you suggest is absolutely meaningful :) -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 02:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
At some point someone went and changed short /i/ to /e/, and short /u/ to /o/. This is incorrect and stems from a lack of understanding of the difference between phonemic and phonetic. Another indication of this confusion was the text "/i/, pronounced as /ɪ/ or /e/". This should read "/i/, pronounced as [ɪ] or [e]", where the // indicates the phoneme /i/, and [] indicates its phonetic manifestations. Regardless of whether /i/ sounds more like [e] when spoken, and regardless of what SMS users normally do, /i/ is the correct notation, and almost universally used in linguistically-oriented descriptions of Egyptian Arabic. I went and fixed all the mistakes; please don't unfix them. Thanks. Benwing ( talk) 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the current article is awesome from a linguistic point of view. For a non-linguist like me, however, it's hard to impossible to understand. That begins with all the technical language, continues with the lack of examples for some of the described phenomena, and goes on with the use of Latin characters instead of Arabic ones. [BTW, the article seems to suggest that foreigners only use Latin characters, which would be incorrect. I don't know a single foreigner who would write Egyptian with Latin characters. I don't doubt they exist... but implying that using Arabic script is rare would require a reference.]
I'd love to try to expand/rewrite the article to make it understandable for people like me, but only if a linguist (or whoever wrote it or understands it) volunteers to "proof-read" it, i.e. to make sure that I don't insert mistakes or mess up the linguistic qualities of the article. "All" that person(s) has/have to do would be to understand the current article and then read my rewrite with a critic eye. So... any volunteer(s)? -- Ibn Battuta ( talk) 19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The transcription system used here seems to be an ad-hoc mishmash of IPA and DIN. Perhaps we should switch to IPA, or does IPA fail somehow in a way that this transcription system doesn't? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It's called masri, do NOT delete the language's name!! 41.91.113.22 ( talk) 10:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Arab League User ( talk) 02:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
[3]: Arab League removed some information, claiming that there were no citation, which didn't even have the citation needed tag. That information included that there were calls for the Spoken language in Egypt to be be made official. He also claimed that there is not political party in Egypt called Liberal Egyptian Party. Ethnologue says, “Similar to Sudanese Arabic, especially in the south, but heavily influenced by Cairene Arabic.” Review: aec ( archived version). Also review Coptic language#Dialects, it had two main dialects: northern & southern. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
furthur on, the discussion of Egyptian being a simply Spoken Dialect in Arabic, or a seperate Language needs to be discussed seriously, and a credible source needs to be created, rather than some opinions from here and their, dont you agree?? i mean, Wikipedia is NOT a place for promoting a certian ideology, or theory, but simply present it, and not create it as a fact. Arab League User ( talk) 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose to change the introduction in this way : <Egyptian Arabic (اللهجة المصرية [1] literally Egyptian Dialect) or (اللغه المصريه الحديثه....> -- Helmoony ( talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
you do not seek to present information here, you want to have your point of you WIN over other points of view.
Your last edit is arrogant and disrespectful of the opinions of others
you obviously don't know how to do it
And your reference does not meet any of the criteria
you want to add new disputed facts add them away from the leading part
It is simply POV to state that Egyptian is only a language in the introduction. -- Helmoony ( talk) 15:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The article states that the total number of speakers is 50 million, what about the rest 30 million, what do they speak in Egypt?!?!?! This should change to over 70 million i suppose! Maysara ( talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
While I'm not going to take a stand on the particular numbers at issue here, I think it would be useful for everyone to look over Wikipedia: Original Research again. In particular they "directly support the material as presented" (emphasis added). This means no synthesis. You cannot combine two sourced statements into a third. -- Selket Talk 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What is this? Egyptian Arabic is spoken by virtually all of Egypt's 76 million inhabitants... Why do you insist on removing the 76 million number? [11]
48 — 53 million as a native language; [2] from 53,990,000 [3] to 76 million [2] (inside or outside of Egypt)
Ethnologue mentioned people outside of Egypt :)
First, you commented that the template only mentions the number of native speakers, to remove the 76 million number. [12] Then, you removed it again justifying that UCLA only talks about population of Egypt. But, what about that? Egyptian Arabic is spoken by virtually all of Egypt's 76 million inhabitants... -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | inaccurate than it already is | ” |
so it doesn't make it less, maybe even more :) -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if the 53,990,000 number is to be used, it should be given as 54,000,000 instead. The number is Ethnologue is obtained by adding the estimates of speakers for each country, but since the estimate for Egypt is at best being given to the nearest 100,000, using a higher precision than that is incorrect mathematically. Carolina wren ( talk) 01:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph the sentence "the 76 million Egyptians speak a continuum of dialects". That's not exactly right based on the terminology that we've been using in Wikipedia that seeks to avoid the whole dialect/language issue in terms of the Arabic-speaking world. There are four generally recognized varieties of Arabic spoken in Egypt, each of which has its own Wikipedia article--Egyptian Arabic, Sa'idi Arabic, Western Egyptian Bedawi Arabic (WEBA), and Eastern Egyptian Bedawi Arabic (EEBA). WEBA is part of Maghribi, so including it in a statement of a continuum is not correct. I have a feeling that the "continuum" comment was only meant to include the two "river dialects"--Egyptian and Sa'idi. There may well be a continuum, but they are separately named and recognized "varieties". We need to keep the Wikipedia terminology intact so as not to confuse readers between "dialect" and "variety" and to avoid the implication that Sa'idi is not a separate variety. The sentence should properly read, "the 76 million Egyptians speak one of four varieties of Arabic--with Egyptian Arabic being the most prominent" (or something like that). If Sa'idi and Egyptian truly form a continuum, then we can word it "the 76 million Egyptians speak a continuum of varieties". We just need to change the word "dialect" since it is so problematic in Arabic studies. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The consonants section says this: [ʒ] tends to be Egyptianized & merge with [ʃ]; example: 'garage' جراش is only pronounced /ɡɑrɑːʃ/ even by educated speakers.
but it also says this: Few rural speakers pronounce [ʒ] instead of [ɡ]; away from Cairo. Pronouncing [ʒ] instead of [ɡ] is not considered prestigious.
