2,743
edits
Diacritical Marks of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{Quote|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 224 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>|2=The earliest manuscripts, those that can be dated to the seventh century, lack any form of vocalization signs and purely reflect the standard Uthmanic text, a consonantal skeleton (e.g. cpp, bl, Arabe 330g, Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Islamic Arabic 1572b). By the 8th century a system of red dots developed to write the vowel signs.}} | {{Quote|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 224 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022">van Putten, Marijn, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251</ref>|2=The earliest manuscripts, those that can be dated to the seventh century, lack any form of vocalization signs and purely reflect the standard Uthmanic text, a consonantal skeleton (e.g. cpp, bl, Arabe 330g, Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Islamic Arabic 1572b). By the 8th century a system of red dots developed to write the vowel signs.}} | ||
Since there was agreement on how to read most of the Quran, the oral tradition(s) and obviousness must have prevented disagreement for the most part in reading the text. Nevertheless, around 1400 words have variant readings even between the canonical (accepted) oral readings of the Quranic text and there were many thousands more non-canonical variants recited in the first few centuries (see [[Textual History of the Qur'an#The_number_of_Qira.27at_variants.2C_canonical_and_non-canonical|Textual History of the Qur'an]]. Moreover, Marijn van Putten and his colleagues have demonstrated with a wide range of evidence that the original dialect of the Quran lacked certain elements like hamza, tanwin, and had a reduced grammatical case system. He | Since there was agreement on how to read most of the Quran, the oral tradition(s) and obviousness must have prevented disagreement for the most part in reading the text. Nevertheless, around 1400 words have variant readings even between the canonical (accepted) oral readings of the Quranic text and there were many thousands more non-canonical variants recited in the first few centuries (see [[Textual History of the Qur'an#The_number_of_Qira.27at_variants.2C_canonical_and_non-canonical|Textual History of the Qur'an]]). Moreover, Marijn van Putten and his colleagues have demonstrated with a wide range of evidence that the original dialect of the Quran lacked certain elements like hamza, tanwin, and had a reduced grammatical case system. He explains that pragmatic considerations and extra-linguistic hints would have resolved to a large extent the resulting ambiguities, though nevertheless the readers had some ambiguity to deal with: | ||
{{Quote|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 154 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />|2= | {{Quote|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', p. 154 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />|2=Nevertheless, "to the Quranic reciters, placement of ʔiʕrāb and tanwīn was a highly theoretical undertaking, not one that unambiguously stemmed from its prototypical recitation and composition."<ref>Ibid. pp. 153-154.</ref> }} | ||
On ambiguities | On ambiguities involving homographic consonants which may be dotted different ways, he writes: | ||
{{Quote|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', pp. 53-4 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />|2=Occasionally it is possible to envision those variant readings indeed have origins in a pre-existent oral tradition where the rasm, by accident, accommodated both readings. For example, in Q33:68 ʕāṣim is the only one to read wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kabīran “and curse them with great cursing”, rather than wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kaṯīran “and curse them with many a curse.” (Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3952). The difference between these two readings comes down to a difference in dotting in the word كٮٮرا which could either be read kaṯīran or kabīran, but these two readings are semantically and phonetically so close, that it does not seem unlikely that such variants could have existed in the oral transmission of the Quranic text before canonization, and by sheer accident happened to agree with the rasm when it was instated. '''However, there are other variants where the phonetics are rather different, and it is by coincidence that in the ambiguous script of Arabic they happen to be written the same.''' It is unlikely that these kinds of variants do not have their basis in the Uthmanic rasm. Some salient examples of this point are the following: ڡٮٮٮٮوا fa-taṯabbatū ‘proceed with caution!’ (al-Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf), fa-tabayyanū ‘be clear!’ (the others) (Q4:94; Q49:6, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §2951); ىڡصالحٯ yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Nafīʕ, ʔabū Ğaʕfar Ibn Kaṯīr, ʕāṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) (Q6:57; Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3029);7 ٮٮلوا tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al- Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf) tablū ‘tests’ (the others) (Q10:30; ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3354). '''In such cases, the most likely explanation as to why the readers disagree is not that they were transmitting an oral transmission, but rather that the readers were confronted with an ambiguous rasm and interpreted it in two ways that both made semantic sense.'''}} | {{Quote|1=Marijn van Putten (2022) ''Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions'', pp. 53-4 (downloadable free in pdf format)<ref name="vanPutten2022" />|2=Occasionally it is possible to envision those variant readings indeed have origins in a pre-existent oral tradition where the rasm, by accident, accommodated both readings. For example, in Q33:68 ʕāṣim is the only one to read wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kabīran “and curse them with great cursing”, rather than wa-ʔalʕan-hum laʕnan kaṯīran “and curse them with many a curse.” (Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3952). The difference between these two readings comes down to a difference in dotting in the word كٮٮرا which could either be read kaṯīran or kabīran, but these two readings are semantically and phonetically so close, that it does not seem unlikely that such variants could have existed in the oral transmission of the Quranic text before canonization, and by sheer accident happened to agree with the rasm when it was instated. '''However, there are other variants where the phonetics are rather different, and it is by coincidence that in the ambiguous script of Arabic they happen to be written the same.''' It is unlikely that these kinds of variants do not have their basis in the Uthmanic rasm. Some salient examples of this point are the following: ڡٮٮٮٮوا fa-taṯabbatū ‘proceed with caution!’ (al-Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf), fa-tabayyanū ‘be clear!’ (the others) (Q4:94; Q49:6, Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §2951); ىڡصالحٯ yaquṣṣu l-ḥaqq ‘he tells the truth’ (Nafīʕ, ʔabū Ğaʕfar Ibn Kaṯīr, ʕāṣim), yaqḍi l-ḥaqq ‘he decides the truth’ (the others) (Q6:57; Ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3029);7 ٮٮلوا tatlū ‘recites, recounts’ (al- Kisāʔī; Ḥamzah; Xalaf) tablū ‘tests’ (the others) (Q10:30; ibn al-Ǧazarī, §3354). '''In such cases, the most likely explanation as to why the readers disagree is not that they were transmitting an oral transmission, but rather that the readers were confronted with an ambiguous rasm and interpreted it in two ways that both made semantic sense.'''}} | ||