I recently did a thread on the Yemenite Judeo-Arabic reading tradition of Saadya Gaon's Hebrew Bible translation. It revealed a consistent linguistic system, separate from Classical Arabic with several Hebraisms... let's look at the 10 Commandments today!
Again I will be looking BOTH at the transcription and the way it is actually read, and contrast when there are differences.
I won't comment on striking features that I commented on already in last thread!
ʔanā ʔaḷḷāh rabb-ak ʔallaḏī ʔaḫrajt-ak min balad miṣr min bayt al-ʕabūdiyyah
"I am God, your Lord, who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
- Note the 1sg. suffix conjugation is just -t, like modern dialects, followed by 2sg.m. -ak.
lā yakūn l-ak maʕbūd ʔuxar min dūn- ī.
“You shall not have anyone worshiped other than me”
- The transcription reads ʔuxar or even ʔuxxar, the plural of ʔāxar 'other'. ʔāxar seems more natural to me here, and this is what the reciter reads. Identical consonantal text.
The translation deviates from the Hebrew here:
lo yihwɛ lḵå ʾɛ̆lohim ʾăḥerim ʿal-pånåy "you will not have other gods before me", for plural "gods" the translation has the singular maʕbūd 'worshiped', perhaps the original Hebrew plurals triggered the ʔuxar instead of ʔāxar.
Wa-lā taṣnaʕ l-ak faslā wa-lā šabhā mimmā fī s-samā fī l-ʕilu u-mimmā fī l-ʔarḍ fī s-sifl u-mimmā fī l-mā ʔallaḏī tiḥt al-ʔarḍ
“And don’t make for yourself something lowly, nor a likeness of something in the heaven above or the earth below or the water under the earth.”
- The transcription reads fī l-ʕilu "in the above" (cf. Classical al-ʕalu) and fī s-sifl "in the below" (cf. Classical as-sufl), the recited read fī l-ʕilā and fī s-sifāl which don't fit the consonantal skeleton here.
- Note that words like as-samā lack the final hamzah. This is not too surprising, all hamzah's are missing, but in Quranic Arabic this is one of the few hamzahs that are retained.
- Note the high vowel in tiḥt 'below' rather than Classical taḥta.
lā tasjud lahā wa-lā taʕbid-hā
“Do not prostrate to it, nor worship it”
-Transcription has the more classical lā tasjud, but the reciter recites: lā tisjid.
La-ʔannī ʔaḷḷāh rabb-ak aṭ-ṭāyig al-muʕāgib, muṭālib bi-ḏunūb al-ʔābā maʕ al-banīn wa-ṯ-ṯawāliṯ wa-r-rawābiʕ li-šāniy-ay
"For I, God, your lord, the able punisher, hold accountable for the sins of the father: the children, and the 3rd and 4th (generation) of my haters”
- Again a striking deviation from the Hebrew; also in this case seemingly scrubbing away implied polytheism. Aṭ-ṭāyig, al-muʕāqib "the able, the punisher" stands in the place of "am a jealous God who".
- šāniy-ay seems to be another Hebraism.
The typical Classical form is šāniʾ-ī-ya.
The sound construct plural ending -ī- + -ya seems to be replaced by the Hebrew (!) construct plural + 1sg. which is a portmanteau morpheme -ay
We will see this again in the last verse.
The reciter does something very odd with šāniy-ay; sounds to me like he says šaʔnī, which doesn't make much sense to me. Happy to hear suggestions what is going on with that.
U-mjāzī bi-l-ʔiḥsān li-ʔilūf min mḥibb-ay wa-ḥāf(i)ḍī waṣāyā-y.
"And (I am) a repayer with kindness to thousands (of generations) from those that love me and are keepers of my commandments."
-The u of mujāzī and mḥibb-ay have been reduced, written as shwa (syncope, or ə?)
-The reciter has a variant here. Not mujāzī "repaying with kidness", but ṣāniʕ al-ʔiḥsān "the maker of kindness"
- mḥibb-ay in Classical would be muḥibb-ī-ya; again the Hebrew plural+1sg portmanteau morpheme -ay is used instead. This time also heard in recitation.
- Finally, the vocalisation suggests syncope in wa-ḥāfḍī waṣāyā-y "and the keepers of my commandments" (rather than Classical ḥāfiẓī waṣāyā-ya). Sounds to me like the reciter pronounces the vowel.
That's the end of the text and the end of my observations!
If you enjoyed this thread and want me to do more stuff like it, please consider buying me a coffee. ko-fi.com/phdnix.