Shouldn't that be [ʃ] instead of [ɡ] in the second quote? If not, then an explanation of why and when [ʒ] has two different substitutions needs to be included. Carolina wren ( talk) 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we stress the closeness of the Masri dialect to the Yemeni dialect since the similarities are obviously their especially with word choices? For example, Yemenis and Egyptians say Aywa (instead of na3am like other Arabs) and edeeny (give me) instead of 3aTeelee or hat like other Arabs do. Also, it is most likely they took geem from the Yemenis who settled in Egypt rather than the Northern Arab settlers who say jeem. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What is written here is all non-sense. Yemineses, did you forget who the Egyptian in contributions for you country in nassers's era??? I am amazed by the amount of ignorance here and trying to relate every Egyptian things to Yemenis espically and not the other way around. Just have a look at your flag, national anthem and of course-- your language. did you forget the Egyptian teachers man who taught you and other arabs. MasriDefend ( talk) 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
their is no doubt that Egyptian Arabic is not a language, everyone (i assume all sane ppl do) admit and recognize it as part of Arabic, which can be understood by other arab speakers, and for all of those who will blame media for it, a Saudi Accent, or Sudanese or Lebanese is also understoodable by Egyptians, anyways, the point is, shouldnt we refrain from using the word "Egyptian Language", and use "Egyptian Dialect", or Accent instead??
plus what makes a language??, UK english use Lift while Americans say Elevator (or is it the other way round), and tons of other stuff... does that mean that their is a new language called American??, no it just simply means that each community, borrows some words from other languages, or evolves his own language, thats the exact same scenrio with the arabic thing... calling Egyptian as a language independant from Arabic is a BIG mistake, one that should not be tolerated, since all these Egyptian Nationalists and Taha Hussein followers seek to isolate egypt from its roots, and bring back some thousands of years old roots, that is extinct, you cant bring back the dead, its unNatural, Egyptians speak arabic, most of them are arabs, and the Majority of Egyptians think that way, so you should NOT impose your opinion on such stuff. you have to be completly unbias to this issue, no one regards Egyptian as a language, except for some young nationalist fanatics, who seek to make dissproportioned issues.
throughout the article, i couldnt find ONE "credible" referance, or citation that refers to EGyptian as a new language. so please stop vandalising this article, or it will have to be protected. Arab League User ( talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Im not saying that they are vandalizing the article, but it seems that alot of jiberish is filled in this article, that seems to have absolutely no referance, nor citation, and seem to be simply a pan-Pharoanism nationalists, nothing more.
i understand that we are ALL trying to develop Wikipedia, and push it to its Extreame.... but this is ruinning the article's credibility, i was noticed by so, when i was discussing something about wikipedia with a friend here in Egypt, who said an evidence of wikipedia not being credible is that it states Egyptian as a seperate Language, rather than simply a dialect... -- Arab League User ( talk) 01:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-- Arab League User ( talk) 01:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
OMG, Do you live in any country other than the middle east?? If you do, with all this knowledge in English language, how dare you to say that Egyptian is not a language?!!!!!! Unbelievable,
-- MasriDefend ( talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I really thank you maysara for you logic and the way of presenting it. obviously, mahmoudmasri is intended to ignore and target other people's edits and only make the article the way he wants to satisfy his inner instinct even if it is for the cause of the Egyptian language. But thank God, he is not an admin in this wikipedia as he is in other ones. So his actions are not tolerated and his instinct lose at the end. He may twist some words to convince other people that he is right like he does not have a source etc, although it is right that the one needs a source to proof a statement; however, when logic and unlogic is compared, you dont need a source to support a logical and a common sense against unlogical and randomness. The way he targeted vb4ever edits and following it one by one, checking and arguing against it. Mahmoud you need to see a psychiatrist. -- MasriDefend ( talk) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In the table in the bottom of the page that includes the names like ustaz, sitt etc
I have some notes about the orgin of the words. Some of them are inaccurate for example the world sitt does not come from the arabic word sayedah which does not even mean women in arabic but actually comes from the root sayed which means lord, owner, king etc. the word orgin I believe is Ancient Egyptian for the word woman along with the word sy which means man like sy elsayed. Others note is the word ustaz; it is actually not Arabic in orgin but Persian. Mo3alem is the standard Arabic word for teacher. I swear considering region languages as Arabic dialect is even harmful to Arabic language itself which need to not be altered and changed. After all, the purpose of the Arabic language itself is to be able to read the quran, but with words like this languages exposure it will lead to its alteration, driving away from the real purpose of the language. -- MasriDefend ( talk) 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps "correcting" the examples by changing /i/ to [e], /u/ to [o], /a/ to [æ] or [ɑ]. These are (more or less) correct as the phonetic pronunciation, but not as the phonemic pronunciation. The point of using phonemic notation is that it makes it far easier to understand the complications of vowel lengthening/shortening, emphasis spreading, etc. etc. From a phonemic perspective, lengthening of /a i u/ produces /aː iː uː/, no problem. Writing this purely phonetically, you end up trying to figure out why lengthened [e] becomes [iː], why [æ] suddenly changes to [ɑ] when certain endings are added, etc. etc. I don't have time right now to undo all the "damage" in the phonology section, but if/when I do, please think before changing things again! Benwing ( talk) 02:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you have deleted my phonemic transcriptions of Egyptian Arabic, claiming that they are "ambiguous". From a linguistic standpoint, there is a very good reason why phonemic transcriptions are used, which is that they abstract out numerous complications relating to allophonic rules. The vowel lengthening/shortening/insertion/deletion rules and the emphasis-spreading rules are very good examples of this. Using [e i o u ɑ æ] etc. obscures the simple relationship that holds between /a i u/ and /aː iː uː/, a relationship that's extremely important to convey clearly in order for the reader to understand how the phonetic adjustments and emphasis-spreading rules work. Although the relationship between e.g. [e], [i] and [iː] may be obvious to a native speaker such as you, it's much less obvious to a non-native speaker, and adds unnecessary complication to the already tricky process of following the various adjustment rules. This is why the best Egyptian Arabic textbooks all use /a i u aː iː uː/ notation or similar, and write inti ʕandik sēf rather than enti ʕandek seef or whatever. Also, formerly the Egyptian Arabic article as I wrote it (or at least, I wrote the majority of it) was consistent in its notation, but your changes have made it more and more a mishmash of different transcription systems. Benwing ( talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing the subject about the transcriptions. I'll explain the reason for my edits. Indeed, in Egyptian Arabic, these short vowel-phonemes are separate / e/-/ i/ and there is little reason why they would be summed-up phonemically. Most of the literature dealing with Egyptian Arabic phonology assumes that the standard pronunciation has no short [ e. This is incorrect because / e/ can occur anywhere in syllables, initially, medially or finally. In Egyptian Arabic, short / i/ is a word-final vowel, only. There is a meaningful phonemic contrast between /ˈben.te/ (/bent/+epenthetic / e/) and /ˈben.ti/ (/bent/+my / i/), they can't be transcribed as /ˈbin.ti/:
So, phonemic Egyptian vowels should be: /æ, ɑ, e, -i, o, æː, ɑː, eː, iː, oː, uː/ or /a, e, -i, o, aː, eː, iː, oː, uː/; phonetically: [æ, ɑ, e, -i, o, -o~u, æː, ɑː, eː, iː, oː, uː]. The confusion arises primarily because most linguists try to compare all Arabic varieties phonologies together along with Classical Arabic, leading them to prefer /a, i, u, aː, eː, iː, oː, uː/. You would also know the reason for me writing two phonemic transcriptions of sample text in the article. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't edit the morphology section and its subsections, with the exception of only one word in Nouns subsection. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for not changing things before we have discussed the issues.
First of all, I'm not sure if you understand the principle of verifiability, which is that we need to trust reliable sources (which include scholarly works) even if you think they are wrong (so-called "verifiability not truth"). The reason for this is that, as much as you personally make think something is right and something else is wrong, you may be mistaken. In general, this is especially the case when it comes to areas that an editor has a good deal of personal experience with but not so much scholarly background (I don't know for sure but I suspect you aren't a linguist).
In this case, since the relevant sources prefer to phonemicize [e] as /i/, this is what we need to follow. There's actually a good reason for this: As I mentioned before, the alternations between [e], [i] and [iː], and the fact that [e] lengthens to [iː], strongly suggests that the phonemicization of /i/ is correct. (BTW when I listened to Egyptian Arabic, the sound you indicate as [e] sounded to me more like [ɪ]. It may be the case that your dialect, but not all dialects, have [e]. One of the benefits of phonemic abstractions like /i/ is exactly that, when properly understood, they abstract out the differences of particular dialects and are applicable to all, or at least most, dialects.)
Your statement above (your point #1) about the epenthetic vowel is not an argument for treating [e] as a phoneme. It's rather an argument that the epenthetic vowel is a separate phoneme. In fact, many of my textbooks and discussions of Egyptian Arabic do exactly this, denoting the epenthetic vowel as /I/. The fact that I didn't do this is basically laziness on my part, since I didn't consider this the most relevant issue when describing the phonetic adjustment rules; but I have no problem with treating this as a separate phoneme denoted /I/.
As for your point #2, the issue of [æ] vs. [ɑ] is a tricky one. Yes, there are unpredictable alternations, especially in foreign words; but it's also very much the case that most alternations are predictable. Some discussions treat them as incipient phonemes, i.e. sounds recently phonemicized but mostly still predictable. Some treat them as "extra-systemic" or "foreign" phonemes, similar to /v p ʒ/, i.e. phonemes that are not completely nativized and occur primarily in foreign words, often those that themselves are not completely nativized, and which tend to become assimilated to other sounds in more common words, esp. by uneducated speakers. Some discussions treat them as pure allophones by expanding the number of emphatic consonants. Some discussions largely ignore the difference, because for understanding most aspects of the morphology it's irrelevant and needlessly complexifying. The fact that the two sounds are not completely phonemic is indicated very clearly by the fact that emphasis spreading operates in a not completely predictable fashion, with free or intra-speaker variation [æ~ɑ] in many contexts in long words at some distance from an emphatic consonant. I'd suggest we follow the path of:
As for your point #3, apologies for missing the + sign, feel free to add it.
As for your point #4, you've misunderstood me. There is a phonetic glottal stop pronounced at the beginning of ana after a pause, just like in a word like ʔarnab with a phonemic glottal stop. Hence there are no surface syllables beginning with vowels.
