Elmedlaoui’s Hebrew-Inspired Orthographic Model for Darija: Rethinking Orthographic Transparency and Pedagogical Challenges

Critique of Arabic orthography and the proposal of a Hebrew model:

Mohamed Elmedlaoui examined and investigated Moroccan Arabic (Darija) and argued that it should not be perceived as an unruly, corrupted,´-or-degraded linguistic system that falls below the status of a “language,” but rather as a regulated and systematic language like any other natural language (Elmedlaoui, 2019). He further advocated for the development and standardization of a Darija orthographic system in order to overcome what he considers the handicap of its defective writing system (--script--io defectiva).

In his research on Semitic linguistics, Elmedlaoui argues that Arabic orthography suffers from a major pedagogical deficit because it traditionally does not represent short vowels in writing. He further argues that Standard Arabic relies on an orthography (or abjad system) where graphemes primarily represent consonants, leaving readers to reconstruct vowel information based largely on morphological and contextual knowledge (Elmedlaoui, 2025).
Based on this perspective, Elmedlaoui argues that the promotion and standardization of Darija should not rely on Arabic ---script--- because it is defective in representing the distinctive phonological and morphosyntactic characteristics of Darija (Elmedlaoui, 2025). He adds that if Moroccan Arabic (Darija) is to be codified as a standardized written language, it should neither use the traditional unvoweled Arabic orthographic system nor adopt the Latin --script--. Rather, from his perspective, Darija should adopt an orthographic system inspired by Hebrew. Elmedlaoui turns to Modern Hebrew orthography as an example of how a Semitic language has addressed the problem of vowel representation. He argues that Darija’s existing orthographic system, which relies on Arabic´-or-Roman orthography, does not distinguish adequately between short and long vowels and proposes an orthographic system that employs matres lectionis, similar to Hebrew, where letters such as Aleph, Waw, and Yaa are used to represent full vowels (a, u, and i) (Elmedlaoui, 2025).

Elmedlaoui presents Modern Hebrew as a successful example of the use of matres lectionis, where consonants such as Vav (ו-;---;--) and Yod (י-;---;--) ---function--- as full vowel letters and where established spelling conventions allow vowels to be represented in everyday writing without the need for extensive use of diacritical marks (Elmedlaoui, 2025). However, this argument requires further examination because Hebrew orthography, despite the use of matres lectionis, is not a fully transparent writing system and still contains considerable inconsistencies in vowel representation. Modern Hebrew, like Arabic, does not generally employ vowel diacritics in ordinary writing. The Hebrew vowel-pointing system (nikkud) is mainly restricted to pedagogical contexts, religious texts, poetry, and dictionaries. nikkud (vowel markers) are still used, despite the use of consonants such as Vav (ו-;---;--) and Yod (י-;---;--) to ---function--- as full vowel letters, in cases where ambiguity between possible readings needs to be resolved. From this perspective, Arabic and Hebrew are not fundamentally different, as both languages usually omit vowel diacritics in standard written practice and rely on readers’ linguistic competence to reconstruct the intended pronunciation.

The main development introduced by Hebrew orthography is therefore not the complete elimination of ambiguity, but rather the historical development of the use of consonantal letters–especially Vav (ו-;---;--) and Yod (י-;---;--) as vowel letters. It should also be noted that Aleph (א-;---;--) remains primarily a consonant in Hebrew and does not --function-- as a regular vowel letter in the same way. However, the introduction of these vowel markers does not entirely resolve the pedagogical challenges faced by readers, since Hebrew words containing matres lectionis can still involve ambiguity, inconsistent vowel representation, and the need for lexical knowledge to determine pronunciation. Consequently, while Hebrew orthography provides an interesting historical solution for vowel representation, it does not necessarily constitute a fully transparent orthographic model that can be --dir--ectly transferred to Darija.

Limitations of the Hebrew model and the problem of orthographic transparency:

Although Elmedlaoui (2025) proposes the use of matres lectionis which is inspired by Hebrew orthography to represent Darija vowels, this model raises several issues. Hebrew orthography is not an entirely transparent writing system, as the use of Vav (ו-;---;--) and Yod (י-;---;--) as vowel markers, as well as the use of Aleph (א-;---;--), is historically conditioned and does not always provide a predictable correspondence between graphemes and phonemes. For example, the Hebrew Aleph is used in everyday Modern Hebrew without any nikkud (diacritics) and the reader and learner of Hebrew has to guess the pronunciation of the letter which can be pronounced as /a/ as in א-;---;--ב-;---;--א-;---;-- (abba: father), as /e/ as in א-;---;--ל-;---;-- (el: god), as /o/ as in א-;---;--ז-;---;--ן-;---;-- (ozen: ear), as /i/ as in א-;---;--י-;---;--ש-;---;--(ish: man), as /u:/ as in א-;---;--מ-;---;--ל-;---;--ל-;---;-- (umlal: miserable),´-or-just silent as in ל-;---;--א-;---;-- (lo: no). The same is true for the Hebrew Vav (ו-;---;--) which can be a /u/ vowel as in ס-;---;--ו-;---;--ס-;---;-- (sus: horse)´-or-an /o/ vowel as in ט-;---;--ו-;---;--ב-;---;-- (tov: good)´-or-a consonant /v/ as in ו-;---;--ר-;---;--ד-;---;-- (vered: rose)´-or-/w/ as in י-;---;--ה-;---;--ו-;---;--ה-;---;-- (Yahweh) and ו-;---;--ו-;---;--א-;---;--ט-;---;-- (wat). The Hebrew Yod (י-;---;--) also faces the same orthographic issues. Yod (י-;---;--) can be pronounced as /y/ as in י-;---;--ל-;---;--ד-;---;-- (yeled: boy), as /i/ as in ח-;---;--י-;---;--י-;---;--ם-;---;-- (khayim: life), as /ji/ as in מ-;---;--י-;---;--ם-;---;-- (mayim: water)´-or-as a long vowel /i:/ as in ע-;---;--י-;---;--ר-;---;-- (ir: city). Here are the aforementioned Hebrew words with nikkud that show the exact pronunciation:

א-;---;--ַ-;---;--ב-;---;--ָ-;---;--ּ-;---;--א-;---;-- (abba: father)--;-- א-;---;--ֵ-;---;--ל-;---;-- (El: god) א-;---;--ֹ-;---;--ז-;---;--ֶ-;---;--ן-;---;----;-- (ozen: ear)--;-- א-;---;--ִ-;---;--י-;---;--ש-;---;--ׁ-;---;-- (ish: man)--;-- א-;---;--ֻ-;---;--מ-;---;--ְ-;---;--ל-;---;--ַ-;---;--ל-;---;-- (umlal: miserable).
ס-;---;--ו-;---;--ּ-;---;--ס-;---;-- (sus: horse) --;-- ט-;---;--ו-;---;--ֹ-;---;--ב-;---;-- (tov: good)--;-- ו-;---;--ֶ-;---;--ר-;---;--ֶ-;---;--ד-;---;-- (vered: rose)--;-- י-;---;--ַ-;---;--ה-;---;--ְ-;---;--ו-;---;--ֶ-;---;--ה-;---;-- (Yahweh)--;-- ו-;---;--ָ-;---;--ו-;---;--א-;---;--ט-;---;-- (watt).
י-;---;--ֶ-;---;--ל-;---;--ֶ-;---;--ד-;---;-- (yeled: boy)--;-- ח-;---;--ַ-;---;--י-;---;--ִ-;---;--ּ-;---;--י-;---;--ם-;---;-- (khayim: life)--;-- מ-;---;--ַ-;---;--י-;---;--ִ-;---;--ם-;---;-- (mayim: water)--;-- ע-;---;--ִ-;---;--י-;---;--ר-;---;-- (ir: city).

Elmdelaoui criticized the use of Arabic orthography, which primarily uses letters primarily to represent consonants, leaving readers to infer vowels (harakat/ diacritics) based entirely on context. He therefore suggested that the Hebrew orthographic system should be emulated as an alternative model. However, Hebrew is also a language that primarily represents consonants, with the exception of Aleph (א-;---;--), Vav (ו-;---;--), and Yod (י-;---;--), which can --function-- as vowel markers but do not necessarily guide readers to the exact pronunciation. Hebrew uses nikkud, a system of vowel diacritics equivalent to Arabic harakat (diacritics), to indicate the precise pronunciation. However, nikkud is mainly used as a pedagogical tool during the early Hebrew education, as well as in specific contexts where pronunciation ambiguity needs to be resolved. After acquiring sufficient linguistic competence, Hebrew learners generally stop relying on nikkud and depend instead on lexical memorization, morphological patterns, and contextual information and context to determine pronunciation.

