Old Hijazi: Difference between revisions

168 bytes added ,  23 November 2023
no edit summary
[unchecked revision][unchecked revision]
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 637: Line 637:
Al-Kisāʾī was asked about this, and his response showed that his reasoning had no regard to oral transmission, he said: “It is ugly to have a word occur twice in two places (within the same verse) and then have them disagree [on triptosy/dipotsy], so I treated it [''ṯamūdin''] as a triptote because of it being close to it [''ṯamūdan'']." <ref>Ibid, p.189</ref>
Al-Kisāʾī was asked about this, and his response showed that his reasoning had no regard to oral transmission, he said: “It is ugly to have a word occur twice in two places (within the same verse) and then have them disagree [on triptosy/dipotsy], so I treated it [''ṯamūdin''] as a triptote because of it being close to it [''ṯamūdan'']." <ref>Ibid, p.189</ref>


Marijn Van Putten comments on this report saying:  
Marijn Van Putten comments on this report saying: {{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.189]|While this account of course does not prove that the Quran was once composed without ʔiʕrāb, what it does show is how readers themselves thought about their role in applying ʔiʕrāb in recitation. Their role was not to faithfully verbatim the ʔiʕrāb as had been taught to them, but rather to argue and rationalize why a word should have the ʔiʕrāb that they would give it. In such cases even purely aesthetic arguments such as the one cited, was apparently enough to deviate from the way their teacher taught it (Ḥamzah, al-Kisāʔī’s direct teacher reads ṯamūda and li-ṯamūda in the relevant verse). As such the application of ʔiʕrāb by these readers can tell us nothing at all about the use of ʔiʕrāb of the original language of the qct. However, given that the choice of ʔiʕrāb was a rational endeavour explicitly based on both the rasm (QCT) and aesthetic preference rather than prophetic example, it becomes quite easy to envision that the presence of this very system was not original to the text, but was rather imposed on it sometime after the standardization of the QCT by ʕuṯmān.}}
 
“While this account of course does not prove that the Quran was once composed without ''ʔiʕrāb'', what it does show is how readers themselves thought about their role in applying ''ʔiʕrāb'' in recitation. Their role was not to faithfully verbatim the ''ʔiʕrāb'' as had been taught to them, but rather to argue and rationalize why a word should have the ''ʔiʕrāb'' that they would give it. In such cases even purely aesthetic arguments such as the one cited, was apparently enough to deviate from the way their teacher taught it (Ḥamzah, al-Kisāʔī’s direct teacher reads ''ṯamūda'' and ''li-ṯamūda'' in the relevant verse). As such the application of ''ʔiʕrāb'' by these readers can tell us nothing at all about the use of ''ʔiʕrāb'' of the original language of the qct. However, given that the choice of ''ʔiʕrāb'' was a rational endeavour explicitly based on both the ''rasm (QCT)'' and aesthetic preference rather than prophetic example, it becomes quite easy to envision that the presence of this very system was not original to the text, but was rather imposed on it sometime after the standardization of the QCT by ʕuṯmān.”<ref>Ibid, p.189</ref>
 


Another sign that the application of Iʕrāb wasn’t based on oral tradition, is the pseudo correct use of Iʕrāb, as in the following example<ref>Ibid, p191-192</ref>:
Another sign that the application of Iʕrāb wasn’t based on oral tradition, is the pseudo correct use of Iʕrāb, as in the following example<ref>Ibid, p191-192</ref>:
Line 666: Line 663:
''“alifun'' is a letter, ''lāmun'' is a letter and ''mīmun'' is a letter.”
''“alifun'' is a letter, ''lāmun'' is a letter and ''mīmun'' is a letter.”


Also when modern Muslim scholars cite this Hadith they pronounce the letters with inflection as can be heard in this example:
Also when modern Muslim scholars cite this Hadith they pronounce the letters at the last part of the Hadith with inflection as can be heard in this video:


<nowiki>https://youtu.be/bWxjAURbMYw?si=Z2ZlgxFxlPj4MxvL&t=22</nowiki>
<nowiki>https://youtu.be/bWxjAURbMYw?si=Z2ZlgxFxlPj4MxvL&t=22</nowiki>


Since that these letters should be inflected in Classical Arabic, why were they left without any inflection in the readings tradition? Van Putten answers:{{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.200]|The form of the mysterious letters is fairly easy to understand from a situation that started out as lacking inflectional endings, which were classicized.
Since that these letters should be inflected in Classical Arabic, why were they left without any inflection in the readings tradition? Van Putten answers:{{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.200]|The form of the mysterious letters is fairly easy to understand from a situation that started out as lacking inflectional endings, which were classicized.
Autochecked users, em-bypass-1, em-bypass-2, recentchangescleanup
164

edits