Talk:الله

I would like to add the correct vowels etc to the display version of the title (the headword). I know there should be a shadda with a small verticle alif over one of the lams, but when I look at images of Arabic calligraphy I find that some have these marks over the first lam, some have them over the second lam, and some even have them kind-of floating around between them!

Can anybody tell me the correct position please? — Hippietrail 12:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Shouldn't be 2x /l/ ?
In Wikipedia is different pronunciation: /ʔalˤˈlˤaːh/. Which is correct for standard Arabic? Maro 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

green picture

why in the stylized picture the last ـه is not closed? Thanks in advance. Backinstadiums (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's just another way to write it. --WikiTiki89 20:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I started to upload some graphics that show common alternative letter forms for Arabic, but filling out the copyright information during upload is just too difficult and time consuming. Arabic computer fonts do not do justice to written Arabic. There are many more letter variations and ligatures used for writing Arabic than you would ever see in a text written in the Latin alphabet. Arabic fonts are designed as well as possible, but they drastically "dumb down" Arabic writing. Until just the past 15 years, Arabic and Urdu newspapers were mostly hand-written, because computer fonts have been unacceptable for the purpose. Today, a good Urdu font might contain 18,000 different letter forms per typeface, and the OpenType font technology makes selecting the correct forms from the huge inventory possible (only certain applications such as w:Adobe InDesign can make use of these fonts). Even today, I think Arabic computer fonts are only being used for newspaper text, whereas headlines are still done by hand. You can learn a little more about alternative Arabic letter forms here. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

construct state

Hi, I'd like to know how اضافة notions are written since the term apparently does not have contruct state forms. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Definite nouns do not have construct states because they can't be used as the first part (or rather non-last part) of an idafa construction. --WikiTiki89 20:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. But of course you can use the word "God" in a genitive construction (or idafa) by using إلٰه (ʔilāh). For example, إله القرآن (“the God of the Quran”), إله الكتاب المقدس (“the God of the Bible”), etc. 178.4.151.28 23:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong brackets and protection

Why did Atitarev made square brackets for a clearly phonemic representation? And why did Qehath prevent registered users from editing for struggling with an anonymous user? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Great questions. I've changed the block. You can feel free to change the IPA. --WikiTiki89 20:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Diactitics

@LissanX Hi. Could we please stop the constant "improvements" of Allah entries in all languages where they are not required? I am referring to your changing Arabic from اللّٰه (allāh) to ٱللَّٰه (allāh) everywhere in Wiktionary. Adding a hamzatu l-waṣli on the initial alif is not common practice here. You only need it to force a silent alif in transliterations. And you don't need redundant transliterations either. @Fay Freak, Benwing2, Mahmudmasri. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev I agree completely. I have undone all of this user's changes. The hamzatu l-waṣli belongs only in close juncture after words ending in a vowel. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Anatoli. I don’t see why you would want to make a the text incomplete. The spelling ٱللَّٰه (llāh) is very common in formal Arabic texts. I don’t understand how downgrading the complete diacritics is preferable, especially while the alternate version was also listed. The lack of complete diacritics has led to many erroneous spellings, including اَلله (allāh) and ألله. The additional transliteration was necessary because the automatic transliteration is incorrect. That being said, I’ll stop adding the correct spelling if that’s what’s wanted. — This unsigned comment was added by LissanX (talk • contribs).

@Benwing2, that is completely untrue. Alif al-Wasl is used in cases where a liaison vowel is needed, which is in every case of the definite article al-, as well as several conjugations. In fact, when preceded by a verb is when it’s least needed. — This unsigned comment was added by LissanX (talk • contribs).

@LissanX: In the case of إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ (ʔin šāʔa llāhu) hamzatu l-waṣl may be justified, as the alif is elided and is silent. It can also be omitted with the same effect. It IS required (even for transliteration purposes) when it's in a position where it's not clear. In the isolation, the initial alif is not silent and defaults to "a". ٱللَّٰه (llāh) is automatically transliterated correctly as "llāh" since you're telling the reader that the initial alif is silent but then you override it with the manual "allāh". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

An ornamental diacritic like hamzet wasl is only written in Koran texts. It doesn't imply more formality. It's just a tradition. I don't need to keep reiterating that whatever is written in the Koran is not common practice, furthermore we don't need to change common practices to fit automated transliterations on Wiktionary. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)