Moufida AÏD

30- 12- 2015

Phonological Study of the Arabic Dialect of Honaine1

Abstract

This research paper is an attempt to give a comprehensive analysis of the most

salient phonological phenomena characterizing the Arabic dialect spoken in Honaine.
The phenomena are tackled from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives to shed
more light on their origins and the reasons behind them.

Keywords: Honaine Arabic – Sound Change – Dialectal Variations – Modern

Arabic Dialects – Ancient Arabic Dialects.

Review of the Fieldwork

- Geographical place

The first citation of the name Honaine was in the year 831 as a small city2 (Basset,
1901; Al-Wazzan, 1530/1983) giving the meaning of Šurfa (balcony) in Berber. It is
situated in the Western coast of Oran, between Beni Saf and Ghazawet, around 40
kilometers from the Moroccan borders, and 75 kilometers North-west Tlemcen. Base
on the redistricting of June 1991, Honaine became a sub-departement at the central
coast of the mountain chain of Trara3. The original old city is located between two
valleys: Ouad Honaine by the North and Ouad Regou by the West, surrounded by
clinker walls that of which are still standing today. At present, the city has expanded
on the right side of Ouad Regou and the left side of Ouad Honaine. The city mainly
1
The results presented in this paper made part of a research entitled ‘Dialectal Variation and Sound Change: A
Phonological Study of the Arabic Dialect of Honaine’, submitted to the department of English, Faculty of Letters
and Languages, University of Tlemcen, as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in
language studies. The dissertation is available on: http://dspace.univ-tlemcen.dz/handle/112/8098
2
The city, during the Roman time, was given the name of ‘Gypsaria’ assigned to the name of the seaport
‘Gypsaria Potrus’ between Ouad (valey) of Malwia and Ouad Tafna. The name was formed due to the presence
of gypsum in the surrounding mountains of Honaine. The city was also called ‘Artisiga’ between ‘Ad Fratres’
and ‘Siga’ which denote now ‘Ghazaout’ and ‘Beni Saf’respertively. See Mac Carthy (1856)
3
The mountain chain of Trara is stretched from the Western Algerian coast between Ouad Kiss on the Moroccan
borders, and Ouad Tafna in the East and South (Bureau D’études Techniques, 1996:2).
consists of two large tribes: Beni Abed and Beni Khallad, on the superficies of 137
km², inhabited by 12453 people1.

- Historical Glance2
-

Consonantal System

HA has twenty six consonantal phonemes in nine places of articulation. The most
characteristic features are presented and discussed below.

Bilabial Labio- Alveo- Alveolar Palatal velar uvular pharyngeal glottal

dental dental
Plosive b t / d k / g q ʔ
ṭ / ḍ
Fricative f s / z ʃ /ʒ x / ɤ ħ / ʕ h
ṣ
Lateral l
Nasal m n
Trill r
Glide w j

Chart 2.1. HA Consonantal System

Note. As in Classical Arabic, the emphatic /ḷ/ appears in the word Aḷḷāh and its
derivates like Aḷḷāhumma. Its appearance in other instances is dependent on the
presence of an emphatic sound in the preceding of following syllable e.g., ṭḷa:q
‘divorce’. Similarly, the emphatic /ṛ/ is found in more or less predictable phonetic
environments e.g., before the vowels /a/ and /u/ and their long counterparts. Few
minimal pairs are attested with plain-emphatic contrast as in ʒa:ri ‘liquid. adj.’ vs. ʒa:ṛi
‘my neighbor’, and in da:ri ‘aware/rusted’ vs. da:ṛi ‘my house’.

1
According to Répartition de la de Wilaya de Tlemcen par Commune et par Daira, Wilaya de Tlemcen, Service
DPAT (2010).
2
See pp. 37-9.
 1. The Glottal Stop

The glottal stop or hamza took a remarkable place in the studies of the Arab
grammarians and modern linguists likewise, with the general agreement that hamza is
considered as uneasy to produce due to closure of the glottis that is required during the
articulation. In HA, the glottal stop is rarely heard in few instances 1,and its
disappearance varies from four basic forms: (1) completely dropped; (2) elision and
vowel shortening; (3) elision and compulsory lengthening; (3) weakening to glides
and; (4) alternation with the glottal /h/ and the pharyngeal /ʕ/. The forms are illustrated
and discussed later2.

(1) Complete deletion of the glottal stop. Initial glottal stop as an onset for close
syllables is frequently deleted along with the following short vowel. This includes
nouns, color names, adjectives (superlative form) and proper nouns. Vocalic
metathesis or insertion of an epenthetic central vowel /ə/ is applied sometimes to break
consonant clustering. Initial glottal stop in open syllables of tri-consonatal hamzated
verbs (glottalized) is also elided.

e.g., ṣbaʕ ʾuṣbuʿ finger

kla ʾakala he ate
xṭaṛ ʾaḫḍar green
ħmaṛ ʾaḥmar red
ṛabʕa ʾaṛbaʿa four
fḍal ʾafḍal better
ħməd ʾAḥmad proper name
ʕma ʾaʕmā blind

(2) Elision and vowel shortening. The glottal stop is always deleted in final
positions after long vowels. The process is followed by a notable shortening in the
duration of the final vowel.

1
Most instances of glottal stop are results of the leveling toward the classical form as in məsʔø:l ˂ masʾūl.
2
The examples are always under the sequence of HA pronunciation, classical form and English gloss.
 e.g., sma samāʾ sky
ma māʾ water
ʒa ǧāʾa he came
wḍo wuḍūʾ ablution

(3) Elision and compulsory lengthening. Compulsory lengthening of a vowel

occurs when the following consonant is lost. The glottal stop as coda in close syllables
is always deleted and the preceding short vowel is lengthened to replace the loss of the
consonant.

e.g., bi:r biʾr well

mu:mən muʾmin believer
ka:s kaʾs glass

(4) Weakening hamza to glides. When the glottal stop is not elided, it is then
weakened to glides /w/ and /y/. One can form, again, some general rules of the
appearance of the glides. Initial glottal stop in hamzated verbs is always substituted
with /w/, and the latter appears also in the derived nouns.

e.g., wa:ləf ʾalifa accustom

wəlf ʾulf custom
wənnəs ʾānasa to cheer
wəns ʾuns amiability
wəddən ʾaḏḏana he called for prayer
wədda:n ʾāḏān call for prayer
wexxaṛ ʾaxxaṛa delay
wəkkəd ʾakkada confirm

Hamza is substituted with /y/ in initials of some nouns, proper nouns, and the first
person singular pronoun.

e.g., ja:ʒo:ṛ ʾāǧūṛ clinker

ja:mi:na ʾAmīna proper name
 ja:mna ʾĀmina proper name
ja:na ʾanā I/me

Medial glottal stop is often relized as /y/ in concrete nouns followed by the front
short vowel /i/ as in (a), and in agent nouns derived from tri-consonantal hollow verbs
as in (b).

(a) ma:yda1 māʾida bench

riyya riʾa lung

mda:yən madāʾin cities

ʕba:ya ʿabāʾa cloak
(b) qa:yəd qāʾid leader
ma:yəl māʾil inclined

(5) Alternation with the gutturals /h/ and /ʕ/. The glottal stop alternates rarely and
sporadically with the glottal fricative /h/ as in:

yəzhər yazʾar to roar

ha:li:k ʾilayk to you/watch out
həzma ʾazma crisis

There is a dialectal feature to pronounce the glottal stop as a voiced pharyngeal

fricative /ʕ/. Instances of this feature are restricted in the meantime to the speech of the
elders.

e.g., qurʕa:n Qurʾān the Quran

məsʕø:l masʾūl responsible

mufa:ʒaʕa mufāǧaʾa surprise

ʕa:ta:ṛ ʾāṯāṛ monuments/ traces
ʕataṛ ʾaṯaṛ trace

1
The from mi:da is also used.
 ʕa :ləf ʾalf thousand

The loss of glottal stops in HA, in particular, and in many Maghrebi Arabic dialects,
in general, can be either regarded as a very old feature or an internal development of
the system. Chtatou (1997) addresses the laxness of the glottal stop in Maghriebi
dialects as a feature carried from Berber. The view which lies upon the proposition
that most Berber varieties1 lack this sound, and due to language contact the glottal stop
in Arabic dialects of the Maghreb was lost. Chtatou’s view can be refused for many
reasons. First, the glottal stop is often weakened and dropped completely in many
Arabic dialects outside the Maghreb; therefore, the phenomena cannot be assigned
restrictively to Arabic dialects which came into contact with Berber. Second, the
compulsory lengthening of the vowel which replaces the loss of hamza is by no means
nascent. Older varieties of Arabic experienced the same process, and this can be seen
clearly in what the earlier grammarians labeled as ‘al-ʾIbdāl al-ǧāʾiz’ (the permissible
substitution). The grammarians’ view in treating this point was different, but what can
be understood from Sībawayh’s explanation of the reduction or facility of the glottal
stop in forms like ṛās ‘head’, mūmin ‘believer’ and ḏīb ‘wolf’ is that hamza was not
deleted and replaced by lengthening of the preceding vowel, but rather simply replaced
by the vowel /a:/ ‘ʾalif’ or the glides /w/ and /j/ in their semi-vocalism nature.
Therefore, the unvowelled glottal stop is substituted with the same sound ‘ḥarf’ which
shares the features of the previous vowel2.
The grammarians’ treatment of this process was considered, by some linguists, as a
weakness in the field of phonology; however, addressing what we now consider a ‘loss
and compulsory lengthening’ as ‘substitution’ lies upon the fact that the glottal stop in
Arabic is peculiar for having the long vowels /ā, ī, ū/ as reflexes, if we compare it with
other consonants. Elision and weakening the glottal stop was one of the basic features
that characterized most Hidjazi dialects in the Arabian Peninsula in the first centuries
of Islam, and probably in the pre-Islamic varieties as well.

1
With exception of Zenaga Berber variety. See Kossmann (2001) and Kossmann (2012).
2
‫أقرب منه وال أولى به منها‬
َ ‫ي‬
ٌ ‫الحرف الذي منه الحركة التي قبلها ألنه ليس ش‬
َ ‫فإنما تُبدل مكان كل همزة ساكنة‬
 Third, weakening the glottal stop to the glides /w/ and /y/ is, likewise, an old feature
attested in many older varieties of Arabic. Changing ʔ ˃ w/y in initial and medial
positions was classified by the grammarians as ‘lexical substitution’ (al-ʾIbdāl al-
luġawi) as apposed ‘morphological substitution’ (al-ʾibdāl aṣ-Ṣarfī). The process was
again treated as a dialectal feature of Hidjazi dialects and other Arabic varieties. Quite
similar examples are found in the writings of Ibn Ǧinnī as: warraḫa ˂ ʾarraḫa ‘to
date’ and wakkada ˂ ʾakkada ‘to confirm’.

Fourth, alternations of hamza with the glottal fricative /h/ and the pharyngeal /ʕ/
were also attested earlier. Instances of the former were assigned to the tribe of Ṭayʾ
according to Ibn Ǧinnī, and also other tribal dialects. Forms like: hiyyāka ˂ ʾiyyaka
‘Thine’, hin faʿala faʿaltu ˂ ʾin faʿala faʿaltu ‘if he does I do’ and lihannaka qāʾim ˂
liʾannaka qāʾim ‘because you are standing’ (Ibn Ǧinnī, Al-ḫaṣāʾiṣ: 551-2).

Such instances, however, cannot fully prove that ʔ ˃ h in HA is basically passed

from an older variety, but rather denotes that alternations between the glottal sounds in
Arabic were known earlier, and can be regarded in both ancient and modern dialects as
an internal development to weaken the glottal stop.

The sound change ʔ ˃ ʕ, on the other hand, was highly attested in the history of
Arabic dialects. The process ʔ ˃ ʕ was termed by the grammarians as ‘ʿAnʿana’ and
confined to the dialects of Arabic tribes like Tamīm, ʾAsad and Qays. There is no
general agreement on the meaning of the term ‘ʾanʾana’; the phenomenon was
restricted in some writings to the glottal stop followed by the open short vowel /a/ in
one word ‘‫ ’أن‬ʾan ˃ ʕan ‘that(conj.)’ or in its affirmation form ‘‫ ’أن‬ʾanna ˃ ʕanna
(Abd at-Tawwāb, 1987: 135). Another view was given by As-Suyūṭī (Al-Muzhir, 10th
century A.H.) who constrained the change ʔ ˃ ʕ to word initials like ʾuḏun ˃ ʕuḏun
‘ear’. However, neither the former condition nor the latter were the final verdict. Al-
ʾAṣmaʿī (2nd century A.H.) freed this alternation from any condition and confirmed
that it can be found in initial, medial and final positions. The dialects which were
known for this sound change were also known for preserving the glottal stop ‘Taḥqīq
al-hamza’, a characteristic of Tamīmi dialects in general, as opposed to Hidjazi ones.
Anīs (1947/1999:110-1) proposes that the change ʔ ˃ ʕ can be considered as a result of
a try to produce the glottal stop with voicing, and a tendency to make this sounds
clearly audible gave the possibility to alternate with another voiced guttural sound /ʕ/.
Šāhīn (1966:31-3) explains this alternation in terms of word stress where Tamīmi
dialects were known by stressing the first syllable, and overstressing a monosyllabic
word like ʾan probably led to the change ˃ ʕ. Both explanations are far from being
applicable to the instances attested in HA. ʕ-forms are more or less restricted to the
environment of long vowels (məsʕø:l; ʕa:ta:ṛ). This, however, cannot form a rule that
the appearance of /ʕ/ is bound to long vowels, and the few forms that are attested now
cannot eliminate the possibility that other forms existed earlier which are no more used
in the present day. Some Algerian dialects still hold forms like l-ʕaʒəl ˂ al-ʾağal
‘term’, l-ʕumma ˂ al-ʾumma ‘the nation’, l-ʕima:m < al-ʾimām ‘imam’ (Djelfa) and
ʕaslǝm < ʾaslama (Djebel Ammour, Laghouat).

