@quietstuff.bsky.social
actually scratch that first "basically the same" (bc redundant but also bc not quite right): it's of an older type wrt interdentals that afaict preserves the voiced ones 100%, unlike my 50–50 guesstimate
BUT i was very very happy to see an indication of the whole "losing them asymmetrically" thing
BUT i was very very happy to see an indication of the whole "losing them asymmetrically" thing
November 12, 2025 at 3:44 AM
actually scratch that first "basically the same" (bc redundant but also bc not quite right): it's of an older type wrt interdentals that afaict preserves the voiced ones 100%, unlike my 50–50 guesstimate
BUT i was very very happy to see an indication of the whole "losing them asymmetrically" thing
BUT i was very very happy to see an indication of the whole "losing them asymmetrically" thing
1983* not 1984 i always get this paper's date wrong specifically
November 12, 2025 at 12:48 AM
1983* not 1984 i always get this paper's date wrong specifically
replaces it with a framework that's like "how is this dialect different from fusha" which isn't informed by the features of other modern dialects and is therefore to my mind not as usedul
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
replaces it with a framework that's like "how is this dialect different from fusha" which isn't informed by the features of other modern dialects and is therefore to my mind not as usedul
bring up in a discussion of a specific dialect in which those features aren't unique
meanwhile if this 1998 work had built on top of the 1954 treatment it would have at least been built on a foundation that would point it toward actual tripolitanian originalities. instead it discards it and
meanwhile if this 1998 work had built on top of the 1954 treatment it would have at least been built on a foundation that would point it toward actual tripolitanian originalities. instead it discards it and
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
bring up in a discussion of a specific dialect in which those features aren't unique
meanwhile if this 1998 work had built on top of the 1954 treatment it would have at least been built on a foundation that would point it toward actual tripolitanian originalities. instead it discards it and
meanwhile if this 1998 work had built on top of the 1954 treatment it would have at least been built on a foundation that would point it toward actual tripolitanian originalities. instead it discards it and
time discussing things that tripoli isn't at all unique in and which are common to all or practically all arabic dialects (stuff like فُعْلُول 'becoming' فَعْلُول or the loss of the hamza)
you shouldn't need to subscribe to any particular framework in order to see that those aren't productive things to
you shouldn't need to subscribe to any particular framework in order to see that those aren't productive things to
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
time discussing things that tripoli isn't at all unique in and which are common to all or practically all arabic dialects (stuff like فُعْلُول 'becoming' فَعْلُول or the loss of the hamza)
you shouldn't need to subscribe to any particular framework in order to see that those aren't productive things to
you shouldn't need to subscribe to any particular framework in order to see that those aren't productive things to
interested in describing today's arabic dialects, and even if you feel they constrain thought or anything like that, it's incontrovertible that they're, well, there and already ready
and then as its own discrete thing:
2) the 1998 paper, supposedly a description of the dialect of tripoli, wastes
and then as its own discrete thing:
2) the 1998 paper, supposedly a description of the dialect of tripoli, wastes
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
interested in describing today's arabic dialects, and even if you feel they constrain thought or anything like that, it's incontrovertible that they're, well, there and already ready
and then as its own discrete thing:
2) the 1998 paper, supposedly a description of the dialect of tripoli, wastes
and then as its own discrete thing:
2) the 1998 paper, supposedly a description of the dialect of tripoli, wastes
framework developed for describing a specific range of variation isn't interested in describing things outside that range. you can use this same argument to talk about how they didn't describe their own era's nabataean arabic or what have you)
meanwhile modern european frameworks *are* by nature
meanwhile modern european frameworks *are* by nature
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
framework developed for describing a specific range of variation isn't interested in describing things outside that range. you can use this same argument to talk about how they didn't describe their own era's nabataean arabic or what have you)
meanwhile modern european frameworks *are* by nature
meanwhile modern european frameworks *are* by nature
a dialect like tripoli's today will have no trace of many of the things those tools had to account for and naturally will also have new features those tools weren't developed in the interest of recording
(note that crucially this isn't even an "old era vs modern era" argument, it's just that a
(note that crucially this isn't even an "old era vs modern era" argument, it's just that a
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
a dialect like tripoli's today will have no trace of many of the things those tools had to account for and naturally will also have new features those tools weren't developed in the interest of recording
(note that crucially this isn't even an "old era vs modern era" argument, it's just that a
(note that crucially this isn't even an "old era vs modern era" argument, it's just that a
1) (maybe i'm hurting my argument by putting this one first but) personally my impression is that, in the interest of describing the modern language of the arabs, it seems self-evident that the tools the grammarians developed for describing their own era's dialects can't be used verbatim -- just bc
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
1) (maybe i'm hurting my argument by putting this one first but) personally my impression is that, in the interest of describing the modern language of the arabs, it seems self-evident that the tools the grammarians developed for describing their own era's dialects can't be used verbatim -- just bc
actually even more frustratingly what makes the 1998 one worse than the 1954 one *is* that it discards the european framework, which isn't itself what's bad but i think there are two discrete things you can say about it
November 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM
actually even more frustratingly what makes the 1998 one worse than the 1954 one *is* that it discards the european framework, which isn't itself what's bad but i think there are two discrete things you can say about it
(which otoh would be okay in like tunisia right?)
