Talk:Shin (letter)

Judaism High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems B‑class Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Colless citation[edit]

A citation is needed to Colless's work for verification. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Albright as well. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation...[edit]

... because it's so clear what š means. Not. Can we have some IPA symbols/links? I refer you to http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1686672

-- TimNelson (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for Semitic transcription, I would argue that S1, S2, and S3 (and S.) are more useful than IPA. In large part this is because it makes the relationship between S^ in Ugaritic (for instance) and S in Arabic more obvious in that both (this is a controversial example, I know) are inextricably linked in the word "soul" (NFS^ and NFS respectively) but that the former is S2 and the latter is S1. Likewise, some of the information on this page is inimical to the truth. Both S and S^ (sin and shin/S1 and S2) are orthographically separate but also highly unstable (as in that previous example). Therefore, at a certain point of convergence, the word for Moses in Arabic and Hebrew was pronounced the same (Musha) because the Arabic sin was pronounced as S^ until a fairly late point. This information comes from a conglomeration of sources, most prominently Woodward's (ed.) book (2008). I've given up on Wiki. Nevertheless, I find it repeatedly amusing to point out how poorly these articles are written. Cheers! Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to repeat my objection of how offensive it is that the "Semitic" alphabet is a Judaism-WikiProject (whose modern successors survive only as the multitude of languages in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and to a certain extent Sudan and Chad; Arabic, Hebrew, and Assyrian (I am not intentionally omitting anything, there are probably others I am forgetting)). I find it as offensive as if Beowulf or the Latin alphabet were WikiProject-Christianity; although actually Beowulf has greater relevance than these alphabets (to Judaism). Awful organization. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, WikiProjects decide independently whether a particular article is within their scope. It's not like someone came down from on high and said "this shall be yours and yours alone". If ANY other WikiProject wanted to be involved, all they'd have to do is put their template in the talk page, just like Writing Systems (of which I am a member) did. Do you actually believe that this doesn't deserve any attention from WikiProject Judaism? That's the only criteria, not what other WikiProjects should, in your opinion, also be involved. VI_WS ^talk 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lucifer[edit]

The shin is also apparently used by satanists to symbolize their god lucifer. Can someone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.96.43 (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Satanism" is 98% pop culture. Even if this might have been said at some point by somebody doesn't make it "real" in any meaningful sense. If you have a good reference, fair enough, but such things are made up on the go all the time. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sin/Shin dot[edit]

I think there is a problem with the display of the Sin vs Shin dot. On my screen they both appear to be on the left side of the ש. AJseagull1 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is your screen by any chance located on the surface of an iPhone? Dan ☺ 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's Right, i fixed it now. Bmt3s (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative[edit]

i saw here in Wikipedia in a different article that the Arabic letter ش and the Hebrew letter Sin (שׂ) were one's pronounced as a voiceless alveolar lateral fricative. first of all its clearly that the Ancient Arabic didn't had a voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant, for example in Hebrew language Moses, saturday, five, seven and nine are pronouced moʃe, ʃaːbat, χaːmiʃa, ʃivʕaː, tiʃʕaː and in Arabic they are pronouced musa, sabt, χamsa, saːbaʕa, tisaʕa. now about the Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative, the Hebrew letter sin (שׂ) was pronouced as [ɬ] and later as [s], and in Arabic the letter ش was pronouced as [ɬ] and later as [ʃ]. for example the word Ten in Hebrew is pronouced ʕaːsara (עשׂרה) and in Arabic its pronouced ʕaːʃara (عشرة). in Ancient times they were both pronouced ʕaːɬara. i think more details about this should be mentioned in this article. Blockman9000, please join this discussion! This is your summary for this edit,

Arabic Shin is there instead of Sin probably because it still has the numerical and sound values of the Phoenician equivalent.

You are correct that Arabic Shin ش /ʃ/ and Phoenician 𐤔 *š both have the numerical value of 300 (in the common abjadi order, probably younger). However, I think that Arabic Sin س /s/, not Shin ش /ʃ/, has the sound value of Phoenician equivalent 𐤔 (conveniently transcribed as *š but whose phonemic value might have actually been /s/, not /ʃ/) (for more see Proto-Semitic language#Fricatives).

Also, in the (probably older) Magherian ajadi order, Arabic Sin س /s/ has the same position as Phoenician 𐤔, namely, the 21st (see Arabic alphabet#Consonants). Erminwin (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the explanation, I did not think about this. Arabic actually merged *š [ʃ] and *s [s] into [s], while Hebrew merged *s with *ś [ɬ] into [s] instead.

So the comparisons between Hebrew and Arabic:

*s [s]: the could-have-been Arabic equivalent of the Phoenician letter Samekh, probably would have been named Sīmkat=ס
*š [ʃ]: שׁ=س
*ś [ɬ]: שׂ=ش
*ṣ [sˤ]: צ=ص

Note: If the Ancient Arabic actually had [ʃ], it also could have been possible that س would have represented [ʃ] and ش would have represented [s]

P.S. I recently have been trying to adapt the Nabataean letter Simkath into Arabic script, I probably finally finished its reconstruction, you can take a loot at it if you want Blockman9000 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]