Autochecked users, em-bypass-1, em-bypass-2, recentchangescleanup
158
edits
Old Hijazi: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 641: | Line 641: | ||
== Final short vowels and Nunation in the Quranic Readings Tradition == | == Final short vowels and Nunation in the Quranic Readings Tradition == | ||
The third caliph’s standardization of the Quran unified the Quranic consonantal text. But as this standardized Quran lacked diacritics, this allowed for the emergence of readings that differ in short vowels, dotting and linguistic characteristics. | |||
In their recitation of the Quran, Muslims follow early Quran scholars whose readings became named after them, hence called eponymous readings. In the third Islamic century, the Quranic readings were canonized into 7 readings. And in the ninth Islamic century another 3 were added making the total number of canonical readings 10. Today the reading of Ḥafṣ is the most popular in the world. | |||
Final short vowels and nunation (Iʕrāb) are fully employed in all of the canonical readings. This doesn’t necessarily mean Iʕrāb was part of the original language of the Quran since that the linguistic and historical analysis reveals that these readings were linguistically reworked<ref>Marijn Van Putten, [https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106 Quranic Arabic], p.214</ref>, none of them represents natural language<ref>Ibid, p.99</ref>, they were full of innovation and didn’t strictly adhere to a supposed oral tradition that goes back to Muhammad. An example of this is the following report from Al-Kisāʾī, the founder of a one of the canonical readings. In his reading, he treats the word thamūd in the accusative as triptotic (thamūdan: i.e. it can take nunation and one of three possible final short vowels). He also treats the word in the genitive and nominative as diptotic (thamūda/thamūdu: i.e. can’t take nunation, and can take one of two possible final short vowels instead of three). Al- Kisāʾī breaks his own rule in verse Q11:68 where the word thamūd is mentioned twice: first in the accusative and second in the genitive. According to his rule, the first word in the verse should be treated as triptotic (thamūdan), and the second word as diptotic (thamūda), but instead he treats both of them as triptotic (thamūdan, thamūdin, respectively): | Final short vowels and nunation (Iʕrāb) are fully employed in all of the canonical readings. This doesn’t necessarily mean Iʕrāb was part of the original language of the Quran since that the linguistic and historical analysis reveals that these readings were linguistically reworked<ref>Marijn Van Putten, [https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106 Quranic Arabic], p.214</ref>, none of them represents natural language<ref>Ibid, p.99</ref>, they were full of innovation and didn’t strictly adhere to a supposed oral tradition that goes back to Muhammad. An example of this is the following report from Al-Kisāʾī, the founder of a one of the canonical readings. In his reading, he treats the word thamūd in the accusative as triptotic (thamūdan: i.e. it can take nunation and one of three possible final short vowels). He also treats the word in the genitive and nominative as diptotic (thamūda/thamūdu: i.e. can’t take nunation, and can take one of two possible final short vowels instead of three). Al- Kisāʾī breaks his own rule in verse Q11:68 where the word thamūd is mentioned twice: first in the accusative and second in the genitive. According to his rule, the first word in the verse should be treated as triptotic (thamūdan), and the second word as diptotic (thamūda), but instead he treats both of them as triptotic (thamūdan, thamūdin, respectively): | ||
| Line 684: | Line 688: | ||
== Evidence based on the Consonantal Text of the Quran == | == Evidence based on the Consonantal Text of the Quran == | ||
{{Quote|[https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106 Marijn Van Putten, Quranic Arabic, p.99]|When looking to answer the question what the language of the Quran is, the reading traditions fail to give a consistent answer. They are linguistically diverse, none of them look like natural language, and they must be considered to be a concerted effort to beautify the recitation of the Quran through the use of exotic linguistic features from a variety of different dialects, augmented with completely innovative forms that do not seem to have been part of anyone’s natural speech. However, there is a source of the Quran that carries linguistic information that does go back to the very first decades of Islam: the written text itself.