(btw separately from this thinking/potential overthinking i realized i was wrong to say that this construction's occurrence outside of the levant means something certain about how early it is, i should def just say "*potentially* backdates it")
(btw separately from this thinking/potential overthinking i realized i was wrong to say that this construction's occurrence outside of the levant means something certain about how early it is, i should def just say "*potentially* backdates it")
November 11, 2025 at 11:53 PM
(which otoh would be okay in like tunisia right?)
(btw separately from this thinking/potential overthinking i realized i was wrong to say that this construction's occurrence outside of the levant means something certain about how early it is, i should def just say "*potentially* backdates it")
(btw separately from this thinking/potential overthinking i realized i was wrong to say that this construction's occurrence outside of the levant means something certain about how early it is, i should def just say "*potentially* backdates it")
i was thinking that maybe the idea on wikt is overwrought/not needed in order to account for the resumptive pronoun issue bc even with it in the way you can still have ambiguity w phrases like حبّيت اللي شفتو, but then i realized that the problem is we (levant at least) actually don't say حبيت اللي
November 11, 2025 at 11:53 PM
i was thinking that maybe the idea on wikt is overwrought/not needed in order to account for the resumptive pronoun issue bc even with it in the way you can still have ambiguity w phrases like حبّيت اللي شفتو, but then i realized that the problem is we (levant at least) actually don't say حبيت اللي
for sure that makes sense considering even just what i, like, lay-know of european langs
but for arabic am i right to be weirded out specifically by the resumptive pronoun issue? evidently it can't be a universal blocker bc of how اللي/لي managed to develop in the maghreb but still seems important
but for arabic am i right to be weirded out specifically by the resumptive pronoun issue? evidently it can't be a universal blocker bc of how اللي/لي managed to develop in the maghreb but still seems important
November 11, 2025 at 11:53 PM
for sure that makes sense considering even just what i, like, lay-know of european langs
but for arabic am i right to be weirded out specifically by the resumptive pronoun issue? evidently it can't be a universal blocker bc of how اللي/لي managed to develop in the maghreb but still seems important
but for arabic am i right to be weirded out specifically by the resumptive pronoun issue? evidently it can't be a universal blocker bc of how اللي/لي managed to develop in the maghreb but still seems important
build on top of (it's a discussion of the dialect of tripoli from 1998 published well after a different one from 1954 that was compiled by another lebanese guy)
November 11, 2025 at 11:40 PM
build on top of (it's a discussion of the dialect of tripoli from 1998 published well after a different one from 1954 that was compiled by another lebanese guy)
i know of five arabic-language works on lebanese varieties from this era as well and i'd love to be able to compare them in thoroughness against these 'western' ones, but frustratingly four of them are inaccessible to me and the one i do have is worse than the french-language treatment it ought to/
November 11, 2025 at 11:40 PM
i know of five arabic-language works on lebanese varieties from this era as well and i'd love to be able to compare them in thoroughness against these 'western' ones, but frustratingly four of them are inaccessible to me and the one i do have is worse than the french-language treatment it ought to/
feghali himself was lebanese and did a wonderfully (even scarily) good job w/ useful things to say as well, better than some other lebanese like mekki 1983 "the lebanese dialect of arabic: southern region" (on bint jbeil), even though superficially they're all making the same "european-style" works
November 11, 2025 at 11:30 PM
feghali himself was lebanese and did a wonderfully (even scarily) good job w/ useful things to say as well, better than some other lebanese like mekki 1983 "the lebanese dialect of arabic: southern region" (on bint jbeil), even though superficially they're all making the same "european-style" works
(or rather my opinion on what it means to build up trust with your reader, which to drive the point home includes an opinion on fleisch)
November 11, 2025 at 11:28 PM
(or rather my opinion on what it means to build up trust with your reader, which to drive the point home includes an opinion on fleisch)