The assumption that ʕ-forms represent an older feature from Tamīmi dialects is
accepted for two reasons: first, /ʕ/ is found mainly in the speech of the elders which
raises the possibility of an inherited feature from the previous generations, and not a
nascent one and; second, as we know, there are no clear-cut limits in modern Arabic
dialects which could give us a final answer on whether a dialect is a direct descendent
of a Tamīmi or Hidjazi. Therefore, the presence of ʕ-forms, which are said to be a
Tamīmi feature in dialects characterized by absence of the glottal stop can be
explained by the mixture of Arabic tribes which settled in North Africa.

2. Devoicing /ḍ/

One of the phenomena that attract the attention in the dialect of Honaine is the
further step that ḍ and ḏ ̣ have taken to be pronounced as the voiceless emphatic plosive
/ṭ/. The sound change ḏ ̣ ˃ ṭ probably was taken after the phonological merger of the
emphatic interdental /ḏ/̣ with the plosive /ḍ/.

e.g., (a) ḍ ˃ ṭ ṭṛəb ḍaṛaba hit

məṛṭ maṛaḍ disease

mu:ṭaʕ mawḍiʿ place
 e.g. (b) ḏ ̣ ˃ṭ ʕṭəm ʿaḏm
̣ bone
ṭla:m ḏalām
̣ darkness
ṭfaṛ ḏufṛ
̣ nail

Looking deeper in Arabic literature for the origin of this change, a citation goes
back in the 8th century A.H. (14th C.E.) written by Ibn al-Ǧazrī (At-tamhīd: 187)1 in
which he claimed that a famous pronunciation was spreading where ḍād was
pronounced like ṭāʾ and it was something awkward for which no reason was ckear.
From the first discernment, this seems like we are in front of the same phenomena
attested in HA. However, Ibn al-Ǧazrī further added interesting information which
cannot be dismissed: “that ḍād was considered as the most difficult sound to articulate,
when some speakers merged the sound with ḏạ̄ ʾ, and others produced it like ṭāʾ. These
pronunciations were very common among Egyptians and Maghrebians” (ibid) 2. The
description of Arabic speech sounds, in general, and ḍād, in particular, by Ibn al-Ǧazrī
(An-našr:198-205) in the 14th century may raise a problem, especially when he
described the sounds on the basis of what was provided earlier by grammarians like
Al-Ḫalīl and Sībawayh. This, however, does not mean that Ibn al-Ǧazrī was not able to
give an adequate description of Arabic sounds in his time, or simply copying what
others said, but rather denotes that the sounds were still pronounced the same, and ḍād,
in particular, was still articulated as a voiced lateral fricative in the 14th century C.E.
Therefore, the sound was probably introduced and carried by the Arabs to North
Africa in its older shape (at least in some older varieties where ḍād and ḏạ̄ ʾ were
contrastive).

Turning back to the citation of Ibn al-Ǧazrī, an analysis from what is described as a
difficult sound (ḍād) does not really fit with the modern pronunciation of this sound,
where modern ḍād is simply the velarized/paharyngealized counterpart of /d/.
Moreover, ḍād in its modern pronunciation would have never been regarded as a
difficult sound, at least by the Berbers, where /ḍ/ already made part of their phonemic

‫فمما اشتُهر في زمانا هذا من قراءة الضاد المعجمة مثل الطاء المهملة فهو عجب ال يُعرف له سبب‬
1
2
‫] ومنهم من‬...[ ‫سر على اللسان غيره والناس يتفاضلون في النطق به فمنهم من يجعله ظا ًء مطلقة‬
ُ ‫حرف يَع‬
ٌ ‫الحرف ليس من الحروف‬
َ ‫واعلم أن هذا‬
‫ال يوصلها إلى مخرجها دونَهُ ممزوجة بالطاء المهملة ال يقدرون على غير ذلك وهم أكثر المصريين وأهل المغرب‬
inventory1. The assumption is then that ḍād was first introduced in the 7th century A.H.
in its older pronunciation; however, what may create confusion is that ḍād (voiced
lateral fricative), and due to its difficult articulation, was simply pronounced by some
Arabs as ṭāʾ (voiceless alveo-dental stop). The later confusion soon gets clearer by
assuming that the sound ṭāʾ had also a different pronunciation, similar to modern ḍād.
Anīs’ (1947/1999) opinion that the sound change of older ḍād happened in the 14th
century C.E. can be accepted. However, one must take into consideration two points:
first, this change from a lateral fricative to a plosive started to spread in the 14th
century and probably was only completed after some centuries later; second, we are
speaking here about a change that affected what was considered as received
pronunciation, and this cannot eliminate the possibility that ḍād and ḏạ̄ ʾ merged at an
earlier time in some spoken Arabic varieties before the 14th century.

The possibility that the change ḍ ˃ ṭ in HA is an old feature is then refused. In fact,
we would like to support the recent view that we are in front of a perfect instance of
influence of Berber on Arabic, since this change, as far as we know, is attested only in
some North-African Arabic dialects. In many Berber varieties like Tarifit and Kabyle,
ḍ and ṭ are in allophonic variation (Nait-Zerrad, 2011:14; Kossmann, 2013:187-9;
Tilmatine, 2011:1003) whether in native words in Berber or loan words from Arabic.
Kossmann (2013:189) cites that both the emphatic plosive /ḍ/ and the emphatic
fricative /ḏ/̣ are often taken as the voiceless emphatic /ṭ/, as in:

Tarifit: ṭṭram aḏ-̣ ḏlām

̣ darkness
Kabyle: ṭṭmana aḍ-ḍamān guarantee

The phenomena ḍ ˃ ṭ is attested in North-African dialects where, by geographical

place, are more adjacent to the Berber varieties which have /ṭ/ instead of /ḍ/; therefore,
this confirms much more the assumption of Berber influence. These Arabic dialects
basically include two groups from where we can cite first those that were and still are
in neighboring contact with Berber varieties (dialects spoken in all regions of Jijel and
the Arabic used in Ouled Attia in Collo, Skikda, both in contact with Kabyle), and

1
See Kossmann (1999) for the reconstruction of Proto-Berber.
Northwest Morrocan Arabic near Ghomara (Kossman, 2013:187). Second, Arabic
dialects which had a contact with, and influence from, Berber at an earlier time, and in
the meantime the Berber forms are more or less restricted to morphological
constructions and lexical items (dialects spoken in Trara region in West Algeria where
Riffian Berber or Tarifit was spoken at an earlier time).

In Honaine, the change ḍ ˃ ṭ is remarkably noticed, and from the analysis of word-
list I1, /ṭ/ has been taken in more than 67% of the words that are frequently used by HA
speakers, and originally with /ḍ/ in Arabic. The change ḏ ̣ ˃ ṭ, in comparison with ḍ ˃ ṭ,
is less attested as the data shows only six words that have taken the change to /ṭ/:

ṭfaṛ ḏufṛ
̣ naile

ṭḷa:m ḏaḷām
̣ darkness
ṭhaṛ ḏahṛ
̣ back
ṭḷi:la ḏill
̣ shadow
ʕṭəm ʿaḏm
̣ bone
ħənṭal ḥanḏal
̣ colocynth

Other forms originally with the interdental ḏ,̣ either commonly used or newly
introduced to illiterate speakers, undergo the process of merger with the emphatic
plosive /ḍ/. e.g., ḍṛijjəf ḏarīf
̣ cute

jəħfaḍ yaḥfaḏ ̣ keep

ḍho:ṛ2 ḏuhṛ
̣ noon

Sometimes the change ḍ ˃ ṭ is taken only in nouns without affecting verbs or

adjectives.

e.g., ṭṭo aḍ-ḍawʾ light

ḍawwa ʾaḍāʾa he enlightened

1
See Appendix One, Word-list I, pp. 90-91.
2
One can assume that the word ḏụ hṛ did not undergo the change to /ṭ/ ˃ ṭho:ṛ, if we compare it with ṭhaṛ ˂ ḏahṛ
̣
‘back’, is probably for two reasons: first, the word was possibly taken as sacred denoting the time and name of
the second prayer in Islam and; second, to leave a contrast with the word ṭho:ṛ ‘circumcision’ ˂ ṭahāṛa
‘purgation’.
 ṭṭe:q aḍ-ḍīq narrowness
məḍḍa:jaq mutaḍāyiq annoyed

Devoicing /ḍ/ is rarely used to make semantic distinction where the two
pronunciations are kept. This appears only in one word:

larṭ ground
ʾaṛḍ
ʔaṛḍ land for agriculture or building
3. gaʕ ˃ qaʕ or simply qaʕ

At variance with the neighboring dialects spoken in the surrounding areas of

Honaine, speakers of HA are known for the pronunciation of the colloquial word gaʕ
as qaʕ/qaʕtijja ‘all, totally’. The pronunciation qaʕ is not attested in any other Arabic
dialect so far, but can be found with the same meaning in many Berber varieties like
Tarifit, Iznasen and Figuig (Kossmann, 2013:193). Kossmann further claims that the
word gaʕ comes from second-stratum dialects in North Africa1, and the presence of /q/
in gaʕ instead of /g/ in some Berber varieties can be explained by an “association of q-
pronunciation with Quranic Arabic” (ibid). This association led to expansion and
generalization replacing /g/ with /q/ in new Arabic loanwords in Berber, and the word
gaʕ was probably among the list. Returning to qaʕ in Honaine, and in trying to explain
this pronunciation, two possibilities are raised:

1. The dialect of Honaine, as an Arabic dialect, came into contact with, and got
influenced by the Berber varieties which, in turn, experienced the expansion of the
standard pronunciation with /q/ (similar to the contact and adoption of /ṭ/ instead of
/ḍ/).
2. The dialect spoken in Honaine, separate from any Berber influence, somehow,
experienced the same process of leveling toward the standard q-pronunciation and then
gaʕ ˃ qaʕ.

1
Kossmann’s conclusion that gaʕ is a second-stratum feature was drawn from two observations: first, that almost
all clear second-stratum dialects have the word with /g/, and second, that at least some of the first-stratum
dialects that have the word pronounce it as gaʕ. (M.G. Kossmann, personal communication, July 11, 2015).
 Both possibilities lie, in the first place, on the proposal that the word gaʕ was first
introduced with the voiced velar stop /g/. The discussion begs answering two further
queries:

a. How sure are we to claim that we are in front of a common process of leveling
toward standard /q/, underwent by different dialects of Berber in a large area; Tarifit in
northern Morocco, Figuig (ifiyeg)1 in eastern Morocco and south-west Algeria, Beni
Snassen (Iznasen) among the Riffian dialects2 in north Morroco and Central-
Moroccan, in addition to the Arabic dialect spoken in Honaine north-west Algeria.

It is true that the dominant pronunciation of Arabic qāf in HA is the voiceless uvular
stop /q/, and then, the hypothesis that gaʕ underwent leveling toward standard /q/, or
more precisely toward the more frequent pronunciation, is possible. However, it is
worth noting that many forms in HA take the reflex /g/ instead of /q/, therefore, the
existence of such instances which belong to second-stratum dialects, denotes that they,
somehow, did not undergo the leveling toward the frequent [q] pronunciation, if the
process has ever been carried in the dialect.

e.g., gaṣʕa qaṣʿa trencher

gla:da qilāda choker
guṛṣa quṛs disc
ngʃaʕ ʾinqašaʿ uncloud
gwa:jəm qawāʾim limbs

Thus, one can form another question: why did the word gaʕ, as second-stratum
feature, undergo q-association process, while other words did not? This question can
be formed in the reverse way: under what conditions were g-words not treated the
same like gaʕ and associated with the standard?

b. The second query in our discussion is that: how can we make sure that the first
introduction of the colloquial word gaʕ was only with /g/ and not with parallel variant
like /q/ or even /k/? In dialects where Arabic qāf has taken the reflex of /k/ like in Jijel,

1
See Kossmann (1997).
2
See Kossmann (2000).
Ghazaouet and Tient, the word gaʕ is treated as if it was originally with /q/ and
pronounced kaʕ, while loanwords from French and Spanish originally with the sound
/g/ have taken the reflex /ʤ/, as in:1

ʤaṭo gâteau (Fr.) cake

ʤa:z gaz (Fr.) gas

ʤaṛṛo (ci)garro (Sp.) cigarette
ʤamila gamella (Sp.) eating utensil used in kitchen

The latter may not be regarded as solid evidence due to the different historical
periods which differentiate second-stratum words from French and Spanish loanwords.
Thus, one may assume that the q-association both in some Berber varieties and q/k
Arabic dialects happened before the introduction of Spanish and French words which
probably were treated in a different manner2.

