Arabic is often called Luġat al-Ḍād "the language of the Ḍād". Clearly indicating that this language was considered unique specifically for its pronunciation of this letter. But how was it actually pronounced?
In Modern Standard Arabic, it is artificially assigned the pronunciation of a voiced dental pharyngealized stop [dˤ]; This sound is not that exotic, Many Berber and Songhay languages, for example, use it too. So 'lughat al-Ḍād' wouldn't make much sense.
The earliest articulatory description of the ḍād can be found in the first grammar of Arabic, al-Kitāb "the book" by Sībawayhi (died somewhere around 170-193 AH/789-809 CE).
He describes, place and manner of articulation, as well as the air stream mechanism of each Arabic sound.
Anyone familiar with articulatory phonetics will be struck just how far ahead of his time Sībawayh was with this type of description deconstructing the articulatory elements that make up a sound. It took western linguistics over a millennium to get on his level.
Sībawayh starts off with a long list of the places of articulations (maḫraǧ literally 'place of emitting', or muḫraǧ 'what is emitted') starting from the back to the front he groups together the following consonants.
While many consonants share a maḫraǧ, the ḍād has a unique maḫraǧ described by Sībawayh as follows:
"And (that which is) from between the front of the edge of the tongue and what is on the side of it of the molars is the Muḫraǧ of the Ḍād"
The "molars" part is important here
This is different from the description of the tāʾ, dāl and ṭāʾ which would share the place of articulation if the Modern Standard Arabic pronunciation was original: "From between the tip of the tongue and the base of the teeth is the muḫraǧ of the ṭāʾ, dāl and tāʾ."
The place of articulation 'along the molars' is an indication that it is a alveolar lateral consonant; one that is articulated in the same tongue placement as the "t" in English, but with a release along the sides of the tongue (along the molars) which is what "lateral" means.
Next Sībawayh tells us of two categories which somewhat align with 'airstream': Majhūrah and Mahmūsah.
"And as for the Maǧhūrah (consonants) they are: ʾ, ā, ʿ, ġ, q, ǧ, y, ḍ, l, n, r, ṭ, d, z, ṭ, ḏ, b, m, w" (The rest are mahmūsah)
This categorization has perplexed scholars of Sībawayh, maǧhūrah mostly agrees with "voiced" (vibrating vocal cords). But that puts hamzah, qāf and ṭāʾ in the wrong category. People have tried all kinds of solution: Suggested that qāf (like modern bedouin dialects) was voiced.
And that maybe ṭāʾ was voiced too; or that Sībawayh simply made a mistake (sic!). But what is important here, no-one managed to explain the hamzah in this group, which is physiologically impossible to make voiced, as you use your vocal cords to articulate it.
Revolutionary work by Barry Heselwood and Janet Watson has now shown that Sībawayh was right all along, and that we were simply imposing the wrong (western) categories onto Arabic: Maǧhūrah is "non-turbulent airstream" which includes voices and voiceless unaspirated consonants.
And mahmūsah is "turbulent airstream" which creates a lot of "white noise" in recordings: Aspirated consonants and voiceless fricatives.

The qāf, ṭāʾ and hamzah were just pronounced as they are today, and Sībawayh did not make a mistake.

ḍād was voiced and non-turbulent.
The next category talks about manner of articulation: Šadīd 'tight' versus Riḫwah 'slack' these categories align perfectly with "plosives" and "fricatives"
Šadīd: ʾ, q, k, ǧ, ṭ, t, d, b
Riḫwah: h, ḥ, ġ, ḫ, š, ṣ, ḍ, z, s, ẓ, ṯ, ḏ, f.
Note that the ḍād was a *fricative*; If it had had its modern pronunciation it would have been maǧhūrah (non-turbulent, like the dāl) but it would *not* have been a fricative (riḫwah), but rather a stop (šadīd).
Finally, the ḍād is muṭbaqah 'covered with a lid'; referring to the backing of the tongue towards the pharynx or velum. "Emphatic" in Arabist parlance, "Pharyngealized" or "Velarized" in phonetics: "As for the Muṭbaqah, they are: ṣ, ḍ, ṭ and ẓ"
Let's bring it together: ḍād is:
+Pronounced from the edge of the tongue and along the molars (lateral)
+fricative (riḫwah)
+non-turbulent airflow (maǧhūrah)
+pharyngealized (muṭbaqah)

[ ɮˁ ] voiced pharyngealized apical alveolar lateral fricative
The description of Sībawayh is very clear and unambiguous. But it is very rare to hear this sound produced along Sībawayh's description in modern Quranic recitation.
This is not some kind of difference between Quranic recitation and the Arabic Sībawayh describes.
Ibn al-Jazarī in his "Našr al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAšr" is quite explicit:
ḍād is unique. It should not be pronounced:
Like a ẓāʾ (common in many modern bedouin dialects).
Blended with the dāl (MSA pronunciation and common among reciters).
As an emphatic lām (some rare dialects do so).
There are still dialects around that actually retain this ancient pronunciation of the ḍād, as described by Sībawayh.
jstor.org/stable/25702571