}} | {{Quote|[https://www.academia.edu/43189829/Al_Jallad_2020_The_Damascus_Psalm_Fragment_Middle_Arabic_and_the_Legacy_of_Old_%E1%B8%A4ig%C4%81z%C4%AB_w_a_contribution_by_R_Vollandt Ahmad Al-Jallad, The Damascus Psalm Fragment, 2020, p.27]|most scholars have assumed that the language behind the most ancient component of the Quran, its Consonantal Text (QCT), is more or less identical to the language recited in the halls of Al-Azhar today. It is only in very recent years that the QCT has enjoyed study as an epigraphic document, interrogating the text for linguistic facts rather than assuming them. These efforts have led to a radically different view of the language of its composition.}}{{Quote|[https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106 Marijn Van Putten, Quranic Arabic, p.99]|When looking to answer the question what the language of the Quran is, the reading traditions fail to give a consistent answer. They are linguistically diverse, none of them look like natural language, and they must be considered to be a concerted effort to beautify the recitation of the Quran through the use of exotic linguistic features from a variety of different dialects, augmented with completely innovative forms that do not seem to have been part of anyone’s natural speech. However, there is a source of the Quran that carries linguistic information that does go back to the very first decades of Islam: the written text itself.}} | ||
=== The mismatch between Classical Arabic pronunciation and Spelling === | === The mismatch between Classical Arabic pronunciation and Spelling === | ||
| Line 772: | Line 776: | ||
== The Hamzah in the Quranic Reading Traditions == | == The Hamzah in the Quranic Reading Traditions == | ||
The use of Hamzah is among the differences in linguistic characteristics between the 10 canonical readings. A lot of the readings, including the reading of Ḥafṣ, heavily use the Hamzah while other readings use it moderately. The Hamzah isn’t an original part of the Quran (except in word-final Hamzah that’s preceded by the long vowel ā). There are reports clearly showing that the Hamzah was a later addition. One of these reports says that Nāfiʕ, the founder of one of the ten canonical readings, was asked if it’s possible to introduce the Hamzah to (the two words in the Quran) “al-dhīb” and “al-bīr”. He replied: “If there are Arabs who use the Hamzah with these words then you can use the Hamzah”<ref>السبعة في القراءات لابن مجاهد، ص346، تحقيق شوقي ضيف | The use of Hamzah is among the differences in linguistic characteristics between the 10 canonical readings. A lot of the readings, including the reading of Ḥafṣ, heavily use the Hamzah while other readings use it moderately. The Hamzah isn’t an original part of the Quran (except in word-final Hamzah that’s preceded by the long vowel ā). There are reports clearly showing that the Hamzah was a later addition. One of these reports says that Nāfiʕ, the founder of one of the ten canonical readings, was asked if it’s possible to introduce the Hamzah to (the two words in the Quran) “al-dhīb” and “al-bīr”. He replied: “If there are Arabs who use the Hamzah with these words then you can use the Hamzah”<ref>السبعة في القراءات لابن مجاهد، ص346، تحقيق شوقي ضيف | ||
| Line 785: | Line 785: | ||
Khalaf’s statement agrees with what early grammarians report. Mukhtār Al-Ghawth says in his book "The dialect of Quraish": “Since that the Hamzah is hard to pronounce, some early Arabic dialects leaned towards dropping the hamzah. This was most notable in the dialect of Quraish as all early sources agree that this dialect lacked the hamzah.” p.39 | Khalaf’s statement agrees with what early grammarians report. Mukhtār Al-Ghawth says in his book "The dialect of Quraish": “Since that the Hamzah is hard to pronounce, some early Arabic dialects leaned towards dropping the hamzah. This was most notable in the dialect of Quraish as all early sources agree that this dialect lacked the hamzah.” p.39 | ||
The enforcement of Hamzah on the Quran is apparent in the instances of pseudo-correct application of the Hamzah. Van Putten lists 12 examples<ref>Marijn Van Putten, Quranic Arabic, p.158-167</ref> of such cases, such as the word kās كاس (cup) which is read as kaʾs in all canonical readings. | |||
{{Quote|[https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106 Marijn Van Putten, Quranic Arabic, p.167]|Comparative Semitic evidence shows that kaʔs ‘cup’ must have a pseudocorrect hamzah in Arabic. The reflexes in Hebrew כוס kos (spelled without aleph) and Aramaic kās as well as Ugaritic ⟨ks⟩ leave no doubt that the reconstruction of this noun in Proto-West Semitic is *kās and the hamzah in the Quranic reading traditions must be pseudocorrect.}} | |||
== The Hamzah and the Consonantal Text of the Quran == | == The Hamzah and the Consonantal Text of the Quran == | ||