we can evaluate different works on their own terms! this is my opinion on fleisch from something i'm writing (still cleaning up/compressing from an earlier post i made). the idea is that in general he has useful things to say so this (however enigmatic) must be *something* useful too
![I am personally blown away by my encounters with Fleisch’s 1974 compilation of his lifelong studies of Lebanese Arabic, packaged under the unassuming title Études d’Arabe dialectal. In my book, and literally in his book, Fleisch is the most meticulous reference on Lebanese dialects last century by a long shot, paralleled in depth by only Feghali (1919). It changes your relationship to a text when you can trust its author enough to work off of their work rather than having to build your own relationship to their underlying data from scratch. For example, while Jussi Aro’s 1979 treatment of the dialect of Zrarieh is brilliant and instructive (and he was out doing fieldwork aged fifty!), the fact that he neglects to mark stress whenever it is unpredictable — as it often is in a dialect with allegro-conditioned vowel contractions, at least if trying to assign stress from a stressless transcription of the surface form — means that the reader needs to fill in this information for themselves and essentially become their own first-order evaluator the dialect. (Or at least of that feature of it.)
I have the same gentle critique of Henry M. Huxley (1902), the earliest reference in my list, who transcribes the original diphthongs ay aw with the very-monophthong-looking symbols ē ō or (when stressed) ê ô, leaving the reader to mull over the terrifying implication that Christian Beiruti in 1902 somehow monophthongized everything from lêli ‘night’ (ibid, p. 246 § 105, line 11) to 3alêyi ‘on me’ (ibid, p. 212 § 36, line 1) before settling into the second thought that he’s probably telling the truth when he states that ē is ‘like ay in [American] English say’ and ō is ‘like o in [American] English note’ (ibid, p. 178) and just that he must not be being as faithful when he neglects to label them ‘(diphthong[s])’ or transcribe them as ei ou.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5gvygd24ilrqmbgsii2zzp3v/bafkreicadc5enblusgnfdwkctkgak2vmunygls3lelfw6obshifhq44h6a@jpeg)
November 11, 2025 at 11:25 PM
we can evaluate different works on their own terms! this is my opinion on fleisch from something i'm writing (still cleaning up/compressing from an earlier post i made). the idea is that in general he has useful things to say so this (however enigmatic) must be *something* useful too
very silly that "idrk" looks like أدرك
November 11, 2025 at 4:26 PM
very silly that "idrk" looks like أدرك
(idrk if "the requirement for اللي's relative clause to have a resumptive pronoun" is smth that CAN be predated, ik in fus7a it's permissible but idk if that's archaic or innovated or what)
November 11, 2025 at 4:25 PM
(idrk if "the requirement for اللي's relative clause to have a resumptive pronoun" is smth that CAN be predated, ik in fus7a it's permissible but idk if that's archaic or innovated or what)
the fact that it's found outside the levant backdates it compared to my first impression... could it possibly predate the requirement for اللي's relative clause to have a resumptive pronoun? that would allow sentences like مليح/زين اللي شفت أبي to have contributed to the confusion/reanalysis too
November 11, 2025 at 4:22 PM
the fact that it's found outside the levant backdates it compared to my first impression... could it possibly predate the requirement for اللي's relative clause to have a resumptive pronoun? that would allow sentences like مليح/زين اللي شفت أبي to have contributed to the confusion/reanalysis too
Today in linguistic example sentences 🍅
(Source: Gueche Fotso's 2024 illustration of resumptive pronouns for left-dislocated topics in Nda'Nda')
(Source: Gueche Fotso's 2024 illustration of resumptive pronouns for left-dislocated topics in Nda'Nda')
November 10, 2025 at 7:10 PM
god ty this actually must have been one of the first "ling terms" i learned, i remember spending ages on r/learn_arabic walking ppl thru why "that" is different from "that" (ie why الذي is different from أنّ)... completely gone poof from my brain
November 10, 2025 at 9:06 AM
god ty this actually must have been one of the first "ling terms" i learned, i remember spending ages on r/learn_arabic walking ppl thru why "that" is different from "that" (ie why الذي is different from أنّ)... completely gone poof from my brain