Do you know of any reciters that do not pronounce the ḍād as a dāl muṭbaqah, but in the way Sībawayh describes it? Let me know!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marijn "i before j" van Putten

Marijn

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhDniX

Feb 19
Now that my monograph that I've worked on for the past years is finally out (and free for anyone to download!: brill.com/view/title/615…). I thought it would be nice to do a series of threads, writing accessible summaries on what my book is actually about. Today Chapter 1! 🧵
So the main question my book sets out to answer is: "What is the language of the Quran?"
There's an easy but unhelpful answer: "the language that you find in the Quran."
But what kind of language is that? Obviously Arabic. What kind of Arabic? What were its linguistic features?
As I set out to answer this question, I became more and more amazed by the fact that, somehow, this question hardly ever has gotten asked in scholarship. And the answer has typically been: "It's Classical Arabic".

And then nobody went on to define "Classical Arabic".
Read 25 tweets
Feb 15
I was surprised to learn that "Quranic Arabic: From Its Hijazi Origins to its Classical Reading Traditions" has released early!

It's the end result of years of research, and I'm proud of the result.

And it's Open Access for everyone! Download it now!
brill.com/view/title/615…
In the coming weeks I'll probably do some thread summarizing the main points of the book's chapters. But for now a quick summary.

This book asks the question: what is the language of the Quran, and how do we know?
The traditional answer has always been "Classical Arabic", but in my book I show that this term is extremely poorly defined.

And even whenever people say this they almost never mean it in a way that makes sense in the time that the book was written.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 5
One of the frustrating things about Afro-Asiatic is that, despite all the great morpheme comparisons, it is really hard to reconstruct vocabulary, at all.
I keep a list of cognates that I myself find compelling, between the two families I know best, Berber & Semitic.

Here it is:
Proto-Berber *(a-)isəm 'name'
Proto-Semitic *sm- 'name'

Within the Islamic context, where adopting Islamic names is common, it is not unthinkable isəm is actually an early loan from Arabic. But indistinguishable from a cognate.
Proto-Berber *ămmət pf. *ămmut impf. *əmăttăt 'to die'
Proto-Semitic *m-w-t 'to die'

This root is of course one of the few really well-attested cognates in Afro-Asiatic. The Berber conjugation is highly irregular, no other verb behaves like it.
Read 29 tweets
Jan 29
A beautiful classical example of assimilation of parallels in Q67:11 of Saray medina 1a.

The canonical text reads فاعترفوا بذنبهم fa-ʿtarafū bi-ḏambihim "So they acknowledge their sin", and that's what the manuscript currently reads, but clearly not what it always read! 🧵 Image
First there is an unusually large gap between the ḏāl and the nūn, and you can see traces of removed text.

Moreover, the denticle of the nūn appears to have been added later (not quite as obvious, but obvious enough). Image
What the scribe obviously originally wrote is not بذنبهم ḏambihim in the singular, but rather بذنوبهم bi-ḏunūbihim "their sinS". That's not how any canonical readers recite it, nor have I found evidence for non-canonical readers of this kind. But it is an easy mistake to make.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 21
A fascinating and, likely, extremely early rendering of Sūrat al-ʾIḫlāṣ, both remarkable for its not-quite-canonical wording AND its pre-Islamic spelling practices.

A thread on what information can be gleaned from it 🧵
The basmalah is unremarkable, but the first verse is different from from the canonical reading. Rather than:
qul huwa ḷḷāhu ʾaḥadun قول هو الله احد "He is Allah, the one" the text reads: الله لا احد, which, at first blush might look like it says: God, not one ?
Is this verse espousing an anti-monotheistic version of al-ʾIḫlāṣ? No. In pre-Islamic inscriptions, and occasionally in early Arabic manuscripts the asseverative particle la- before a word with a hamzah is, for some reason written with لا.
Read 17 tweets
Jan 11
The Quran has a written form and recited forms. Its written form remained more or less unchanged. But the recited forms were sometimes at odds with what is written in the text.

A thread on what scribes did to alleviate these conflicts, in early Quranic manuscripts.🧵 Image
Conflicts between the written and the recited should be familiar to those who know the Hebrew Bible, which shows a peculiar interplay between the standard written text (ktiv), and its recitation (qre) which are not infrequently at odds with one another.
Such differences are marked with marginal ktiv-qre notes. Notes that point out that the word written is to be recited differently.

In Josh 13:16 the written באדם "at Adam", has a ktiv-qre note in the margin to point out it should be read מאדם "from Adam". Image
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(