| المستخلص: |
We started talking in this paper with a question that we answered. The question was: How can a single poetic bahr, with its unified, disciplined actions, fulfill the task of expressing divergent emotional and philosophical experiences? For the solution, we have proposed that we switch from working with the Al Khalilian rhythm, to work with the fact, or from the fixed to the varied. The interactions that are the engine of educational prosody are nothing but slots, waiting for their concerns fillers. The genius of Al Khalil, May God have mercy on him, was able to make it standard controls for rhythm. As for the combination of phonetics, rhetoric sciences and scientific prosody, it is the cognitive combination desired to advance the task of objectively establishing critical judgments in relation to vocal formations. To achieve this goal, we proposed a decimal hierarchical ladder in which the Arabic phonemes are organized According to their fortune of melody, loudness and power of hearing, and we presented that with the necessary cognitive data related to the physical and phonological basis of what we proposed, and we called two phonological concepts in the English tongue: euphony and cacophony. We suggested for the first an Arabic equivalent, ((soft fact)), and for the other ((hard fact)). These two concepts were almost absent from the Arabic phonetics literature, despite their great importance in what we are engaged in. We simplified the statement about the characteristics of the Arabic phoneme with regard to these two concepts, then we deduced three modes of phonemic formations: the patterns of conformity, relativity and punishment. Let us conduct our analysis of the selected models in order to clarify, awakening the attention to the fact that the models and examples that have been studied remain significant in what was presented. And that the true application and research report of what we have presented only shows its impact and generosity in treating a text in its entirety in a more accurate manner than it appears upon exposure to chaotic distinctions of verses and evidence. In the doubling of the research, we have indicated a number of issues and issues that we deem worthy of being the subject of further examination and scientific consideration, perhaps in which they may tempt researchers in this field to spend efforts to them in rejection or acceptance, and modification or just.
|