As for your point #5, you've also misunderstood the discussion of light vs. heavy vs. superheavy. A light syllable is not just a vowel-initial syllable, but a CV syllable, and these certainly do exist, even though EA tries to avoid this when possible. In general, the fact that EA prefers heavy rather than light or superheavy syllables does not mean that they don't exist. Superheavy syllables do exist but only in a stressed syllable before a pause. These kind of exceptions are common in language phonologies, and phonologists often treat such exceptional phonemes as being "extra-syllabic" or extrametrical. In this case, the final consonant in the surface phonological word is best analyzed as extrametrical. This is why the final stressed syllable in a negative construction must be e.g. /lakʃ/ or /laːʃ/, but not /laʃ/: treating the /ʃ/ as extrametrical, the rest of the stressed syllable must be heavy. This does not change the fundamental fact that EA generally disallows superheavy syllables and disprefers light syllables. I did not add a discussion of these extra-syllabic exceptions because I didn't want to needlessly burden the discussion with complexity: Remember that this article is directed not towards native EA speakers, but towards a general audience who would like to know more but will easily get overburdened with too many details. If you want to add discussion of details like superheavy stressed syllables before a pause, put them in footnotes, so they don't get in the way of the flow of the main text.
As for your point #6, apologies for confusing hum with humma, it's been awhile since I've directly worked with EA. I know about the /h/ in uh, which surfaces mostly in endings like /-uhuːʃ/ (as in "They didn't X it"). Older EA textbooks list this ending as /-uhʃ/ and have -uːh in sentences of the sort "They X'd it", but newer textbooks recognize only the endings /-uhuːʃ/ and -uː. From a linguistic standpoint, what we'd actually say is that the clitic pronoun corresponding to "him/it" has multiple allomorphs, which include /u/, /uh/ and a bare stress (i.e. move the stress onto the ending -- which automatically triggers lengthening -- but with no other phonetic content). How you express that symbolically is your choice; if you'd prefer +uh, that's fine.
Benwing ( talk) 22:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that in cases when it is needed to explain shortening and lengthening vowels to only (or mainly) use the phonemic transcription scheme you used (or the like), although I think that would be very deficient. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 01:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Benwing ( talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have some suggestions regarding the Egyptian Arabic article:
Labial | Dental | Alveolar |
Palato- alveolar |
Palatal | Velar | Uvular |
Pharyn- geal |
Glottal | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
plain | emphatic | ||||||||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||||||
Stop | voiceless | t | tˤ | k | ( q) | ʔ | |||||
voiced | b | d | ( dˤ) | ɡ | |||||||
Fricative | voiceless | f | ( θ) | s | sˤ | ʃ | x | ħ | h | ||
voiced | ( ð) | z | zˤ | ɣ | ʕ | ||||||
Tap/ trill | ɾ~ r |
[ɾˤ]~
[rˤ] (allophone) |
|||||||||
Approximant | l | j | w |
The brown background phonemes are often approximated to the nearest Egyptian equivalent.
I have some comments regarding your last reply... Because I don't have yet the verifiable sources about the rhotic, I couldn't write something about it. I found that wikipedians here are accustomed to transcribe the Egyptian rhotic as a tap, so I was sticking to their choice, although it is obvious that the trill is more prevalent (maybe because the popular singers Omm Kalsūm and Abdelhalīm pronounced it as a tap, again, because they were originally of the northernmost of Egypt). Also, as I said, that Watson's claims about /mˤ, bˤ/ are wrong, I didn't remove them. If they existed, it is possibly in Port Said, where it's famous for a more guttural accent, but if Watson just mentioned that and didn't specify, then it's imprecision of him. Some wikipedians collect bits and pieces from different sources, obviously explaining specific traits of pronunciation at certain geographic regions outside of Egypt, I see such information added to Egyptian Arabic related information at some articles. For example, the open vowel word-finally [ æ~[ ɑ, is claimed to be pronounced as [ ɐ which is the pronunciation of Iraq, Persian Gulf and central Arabia. I saw that [ ɐ is written in some transcriptions of Egyptian Arabic pronunciation. In Egypt, that phoneme is [ æ~[ ɑ, and is pronounced by some rural Egyptians as [ e, which isn't a widespread nor a prestigious pronunciation anyway. I also see that wikipedians in general generalize some traits specific to some geographic regions and treat them as a standard and/or sometimes claim that they are even prestigious along the whole Arab League!
The longer forms are not archaic. They are still used, but are less often than the shorter forms. You would notice that in special cases, there are no shorter forms. You would also notice that in rare cases, there are 2 archaic forms. It's important to mention that the archaic forms may still be used by rural Egyptians and some urban elders. Some of the following negations can use a single form of negation and mean the same thing, but I didn't mention these here, because that would be a lot. Also, the single negation usage might differ slightly in usage and meaning for rural speakers.
Don't get confused because of the epenthetic [ e! I'll mark them as bold.
Benwing ( talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There is No Such Language It is a Dialect.
Give Me One book Just one book describing the rules of this language. There isn't. Or a well known Arabic scholar acknowledge "Masri".
The work of greatest Egyptians writers is consider the greatest Arabic Literature Do You know the Nationality of The Dean of Arabic Literature? Do You know the Nationality of the Prince of Poets?
Wikipedia Stop spreading lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.36.43 ( talk) 08:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Sa'idi Arabic is clearly distinguished from Egyptian Arabic in ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue as well as in the linguistic literature. Comments that are specific to Sa'idi should be placed on the page for Sa'idi. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
41.233.46.9 ( talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's juxtapose two claims from the article in its current form:
1. "The distinction between short and long vowels is still phonemic".
Thus we should assume that there are still 4 types of syllables in EgAr: CA, CAA, CAC, and (rare unless resulting from vowel reduction in unstressed posttonic syllables) CAAC, all of them occurring both in stressed and unstressed syllables.
2. "Unstressed long vowels are shortened, and stressed short vowels are usually lengthened", "Long vowels in closed syllables are reduced to their short version".
