But a downside of it of course is that with these kinds of hitstuns, it's impossible to make "safe on hit, but unsafe on block" moves when they don't knock down. Alpha 2 devs didn't quite understand the ramifications of this, hence Rolento has an uncancellable st.HP that is punishable on *hit*

But he doesn't even give a sign of being aware of this detail of al-Ṣūrī's transmission, not even to mention it and dismiss it. It's just not in the Našr. While it is rare, every now and then you can find details like this that have simply been lost in transmission, somehow.

Ibn al-Ǧazarī is usually extremely meticulous, and I'm often surprised about very small, very specific details that seem to have lost living practice completely to survive in his Našr. For example, he retains the silence after an unvowelled consonant before hamz for Ibn Ḏakwān!

And not only that, he gets the paths of al-Ṣūrī through al-Ramlī, also known as al-Dāǧūnī, which is the path through with al-Dānī receives him, and Ibn al-Ǧazarī explicitly mentions al-Dānī as one of the paths of al-Ramlī... so, surely we'd expect Ibn al-Ǧazarī to mention it...

So what about the al-Ṣūrī transmission? al-Dānī doesn't claim to transmit from al-Ṣūrī in the Taysīr, so it is no surprise it is not mentioned. But, for Ibn al-Jazarī in his "canonical" transmission of the ten, has two transmissions for Ibn Ḏakwān: al-ʾAḫfaš and al-Ṣūrī.

In several other places in the Taysīr, al-Dānī gets fairly deep into the weeds of questions of transmission, even if it concerns transmission paths entirely outside of the ʾisnāds that he is supposedly transmitting in the Taysīr, even if it concerns Ibn Ḏakwān...

In al-Dānī's learner's manual (which I translated into English and which you can download for free!) he gives two transmission paths, one through tilāwah and one through riwāyah. tilāwah follows al-ʾAḫfaš riwāyah follows al-Taġlibī doi.org/10.11647/OBP...

In the Kitāb al-Sabʿah, he says that Ibn Kaṯīr (transmitter not specified, so presumably both al-Bazzī and Qunbul) read al-wāḏī# with yāʾ in pause. Different from what he says in his three other books! Quite strange, considering Ibn Muǧāhid was Qunbul's direct student...

For example, al-Dānī tells us that Ibn Muǧāhid mentions that Qunbul read Q89:9 bi-l-wādī with yāʾ in connected speech but as bi-l-wād# in pause. This is mentioned in his "book on yāʾāt", "book of the meccans" and "the compendium", but it is different from Kitāb al Sabʿah!

While Q83:31 is dutifully reported, there is not a trace of a report at 51:60. One might wonder whether this is a corruption in the version of Kitāb al-Sabʿah that has come down to us, but it is *also* missing in his student Ibn Ḫālawayh's kitāb al-badīʿ (Q83:31 is there).

Let us focus on the al-Taġlibī report. If we check out the ʾisnād section of the Ǧāmiʿ al-Bayān, we see that al-Dānī receives al-Taġlibī's transmission through Ibn Muǧāhid al-Dānī < ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad < Ibn Muǧāhid < al-Taġlibī < Ibn Ḏakwān.

Ibn Ḏakwān mentions in his book he read both Q51:60 and Q83:31 without vowel harmony. This is reported by: - al-Ṣūrī - ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ǧunayd - al-Taġlibī - ʾAḥmad b. ʾAnas. Ibn al-Muʿallā only reports Q51:60 al-ʾAḫfaš neither

So there is something slightly weird about the report of Ibn Ḏakwān in the Ǧāmiʿ al-Bayān... al-Dānī tells us that al-Taġlibī reports both Q51:60 yawmihumu llaḏī and Q83:31 ʾahlihumu nqalabū without vowel harmony for Ibn Ḏakwān... but where is he getting that info from?