However, the possibility that qaʕ3 is an old first-stratum feature which was
preserved in some pre-Hilalian Arabic dialect (like HA), and introduced to some
Berber languages with /q/, cannot be fully relegated.

4. q ˃ x in Time Expressions

Beside the voiceless uvular stop [q] and the voiced velar stop [g] as reflexes of
Arabic qāf in HA, we find also the irregular reflex [x] in expressions denoting time
derived from the Arabic word waqt ‘time.

dərwax (ha) ḏā l-waqt now

fa:wax fī ʾayyi waqt when
dø:x ḏāka l-waqt later
dø:xətta ḏāka l-waqt ḥattā until / later
fa:wax-mma fī ʾayyi waqt mā anytime / whenever

1
These pronunciations are heard in Ghazaouet and Tient.
2
I would like to thank Dr. Kossmann for this remark.
3
The most acceptable etymological origine of the word gaʕ is the classical form ‘qāʿ’ (bottom). If we assume
that the word has undergone a semantic shift (bottom > all/entirely), thought we still find qaʕ/ʔaʕ with first
meaning in HA and other dialects, we have also to assume that the shift happened before the contact with the
Berber varieties which have taken the word with /q/ instead of /g/.
 HA is not unique with this irregular change, a similar case has been attested in
North-African Arabic dialects like Tangier.

f-wāxt-əlɤda at lunch time (Marçais, 1911:419)

fūyax when
fūyax-ma whenever (Colin, 1921:43)

The change is also found in many Berber varieties in the Arabic loanword waqt and
its derivations as Kossmann (2013:192) cites:

Tarifit: rux / rexx moment

Figuig: al-axt until
Mzab: llext / lwext time / moment
Nefusa: lwext time / moment

Outside North-African dialects, the change q ˃ x is found in the dialect of Mardin in

Anatolia (Jastrow, 1978; Grigore, 2007:54; Kaye & Rosenhouse, 1997:268). In Mardin
the reflex /x/ is attested in other forms beside those denoting time.

waxt waqt time

wrāx waraq paper (Grigore, 2007:55)
baxdūnəs baqdūnis persil

In the view of all what has been attested so far, this demonstrate a common sound
change q ˃ x in several Arabic dialects and Berber varieties. The discussion can be
tackled from two different angles creating two different scenarios:

(1) Independent Language Evolution1

If we take the Arabic dialects in which the sound change is attested as a basis:
Tangier in Northeast Morocco, Honaine in Northwest Algeria and Mardin in Anatolia.
From the geographical distribution of these dialects, and the by absence of any textual
evidence that could relate them historically or prove direct contact, one may suggest
that we are in front of a change that has taken place independently in the dialects in
1
I would like to thank Pr. Jastrow for proposing and explaining that the change q ˃ x can be regarded as internal
language development.
question, but interestingly enough, in one word waqt. A possible explanation is that the
word waqt, in general, and its derivations, in particular, are high frequency words
which are more prone to truncations, contractions and sound changes. Therefore, the
change q ˃ x which can be regarded phonetically a bit easier or more relaxed
pronunciation, resulting from the spirantization of the uvular stop /q/, has gradually
established itself under the condition of high frequency usage. In fact, forms with /x/ in
both HA and Mardin can be also explained in a different way. If we hypothesize that
the appearance of /x/ in derivations of waqt in HA is a result of spirantation of final
stops, final /k/ in HA can be also spirantized e.g., wa:ʃ biç ˂ (wa) ʾayyu šayʾin bik
‘what is wrong with you?’. The latter instance, however, cannot prove the regularity of
spirantization of final obstruents in HA, and could be also treated as Berber influence.
In Mardin, Grigore (2007:55) has another view concerning this sound change when he
regards it as a result from contact with some Turkish varieties where the voiceless
uvular stop /q/ alternates with the fricative /x/ in final codas.

e.g., yoq / yox ˂ yok no (Grigore, 2007:55)

pamuq / pamux ˂ pamuk coton

Though an adequate interpretation for x-forms in Tangier Arabic is still missing, the
latter explanations for HA and Mardin can be accepted if we assume that different
independent factors have resulted in a very similar change, and interestingly the three
dialects share this in a particular word waqt1.

(2) x-Forms as an Old Arabic Feature

The geographical distribution of Berber languages with x-forms in the word waqt or
its derivations includes Tarifit in northwest Morocco, Figuig in the Algerian-Moroccan
border, Gourara and Mzab in southeast Algeria and Nefusa if Libya. In order to use the
Berber evidence, one has to be aware that the uvular sounds /q/ and /x/ as distinctive
phonemes in Berber are borrowed from Arabic (Kossmann, 1999; 2013). If we add
Arabic dialects with /x/ to the previous geographical distribution (Tangier in northwest
Morocco and Honaine in northwest Algeria). The whole distribution strongly

1
The word waqt in HA is pronounced with /q/, but its derivations appear with /x/.
precludes an earlier contact or influence between these varieties, but rather suggests an
older feature which was preserved in some first-stratum Arabic dialects, and in Berber
languages which have borrowed the word waqt with /x/. As Kossmann (2013:193)
points out, the presence of x-forms in the Berber varieties in question can go along
with the presence of the voiceless uvular stop [q] as reflex of Arabic qāf, and this
further confirms the contact with pre-Hilalian Arabic.

We would like rather to follow the second scenario and infer that the irregular reflex
/x/ in derivations of waqt in HA is an old preserved Arabic feature. Other instances of
q ˃ x in HA appear also in the expression xawwaṛ ʕi:na:h ˂ qawwara ʿaynayh ‘his
eyes turned as he faints’. The rareness of this change in Arabic literature cannot be
used as counter-argument, but rather as a result of the disinterest in the ancient
dialects. A few examples that came to our knowledge illustrated an alternation
between /q/ and /x/ in some Arabic dialects attested in the 4th century A.H by Abū aṭ-
Ṭayyib al-Luġawī as in the root √qmm1. e.g., ḫamma l-bayta / qamma l-bayta ‘he
swept the house’, ḫumāma / qumāma ‘sweeping’, and miḫamma / miqamma
‘broom / sweeper’ (Abū aṭ- Ṭayyib al-Luġawī, Kitāb: 341).

5. Labialization

Labialization can be defined as the secondary articulation characterized by lip

rounding. In Standard Arabic, labialization has no phonemic status and appears only as
a feature gained from contact with the following rounded vowel /u/. In the dialect of
Honaine, the process is attested in word initial positions, more apparent with the velars
and uvulars, and appears also in the environment of geminate labials. Labialization can
form much a rule in the formation of diminutive form with velars, uvulars and labials
as initials.

e.g., (a) Velars kʷta:b kitāb book

kʷra:sa kʷba:ṛ karāsī kibār big chairs

(b) Uvulars ɤʷṛaṣ ġarasa plant! (imp.sing.) / he planted

1
See also Ibn Manḏūr
̣ (Lisān) √qmm and √ḫmm.
 ɤʷba :ṛ ġubāṛ dust
xʷrəʒ ḫarağa go out! (imp.sing.) / he went out
xʷsəl ġasala wash! (imp. sing) / he washed

(c) Geminate labials ḅḅʷa ʾabī my father

mmʷaʕən muʾan utensils
bbʷaqəl (pl.) būqāl containers
bbʷada (pl.) bidon (Fr.) cans
bbʷaṭa (pl.) bateau (Fr.) boats

(d)Diminutive form
bbʷiqəl ˂ bu :qa :l small container
mmʷiha ˂ ma ˂ māʾ some water
ffʷila ˂ fu:la one small broad bean
xʷzi:na ˂ xazna small closet
ɤʷbi :ṛa ˂ ɤobṛa small amount of dust
kʷri:si ˂ kursi small chair
gʷribi ˂ gurbi ˂ gourbi (Fr.) small cottage

Labialization on Moroccan Arabic has been tackled earlier by Harrell (1962:9) who
cited similar examples that are also found in HA. e.g., mmʷalīn ‘owners’. The
phenomenon was also studied by Chtatou (1997) to conclude that labialization results
from Berber influence where some Berber varieties, like Tarifit for example,
experience labialization in the environment of geminate velar plosives /kk/ and /gg/
(Chtatou, 1997:109). Labialization of velars and uvulars in Berber can be explained by
“the historical consequence of the transfer of vocalic rounding to an adjacent
consonantal element” (Kossmann, 2013:171). A similar explanation can be provided
for some labialized forms in HA. The loss of the rounded vowel /u/ has been replaced
by lip-rounding, or reduced to lip-rounding, a process which has resulted in the change
to [w] in one of HA forms: ġuṣn ˃ ɤʷṣən ˃ wṣən ‘tree-branch’.
 Labialization is also found in HA after the sibilants /ṣ/ and /s/ before the uvular /ɤ/
and the velar /k/ respectively, and after the pharyngeal /ʕ/ before palatal /ʒ/.

e.g., ṣʷɤa:ṛ ṣiġāṛ small (pl.)

sʷka:t1 sukūt silence
ʕʷʒən ʿağana keand
ʕʷʒəbni ʾaʿğabanī I liked it

6. Arabic Ǧīm

Today’s modern pronunciation of standard Arabic ğīm is said to be the voiced

alveo-palatal affricate [ʤ]. We are far from being able to provide accurate evidence on
what was considered the standard pronunciation of ğīm by the Arab grammarians, and
we are always left in front of two possibilities of whether ğ was the voiced alveo-
palatal affricate [ʤ], or simply the voiced palatal stop [ɉ]. Ǧīm in HA takes the reflex
of the voiced 19 twas-alveolar fricative /ʒ/. It is simply explained as the de-affrication
of [ʤ]. The discussion lies not on how [ʤ] came to be taken as [ʒ] in HA, and other
Arabic dialects, but rather on when [ʒ] has taken its place as reflex of ğīm in the
Arabic language history.

The classification of ğ as a qamariyya (moon letter) was used as hint by some

linguists2 to claim that the affrication of the sound probably happened after the
codification of Arabic basic rules. If we go further with this assumption, we can create
the scenario which suggests that the de-affrication of /ʤ/ into /ʒ/ happened basically
after the affrication, and the latter, in turn, happened after the 8th century C.E. This
scenario can be accepted from the view of natural development of sounds, but rejected
from the fact that we are dealing with Arabic dialects with /ʒ/ as if they are direct
descendents of Classical Arabic, while this has been already refused. In the following
discussion, we would like to go along similar lines with Owens (2013) and prove that

1
The form ‘sʷka:t’ was attested earlier in Morocco and Tripoli by Brockelmann (1908: 208), but interestingly, it
was treated differently as labialization appears after /k/ and not before ‘skʷāt’.
2
See Woidich & Zack (2009:44)
[ʒ] as a reflex of Arabic ğīm was known and recognized in the 8th century C.E. in some
Arabic varieties at that time.

Aš-Šīn l-latī kal ğīm. As it is well known, Sībawayh cited six phonological variants
‘Mustaḥsana’ of the core phonemes which are accepted in recitation of the Quran and
poetry, and very common among the Arabs. Sībawayh’s model in creating the
sanctioned and non-sanctioned was reconstructed by Owens (2013) and this model
will be used here to interpret the approved variant aš-šīn l-latī kal ğīm (šīn resembling
ğīm). Owens (2013:183) concludes that Sībawayh used a precise model in which he
took the voicing parameter of the second sound Y (in our case ğīm) and the place and
manner parameter from the first sound X (in our case šīn). The demonstration of the
variant, the two sounds and their features would be as follows:

aš-šīn l-latī kal ğīm

X Y
šīn ‫ش‬ ğīm ‫ج‬
voiceless voiced
palatal palatal
fricative stop / affricate

The interpretation of the variant would be a sound with the following features:
voiced, palatal and fricative which create the sound [ʒ].

Owens (2013:189) affirms that whatever the basic phonetic value of ğīm was,
whether a stop or an affricate, the interpretation of the sanctioned variant ‘aš-šīn l-latī
kal ğīm’ would always give us the sound /ʒ/ which was considered as accepted for
reciting the Quran and very frequent in the 8th century C.E. This interpretation can be
confirmed by the description of the same variant in the 10th century A.H. by Aṣ-Ṣuyūṭī
(Hamʿ VI: 294) who classified šīn l-latī kal ğīm as a variant of ğīm and not a variant of
šīn as one may assume. Therefore, we can conclude that /ʒ/ in HA for Arabic ğ is
probably old as it goes back to Sībawayh’s time, and its appearance in other Arabic
dialects demonstrates perfectly that the de-affrication of ğ can be regarded as old in
which some varieties underwent the process earlier.
 Ǧīm in HA takes also the voiced velar stop [g] as a reflex in forms which are more
or less restricted to the presence of sibilants as in (a). Few forms are found with /g/
without sibilant consonants as in (b):

(a) gəns ğins race

ga:ʃø:ʃ ğāšūš piece of meat
gəzza:ṛ ğazzār butcher
lənga:ṣ1 ʾiğğāṣ pear
(b) gʷrən2 make a hole
ʕəggəb ʾağab make fun

The pronunciation /g/ for Arabic ğīm is also attested in Moroccan Arabic (more
apparent in the presence of sibilants), in Yemen and very well known in Egyptian
Arabic. The earlier view stated by Bergchträsser (1928), and developed later by Blanc
(1981) and Harry (1996), which lies on the assumption that /g/ for ğīm in Egypt is the
result of a recent development from the affricate /ʤ/, has been rejected recently by
Woidich & Zack (2009) who brought forward some very accurate evidence which
prove that /g/ in Egyptian Arabic existed earlier before the 17th century C.E. They
further conclude that this pronunciation dates back to the Arab conquests in the 7th
century A.H. /g/ for ğ in some North-African Arabic dialects, in general, and in HA
can be treated similarly to conclude that /g/ in these dialects reflects an ancient
pronunciation brought up by some earlier Arabic dialects which have preserved the old
Semitic /g/ until today. For the sake of argumentation, we cite forward three pieces of
evidence to prove that /g/ for ğ was present in ancient dialects.