If you want to support me in a more integral way, you can become a patron on Patreon! patreon.com/PhDniX
This article examines a famous passage in the Hadith that related the canonization of the Quran, where the Uthmanic committee has a disagreement on how to write the word for "Ark".
Insight into loan strategies elucidates the passage.
In the Quran today the Ark of the Covenant is spelled التابوت and pronounced al-tābūt. This is a loanword from the Aramaic tēḇōṯ-ā, likely via Gəʿəz tābōt.
However, reports (which go back to Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/741-2)) tell us there was a controversy on how to spell it.
The Medinan Zayd b. Ṯābit wanted to spell it with a final hāʾ: التابوه, while his Quraši colleagues insisted it should be spelled التابوت.
They take it up with ʿUṯmān who says: the Quran was revealed in the Quraysh dialect, so it should be written according to it.
Ibn al-Bawwāb's quran, following the Classical Arabic orthography (rather than the rasm), spells ʾalif maqṣūrah before suffixes with ʾalif rather than (the Uthmanic) yāʾ. However, sometimes it does not, e.g. in Q79 here: مرساها, تخشاها, ضحاها, BUT: ذكريها. What gives? 🧵
Turns out there is a beautiful perfectly regular distribution!
The Ibn al-Bawwāb Quran is written according to the transmission of al-Dūrī from the reading of ʾAbū ʿAmr.
ʾAbū ʿAmr treats such ʾalifāt maqṣūrah is a special way. He reads them as /ā/ most of the time...
But he reads with ʾimālah, i.e. /ē/ whenever a /r/ precedes.
When the word stands in rhyme position, the /ā/ of such words is pronounced bayna lafẓay, i.e. /ǟ/.
And this distribution explains the spelling in the screenshot above, and throughout this manuscript!
If you look in a printed muṣḥaf today, and you're familiar with modern Arabic orthography, you will immediately be struck that many of the word are spelled rather strangely, and not in line with the modern norms.
This is both an ancient and a very modern phenomenon. 🧵
On the two page spread in the previous post alone there are 25 (if I didn't miss any) words that are not spelled the way we would "expect" them to.
The reason for this is because modern print editions today try to follow the Uthmanic rasm.
During the third caliph Uthman's reign, in the middle of the 7th century, he established an official standard of the text. This text was written in the spelling norms of the time. This spelling is called the rasm.
But since that time the orthographic norms of Arabic changed.
As some of you may know, I don't have a particularly high opinion of Arabic101, but now he's wading into the manuscript fray...
Will be live-tweeting facepalms as I go through it.
0:14 "what you see is 100% identical today to any Muṣḥaf".
Minor gripe. It's identical to the Madani Muṣḥaf, but not really to the Kufan, Basran or Damascene. But still 99.9% so this is really nitpicky.
0:43 "Re-phrased Ayat/Removed words/Added words" is of course anachronistic. It implies that the text we have today is more original than the Sanaa Palimpsest. Not much to suggest that.
In his 2020 book, Shady Nasser spends a chapter on a 'survival of the fittest' model of canonization of the reading traditions, arguing that over time the "majority transmission" tended to win out.
He choses a rather unusual example to illustrate this. 🧵
On page 25, Nasser tries to present an evolutionary model, with natural selection, by which some transmission paths of the seven readers become 'canonical', while others don't. One of these is that one "drops out" when diverging from the standard reading of the group...
As an illustration of this divergence from the standard, he cites what he considers a non-canonical reading among the seven, namely the imalah of an-nēsi, which is a variant reading transmitted for Abū Ṭāhir ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. ʿUmar al-Bazzār (d. 349/960).
Ibn Ḫālawayh's (d. 380) Kitāb al-Badīʿ is an interesting book on the Qirāʾāt because it's the earliest surviving work that tries to simplify the transmissions of the readings, and does it rather differently from what becomes popular, the system of Ibn Ġalbūn the father (d. 389)
Ibn Ḫālawayh was Ibn Muǧāhid's student, who is widely held to be the canonizer of the seven reading traditions. Ibn Muǧāhid's book is the earliest book on the 7 reading traditions. But canon or not, Ibn Ḫālawayh's book actually describes 8 (adding Yaʿqūb).
Today the simplified system (and the only surviving one) is the "two-rawi canon". Each of the 7 readers, have two standard transmitters (all of them were once transmitter by more transmitters than those two). This system was introduced by ʾAbū al-Ṭayyib Ibn Ġalbūn in his ʾiršād.