The Ibn al-Muʿallā transmission is very explicitly written transmission: "I adopted it from the book of our teacher ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Bišr", the rest of the ʾisnād uses the typical riwāyah wording. So while the written record clearly favours this exception to the rule...

al-Dānī's ʾisnād to Ibn ʾAnas is even interrupted. Al-Dānī says "it was reported (fa-ʾuḫbirtu) to me from al-Naqqāš", such passive wording indicates no personal meeting happening between al-Dānī and al-Naqqāš (who died 90+ years before al-Dānī).

al-Dānī's ʾisnād for al-Taġlibī goes through Ibn Muǧāhid, and all the steps of the isnād to Ibn Ḏakwān are "ḥaddaṯanī". While al-Dānī's ʾisnād to al-Ṣūrī is mostly tilāwah, the first step of al-Dānī to Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wāḥid is not.

For al-ʾAḫfaš, al-Dānī has one riwāyah ʾisnād, but a complicated network of transmission paths through the tilāwah mode. For all the other paths mentioned however, al-Dānī *only* has riwāyah ʾisnaḏs. Al-ʾAḫfaš is therefore the only hub for the oral path of Ibn Ḏakwān.

"Because al-Ḥulwānī explicitly talked abotu that in his book saying it was without hamzah, and this is what I recited in the paths of Ibn Ḥammād and Ibn ʿAbd al-Razzāq, and this is what I adopt." These three paths mentioned are all "oral" transmissions, and they conflict.

"ʾAbū Sulaymān and the majority of the transmitters of Qālūn transmit that he applied hamzah to them, and like that it was said by ʾAbū al-Fatḥ on the basis of his recitation to ʿAbd Aḷḷāh b. al-Ḥusayn from his teachers from al-Ḥulwānī. But this is a mistake."

What happens when the written records of a Quranic reading tradition conflicts with the oral? What wins out? The answer here is not always straightforward, and similar circumstances can lead to opposite outcomes. Let us have a look at two cases from al-Dānī's Ǧāmiʿ al-Bayān

Harry will certainly also be remembered for his momentous four volume Dictionnaire berbère tachelḥiyt-français. Tašlḥiyt was one of the last major Amazigh dialects that did not have a large dictionary. It went from having hardly anything to having the largest of all of them.

The last text we read through completely, front to back that has been published was the final text to come out in Berber Studies: The whole cycle of Sindbad the Sailor in Tašlḥiyt. As you can imagine, a highly entertaining text to read through.

Harry was the editor of the monograph series "Berber Studies" with Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, publishing 59 volumes in the iconic yellow cover, with grammars, dictionaries, text collections and conference proceedings. He published my grammar of Awjila Berber www.koeppe.de/reihe_bs-ber...

Yesterday I was informed of the shocking news that Professor Harry Stroomer has unexpectedly passed away. He was emeritus professor of Afro-Asiatic linguistics at Leiden, and one the founding figures of Amazigh studies in Leiden. A short thread on what I'll remember him for.

Forms using the sʕd root for 'nine' are also well-attested in non-Jewish varieties of Moroccan Arabic as well. So I doubt it has anything specifically to do with Tisha b'av

Here's a Lam-Alif-cum-Ankh to grace your day. gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/b... You'll get a kick out of this one @majnouna.com

al-Dānī tells us that when lā is used in a categorical negation, like lâ ǧarama, lâ rayba and lâ ḫayra, that Ḥamzah in the transmissions of Ḫalaf, al-Dūrī, Ibn Saʿdān and ʾAbū Hišām from Sulaym from Ḥamzah would make the vowel of lâ overlong.

You couldn't use agete kudasai to mean "please give me beer". ageru is used for exocentric giving (so usually from "me" to someone other than "me") kureru is for endocentric giving (so usualyl from someone else to the "me"). kudasaru is like kureru like this.

And because for some godforsaken reason typesetting was better a hundred years ago than it is today now there are no technological impediments is a lost art, the font of the text edition published by Stricker actually has support for these waSl signs.

Also common but barely described is the typical use of a V-shaped shaddah in Maghrebi manuscripts. (here below Salli and above mu7ammad). This *certainly* occurs in Berber manuscripts. May very well occur more-or-less side-by-side with the "normal" shaddah ((not also hamzah before alif in 'âl))