1. Sībawayh’s marginal sound that is between kāf and ğīm. Apart from the
traditional interpretation of Brockelmann (1906/1977) and Cantineau (1960/1969) that
the non-approved variant ‘al-ğīm l-latī kal kāf’ (ğīm resembling kāf) is the voiced velar
stop /g/ which is not based on a precise model, we would like to follow, again, Owens’

1
The word lənga:ṣ underwent historical dissimilation from the classical form ʾiğğāṣ, where it is very common in
Semitic languages, in general, to break gemination by changing one of the identical sounds to nasals or liquids.
Similarly the from mfəlṭaħ ˂ mufaṭṭaħ ‘flat’.
2
Probably coming from the form ğuṛn which is a utensil made of stone with a hole in the middle.
(2013) model. The model, as mentioned before, is based on the voiced-voiceless
transition, which enables us to conclude that the sound that is between kāf and ğīm is
/g/. Thus, /g/ was recognized in the 2nd century A.H. in some Arabic dialects, however,
the recognition of /g/ in Sībawayh’s time cannot prove whether this marginal sound
was a reflex of ğīm or qāf, or even both.
2. Evidence from the first-half of the 4th century A.H. The analysis of two Arabic
sources date back to the 4th century proves perfectly that /g/ was known in some
Arabic varieties. Ibn Fāris in his book ‘Aṣ-Ṣāḥibī’ and Ibn Durayd in his book
‘Ǧamharat al-Luġa’ both mentioned that Banū Tamīm pronounce qāf like kāf but with
thickness1. This pronunciation was further exemplified by the following Tamīmi
poetic verse:

‫و ال أگو ُل ل َباب الدار َمگفُو ُل‬ ‫َو ال أگو ُل لگدر الگوم گد نَضجت‬

wa lā ʾagūlu ligidri l-gawmi gad naḍağat

wa lā ʾagūlu libābi d-dāri magfūlu

What is interesting is the script used to represent the sound ‫گ‬. It represents the
sound gāf or the Persian kāf, or as 22 twas known al-kāf al-fārisiyya. ‫ گ‬in Persian is
pronounced /g/ which demonstrates that both scholars borrowed the Persian script to
represent the sound /g/ that was heard by the Tamīmi poet. Moreover, the same script
‫ گ‬was also used to demonstrate the sound ‘ḥarf’ that is between qāf and kāf2, and the
sound that is between ğīm and kāf in Ibn Durayd’s writings for the word ‫‘ جمل‬camel’
and was written ‫گمل‬. The pronunciation, as he confirmed, was very frequent in
Yemen3. The same citation with the same script is found in Ibn Fāris’ book. This fact
can safely confirms that /g/ for ğīm was known in the beginning of the 4th century, and
addressing this pronunciation as ‘frequent’ in Yemeni Arabic affirms that it dates back
earlier then the 4th century, and goes along with the view that the Semitic /g/ was
preserved in some earlier Arabic dialects, at least in Yemen as the two Arabic sources

1 ُ ‫فأما بنو تميم فإنهم يلحقون القاف بالكاف فتغل‬

‫ظ جدا‬
2
In fact, we are able to conclude two further results: first, if we apply the voicing transition to the sound that is
between qāf and kāf, this gives us a clue that qāf was voiced, and second, voiced qāf was differentiated from the
voiced velar stop /g/ (‫ )گ‬which demotes that they were two separate sounds.
3
‫وهي لغة سائرة في اليمن مثل جمل إذا اضطروا قالوا گمل‬
cited, and brought up to Maghreb. The presence of Yemeni dialects residues in North-
Africa was also confirmed by shared lexical items (Behnstedt, 2013)1. Therefore, /g/
for ğ is not a developed reflex from the retraction of Standard Arabic /ʤ/2.

3. Berber Evidence. It is well known that the earlier Arabic loanwords in Berber
belong to the religious lexicon. Kossmann (2013:177) cites that the word taməsgida
from the classical form masğid is pronounced with /g/. The form taməsgida can be
safely confirmed that it represents the outcome of Berber-Arabic contact in the first
centuries of the conquests, as it appears in an old Ibaḍite religious text recently studied
by Brugnatelli (2013), tamezğiḏa as the plural form of timezğiḏawin ‘mosque’
(Brugnatelli, 2013: 278). /g/ in earlier Arabic loanwords in Berber also confirms that
/g/ in North-African dialects is very old, which was brought up by some ancient
dialects which, in turn, preserved the old Semitic /g/. In fact, one may also assume that
some older Arabic varieties have preserved /g/ more or less in the presence of
sibilants, where interestingly, the word taməsgida contains the sibilants /s/. This
assumption, however, is far from being approved and the situation gets complicated
when we find that g-forms are pronounced with /d/ in other dialects, especially
Moroccan3.

7. Unconditioned Consonantal Alternations

The most noticeable unconditioned consonantal alternation in HA can be

summarized under three subheadings: (1) interchanges between the liquids and nasals;
(2) alternation between the labials and; (3) emphasis and de-emphasis. Alternations
under this type usually appear sporadically.

(1) Interchanges between liquids and nasals.

1
See also Behnstedt & Woidich (2011) and (2012).
2
Unfortunately, the fact that the Persian script ‫ گ‬was used in the sources mentioned earlier appears only in the
original scripts and few earlier editions, but was completely neglected in the later edition of the books and in the
writings of other linguists who quoted the poetic verse. The diacritic above the Persian gāf was dismissed then
the poetic verse and the word ‫ گمل‬were simply written as ‫ ﮎ‬which may create a confusion with Arabic kāf.
3
See Woidich & Zack (2009) for an explanation of g > d in Moroccan Arabic dialects.
 HA CA Gloss
ɤləm ġanam sheep
zənza:l zilzāl earthquake
l>n sənsla silsila chain / neckless
sma:ʕi:n ʾIsmāʿīl proper name
dəkkən dakkala overdo
n>l fənʒa:l funğān cup
n>r qa:za:r kazan (Tr.) cauldron
l>r ʒəbri:r Ǧibrīl Gabriel
jəbri:r ʾAbrīl April
m>n nta:ʕ matāʿ possession marker

Table 2.1. Interchages between Liquids and Nasals

Some of the instances cited above can be explained as non-contiguous assimilation
and dissimilation. e.g., ʒəbri:r and zənza:l. Ancient Arabic varieties like those used by
the tribes ʾAsad and Qays experienced the same change l > n in forms like ʾIsmāʿīn. In
fact, interchanges between liquids and nasals should not be confined to some older
dialects; such alternations are very common in all Semitic languages in general 1.

(2) The change b > m is found in final position in the form: rʒəm < Rağab ‘the
seventh month of the lunar calendar’. Interchanges between the three labials /f, b,m/
appear in one word where the three pronunciations are used:

ʕfəst / ʕbəst / ʕmaṣt ‘I / you trampled’

(3) De-emphasis of emphatic sounds is frequently heard, especially for the

emphatic /ṛ/ and the sibilant /ṣ/.

e.g., ra:jəb ṛāʾib curdled / destroyed

fra:ʃ fiṛāš matress
səndø:q ṣundūq box
sdər ṣadṛ chest
sadaqa ṣadaqa alms

1
See for example Moscati (1980: 31-3) and Lipinski (1997: 132-7)
 The pronunciations søħa:ba < ṣaḥāba ‘companions’ and tø:ma:ṭi:ʃ < ṭamāṭim
‘tomato’ are also used.

On the other hand, emphasis of plain consonants without the presence of emphatic
sounds is rarely found as in:

ħfi:ṭ ḥafīd grandson

qəṣṣam qassama separate

 Further Notes: (1) The plain interdentals in HA have taken the elveodental stops
as reflexes, and the assibilation of the voiced plain interdental ḏ is found in the form
zla:jəl < ḏalāʾil ‘loose and long cloths’. (2) Alternations between /ṭ/ and /ṣ/ are found
in two words where both pronunciations are used interchangeably:

ṭa:ħ / ṣa:ħ he fell over

ṭħa / ṣħa < ʾaḍḥā he became

Vocalism

HA possesses a vocalic system of the three classical short vowels in Arabic /a, u, i/
and further their merged central short vowel /ə/. Similar to most Maghrebian Arabic
dialects, short vowels tend to be elided in open unstressed syllable. e.g., wraq < waraq
‘paper’. Elision of short vowels appears also in open syllables in the imperfect of verbs
under forms II and III. e.g., jfəkkar ‘he thinks’; jʕa:wən ‘he helps’. /ə/ in the imperfect
form of tri-consonantal verbs is always maintained1. e.g., jəktəb ‘he writes’; təsmaʕ
‘you/she listen(s)’. HA has also the front mid-close short vowel /ø/. e.g., løʕba ‘game’;
ʕølm ‘science’ and ʒøhd ‘effort’. Its phonemic status is debatable as it appears mostly
as an allophone of the short back vowel /u/ in specific environments (See below.
Imāla). A contrast between /ø/ and /ə/ if found in few instances: ħənna ‘my
grandmother’ vs. ħønna ‘henna’. /o/ and /e/ are confined to the environment of
emphatics and uvular /q/. e.g., qoṭṛa ‘a drop’, təṣweṛa ‘picture’ and qobba ‘dome’. The

1
This phenomenon is known also in other Arabic dialects. See for example Jastrow (2005) for Mardin Arabic
and Jastrow (2015) for Anatolian Arabic.
vocalic system also represents three long vowels /a:, u:, i:/. In the presence of
emphatics /u:/ and /i:/ have /o:/ and /e:/ as allophones respectively. e.g., ṭe:ṛ ‘bird’; ṣo:ṛ
‘wall / stone wall’. The long mid-close front vowel /ø:/ appears very often as
allophone of the close back long vowel /u:/. e.g., tø:m ‘garlic’; ħø:t ‘fish’.

front central back

close (i / i:) (u / u:)
mid-close (ø / ø:) (e / e:) (o / o:)
ə
mid-open
open (a / a:)

Chart 2.2. HA Vowels and their Allophonic Variants

The Classical Arabic diphthongs /aw/ and /ay/ are always taken as the
monophthongs /u:/ and /i:/1 respectively. Two exceptional instances are found: ħawṭ <
ḥawḍ ‘basin’ and ħawʃ ‘courtyard’.

Imāla

Imāla in general is the phenomenon described by the Arab scholars as the vowel
shift or approximation of the open vowel /a:/ ‘alif’ to the close front vowel /i:/ ‘yaʾ’.
This is also applicable to short vowels a > i (fatḥa > kasra). Imāla, here, can be
explained as a vocalic harmony which makes /a/ approximates to /i/ that is found in the
following syllable. e.g. ʕa:lim > ʕe:lim ‘scientist’. /a:/ can be also imalized in final
positions. e.g., fata: > fate: ‘youngster’.

It is commonly agreed when speaking about Imāla that we denote the change a > i,
since it is the most common type attested in Arabic dialects, and heard in recitations of
the Quran. Ibn Ǧinnī (4th century A.H.) added three other types which can be gathered
under the heading of Imāla: (1) al-fatḥa al-mumāla naḥwa aḍ-ḍamma (a > u). It is also
termed ‘ʾalif at-tafḫīm’. e.g. ṣala:t > ṣalo:t ‘prayer; (2) al-kasra al-mašūba biḍ-ḍamma
(i > u) mostly known in the passive form of hollow verbs like bi:ʕa ‘sold’, pronounced

1
/u:/ and /i:/ for Arabic diphthongs /aw/ and /ay/ are probably very old and represent an earlier stage before the
diphthongs. The monophthongs /u:/ and /i:/ were recognized in some ancient Arabic dialects as Inb as-Sikkīt ( 1st
century A.H.) differentiated between kawsağ vs. kūsağ ‘type of fish’, and ğawrab vs. ğūrab ‘sock’(Ibn as-Sikkīt,
ʾIṣlāḥ: 162).
with retraction of the tongue toward /u/ and lip rounding. The latter phenomenon was
also termed ‘ʾIšmām’ by some scholars; (3) aḍ-ḍmma al-mašūba bil-kasra (u > i) the
back vowel here is fronted and approximates /i/. In the examples cited by Ibn Ǧinnī for
the latter type, one can also explain the phenomenon as vocalic assimilation or
harmony if we include the inflectional endings. e.g., bi maḏʿūr (in), and bni būr (in).
The back vowel in these examples was said to be pronounced as fronted.