Thus we should assume that all the CAAC --> CAC, all unstressed CAA --> CA, and most stressed CA --> CAA, which makes the former claim an overstatement -- vowel length proves to be phonemic never in pretonic syllables (no long vowels there), only partly in tonic (never before long consonants, only sometimes before short ones) and virtually never in posttonic (well, the posttonic long [i]'s don't undergo the change into [e]'s after shortening /"If long /iː/ is shortened, it becomes → /ɪ/~/e/, but, this is usually restricted to those vowels when appearing in the middle or beginning of words. "/, but in this position there can't be any remnants of ClassAr short [i]'s, so we can call this a positionnaly conditioned pronunciation, without referring to vowel length in ClassAr).
So the correct form of the first statement would in my opinion be "The distinction between short and long vowels is still phonemic only in open stressed syllables, and even there it has/had tendency to obsolesce". However, my knowledge of Arabic (let alone its dialects/daughter languages is so far too scarce to determine whether the data given in this section is itself correct, so I don't consider myself a person competent to correct it. I mark it with the "contradict" template. 85.222.86.17 ( talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
OK man, thanks for the explanation. I've felt that part needed reform & what you suggest is absolutely meaningful :) -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 02:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
At some point someone went and changed short /i/ to /e/, and short /u/ to /o/. This is incorrect and stems from a lack of understanding of the difference between phonemic and phonetic. Another indication of this confusion was the text "/i/, pronounced as /ɪ/ or /e/". This should read "/i/, pronounced as [ɪ] or [e]", where the // indicates the phoneme /i/, and [] indicates its phonetic manifestations. Regardless of whether /i/ sounds more like [e] when spoken, and regardless of what SMS users normally do, /i/ is the correct notation, and almost universally used in linguistically-oriented descriptions of Egyptian Arabic. I went and fixed all the mistakes; please don't unfix them. Thanks. Benwing ( talk) 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the current article is awesome from a linguistic point of view. For a non-linguist like me, however, it's hard to impossible to understand. That begins with all the technical language, continues with the lack of examples for some of the described phenomena, and goes on with the use of Latin characters instead of Arabic ones. [BTW, the article seems to suggest that foreigners only use Latin characters, which would be incorrect. I don't know a single foreigner who would write Egyptian with Latin characters. I don't doubt they exist... but implying that using Arabic script is rare would require a reference.]
I'd love to try to expand/rewrite the article to make it understandable for people like me, but only if a linguist (or whoever wrote it or understands it) volunteers to "proof-read" it, i.e. to make sure that I don't insert mistakes or mess up the linguistic qualities of the article. "All" that person(s) has/have to do would be to understand the current article and then read my rewrite with a critic eye. So... any volunteer(s)? -- Ibn Battuta ( talk) 19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The transcription system used here seems to be an ad-hoc mishmash of IPA and DIN. Perhaps we should switch to IPA, or does IPA fail somehow in a way that this transcription system doesn't? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It's called masri, do NOT delete the language's name!! 41.91.113.22 ( talk) 10:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Arab League User ( talk) 02:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
[3]: Arab League removed some information, claiming that there were no citation, which didn't even have the citation needed tag. That information included that there were calls for the Spoken language in Egypt to be be made official. He also claimed that there is not political party in Egypt called Liberal Egyptian Party. Ethnologue says, “Similar to Sudanese Arabic, especially in the south, but heavily influenced by Cairene Arabic.” Review: aec ( archived version). Also review Coptic language#Dialects, it had two main dialects: northern & southern. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
furthur on, the discussion of Egyptian being a simply Spoken Dialect in Arabic, or a seperate Language needs to be discussed seriously, and a credible source needs to be created, rather than some opinions from here and their, dont you agree?? i mean, Wikipedia is NOT a place for promoting a certian ideology, or theory, but simply present it, and not create it as a fact. Arab League User ( talk) 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose to change the introduction in this way : <Egyptian Arabic (اللهجة المصرية [1] literally Egyptian Dialect) or (اللغه المصريه الحديثه....> -- Helmoony ( talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
you do not seek to present information here, you want to have your point of you WIN over other points of view.
Your last edit is arrogant and disrespectful of the opinions of others
you obviously don't know how to do it
And your reference does not meet any of the criteria
you want to add new disputed facts add them away from the leading part
It is simply POV to state that Egyptian is only a language in the introduction. -- Helmoony ( talk) 15:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The article states that the total number of speakers is 50 million, what about the rest 30 million, what do they speak in Egypt?!?!?! This should change to over 70 million i suppose! Maysara ( talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
While I'm not going to take a stand on the particular numbers at issue here, I think it would be useful for everyone to look over Wikipedia: Original Research again. In particular they "directly support the material as presented" (emphasis added). This means no synthesis. You cannot combine two sourced statements into a third. -- Selket Talk 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What is this? Egyptian Arabic is spoken by virtually all of Egypt's 76 million inhabitants... Why do you insist on removing the 76 million number? [11]
48 — 53 million as a native language; [2] from 53,990,000 [3] to 76 million [2] (inside or outside of Egypt)
Ethnologue mentioned people outside of Egypt :)
First, you commented that the template only mentions the number of native speakers, to remove the 76 million number. [12] Then, you removed it again justifying that UCLA only talks about population of Egypt. But, what about that? Egyptian Arabic is spoken by virtually all of Egypt's 76 million inhabitants... -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | inaccurate than it already is | ” |
so it doesn't make it less, maybe even more :) -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if the 53,990,000 number is to be used, it should be given as 54,000,000 instead. The number is Ethnologue is obtained by adding the estimates of speakers for each country, but since the estimate for Egypt is at best being given to the nearest 100,000, using a higher precision than that is incorrect mathematically. Carolina wren ( talk) 01:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph the sentence "the 76 million Egyptians speak a continuum of dialects". That's not exactly right based on the terminology that we've been using in Wikipedia that seeks to avoid the whole dialect/language issue in terms of the Arabic-speaking world. There are four generally recognized varieties of Arabic spoken in Egypt, each of which has its own Wikipedia article--Egyptian Arabic, Sa'idi Arabic, Western Egyptian Bedawi Arabic (WEBA), and Eastern Egyptian Bedawi Arabic (EEBA). WEBA is part of Maghribi, so including it in a statement of a continuum is not correct. I have a feeling that the "continuum" comment was only meant to include the two "river dialects"--Egyptian and Sa'idi. There may well be a continuum, but they are separately named and recognized "varieties". We need to keep the Wikipedia terminology intact so as not to confuse readers between "dialect" and "variety" and to avoid the implication that Sa'idi is not a separate variety. The sentence should properly read, "the 76 million Egyptians speak one of four varieties of Arabic--with Egyptian Arabic being the most prominent" (or something like that). If Sa'idi and Egyptian truly form a continuum, then we can word it "the 76 million Egyptians speak a continuum of varieties". We just need to change the word "dialect" since it is so problematic in Arabic studies. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The consonants section says this: [ʒ] tends to be Egyptianized & merge with [ʃ]; example: 'garage' جراش is only pronounced /ɡɑrɑːʃ/ even by educated speakers.
