Talk:A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic

Dictionary features in relation to article text
The transliterations will help you with ya vs. alif maqsura, but they won't help you with word-initial hamza (since glottal stops are not transcribed at the beginnings of words), nor with having to re-compose verb forms on the fly based solely on the consonantal root and the stem number. AnonMoos 19:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whats stem number though?. Collective number? Do you have the latest edition? - max rspct 19:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's the fourth edition of 1994, but none of the other editions I've seen are different in these respects. As for verb stems, look at link Arabic grammar for an explanation.  Then look at root sin-lam-mim on page 495 of the dicationary (at least in my edition), and note the bold numeral IV.  This numeral "IV" indicates a verb form with imperfect yuslimu and perfect 'aslama.  A lot of other dictionaries would at least list the form 'aslama, but Wehr doesn't list any form at all, so you have to construct yuslimu and 'aslama purely from the consonantal root and your memorized knowledge of Stem IV derivation patterns. AnonMoos 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He gives the actual form whenever there are any difficulties, and for the less common derived forms, so how exactly does this represent a difficulty? Palmiro | Talk 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It represents a difficulty if you're of that cast of mind which finds it relatively easy to learn to associate yuslimu with aslama, but rather hard to synthesize yuslimu from scratch, given just the consonants S-L-M and the number "IV". I suspect that there are a large number of people in this boat -- I have a more analytic mind than many, and academic linguistic training, yet I would have to look in my grammar books to figure out what the forms would be if faced with a V, VII, or VIII stem verb listing in Wehr.  Furthermore, if you look down the columns of the dictionary, you'll find that rather few derived-stem finite verb forms are in fact given. AnonMoos 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the  template was very necessary or useful, considering that this article basically consists of comments by actual habitual users of the dictionary, not publisher's blurbs. Look at the Amazon reviews, if you want. AnonMoos 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some inline citations, and removed some not very relevant contents. However, the second-to-last paragraph is still original research. Hope someone will clean that up. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you call "original research" is practical concerns expressed by some ordinary habitual users of the dictionary... AnonMoos 09:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are practical concerns, no doubt about it. But Wikipedia is just not the place to express these concerns. I mean I would give them a "helpful" vote if they were posted on Amazon as a review :); but I'm afraid they can't get by here, which is not meant for posting personal book reviews. Regards.--K.C. Tang 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * However, they have a great deal of relevance to the dictionary's suitability for the purpose for which it was originally intended. It's absurd to say that we can't include anything which wasn't mentioned in a 1962 review of the first edition (which very few people nowadays are even using). AnonMoos 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's ok if we just state the facts (e.g. that hamza is not indicated), instead of giving weasel words like "Some features which could be considered drawbacks...". We're not here to judge what the drawbacks are. We do that on Amazon, not here. It's just that different sites serve different purposes. Of course what I said may sound absurd to many. Regards.--K.C. Tang 08:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I bet that the great majority of students in classes on Classical or literary Arabic whose teachers require correctly-written hamzas consider it a drwaback... AnonMoos 07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)