One of the characteristic features in the vocalic system of HA is fronting the back
vowels /u/ and /u:/ to be pronounced very similar to the mid-close front vowels /ø/ and
/ø:/ respectively. Though it is difficult to ensure that the fronting phenomena is very
old and not a result from internal development, nevertheless, the process looks very
similar to the one earlier mentioned by Ibn Ǧinnī concerning the change u > I (aḍ-
ḍamma al-mašūba bil-kasra). Thus, we would like to term the process as Imāla as
well.

front back
close (u / u:)
mid-close (ø / ø:)
mid-open
open

Chart 2.3. Fonting Back Vowels

From our investigation of the fronting process of the long back vowel /u:/, analysis
of Wordlist III has shown the following results:

 /u:/ as the Classical Arabic vowel or as reflex of diphthong /aw/ is always

fronted after glottal sounds, pharyngeals, palatals, alveolars and alveo-dentals. This is
specific to plain consonants.

glottal məsʔø:l masʾūl responsible

məlhø:f malhūf greedy
pharungeal ʕø:d ʿūd stick
ħø :t ḥūt fish
palatal ʒø:ʕ ğūʕ hanger
 ʃø:ka šawka thorn
jø :m yawm day
alveolar nø:ʕ nawʿ type
lø:ħ lawḥ wood
məʒrø:ħ mağṛūḥ wounded
Alveo-dental dø:d dūd worm
tø:t tūt blueberry
ga:sø:s ğāsūs spy
zø:ʒ zawğ two

 Classical /u:/ appears as a close back vowel after velars and labials.

e.g., ʕgu:z ʿağūz mother in law

məʕku:s maʿkūs inverse
fu:l fūl broad bean
mu:t mawt death
bu:ma būma owl

 /u:/ appears as a mid-close back vowel in the environment of the emphatics /ḍ/,
/ṭ/, /ṣ/ and /ṛ/ as in (a), and after the uvulars /q/, /ɤ/ and /x/1 as in (b).

(a) ṭo:l ṭūl length

məfḍo:ħ mafḍūḥ exposed
məqṣo:ṣ maqṣūṣ cut / clipped
ṛo:ħ ṛūḥ soul
(b) qo:m qawm people / folk
ɤo:l ġūl bogey
xo:x ḫawḫ peach

1
Slight differences for the pronunciation of /u:/ after the uvulars are found. Sometimes it is pronounced as close
(xu:f < xawf ‘fear’), however, in the most general cases, it appears slightly open as mid-close similar to the one
after the emphatics /o:/. Exceptional cases where /u:/ is fronted after /q/ and /k/ have been found mainly by
speakers originally from the tribes of Oulad Salah and Khlafna. e.g., kø:l < kul ‘eat! (imp.) and bərqø:q <
burqu:q ‘plum’.
  Fronting is constrained by the presence of emphatic sounds. This includes the
environment where the emphatic precedes or follows the back vowel, or its presence in
the preceding or next adjacent syllable.

e.g., no:ṛ nūṛ illumination

bello:ṭ ballūṭ oak
ṣno:baṛ ṣanawbaṛ pine

 When the emphatic sound appears as coda, it has no effect on the back vowel
/u:/ in the next syllable, then the vowel is fronted in the environment earlier
mentioned. e.g., məṭħø:n < maṭḥūn ‘grinded’.
 The uvular /q, ɤ, x/ have a similar effect in constraining the fronting of /u:/
when they act as onsets, however, unlike the emphatics, they have no effect when they
follow the vowel. Consider the pair ṣo:ṭ ‘whip’ vs. sø:q ‘market’.

We conclude that /u:/ in HA ranges between three basic realizations as represented

in the following diagram:

/u:/ after the velars and labials

/u:/ /o:/ after Mustaʿliya consonants (emphatics and uvulars)

/ø:/ after glottal sounds, pharyngeals, palatals, and plain coronals

Chart 2.4. Realizations of /u:/ in HA

The latter result of fronting can be sktreched to /u:/ in final positions with slight
recuction of the vowel length, and also to the short vowel /u/1. This type of Imāla is
highly noticed in group recitation of the Quran where /u:/and /u/ are usually fronted
whithin the same environments mentioned above2

e.g., mu:minø:n ‘believers’

wa ʔantøm taʃhadø:n ‘and you witness (mas.pl.) (Quran, 3:70)

1
/u/ is fronted after the bilabial /b/ in the environment of pharyngeals. e.g. bøʕd < buʕd ‘farness’.
2
Recorded group recitation of the Holy Quran (known traditionally as recitation of Ṭalba) was used as
supplementary source of data for the study of Imāla.
 wa bima: kuntøm tadrusø:n ‘and for what you have studied’ (Quran, 3:79)

/u:/ is sometimes fronted after uvular /q/ during recitation as in:

fa ʔø:la:ʔika hømu lfa:siqø:n ‘then they are the transgressors’ (Quran, 3:82)

Fronting rules are also applied to back vowels in French loanwords like:

tø:ʃi toucher touch

dø:ʃ douche shower
dø:za:n douzaine utensils
bu:ʃø:n bouchon cork

Conditioned Sound Changes

The motley processes by which sound changes are conditioned by purely phonetic
factors are presented in five main subheadings: assimilation, dissimilation, elision,
metathesis, and paragoge. The phenomena are presented from the perspective of
comparison with classical forms and not with other Arabic dialects. The processes are
exemplified and explained when needed.

2.6.1. Assimilation

The loss of short vowels in initial unstressed syllables allows consonant clustering
which, in turn, gives more chances for sounds to assimilate. Assimilation is often of
the contiguous partial regressive type of voicing as in (a) and place when the nasal /n/
always assimilates with the following bilabial plosive /b/as in (b), and the sibilants /s,
z, ṣ/ which tend to assimilate with the final negation marker /ʃ/ as in (c).

(a) dʒi:b tağīʾu bi you / she bring(s)

xsəl1 ġasala wash (imp.sing) / he washed
ẓḍam ṣadama hit

1
A similar case where ġ is taken as /x/ in the form ġasal is attested in the dialect of Rabīʿa in Mosul, Iraq which
basically cannot be explained as assimilation of voicing where the vowel /a/ always separates the two
consonants. See Abu Haidar (2004:6).
 (b) ʒəmb ğanb side
ʕəmbaṛ ʿanbaṛ ambergris

(c) manəlbeʃʃ I do not wear

manqəʃʃ I do not cut
madda:bəzʃʃ he did not fight

Total assimilation of place appears in the common word bəzza:f < bil ğizāf ‘many /
lot). Emphatic consonants in Arabic are known for rendering not only adjacent sounds
as emphatics but also spreading emphasis at a distance. e.g., ʕoṛṣ < ʿuṛs ‘wedding’;
ṣaqṣe:h < ʾistaqṣīh ‘ask him’. Progressive partial assimilation of voicing appears in
ha:kta < hākaḏā ‘thus, such’.

2.6.2. Dissimilation

Dissimilatory processes are less attested than assimilatory ones, and can be
classified as dissimilation of place as in: saʒi:ʕ < šuğāʕ ‘courageous’, and
dissimilation of voicing as in: məmtø:d < mamdūd ‘recumbent’1. Vocalic dissimilation
appears across word boundaries in the two expressions:

mʕi mən maʿa man with whom?

ʕli mən ʿalā man about whom?

2.6.3. Elision

Beside the loss of short vowels in open syllables, some consonantal phonemes are
also elided in specific phonetic environments. /h/ is usually deleted from the 3rd person
singular and plural bound-pronouns in the feminine or masculine forms.

e.g., qolla qul lahā tell her

qollo qul lahu tell him
qolləm qul lahum tell them

1
The pronunciation məmdø:d is used interchangeably with məmtø:d.
 /h/ is deleted from the adverb hunā ‘here’ when it follows the nasal /n/. e.g., mənna
< min hunā ‘this way’. /k/ is sometimes deleted from the interrogative pronoun ‘ʃku:n’,
as in: ʃø:n < ʃku:n ‘who’; ʃø:nijja ‘who is she?’; ʃø:nəmma ‘who are they?’. /d/ is
deleted in the form ʒa:ʒ < dağāğ ‘chicken’. /ṭ/ is dropped in final position from the
preposition taḥta ‘under / below’ following the definiteness marker ‘l-’ ltaħt > ltaħ. /f/
tends to be elided in the perfect form of the verb šāf ‘see’ conjugated with the first and
second person singular pronouns, while /f/ is totally assimilated with second person
plural pronoun. e.g., ja:na ʃət ‘I saw’, ntīna ʃət ‘you saw (sing.)’, ntø:m ʃəttø ‘you saw
(pl.).

2.4.4. Metathesis

Metathetical consonants are found in forms like al-ğawāb > ləwʒa:b ‘answer’,
laʿana > nʕəl ‘to curse’. Often both pronunciations are used as ħsa:bni and sħa:bni ‘I
thought, fʕaẓ and ʕfaẓ ‘to smash’. Vocalic metathesis usually appears in some proper
nouns and loanwords between the long vowels /i:/ and /u:/ in the speech of some
elders. e.g., zi:lø:xa < zø:li:xa ‘Zulayḫa’, ħi:sø:n < ħø:si:n ‘Houcine’ and ki:zø:na <
ku:zi:na ‘cuisine (Fr.)’. In the standard interrogative construction ‘māhuwa’ ‘which
one’, most sounds have transported and gone some changes ma:huwa > wa:mi:h.

2.4.5. Paragoge

Though the glottal stop almost disappears in HA, it is heard in the end of the
negation adverb lā ‘no’ > llaʔ. The paragogic syllable /ni/ is usually added to the third-
person fim./masc. sing. pronouns and the 3rd person plural pronoun. e.g., huwwa >
huwwa:ni ‘he’, hijja > hijja:ni ‘she’, humma > humma:ni ‘they’. This additional
syllable serves very often as an emphasis marker: huwwa ‘he’ vs. huwwa:ni ‘he
himself’.

Paragogic /n/ always appears in the construction of the annexed nouns (mostly
appears with nouns of family members) as in:

xa:ltən jəmma ‘my mother’s maternal aunt’

 ʕəmtən ḅḅʷa ‘my father’s paternal aunt’
xa:jən ʕli ‘Ali’s brother’
jəmma:jən sami:ra ‘Samira’s mother’
ṣa:ħbən xa:j ‘my brother’s friend’

/n/ is also used with plural forms. e.g., ʕəmta:tən jəmma ‘my mother’s maternal
aunts’. This paragogic /n/ serves as dative preposition with direct objects, and this
construction is perfectly favored from Berber where /n/ appears as an elementary
preposition with the meaning ‘of’/ ‘de’ (Fr.), used with the annexed state of nouns as
opposed to the free state (état d’annexion et état libre).

e.g., awal n umaziɤ (Chaker, 1995:42)

speech prep. n Berber
‘the speech of Berber’

afus n weqcic (Nait-Zerrad, 2011:27)

the hand prep. n boy (in the annexed state)
‘the hand of the boy’

afer n iblilli (Quitout, 1997:52)

the wing prep. n butterfly
‘the wing of the butterfly’

HA forms can be analyzed the same

ʕəmm (ə) n jəmma

uncle prep. n my mother
‘the uncle of my mother’

The pronunciation qəddən < qədd ‘with the same size’ is also used basically with
the meaning ‘with the size of’.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd at-Tawwāb, R. (1987). Fuṣūl fī fiqh al-luġa. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji.

Abdel-Hamid Youssef, A. (2003). From Pharaoh’s lips: Ancient Egyptian language
in the Arabic of today. Cairo: The American University.

Abū aṭ-Ṭayyib al-Luġawī Abd al-Wāḥid. (1961). Kitāb al-ʾibdāl. A.A. At-Tanūḫī
(Ed.). Damascus: Mağmaʿ al-Luġa al-ʿArabiyya.

Abu Haidar, F. (2004). The Arabic of Rabīʿa: A qǝltu dialect of Northwest Iraq. In
M. Haak et al. (Eds.), Approaches to Arabic dialects: A collection of
articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the occasion of his sixtieth
birthday. (pp. 1-12). Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Abū Makkī al-Qaysī ben Ṭālib al-Qurṭubī. (1982). Kitāb at-tabṣira fī al-qirāʾāt as-
sabʿ. M. Ġ. Al-Nadwī (Ed.). Bombay: Al-Dar al-Salafiyya.

Aguadé, J. (2010). On vocalism in Moroccan Arabic dialects. In J.P. Mouferrer &

N. Al-Jallad (Eds.), The Arabic language across the ages. (pp. 95-105).
Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Aguadé, J. et al. (Eds.). (1998). Peuplement et arabisation au Maghreb oriental :

Dialectologie et Histoire. Madrid, Zaragoza : Casa de Velázquez.

Al-Ani, H. S. (1970). Arabic Phonology: An acoustical and physiological

investigation. The Hague: Mouton.

Al-Azharī Abū Manṣūr. (1964). Muqaddimat tahḏīb al-luġa. A.S. Hārūn (Ed.).
Cairo: Ad-Dār al-Qawmiyya al-ʿArabiyya.

Al-Azraqi, M. (2010). The ancient ḍād in Southwest Saudi Arabia. Arabica, 57, 57-
67.

Al-Farābī Abū Naṣr. (1969). Kitāb al-ḥurūf. M. Mahdī (Ed.). Beirut: Dar al-Sharq.

Al-Farraʾ Yaḥyā ben Ziyād. (1983). Maʿānī al-Qurʾān. (Vol.2). Beirut: ʿAlam al-
Kutub.