but it also says this: Few rural speakers pronounce [ʒ] instead of [ɡ]; away from Cairo. Pronouncing [ʒ] instead of [ɡ] is not considered prestigious.
Shouldn't that be [ʃ] instead of [ɡ] in the second quote? If not, then an explanation of why and when [ʒ] has two different substitutions needs to be included. Carolina wren ( talk) 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we stress the closeness of the Masri dialect to the Yemeni dialect since the similarities are obviously their especially with word choices? For example, Yemenis and Egyptians say Aywa (instead of na3am like other Arabs) and edeeny (give me) instead of 3aTeelee or hat like other Arabs do. Also, it is most likely they took geem from the Yemenis who settled in Egypt rather than the Northern Arab settlers who say jeem. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What is written here is all non-sense. Yemineses, did you forget who the Egyptian in contributions for you country in nassers's era??? I am amazed by the amount of ignorance here and trying to relate every Egyptian things to Yemenis espically and not the other way around. Just have a look at your flag, national anthem and of course-- your language. did you forget the Egyptian teachers man who taught you and other arabs. MasriDefend ( talk) 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
their is no doubt that Egyptian Arabic is not a language, everyone (i assume all sane ppl do) admit and recognize it as part of Arabic, which can be understood by other arab speakers, and for all of those who will blame media for it, a Saudi Accent, or Sudanese or Lebanese is also understoodable by Egyptians, anyways, the point is, shouldnt we refrain from using the word "Egyptian Language", and use "Egyptian Dialect", or Accent instead??
plus what makes a language??, UK english use Lift while Americans say Elevator (or is it the other way round), and tons of other stuff... does that mean that their is a new language called American??, no it just simply means that each community, borrows some words from other languages, or evolves his own language, thats the exact same scenrio with the arabic thing... calling Egyptian as a language independant from Arabic is a BIG mistake, one that should not be tolerated, since all these Egyptian Nationalists and Taha Hussein followers seek to isolate egypt from its roots, and bring back some thousands of years old roots, that is extinct, you cant bring back the dead, its unNatural, Egyptians speak arabic, most of them are arabs, and the Majority of Egyptians think that way, so you should NOT impose your opinion on such stuff. you have to be completly unbias to this issue, no one regards Egyptian as a language, except for some young nationalist fanatics, who seek to make dissproportioned issues.
throughout the article, i couldnt find ONE "credible" referance, or citation that refers to EGyptian as a new language. so please stop vandalising this article, or it will have to be protected. Arab League User ( talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Im not saying that they are vandalizing the article, but it seems that alot of jiberish is filled in this article, that seems to have absolutely no referance, nor citation, and seem to be simply a pan-Pharoanism nationalists, nothing more.
