Talk:بطيخ

baṭṭīḵ instead of biṭṭīḵ

Just saying it again more explicitly: biṭṭīḵ seems like a typical hyperregularization to me, for as the early descendants as well as the possible etymons show it was بَطِّيخٌ (baṭṭīḵun) in the beginning, like بَيْطَار (bayṭār) was بِيَطْر (biyaṭr) in the beginning, and like حِرْذَوْن‎ (ḥirḏawn) is obviously borrowed as حَرْذُون (ḥarḏūn) and so pronounced in every single dialect, the same presumably with بِرْذَوْن (birḏawn). Other clear examples include صَهْرِيج (ṣahrīj) which is regularized to صِهْرِيج (ṣihrīj) and بَرْنُوف (barnūf) which is regularized to بُرْنُوف (burnūf), both showing the /a/ in the etymon. Dialects indeed tend to lower combinations KuLMūQ and KiLMīq to KaLMūQ and KaLMīq as for example the original حِلْتِيت (ḥiltīt) is حَلْتِيت (ḥaltīt) instead in dialects, but بطيخ does not seem to be one of the cases, and it is rather that it is a feature of dialect to regularize the patterns KuLMūQ and KiLMīq, namely those specific Old Arabic dialects from which Classical Arabic has arisen. Sometimes this can lead to “dictionary-only pronunciations”, perhaps بُرْنُوف (burnūf) belongs to this category. @Benwing2 we could use qualifiers for vocalizations and plurals, lest forms get removed by purists, compare the edit history of أَسَاس (ʔasās). Fay Freak (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)