Al-Ǧindī, A. (1978). Al-lahağāt al-ʿarabiyya fī at-trāṯ. Tripoli, Tunis: al-Dār al-

ʿArabiyya lil-Kitāb.

Al-Ḫalīl Ibn Aḥmad Al-Farāhīdī. (1985). Al-ʿayn. M. Al-Maḫzūmī & I. As-

Sāmarrāʾī (Eds.). Baghdad: Dar Al-Rachid.
Al-Jallad, A. (2014). Aṣ-Ṣādu llatī ka-s-Sīn – Evidence for an affricated Ṣād in
Sibawayh. Folia Orientalia, 51, 51-57.

Al-Mubarrad Abū ʿAbbās. (1994). Al-Muqtaḍab. A. ʿAḍīma (Ed.). Kalyoub:

Maṭābiʿ al-ʾAhrām.

Al-Nassir, A.A. (1985). Sibawayh the phonologist: A critical study of the phonetic
and phonological theory of Sibawayh as presented in his treatise al-Kitab.
(Doctoral dissertation). University of York, Heslington.

Al-Qayrawānī, A. (1994). Tārīḫ ʿifriqiya wa l-maġrib. M.Z.M. ʿAzab (Ed.). Tripoli:

Dar al-Farjani.

Al-Wazzan, H. (1983). Waṣf ʾifriqiyā. (M. Ḥağğī & M.al-ʾAḫḍar, Trans.). Beirut:
Dar al-Fikr al-Islami. (Original work published 1530).

Anīs, I. (1947). Al-ʾaṣwaāt al-luġawiya. Al-Fagalah: Maktabat Dahḍat Misr.

Anīs, I. (1999). Al-lahağāt al-ʿarabiyya. Alexandria: Dar al-Fikr al-Islami.

(Original work published 1952).

As-Suyyūṭī Ǧalāl ad-Dīn. (1998). Al-muzhir fī ʿulūm al-luġa wa ʾanwaʿihā. F.A.

Manṣūr (Ed.). Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.

As-Suyyūṭī Ǧalāl ad-Dīn. (1998). Hamʿ al-hawāmiʿ fī šarḥi ğamʿi al-

ğawāmiʿ(Vol.6). A. Šams al-Dīn (Ed.). Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah.

Aṭ- Ṭammār, M.B.U. (1984). Tilimsān ʿabra al-ʿuṣūr. Algiers: al-Muʾassasa al-
Waṭaniyya lil-Kitāb.

Basset, R. (1901). Nedromah et les Traras. Paris: Leroux.

Bauer, L. (2007). The linguistic student’s handbook. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Behnstedt, P. & Woidich, M. (2011). Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte. Band I:

Mensch, Fauna, Flora. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Behnstedt, P. & Woidich, M. (2012). Wortatlas de arabischen Dialekte. Band II:

Materielle, Kultur. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Behnstedt, P. (2013). Lexical aspects of Maghrebi Arabic. In M. LAfkioui (Ed.),

African Arabic: Approaches to dialectology. (pp. 237-269). Berlin, Boston:
De Gruyer Mouton.
Bergsträsser, G. (1928). Einfürung in die semitischen Sprachen. München: Max
Hueber Verlag.

Bergsträsser, G. (1929). At-taṭawwur an-naḥwī lil-luġa al-ʿarabiyya. R. Abd at-

Tawwāb (Ed.). Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji.

Bhat, D.N.S. (2001). Sound change. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Bišr, K. (2000). ʿIlm al-ʾaṣwāt. Cairo: Dar Gharib.

Blan, H. (1981). Egyptian Arabic in the seventeenth century: Notes from in the
Jodeo-Arabic passages of the Darxe Noʿam (Venice, 1697). In S. Morag
(Ed.), Studies in Judaism and Islam: Presented to the Shlomo Dov Goitein
on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. (pp. 185-202). Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press.

Blanc, H. (1967). The sonorous vs. muffled distinction in old Arabic phonology. In
Anonyme (Ed.), To honor Roman Jackobson: Essays on the occasion of his
seventieth birthday. 11 October 1966. (Vol.1). (pp. 295-390). The Hague:
Mouton.

Blau, J. (1978). Hebrew and Northwest Semitic: Reflections on the classification of

the Semitic languages. Hebrew Annual Review, 2, 21-44.

Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bonz, Z.S. (2005). Slips of the ear. In D.B. Pisoni and R.E. Remez (Eds.), The
handbook of speech perception. (pp. 290-310). Malden: Blackwell
Publishing.

Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brockelman, C. (1908). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen

Sprachen (Vols. 1-2). Berlin: Reuther & Richard.

Brockelmann, K. (1977). Fiqh al-luġāt as-sāmiya. (R. Abd at-Tawwāb, Trans.).

Riyadh: Riyadh University. (Original work published 1906).

Brugnatelli, V. (2013). Arab-Berber contacts in the middle ages and ancient Arabic
dialects: New evidence from an old Ibāḍite religious text. In M. Lafkioui
(Ed.), African Arabic: Approaches to dialectology. (pp. 271-292). Berlin,
Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Bureau d’Etudes Technique. (1996). Etudes de restauration de la composante nord

du site historique de Honaine. Tlemcen: S.A.R.L.
Būʿzīz, Y. (1985). Šaḫṣiyyat ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-kūmī al-muwaḥḥidī wa dawruhu fī
ʾiqāmat ad-dawla al-muwaḥḥidiyya al-kubrā. In Les actes de l’u.r.a.s.e:
Honaïne, passé et present (Vol.1). (pp. 17-43). Oran: Université d’Oran.

Campbell, L. (1998). Historical Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Cantineau, J. (1969). Durūs fī ʾaṣwāt al-ʿarabiyya. (S. Al-Qarmādī, Trans.). Tunis :

Markaz ad-Dirāsāt wa l-buḥūṯ al-ʾIqtiṣādiya wa l-ʾIğtimāʿiya. (Original
work published 1960).

Carter, M.G. (2004). Sibawayhi. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Case, D.O. (2005). Principle of least effort. In K.E. Fisher et al. (Eds.), Theories of
information behavior. (pp. 289-302). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Chaker, S. (1995). Linguistique Berbère: Étude de syntaxe et de diachronie. Paris:

Louvain.

Chelliah, S.L. & de Rense, W.J. (2011). Handbook of descriptive linguistic

fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer.

Chtatou, M. (1997). Influence of Berber language on Moroccan Arabic.

International Journal of the Society of Language, 123(1), 101-118.

Clement, G.N. (1991). Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: A unified

theory. In Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, 5, 77-123.
Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, Ethaca, N.Y.

Colin, G.S. (1921). Notes sur le parler arabe du Nord de la région de Taza. Bulletin
de l’institut Français d’archéologie oriental, 18, 33-119.

Crowley, T. (2007). Field linguistics: A beginner’s guide. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford:

Blackwell.

del Río Sánchez, F. (2013). Influences of Aramaic on dialectal Arabic. In J.P.

Monferrer-Sala & W.G.E. Watson. (Eds.), Archaism and innovation in the
Semitic languages: Selected papers. (pp. 129-136). Cardona: University of
Cardona.

Diem, W. (1979). Studien zu Frage des Substrats im Arabischen. Der Islam, 56, 12-
80.
Faber, A. (1980). Genetic subgrouping of the Semitic languages. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, USA.

Faber, A. (1997). Genetic subgroubing of the Semitic languages. In R. Hetzron

(Ed.), The Semitic languages. (3-15). London: Routledge.

Fenech, E. (1978). Contemporary journalistic Maltese: An analytical and

comparative study. In G.F. Pijper (Ed.), Studies in Semitic languages and
linguistics (Vol. 8). Leiden: Brill.

Ferguson, C.A. (1956). The Emphatic l in Arabic. Language, 32(3), 446-452.

Ferguson, C.A. (1959a). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.

Ferguson, C.A. (1959b). The Arabic Koine. Language, 35(4), 616-630.

Fischer, W. (1997). Classical Arabic. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic languages.

(pp. 187-219). London, New York: Routledge.

Fleisch, H. (1966). Al-ʿarabiyya al-fuṣḥā: Naḥwa bināʾ luġawī ğadīd. (A. Šāhīn,
Trans.). Beirut: Catholic Printing Press. (Original work published 1956).

Flower, C.A. & Galantucci, B. (2005). The relation of speech perception and speech
production. In In D.B. Pisoni and R.E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of
speech perception. (pp. 633-652). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Grammont, M. (1933). Traité de phonétique. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.

Greenberg, J.H. (1991). On language: Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg. K.

Denning & S. Kemmer (Eds.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Grigore, G. (2007). L’Arabe parlé à Mardin: Monographie d’un parler arabe

périphérique. Bucureşti : Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.

Guy, R.G. (2003). Variationist approaches to phonological change. In B.D. Joseph

& R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. (pp. 369-400).
Malden, Oxford, Melbourne, Berlin: Blackwell.

Hale, M. (2003). Neogrammarian sound change. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda
(Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. (pp. 345-368). Malden,
Oxford, Melbourne, Berlin: Blackwell.

Harrel, R.S. (1962). A short reference grammar of Moroccan Arabic: With audio
CD. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Harry, B. (1996). The Ǧīm/Gīm in colloquial urban Egyptian Arabic. In S. Izreʾel &
S. Raz (Eds.), Israel oriental studies XVI: Studies in modern Semitic
languages. (pp. 154-168). Leiden: Brill.

Ḥassān, T. (1994). Al-luġat al-ʿarabiyya: Mabnāhā wa maʿnāhā. Casablanca: Dar

al-Thaqafa.

Herzallah, R. (1990). Aspects of Palestinian Arabic phonology: A non-linear

approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ithaca, Cornell University.

Hetzron, R. (Ed.). (1997). The Semitic languages. London: Routledge.

Hiskens, F. et al. (Eds.). (1997). Variation, change and phonological theory.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Holes, C. & de Jong, R. (Eds.). (2013). Ingham of Arabia: A collection of articles

presented as a tribute to the career of Bruce Ingham. Leiden: Brill.

Holes, C. (1986). Review of Versteegh (1984). Biblitheca Orientalis, 43, 218-222.

Ibn al-Ǧazrī Šams ad-Dīn. (1999). An-našr fī al-qirāʾāt al-ʿašr. A.M. Aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ.
Beirut: Dar al-Fikr.

Ibn al-Ǧazrī Šams ad-Dīn. (2001). At-tamhīd. G.Q. Ḥamad (Ed.). Beirut: Resalah
Publishers.

Ibn as-Sarrāğ Abū Bakr Ben Sahl al-Baġdādī. (1996). Al-ʾuṣūl fī an-naḥw (Vol.3).
A. Al-Fatlī (Ed.). Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm.

Ibn as-Sikkīt Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb. (1956). ʾIṣlāḥ al-manṭiq. A.M. Šākir & A.M.
Hārūn (Eds.). Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif.

Ibn Durayd ʾAbī Bakr Moḥammad bin al-Ḥasan al-Azdī al-Baṣrī. (1351 A.H.).
Ǧamharat al-luġa. Z.A. Al-Mūsawī (Ed.). Cairo: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif.

Ibn Fāris ʿAḥmad Ibn Zakariyā. (1997). Aṣ-ṣāḥibī fī fiqh al-luġati al-ʿarabiyya wa
masāʾilihā wa sunani al-ʿarab fī kalāmihā. A. Ḥassan Basağ (Ed.). Beirut:
Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya.

Ibn Ǧinnī Abū al-Fatḥ. (1951). Al-ḫaṣāʾiṣ. A. Al-Nağğār (Ed.). Cairo: Dār al-Kutub
al-Miṣriyya.

Ibn Ǧinnī Abū al-Fatḥ. (1985). Sirr ṣināʿat al-ʾiʿrāb. H. Al-Hindāwī (Ed.). Beirut:
Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi.
Ibn Ḫaldūn Abd Ar-Raḥmān. (2000). Tārīḫ Ibn Ḫaldūn: Dīwān al-mubtadaʾ wa l-
ḫabar fī tārīḫ al-ʿarab wa l-ʿağam wa l-barbar wa man ʿāṣarahum min
ḏawī as-sulṭāni al-ʾakbar. Ḫ. Šḥāta & S. Zakkār (Eds.). Damascus: Dar al-
Fikr.

Ibn Manḏụ̄ r Abū al-Faḍl Ǧamāl ad-Dīn. (1981). Lisān al-ʿarab (Vols. 1-6). A.A.
Al-Kabīr et al. (Eds.). Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif.

Ibn Sīna Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn. (1332 A.H.). ʾAsbāb ḥudūṯ al-ḥurūf. M. Al-Ḫatīb
(Ed.). Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Muʾayyad.

Ibn Yaʿīš Muwaffaq ad-Dīn. (1988). Šarḥ al-mufaṣṣal. Beirut: ʿAlam al-Kutub.

Jackobson, R. (1962). Mufaxxama – The emphatic phonemes in Arabic. In R.

Jackobson, Selected writings: Phonological studies (Vol. 1). The Hague:
Mouton.

Jastrow, O. (1978). Die mesopotamish-arabishen qǝltu-Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Franz

Steiner.

Jastrow, O. (2005). Anatolian Arabic. In L. Edzard & R. de Jong (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics. (pp. 87-96). Leiden: Brill.