i understand that we are ALL trying to develop Wikipedia, and push it to its Extreame.... but this is ruinning the article's credibility, i was noticed by so, when i was discussing something about wikipedia with a friend here in Egypt, who said an evidence of wikipedia not being credible is that it states Egyptian as a seperate Language, rather than simply a dialect... -- Arab League User ( talk) 01:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-- Arab League User ( talk) 01:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
OMG, Do you live in any country other than the middle east?? If you do, with all this knowledge in English language, how dare you to say that Egyptian is not a language?!!!!!! Unbelievable,
-- MasriDefend ( talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I really thank you maysara for you logic and the way of presenting it. obviously, mahmoudmasri is intended to ignore and target other people's edits and only make the article the way he wants to satisfy his inner instinct even if it is for the cause of the Egyptian language. But thank God, he is not an admin in this wikipedia as he is in other ones. So his actions are not tolerated and his instinct lose at the end. He may twist some words to convince other people that he is right like he does not have a source etc, although it is right that the one needs a source to proof a statement; however, when logic and unlogic is compared, you dont need a source to support a logical and a common sense against unlogical and randomness. The way he targeted vb4ever edits and following it one by one, checking and arguing against it. Mahmoud you need to see a psychiatrist. -- MasriDefend ( talk) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In the table in the bottom of the page that includes the names like ustaz, sitt etc
I have some notes about the orgin of the words. Some of them are inaccurate for example the world sitt does not come from the arabic word sayedah which does not even mean women in arabic but actually comes from the root sayed which means lord, owner, king etc. the word orgin I believe is Ancient Egyptian for the word woman along with the word sy which means man like sy elsayed. Others note is the word ustaz; it is actually not Arabic in orgin but Persian. Mo3alem is the standard Arabic word for teacher. I swear considering region languages as Arabic dialect is even harmful to Arabic language itself which need to not be altered and changed. After all, the purpose of the Arabic language itself is to be able to read the quran, but with words like this languages exposure it will lead to its alteration, driving away from the real purpose of the language. -- MasriDefend ( talk) 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps "correcting" the examples by changing /i/ to [e], /u/ to [o], /a/ to [æ] or [ɑ]. These are (more or less) correct as the phonetic pronunciation, but not as the phonemic pronunciation. The point of using phonemic notation is that it makes it far easier to understand the complications of vowel lengthening/shortening, emphasis spreading, etc. etc. From a phonemic perspective, lengthening of /a i u/ produces /aː iː uː/, no problem. Writing this purely phonetically, you end up trying to figure out why lengthened [e] becomes [iː], why [æ] suddenly changes to [ɑ] when certain endings are added, etc. etc. I don't have time right now to undo all the "damage" in the phonology section, but if/when I do, please think before changing things again! Benwing ( talk) 02:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you have deleted my phonemic transcriptions of Egyptian Arabic, claiming that they are "ambiguous". From a linguistic standpoint, there is a very good reason why phonemic transcriptions are used, which is that they abstract out numerous complications relating to allophonic rules. The vowel lengthening/shortening/insertion/deletion rules and the emphasis-spreading rules are very good examples of this. Using [e i o u ɑ æ] etc. obscures the simple relationship that holds between /a i u/ and /aː iː uː/, a relationship that's extremely important to convey clearly in order for the reader to understand how the phonetic adjustments and emphasis-spreading rules work. Although the relationship between e.g. [e], [i] and [iː] may be obvious to a native speaker such as you, it's much less obvious to a non-native speaker, and adds unnecessary complication to the already tricky process of following the various adjustment rules. This is why the best Egyptian Arabic textbooks all use /a i u aː iː uː/ notation or similar, and write inti ʕandik sēf rather than enti ʕandek seef or whatever. Also, formerly the Egyptian Arabic article as I wrote it (or at least, I wrote the majority of it) was consistent in its notation, but your changes have made it more and more a mishmash of different transcription systems. Benwing ( talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing the subject about the transcriptions. I'll explain the reason for my edits. Indeed, in Egyptian Arabic, these short vowel-phonemes are separate / e/-/ i/ and there is little reason why they would be summed-up phonemically. Most of the literature dealing with Egyptian Arabic phonology assumes that the standard pronunciation has no short [ e. This is incorrect because / e/ can occur anywhere in syllables, initially, medially or finally. In Egyptian Arabic, short / i/ is a word-final vowel, only. There is a meaningful phonemic contrast between /ˈben.te/ (/bent/+epenthetic / e/) and /ˈben.ti/ (/bent/+my / i/), they can't be transcribed as /ˈbin.ti/:
So, phonemic Egyptian vowels should be: /æ, ɑ, e, -i, o, æː, ɑː, eː, iː, oː, uː/ or /a, e, -i, o, aː, eː, iː, oː, uː/; phonetically: [æ, ɑ, e, -i, o, -o~u, æː, ɑː, eː, iː, oː, uː]. The confusion arises primarily because most linguists try to compare all Arabic varieties phonologies together along with Classical Arabic, leading them to prefer /a, i, u, aː, eː, iː, oː, uː/. You would also know the reason for me writing two phonemic transcriptions of sample text in the article. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't edit the morphology section and its subsections, with the exception of only one word in Nouns subsection. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for not changing things before we have discussed the issues.
First of all, I'm not sure if you understand the principle of verifiability, which is that we need to trust reliable sources (which include scholarly works) even if you think they are wrong (so-called "verifiability not truth"). The reason for this is that, as much as you personally make think something is right and something else is wrong, you may be mistaken. In general, this is especially the case when it comes to areas that an editor has a good deal of personal experience with but not so much scholarly background (I don't know for sure but I suspect you aren't a linguist).
In this case, since the relevant sources prefer to phonemicize [e] as /i/, this is what we need to follow. There's actually a good reason for this: As I mentioned before, the alternations between [e], [i] and [iː], and the fact that [e] lengthens to [iː], strongly suggests that the phonemicization of /i/ is correct. (BTW when I listened to Egyptian Arabic, the sound you indicate as [e] sounded to me more like [ɪ]. It may be the case that your dialect, but not all dialects, have [e]. One of the benefits of phonemic abstractions like /i/ is exactly that, when properly understood, they abstract out the differences of particular dialects and are applicable to all, or at least most, dialects.)
Your statement above (your point #1) about the epenthetic vowel is not an argument for treating [e] as a phoneme. It's rather an argument that the epenthetic vowel is a separate phoneme. In fact, many of my textbooks and discussions of Egyptian Arabic do exactly this, denoting the epenthetic vowel as /I/. The fact that I didn't do this is basically laziness on my part, since I didn't consider this the most relevant issue when describing the phonetic adjustment rules; but I have no problem with treating this as a separate phoneme denoted /I/.
