Transcribing Quranic Reading Traditions

In the previous post, I highlighted some common pitfalls encountered in transcribing Classical Arabic. This post will discuss several of the specific issue that occur when talking about the Quranic reading traditions. While most of it follows quite naturally from the specifications suggested above, in some cases a more precise specification is necessary.

ʾImālah

Most reading traditions have additional vowels distinct from the standard Classical Arabic a, i, u, ā, ī, ū. First of all there is ʾimālah, a vowel that is in between ā and ī, i.e. ē. This can easily be transcribed that way.

• Q11:41 (Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim): maǧrē-hā
• Q20:1 (Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ): ṭā-hē
• Q6:68 (ʾAbū ʿAmr): ḏikrē

Bayna al-Lafẓayn

Some of the readers use a sound that stands in between ā and ē. Variously known as taqlīl, bayna al-lafẓayn or ʾimālah bayna bayn. This could be transcribed with something that is line with the international phonetic alphabet ǣ, but I prefer ǟ as it is more consistent with the sign needed for ʾišmām of hollow passives as we will see below.

• Q2:19 (Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ) al-kǟfirīna 
• Q20:8 (ʾAbū ʿAmr) al-ḥusnǟ

ʾIšmām al-Ḍamm of consonants

ʾIšmām is not pronouncing the u completely but rather only keeping the liprounding. This is thus essentially labialization, and can easily be transcribed with ʷ.

• Q12:11 (all readers but ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar): lā taʾmanʷnā
• Q27:40 (ʾAbū ʿAmr with ʾidġām kabīr and ʾišmām option): yaškulʷ-li-nafsihī
• Q1:5 (e.g. Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim with the ʾišmām in pause option): nastaʿīnʷ#

ʾIšmām al-Ḍamm al-Kasr of Passive Hollow Verbs

Several Quranic reciters used ʾišmām on passive hollow verbs like qīla 'it is said'. In modern recitation this is often considered to be the same labialization as the ʾišmām discussed above. If following this option the same transcription could be used, i.e. qʷīla. However, several medieval writers make it explicit (and it is often implicit) that these are qualitatively different. In these cases it rather refers to a rounding of the complete ī vowel. The resulting sound is thus identical to the German or Turkish ü. Transcribing it as ǖ is therefore obvious. A transcription with ȳ, which would be closer to a transcription in line with the International Phonetic Alphabet is to be dispreferred because y is already being used to represent the yāʾ. In some transmissions that have by now become rare, a short version of this vowel also occurs which can thus be transcribed as ü.

• Q2:11 (al-Kisāʾī, Ḥišām ʿan Ibn ʿĀmir): qǖla
• Q11:77 (Nāfiʿ, al-Kisāʾī, Ibn ʿĀmir): sǖʾa
• Q2:189 (al-Kisāʾī as recorded by Ibn Muǧāhid): al-büyūta

Iḫtilās and Rawm

In certain contexts, short vowels are pronounced ultrashort in the Quranic reading traditions, this is called Iḫtilās al-Ḥarakah. This happens in certain readings for certain specific lexical items. It is also an option in pause for short vowels u and i in which case it is called Rawm. I suggest transcribing this with a breve above the relevant short vowel, i.e. ă, ĭ, ŭ.

• Q7:157 (ʾAbū ʿAmr): yaʾmurŭhum
• Q10:35 (ʾAbū ʿAmr): yahăddī
• Q2:271 (Qālūn ʿan Nāfiʿ, Šuʿbah ʿan ʿĀṣim, ʾAbū ʿAmr): fa-niʿĭmmā
• Q1:5 (e.g. Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim with the rawm option): nastaʿīnŭ
• Q1:1 (e.g. Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim with the rawm option): ar-raḥīmĭ

Madd 

In Quranic recitation, some vowels need to be pronounced overlong. This occurs whenever the long vowel appears 1. before hamzah or 2. stands in a closed syllable. There is some disagreement between the readers whether a hamzah in the next word also triggers an overlong vowels, but within a single reading madd is perfectly predictable. In Muṣḥafs this is printed with the maddah sign. As the places where madd occurs are predictable, it is not really necessary to transcribe it. However, if for the discussion it is relevant to discuss madd, I suggest to write it as two long vowels in a row, e.g.

• Q1:7: wa-lā ḍ-ḍāāllīna
• Q6:80 (e.g. Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim): ʾa-tuḥāāǧǧūūnnī
• Q70:1 sāāʾilun
• Q2:49 sūūʾa l-ʿaḏābi
• Q6:19 barīīʾun

Hamzah Bayna Bayn

Several readers do not allow two hamzahs in succession, and soften one from a glottal stop to a simple hiatus. I propose to transcribe this with a . in between the two vowels.

• Q2:6 (e.g. ʾAbū ʿAmr) ʾa.anḏartahum
• Q3:15 (e.g. ʾAbū ʿAmr) ʾa.unabbiʾukum

Naql

Whenever a word ends in a consonant (including the definite article) and the next word starts with hamzah, Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ elides the hamzah. And this is one of the reasons why it is important to write word-initial hamzah, as otherwise you are unable to distinguish it.

• Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ: al-arḍ versus the other readers: al-ʾarḍ
• Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ: al-āḫirah versus the other readers al-ʾāḫirah
• Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ: kufuʾan aḥadun versus the other readers kufuʾan ʾaḥadun (or kufʾan ʾaḥadun or kufuwan ʾaḥadan)
• Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ: qālat uḫrǟhum versus the other readers qālat ʾuḫrāhum (or ʾuḫrēhum, ʾuḫrāhumū)
• Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ: wa-ḏkur ismāʿīl versus the other readers wa-ḏkur ʾismāʿīl.

ʾIšmām al-Ṣād al-Zāy

In some readings the ṣād is pronounced with voicing [zˁ], this is called ʾišmām al-ṣād al-zāy. This sound is awkward to represent with most Classical Arabic transcription systems because the emphatic interdental fricative is transcribed as <ẓ>. This is an awkward choice for a sound that is properly pronounced as a voiced emphatic interdental fricative [ðˁ], and <ḏ̣> would have been more appropriate (and this is the sign that Arabic dialectologists and Berberologists use for the sound, which opens them up to use ẓ for the voiced emphatic alveolar grooved fricative [zˁ]). However, it seems awkward to break with the tradition of using the <ẓ> sign for ظ only so that we can accommodate the admittedly very marginal phenomenon discussed here. So instead I suggest the use of ṣ with a superscript z, i.e. ṣᶻ.

• Q1:6 (Ḫalaf ʿan Ḥamzah) al-ṣᶻirāṭa
• Q4:87 (al-Kisāʾī, Ḥamzah, Ḫalaf) ʾaṣᶻdaqu

I'm probably forgetting some stuff again. But this covers most of the main issues!

 

Comments

[Martin Riexinger]

"But this covers most of the main issues!"

The diphtongization of ū and ī before ḥ?

[PhoeniX]

Dear Martin,

I'm not aware of diphthongization of ū and ī before ḥ being a thing in Quranic tajwid? What exactly are you thniking about?

[Arno Schmitt]

I use ă, ĭ, ŭ when alif, yāʾ, wau are written but are not pronounced like fī qulūbihim <> fĭ l-ʾarḍ
Probably the two uses do not lead to confusion. -- ???

[PhoeniX]

Difficult to think of a context where they could be confused with one another, yes. However, I would be inclined to find distinct signs for the two.

Technically, I do not think it is necessary to write the shortened forms of ī/ū/ā before a next word that start with ʾalif al-waṣl, as the shortening is automatic in this context.

I have sometimes experimented with writing the 'shortened long vowels' as à, ì, ù

[Arno Schmitt]

Yes, Arabs and good Arabist like you think it unnecessary, but in Asian (Ottoman, Indian, Indonesian, Persian) maṣāḥif there is always a difference in vowel sign, sukkūn or dots.
BTW, in Indonesia two Ottoman maṣāḥif (one by Hafiz Osman the Younger, one by Muṣṭafà Naẓīf were reprinted hundred times. And they added the Indian turned ḍamma for ū

[Salman1]

Do you know the Classical Arabic writing rules for when a ة is changed to a ت? For example, رحمة الله is sometimes changed to رحمت الله:

3:107:
وَأَمَّا ٱلَّذِينَ ٱبْيَضَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ فَفِي رَحْمَةِ ٱللَّٰهِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَٰلِدُونَ

39:53:
قُلْ يَٰعِبَادِيَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَسْرَفُوا۟ عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِهِمْ لَا تَقْنَطُوا۟ مِن رَّحْمَةِ ٱللَّٰهِ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّٰهَ يَغْفِرُ ٱلذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا ۚ إِنَّهُۥ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ

7:56:
وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا۟ فِي ٱلْأَرْضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَٰحِهَا وَٱدْعُوهُ خَوْفًۭا وَطَمَعًا ۚ إِنَّ رَحْمَتَ ٱللَّٰهِ قَرِيبٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ

11:73:
قَالُوا۟ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ ٱللَّٰهِ ۖ رَحْمَتُ ٱللَّٰهِ وَبَرَكَٰتُهُۥ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ ٱلْبَيْتِ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ حَمِيدٌۭ مَّجِيدٌۭ

30:50:
فَٱنظُرْ إِلَىٰ آثَٰرِ رَحْمَتِ ٱللَّٰهِ كَيْفَ يُحْيِ ٱلْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ لَمُحْيِ ٱلْمَوْتَىٰ ۖ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌۭ

I’ve noticed the same thing in non-Quranic Classical Arabic from around the same period, so it seems to be based on some specific writing rules and is not just an anomaly.

[PhoeniX]

I would love for your to enlighten me what those rules might be. As far as I can tell, the alternation is basically random in the Quran.

In inscription and papyri from around the same period رحمت الله is almost the exclusive selling.