Jastrow, O. (2015). The position of Mardin Arabic in the Mesopotamian-Levantine

dialect continuum. In L. Edzard (Ed.), Arabic and Semitic linguistics
contextualized: A festschrift for Jan Rertö. (pp. 177-189). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag.

Jesperen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.

Joseph, B.D. & Janda, R.D. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of historical linguistics.
Malden, Oxford, Melbourne, Berlin: Blacwell.

Kaye, A.S. & Rosenhouse, J. (1997). Arabic dialects and Maltese. In R. Hetzron
(Ed.), The Semitic languages. (pp. 263-311). London, New York:
Routledge.

Kinberg, N. (2001). Studies in the linguistic structure of Classical Arabic. K.

Versteegh & L. Kinberg (Eds.). Leiden, Boston, köln: Brill.

Kiparsky, P. (2003). The phonological basis of sound change. In B.D. Joseph &
R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. (pp. 313-342).
Malden, Oxford, Melbourne, Berlin: Blackwell.

Kossmann, M.G. (1997). Grammaire de parler Berbère de Figuig. Maroc Oriental:

Peeters.
Kossmann, M.G. (1999). Essai sur la phonologie du Proto-Berbère. Cologue :
Rüdiger Köppe.

Kossmann, M.G. (2000). Esquisse grammatical du Rifain oriental. Paris: Peeters.

Kossmann, M.G. (2001). The origin of the glottal stop in Zenaga and its reflexes in
the other Berber languages. Afrika und Übersee, 84, 61-100.

Kossmann, M.G. (2012). Some new etymologies for glottal-stop initial Zenaga
Berber words. Folia Orientalia, 49, 245-250.

Kossmann, M.G. (2013). The Arabic influence on Northern Berber. Leiden, Boston:
Brill.

Lipinski, E. (1997). Semitic Languages: Outline of a comparative grammar.

Leuven: Peeters.

Lucas, C. & Lash, E. (2010). Contact as catalyst: The case for Coptic influence in
the development of Arabic negation. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 379-413.

Mac Carthy, O. (1856). Algeria Romana: Recherche sur l’occupation et la

colonisation de l’Algérie par les Romans. 1er Mémoire. Subdivision de
Tlemcen. Revue Africaine, 1, 88-136. Alger: Office des Publication
Universitaire.

Maddieson, I. (2001). Phonetic fieldwork. In P. Newman & M. Ratliff (Eds.),

Linguistic fieldwork. (pp. 211-229). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Marçais, P. (1977). Esquisse grammaticale de l’Arabe Maghrébin. Paris: Librairie

d’Amérique et d’Orient.

Marçais, W. (1911). Textes arabes de Tanger. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Martinet, A. (1964). Elements of general linguistics. (E. Palmer, Trans.). London:

Faber and Faber. (Original work published 1960).

Maṭar, A. (1981). Lahğat al-badw fī as-sāḥil aš-šamālī li ğumhūriyyat misr al-

ʿarabiyya: Dirāsa luġawiyya. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿārif.

McMahon, A.M.S. (1994). Understanding language change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Moscati, S. (Ed.). (1980). An introduction to comparative grammar of the Semitic

Languages: Phonology and morphology. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Naït-Zerrad, K. (2011). Mémento grammatical et orthographique de Berbère:
Kabyle, Chleuh, Rifain. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Ohala, J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C.S. Masek et al.
(Eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. (pp. 178-
203). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Ohala, J. (2012). The Listener as a source of a sound change: An update. In M.J.

Solé & D. Recasens (Eds.), The initiation of sound change: Perception,
production, and social factors. (pp. 21-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Owens, J. (2006). A linguistic history of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Owens, J. (2013). What are Kaškaša and Kaskasa really?. In C. Holes & R. de Jong
(Eds.), Ingham of Arabia: A collection of articles presented as a tribute to
the career of Bruce Ingham. (pp. 173-202). Leiden: Brill.

Pisoni, D.B. & Remez, R.E. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of speech perception.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Quitout, M. (1997). Grammaire Berbère: Rifain, Tamazight, Chleuh, Kabyle. Paris:

L’Harmattan.

Quṭb, M.A. (1985). Maḏābiḥ wa ğarāʾim maḥākim at-taftīš fī al-ʾandalus. Cairo:

Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya.

Rabin, C. (2002). Al-lahağāt al-ʿArabiyya al-qadīma fī ġarb al-ğazīra al-ʿArabiyya.

(A. Muğāhid, Trans.). Beyreut: Al-Muʾassasa al-ʿArabiyya lid-dirāsāt wa
an-Našr. (Original work published 1951).

Renan, E. (1855). Histoire générale et système comparé des langues Sémitique.

Paris: Calmann Lévy.

Rubin, A. (2010). A brief introduction to the Semitic languages. Picsataway, New

Jersey: Gorgias Press.

Rūğī ʾIdrīs, A. (1992). Ad-dawla aṣ-ṣanhāğiya: Tārīḫ ʾifriqiya fī ʿahd banī zīrī
mina l-qarn al-ʿāšir ʾilā aṯ-ṯānī ʿašar. (Ḥ. As-Sāḥilī, Trans.). Beirut: Dar al-
Gharb al-Islami. (Original work 1962).

Šāhīn, A. (1966). Al-qirāʾāt al-qurʾāniya fī ḍawʾ ʿilm al-luġa al-ḥadīṯ. Cairo:

Maktabat al-Khanji.

Sayyid Abd al-ʿĀl, A. (1968). Lahğat šamāl Tiṭwān wa mā ğāwaraha. Cairo: Dar
Al-Kitab al-Arabi.
Sībawayh ʾAmrū Ibn Qanbar. (1988). Al-kitāb. A. Hārūn (Ed.). Cairo: Maktabat al-
Khanji.

Silverman, D. D. (2006). A critical introduction to phonology: Of sound, mind, and

body. London: Continuum.

Taymūr BāŠā, A. (1973). Lahağāt al-ʿArab. Bulaq: Al-Hayʾa al-Misriyya al-

ʿĀmma lil-Kitāb.

Timatine, S. (2011). Berber and Arabic language contact. In S. Weninger et al.

(Eds.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook. (pp. 1001-
1014). Berlin: De Gryter Mouton.

Troubetzkoy, N.S. (1949). Principes de phonologie. (J. Cantineau, Trans.). Paris:

Klincksieck. (Original work published 1936).

Ullendorff, E. (1955). The Semitic languages of Ethiopia: A comparative

phonology. London: Taylor’s.

ʿUmar, A.M. (1977). Dirāsat aṣ-sawt al-luġawī. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub.

Versteegh, K. (1984). Pidginization and creolization: The case of Arabic.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Versteegh, K. (2004). Pidginization and creolization revisited. The Case of Arabic.

In M. Haak et al. (Eds.), Approaches to Arabic dialects: A collection of
articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the occasion of his sixtieth
birthday. (pp. 343-358). Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Watson, J.C. & Al-Azraqi, M. (2011). Lateral fricatives and lateral emphatics in
Southern Saudi Arabia and Mehri. In A. Avanzini et al. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the seminar for Arabian studies, 41. Paper from the forty-fourth of the
seminar for Arabian studies. (pp. 425-432). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Watson, J.C. E. (1993). A syntax of Ṣanʿani Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Watson, J.C.E. (2002). The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Weninger, S. (2011). Aramaic-Arabic language contact. In S. Weninger et al.
(Eds.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook. (pp. 747-755).
Berlin: De Gryter Mouton.

Weninger, S. et al. (Eds). (2011). The Semitic Languages: An international

handbook. Berlin: De Gryter Mouton.
Woidich, M. & Zack, L. (2009). The g/ğ-question in Egyptian Arabic revisited. In
E. Al-Wer & R. De Jong (Eds). Arabic dialectology: In honour of Clive
Holes on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. (pp. 41-62). Leiden, Boston:
Brill.

Wolfensohn, I. (1929). Tārīḫ al-luġāt as-sāmiya. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-ʾIʿtimād.

Yazlī, A. (2009). Ṯawrat an-nisā. Algiers: Ǧamʿiyyat aṯ-Ṯaqāfa wa al-Funūn.

Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An
introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Appendix One: HA Word-lists

Wordlist I: /ḏ/̣ in MSA > /ḍ/ or /ṭ/ in HA and /ḍ/ in MSA > /ḍ/ or /ṭ/ in HA

Arabic MSA HA Gloss

‫ظلم‬ ḏạ ḷama ḍḷam to do injustice
‫أظن‬ ʔaḏụ n nḍan I think
‫نظافة‬ naḏạ :fa naḍa:fa cleanliness
‫منظم‬ munaḏḏ̣ ạ m mnəḍḍam organized
‫يحفظ‬ jaħfaḏ ̣ jəħfaḍ to memorize
‫ظريف‬ ḏạ ri:f ḍri:f amicable
‫ظفر‬ ḏụ fr ṭfəṛ nail
‫ظل‬ ḏị ḷḷ ṭḷi:la shadow
‫ظالم‬ ḏạ ḷa:m ṭla:m darkness
‫ظهر‬َ ḏạ hr ṭhaṛ back
ُ
‫ظهر (منتصف‬ ḏụ hr ḍho:ṛ midday
)‫اليوم‬
‫حنظل‬ ħanḏạ l ħənṭəl / ħənḍəl colocynth
‫ظربان‬ ḏạ riba:n ḍərba:n skunk
‫عظم‬ ʕaḏṃ ʕṭəm bone
‫ضائع‬ ḍa:ʔiʕ ḍa:jəʕ lost
‫ضابط‬ ḍa:biṭ ḍa:bəṭ officer
‫بيض‬ bajḍ be:ṭ eggs
‫ابيض‬ ʔabjaḍ bjəṭ white
‫ضدي‬ ḍiddi: məṭṭa:d lijja against me
‫متضايق‬ mutaḍa:jiq məḍḍa:jaq annoyed
‫ضيق‬ ḍajjiq ṭəjjaq narrow
‫ضبع‬ ḍabʕ ḍbaʕ hyaena
‫أرض‬ ʔaṛḍ ʔaṛḍ(1) laṛṭ (2) land or earth (MSA)
/ (1) land for
agriculture; (2) Floor
‫ضرة‬ ḍuṛṛa ḍəṛṛa fellow wife
‫ضر‬ ḍuṛṛ ḍəṛṛ harm
‫أغمض‬ ʔaɤmaḍa ɤəmməṭ he closed his eyes
‫مخض‬ maxaḍa mxoṭ to churn
‫توضأ‬ tawaḍḍaʔa twəḍḍa: to take ablution
‫بغض‬ buɤḍ buɤḍ aversion
‫حامض‬ ħa:miḍ ħa:məṭ sour
‫يحضن‬ jaḍħun jəħṭən to incubate
‫أخضر‬ ʔaxḍaṛ xṭaṛ green
‫أرضع‬ ʔaṛḍaʕa rəṭṭaʕ to nurse
‫ضرب‬ ḍaṛaba ṭrəb to hit
‫ضحك‬ ḍaħika ṭħək to laugh
‫ضرس‬ ḍiṛs ṭaṛṣa molar / tooth
‫ضعيف‬ ḍaʕi:f ḍʕi:f weak
‫ضمان‬ ḍama:n ḍḍama:n guarantee
 ‫ضوء‬ ḍawʔ ḍaw /ḍḍo / ṭṭo light
‫أضاء‬ ʔaḍa:ʔa ḍawwa: to light up
‫ضيف‬ ḍajf ṭe:f guest
‫فضح‬ faḍaħa fḍaħ disgrace
‫فاض‬ fa:ḍa fa:ṭ to flow over
‫فضة‬ fiḍḍa fəḍḍa silver
‫فضيلة‬ faḍi:la faḍe:la grace / proper mane
‫قبض‬ qabaḍa qbəṭ to catch
‫موضع‬ mawḍiʕ mo:ṭaʕ location
‫مرض‬ maṛaḍ məṛṭ disease
‫مرضي‬ maṛḍijj məṛḍi: blessed
‫ضيع‬ ḍajjaʕa ḍəjjaʕ to lose
‫معروض‬ maʕṛu:ḍ məʕṛo:ṭ shown / invited
‫نفض‬ nafaḍa nfəṭ to dust
‫أضحى‬ ʔaḍħa: ṭħa / ṣħa to become
‫انهض‬ ʔanhaḍa nəwwəṭ to wake up
‫رضي‬ ṛaḍija ṛḍa to become satisfied
‫حوض‬ ħawḍ ħawṭ basin
‫فائض‬ fa:ʔiḍ fa:jəṭ superfluous
‫رمضان‬ ṛamaḍa:n rəmḍa:n / rəmṭa:n Ramadhan (the holy
(pro.n.) ninth month of
Islamic lunar
calendar)
‫ضباب‬ ḍaba:b ṭba:b mist
‫ضفيرة‬ ḍafi:ṛa ṭfe:ṛa strand
‫عريض‬ ʕaṛi:ḍ ʕreiṭ wide
‫عرض عليه‬ ʕaṛaḍa ʕalajh ʕṛəṭ ʕli:h he invited him
‫فاض‬ fa:ḍa fa:ṭ to flow over

Wordlist II: Imāla (fronting the long back vowel)