As for your point #2, the issue of [æ] vs. [ɑ] is a tricky one. Yes, there are unpredictable alternations, especially in foreign words; but it's also very much the case that most alternations are predictable. Some discussions treat them as incipient phonemes, i.e. sounds recently phonemicized but mostly still predictable. Some treat them as "extra-systemic" or "foreign" phonemes, similar to /v p ʒ/, i.e. phonemes that are not completely nativized and occur primarily in foreign words, often those that themselves are not completely nativized, and which tend to become assimilated to other sounds in more common words, esp. by uneducated speakers. Some discussions treat them as pure allophones by expanding the number of emphatic consonants. Some discussions largely ignore the difference, because for understanding most aspects of the morphology it's irrelevant and needlessly complexifying. The fact that the two sounds are not completely phonemic is indicated very clearly by the fact that emphasis spreading operates in a not completely predictable fashion, with free or intra-speaker variation [æ~ɑ] in many contexts in long words at some distance from an emphatic consonant. I'd suggest we follow the path of:
As for your point #3, apologies for missing the + sign, feel free to add it.
As for your point #4, you've misunderstood me. There is a phonetic glottal stop pronounced at the beginning of ana after a pause, just like in a word like ʔarnab with a phonemic glottal stop. Hence there are no surface syllables beginning with vowels.
As for your point #5, you've also misunderstood the discussion of light vs. heavy vs. superheavy. A light syllable is not just a vowel-initial syllable, but a CV syllable, and these certainly do exist, even though EA tries to avoid this when possible. In general, the fact that EA prefers heavy rather than light or superheavy syllables does not mean that they don't exist. Superheavy syllables do exist but only in a stressed syllable before a pause. These kind of exceptions are common in language phonologies, and phonologists often treat such exceptional phonemes as being "extra-syllabic" or extrametrical. In this case, the final consonant in the surface phonological word is best analyzed as extrametrical. This is why the final stressed syllable in a negative construction must be e.g. /lakʃ/ or /laːʃ/, but not /laʃ/: treating the /ʃ/ as extrametrical, the rest of the stressed syllable must be heavy. This does not change the fundamental fact that EA generally disallows superheavy syllables and disprefers light syllables. I did not add a discussion of these extra-syllabic exceptions because I didn't want to needlessly burden the discussion with complexity: Remember that this article is directed not towards native EA speakers, but towards a general audience who would like to know more but will easily get overburdened with too many details. If you want to add discussion of details like superheavy stressed syllables before a pause, put them in footnotes, so they don't get in the way of the flow of the main text.
As for your point #6, apologies for confusing hum with humma, it's been awhile since I've directly worked with EA. I know about the /h/ in uh, which surfaces mostly in endings like /-uhuːʃ/ (as in "They didn't X it"). Older EA textbooks list this ending as /-uhʃ/ and have -uːh in sentences of the sort "They X'd it", but newer textbooks recognize only the endings /-uhuːʃ/ and -uː. From a linguistic standpoint, what we'd actually say is that the clitic pronoun corresponding to "him/it" has multiple allomorphs, which include /u/, /uh/ and a bare stress (i.e. move the stress onto the ending -- which automatically triggers lengthening -- but with no other phonetic content). How you express that symbolically is your choice; if you'd prefer +uh, that's fine.
Benwing ( talk) 22:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that in cases when it is needed to explain shortening and lengthening vowels to only (or mainly) use the phonemic transcription scheme you used (or the like), although I think that would be very deficient. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 01:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Benwing ( talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have some suggestions regarding the Egyptian Arabic article:
Labial | Dental | Alveolar |
Palato- alveolar |
Palatal | Velar | Uvular |
Pharyn- geal |
Glottal | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
plain | emphatic | ||||||||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||||||
Stop | voiceless | t | tˤ | k | ( q) | ʔ | |||||
voiced | b | d | ( dˤ) | ɡ | |||||||
Fricative | voiceless | f | ( θ) | s | sˤ | ʃ | x | ħ | h | ||
voiced | ( ð) | z | zˤ | ɣ | ʕ | ||||||
Tap/ trill | ɾ~ r |
[ɾˤ]~
[rˤ] (allophone) |
|||||||||
Approximant | l | j | w |
The brown background phonemes are often approximated to the nearest Egyptian equivalent.
I have some comments regarding your last reply... Because I don't have yet the verifiable sources about the rhotic, I couldn't write something about it. I found that wikipedians here are accustomed to transcribe the Egyptian rhotic as a tap, so I was sticking to their choice, although it is obvious that the trill is more prevalent (maybe because the popular singers Omm Kalsūm and Abdelhalīm pronounced it as a tap, again, because they were originally of the northernmost of Egypt). Also, as I said, that Watson's claims about /mˤ, bˤ/ are wrong, I didn't remove them. If they existed, it is possibly in Port Said, where it's famous for a more guttural accent, but if Watson just mentioned that and didn't specify, then it's imprecision of him. Some wikipedians collect bits and pieces from different sources, obviously explaining specific traits of pronunciation at certain geographic regions outside of Egypt, I see such information added to Egyptian Arabic related information at some articles. For example, the open vowel word-finally [ æ~[ ɑ, is claimed to be pronounced as [ ɐ which is the pronunciation of Iraq, Persian Gulf and central Arabia. I saw that [ ɐ is written in some transcriptions of Egyptian Arabic pronunciation. In Egypt, that phoneme is [ æ~[ ɑ, and is pronounced by some rural Egyptians as [ e, which isn't a widespread nor a prestigious pronunciation anyway. I also see that wikipedians in general generalize some traits specific to some geographic regions and treat them as a standard and/or sometimes claim that they are even prestigious along the whole Arab League!
The longer forms are not archaic. They are still used, but are less often than the shorter forms. You would notice that in special cases, there are no shorter forms. You would also notice that in rare cases, there are 2 archaic forms. It's important to mention that the archaic forms may still be used by rural Egyptians and some urban elders. Some of the following negations can use a single form of negation and mean the same thing, but I didn't mention these here, because that would be a lot. Also, the single negation usage might differ slightly in usage and meaning for rural speakers.
Don't get confused because of the epenthetic [ e! I'll mark them as bold.
Benwing ( talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)