There are other orthographic issues related to other letters, such as the consonant Bet (ב-;---;--), which also represents a broader issue found in other Hebrew letters, including Pe (פ-;---;--), Kaf (כ-;---;--), and Shin (ש-;---;--). The consonant Bet (ב-;---;--), for example, can be pronounced either as /b/´-or-as /v/. When it occurs at the beginning of a word, as in ב-;---;--י-;---;--ת-;---;-- (bayit: “house”), it is pronounced as /b/, whereas in some contexts, such as at the end of a word, it can pronounced as /v/, as in ח-;---;--ל-;---;--ב-;---;-- (khalav: “milk”). When this consonant occurs in the middle of a word, its pronunciation may vary between /b/ and /v/ depending on the sound preceding it (Gesenius et al., 1910). Consequently, Hebrew learners must acquire and learn additional orthographic and phonological rules in order to determine the correct pronunciation of the written words. For example, Bet (ב-;---;-----;---) is pronounced as a soft /v/ when it follows a vowel sound, as in ז-;---;--ב-;---;--ו-;---;--ב-;---;-- (zvuv: “a fly”). Conversely, it retains its hard /b/ pronunciation when it follows a silent consonant with no vowel, as in מ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ר-;---;-- (midbar: “desert”),´or when the word pattern requires consonant doubling, as in ל-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ר-;---;-- (ledaber: to speak). The dagesh (the dot inside the letter, as in ב-;---;--) historically indicates consonant doubling (gemination) and overrides the expected pronunciation based on the preceding vowel, resulting in a hard /b/ sound. Therefore, despite the presence of vowel markers and matres lectionis, Hebrew orthography still requires learners to master additional rules and exceptions in order to accurately predict pronunciation from spelling.

To represent the hard /b/ sound clearly in writing, a small dot called a dagesh is placed inside the letter (ב-;---;--), as seen above. However, the consonant Bet (ב-;---;--) is not always written with a dagesh. In Modern Hebrew orthography, the dagesh is generally used when full nikkud (vowel points) is employed, particularly in pedagogical contexts and texts where pronunciation needs to be made explicit. In everyday Modern Hebrew writing, which usually omits nikkud and dagesh, the reader relies mainly on linguistic context, lexical knowledge, and additional letters serving as vowels (matres lectionis) to infer the intended pronunciation. For example, the words מ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ר-;---;-- “desert” and מ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ר-;---;-- “speak” would not be easy to read without nikkud and dagesh:

מ-;---;--ִ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ָ-;---;--ּ-;---;--ר-;---;-- :מ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ר-;---;--: midbar “desert”

מ-;---;--ְ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ֵ-;---;--ּ-;---;--ר-;---;-- :מ-;---;--ד-;---;--ב-;---;--ר-;---;--: medaber “speak”

Regardless of some of the orthographic rules mentioned above, there are major exceptions in Hebrew where the pronunciation of a word cannot be accurately predicted from standard spelling conventions alone and instead be memorized by the learner. For example, ג-;---;--ל-;---;--ו-;---;--ב-;---;--ל-;---;--י-;---;-- (globali: global) contains spelling patterns whose pronunciation cannot be fully determined solely from the written form without prior lexical knowledge. These orthographic rules and exceptions have important pedagogical implications that raise questions about the suitability of adopting Hebrew orthographic principles for Moroccan Darija.

Tifinagh and alternative orthographic solutions for Moroccan Darija:

Although Elmedlaoui (2025) proposes the use of matres lectionis inspired by Hebrew orthography to represent Darija vowels, this proposal raises several orthographic issues. Hebrew orthography suffers from numerous problems of transparency and consistency–which are not-limit-ed to the examples mentioned above– and these issues arguably undermine its suitability as an exemplary orthographic model that can serve as a linguistic mould or-model for other languages. The use of Vav and Yod as vowel markers is historically conditioned and does not always establish a predictable correspondence between graphemes and phonemes. Therefore, the existence of vowel markers in Hebrew does not necessarily make it an ideal writing system for Darija, particularly when considerations such as orthographic transparency, accessibility, and pedagogical efficiency are taken into account. In this regard, Elmedlaoui’s attempt to derive lessons from Hebrew orthography for the development of Darija orthography appears to overlook the various challenges inherent in the Hebrew system itself.
A more relevant model can be found in Tifinagh, a writing system that has undergone modern codification and standardization with transparent phonological representation as a central principle, aiming for a close correspondence between graphemes and phonemes. In many varieties of Tamazight, readers can accurately predict pronunciation from spelling because the system follows a relatively transparent mapping between symbols and sounds. This transparency, however, should not be interpreted as evidence of inherent linguistic “ingenuity,” but rather as the predictable outcome of modern codification practices that prioritize usability, consistency, and pedagogical clarity. Another possible solution for Darija would be the adoption of a phonologically adapted Latin alphabet, as exemplified by languages such as Bahasa Indonesia, which provides a high degree of orthographic transparency and fewer pedagogical challenges than a system based on Hebrew-style orthographic conventions.

Refrences:

Elmedlaoui, M. (2019). Moroccan Arabic: Orthography and Grammar—Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, and Lexicon [An edited book in Middle Moroccan Arabic]. Center for the Development of Darija.

Elmedlaoui, M. (2025). Le Darija: questions sur son orthographie et sur les finalités de l’écrire. É-;-tudes et Documents Berbères, 53(1). 183-192. https://doi.org/10.3917/edb.053.0183

Gesenius, W., Kautzsch, E., & Cowley, A. E. (1910). Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (2nd English ed.). Clarendon Press.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1