Arabic MSA HA Gloss

‫بخور‬ buxu:ṛ bxo:ṛ insence
‫بكورة‬ baku:ṛa bako:ṛa First-fruit
‫بلوط‬ baḷḷu:ṭ bəḷḷo:ṭ oak
‫بهلول‬ buhlu:l bəhlø:l fool
‫بوري‬ bu:rri: bu:rri mullet
‫بوصة‬ bu:ṣa bu:ṣa Inch (MSA) / a long
needle (HA)
‫بوقال‬ bu:qa:l bu:qa:l bottle
‫بومة‬ bu:ma bu:ma owl
‫تابوت‬ ta:bu:t tabu:t coffin
‫توت‬ tu:t tø:t mulberry
‫ثوم‬ θawm tø:m garlic
 ‫ثلوج‬ θulu:ʤ tlø:ӡ snow
‫ثور‬ θawṛ to:ṛ bull
‫ثورة‬ θawṛa to:ṛa revolution
‫جلود‬ ʤulu:d ӡlø:d leathers
‫مجنون‬ maʤnu:n məӡnø:n crazy
‫جوع‬ ʤu:ʕ ӡø:ʕ hunger
‫حوت‬ ħu:t ħø:t Whale (MSA) / fish
(HA)
‫حورية‬ ħu:rijja ħø:rijja Proper name
‫خروب‬ xaṛṛu:b xəṛṛo:b carob/ locust bean
‫خوخ‬ xawx xu:x peach
‫خوف‬ xawf xu:f fear
‫داحوس‬ da:ħu:s da:ħø:s felon
‫دموع‬ dumu:ʕ dmu:ʕ tears
‫دود‬ du:d dø:d worm
‫مخبوز‬ maxbu:z məxbu:z baked
‫دوخة‬ dawxa dø:xa dizziness
‫رسول‬ ṛasu:l ṛaṣo:l/ ṛasøl messenger
‫روح‬ ṛu:ħ ṛo:ħ soul
‫روم‬ ṛu:m ṛo:m the Roman nation
‫رومي‬ ṛu:mijj ṛo:mi Roman
‫زرزور‬ zaṛzu:ṛ zəṛzo:ṛ mynah
‫زوج‬ zawʤ zø:ӡ couple / two
‫زيتون‬ zajtu:n zi:tø:n olive
‫ساطور‬ sa:ṭu:r ʃa:qo:ṛ chopper
‫مسلوخ‬ maslu:x məslø:x skinned
‫سحور‬ suħu :r sħo:ṛ daybreak meal
(during a fast)
‫سفود‬ saffu:d səffu:d brochette
‫سور‬ su:ṛ ṣo:ṛ wall
‫سوس‬ su:s sø:s weevil
‫سورة‬ su:ṛa ṣo:ra chapter of the Holy
Quran
‫سوق‬ su:q sø:q market
‫سوط‬ sawṭ ṣo:ṭ whip
‫برقوق‬ burqu:q bərqo:q plum/ gage
‫شباب‬ ʃaba:b ʃbu:b youth
‫شوكة‬ ʃawka ʃø:ka thorn
‫صابون‬ ṣa:bu:n ṣa:bu:n soap
‫صاروخ‬ ṣa:ṛu:x sa:rø:x rocket
‫صوف‬ ṣuwf ṣo:f wool
‫صومعة‬ ṣawmaʕa ṣo:mʕa hermitage
‫طوب‬ ṭu:b ṭo:b brick
‫طول‬ ṭu:l ṭo:l lenght
‫عربون‬ ʕarbu:n ʕərbu:n deposit
‫عروس‬ ʕaru:s ʕro:ṣ bride (SA) groom
(HA)
‫محمود‬ maħmu :d məħmu:d proper name
‫أعمامي‬ ʔaʕma:mi: ʔəmu:mi: my uncles
‫عنقود‬ ʕanqu:d ʕənqo:d tuft
‫عود‬ ʕu:d ʕø:d rod
‫غفور‬ ɤafu:r ɤafu:r forgiving
‫غول‬ ɤu:l ɤo:l ogre
‫فاروق‬ fa:ru:q fa:rø:q proper name
‫موسى‬ mu:sa: mu:sa Moses- proper name
‫فول‬ fu:l fu:l broad bean
‫فوطة‬ fu:ṭa fo:ṭa towel
‫قادوس‬ qa:du:s qa:dø:s hopper
‫قارورة‬ qa:ru:ra qa:ṛo:ṛa flask
‫قانون‬ qa:nu:n qa:nø:n law
‫قلوب‬ qulu:b qlø:b hearts
‫زابوق‬ za:bu:q za:bu:q thorn
‫قنفذ‬ qunfud qənfu:d hedgehog
‫قوت‬ qu:t qo:t food
‫كابوس‬ ka:bu:s kabu:s Nightmare (SA) /
gun (HA)
‫كافور‬ ka:fu:r ka:fu:r camphor
‫كحل‬ kuħl kħø :l Kohl- eye powder
‫يوم‬ jawm jø:m day
‫كمون‬ kammu:n kəmmu:n cumin

‫كلثوم‬ kulθu:m kəltø:m proper name

‫كرة‬ kura ko:ṛa ball (MSA) /
anything with the
shape of a ball (HA)
‫يهود‬ jahu:d jhu:d / jhø:d Jews
‫كومة‬ kawma ku:ma stack
‫منحوس‬ manħu :s mənħø :s nlucky
‫يعوم‬ jaʕu:m jʕø:m he swims
‫يفوح‬ jafu:ħ jfu:ħ to diffuse its odor
‫لوبيا‬ lu:bja: lø:bja bean
‫لوح‬ lawħ lø:ħ plank
‫لوز‬ lawz lø:z almond
‫يلوم‬ jalu:m jlø:m he blames
‫روس‬ ṛu:s rø:s Russian
‫لون‬ lawn lø:n color
‫مقلوب‬ maqlu:b məqlø:b inverse
‫أرز‬ ʔaruzz ṛo:ẓ rice
‫حلقوم‬ ħulqu :m ħəlqo:m gorge
 ‫زقوم‬ zaqqu:m zəqqo:m Hard food
‫سبورة‬ sabbu:ra səbbo:ṛa blackboard

‫صندوق‬ ṣundu:q səndø:q box

‫صنوبر‬ ṣanawbar ṣno:baṛ pine
‫عجوز‬ ʕaʤu:z ʕgu:z Old woman (SA) /
mother-in-law (HA)
‫عرجون‬ ʕurʤu:n ʕərӡø:n bunch
‫فرعون‬ firʕawn fərʕø:n pharaoh
‫قوم‬ qawm qo:m nation
‫كانون‬ ka:nu:n ka:nø:n hearth
‫كنوز‬ kunu:z knø:z treasures
‫محبوس‬ maħbu:s məħbu:s trapped
‫مسكون‬ masku:n məsku:n haunted
‫مسموم‬ masmu:m məsmu:m poisoned
‫بقدونس‬ baqdu:nis maʕədnø:s persil
‫ممنوع‬ mamnu:ʕ mǝmnø:ʕ forbidden
‫ميمون‬ majmu:n mi:mu:n lucky
‫هبوب‬ hubu:b hbu:b breeze
‫نوح‬ nu:ħ nø:ħ Noah
‫نور‬ nu:r no:ṛ light
‫نافورة‬ na:fu:ra na:fo:ṛa fountain
‫ممدود‬ mamdu:d məmdø:d/məmtø:d recumbent
‫ناموس‬ na:mu:s na:mu:s mosquito
‫نبوت‬ nabbu:t nəbbu:t spear
‫نجوم‬ nuʤu:m nӡø:m stars
‫نزور‬ nazu:r nẓo:ṛ we visit / I visit
‫موت‬ mawt mu:t death
‫موسم‬ mawsim mu:səm season
‫نوع‬ nawʕ nø:ʕ type
‫وجوه‬ wuʤu:h wӡø:h faces
‫ياقوت‬ ja:qu:t ja:qo:t ruby
‫يوم‬ jawm jø:m day
‫باكور‬ ba:ku:r ḅa:ko:ṛ fig
‫برغوت‬ burɤu:t bərɤu:t flea
‫برودة‬ buru :da brø:da cold
‫حانوت‬ ħa:nu:t ħa:nø:t market
‫خروف‬ xaṛu:f xṛo:f sheep
‫يتذوق‬ jataðawwaq jdø:q He tastes
‫يذوب‬ jaðu:b jdø:b He melts
‫يعقوب‬ jaʕqu:b jəʕqo:b Jacob
‫محروس‬ maħru:s məħṛo:ṣ guarded
‫مبروم‬ mabru:m məbṛo:m sharpened
‫مجروح‬ maʤru:ħ məӡrø:ħ wounded
‫محروم‬ maħru:m məħro:m destitute
‫محروق‬ maħru:q məħrø:q burnt
‫محسوب‬ maħsu:b məħsø:b counted
‫مخروط‬ maxṛu:ṭ məxṛo:ṭ cone
‫مشروط‬ maʃṛu:ṭ məʃṛo:ṭ conditioned
‫مخصوص‬ maxṣu:ṣ məxṣo:ṣ in need
‫مخطوبة‬ maxṭu:ba məxṭo:ba engaged
‫محفور‬ maħfu:r məħfo:ṛ dug
‫مخطوف‬ maxṭu:f məxṭo:f kidnapped
‫مذبوح‬ maðbu:ħ mədbu:ħ slaughtered
‫مدبوغ‬ madbu:ɤ mədbu:ɤ tawed
‫مدفون‬ madfu:n mədfu:n buried
‫مدروس‬ madru:s mədrø:s cropped
‫مرشوم‬ maṛʃu:m məṛʃø:m marked
‫مسؤول‬ masʔu:l məsʔø:l / məsʕø:l responsible
‫مسحور‬ masħu:r məsħø:r witched
‫مسلوخ‬ maslu:x məslø:x skinned
‫مصروع‬ maṣru:ʕ məṣṛo:ʕ Knocked down
‫مصروف‬ maṣru:f məṣṛo:f Pocket money
‫مضمون‬ maḍmu:n məḍmu:n guaranteed
‫مطحون‬ maṭħu:n məṭħø:n grinded
‫معجون‬ maʕʤu:n məʕӡø:n kneaded
‫معروض‬ maʕṛu:ḍ məʕṛo:ṭ invited
‫معروف‬ maʕru:f məʕṛo:f known
‫مغروس‬ maɤru:s məɤṛo:ṣ planted
‫معقوف‬ maʕqu:f məʕku:f inclined
‫معكوس‬ maʕku:s məʕku:s inverted
‫مغبون‬ maɤbu:n məɤbu:n sorrowful
‫عيوب‬ ʕuju:b ʕjø:b faults
‫مفتول‬ maftu:l məftø:l twisted
‫مفتون‬ maftu:n məftø:n fascinated
‫مقتول‬ maqtu:l məqtø:l killed
‫مفضوح‬ mafḍu:ħ məfḍo:ħ exposed
‫مقطوع‬ maqṭu:ʕ məqṭo:ʕ cut
‫مقصوص‬ maqṣu:ṣ məqṣo:ṣ clipped
‫مكتوب‬ maktu:b məktø:b written

‫مكنوز‬ maknu:z məknø:z hidden

‫ملفوف‬ malfu:f məlfu:f cabbage
‫ملدوغ‬ maldu:ɤ məldø:ɤ stung
‫ملعون‬ malʕu:n məlʕø:n cursed
‫مؤمن‬ muʔmin mu:mən believer
‫ملموم‬ malmoum məlmu:m collected
‫مليون‬ milju:n məlø:n million
‫منشور‬ manʃu:r mənʃo:ṛ disposed
‫منفوض‬ manfu:ḍ mənfo:ṭ flicked
 ‫منقوش‬ manqu:ʃ məngu:ʃ engraved
‫منفوخ‬ manfu:x mənfu:x blown
‫مهدوم‬ mahdu:m məhdø:m ruined
‫موجة‬ mawʤa mu:ӡa wave
‫سحر‬ siħr sħø :r sorcery

Appendix Two: g-forms for Arabic ğ

Arabic MSA HA Gloss

‫جاسوس‬ ʤa:su:s ga:sø:s spy
‫جنس‬ ʤins gǝns race
‫جاشوش‬ ʤa:ʃu:ʃ ga:ʃø:ʃ piece of meat
‫جبس‬ ʤibs gǝbs gypsum
‫جنازة‬ ʤana:za gna:za funereal
‫جرن‬ ʤurn (n) gʷrǝn (v) a stone with a hole
used to mash meat (n)
(MSA) / to make a
hole (v) (HA)
‫يجز‬ jaʤuz jgǝz to clip/ to shear off
‫جزار‬ ʤazza:r gǝzza:ṛ butcher
‫جزة‬ ʤazza gǝzza/ dǝzza fleece
‫جزيرة‬ ʤazi:ra gazi:ra island
‫جسر‬ ʤisr dsǝr bridge (MSA) /
groundsill (HA)
‫اجاص‬ iʤʤa:ṣ lǝnga:ṣ pear
‫جنسية‬ ʤinsija gǝnsijja nationality
‫عجوز‬ ʕaʤu:z ʕgu:z old woman (MSA) /
mother-in-law (HA)
‫جاز‬ ʤa:z ga:z he passed
‫جزمة‬ ʤazma gǝzma gunboots
‫جرجر‬ gǝrgǝr ʤaṛʤṛa to drink a lot (HA) the
sound of water in the
troat while drinking
(MSA)