First time that the pre-Islamic record gives evidence of fully functioning Tanwīn! Even though the use of full ʾiʿrāb + tanwīn becomes THE prime feature for high "Classical" speech in Arabic, up until we would only find it in Islamic Era Classical Arabic.
Forms of Old Arabic in the pre-Islamic period consistently lack this feature. It is absent Safaitic, Hismaic and Nabataean Arabic.
Some people, like Jonathan Owens, even doubted that it was a genuine feature at all, and it was maybe made up by the Arab Grammarians.
Based on historical linguistic evidence, there was reason to believe the feature was archaic, even though it only showed up in late sources, as me and @Safaitic have argued in our reply to Jonathan Owens here: academia.edu/28267720/Al_Ja…
Still, it is good to now have evidence for it!
Considering how early and how marginal it is, though, it still remains a real mystery how in the Islamic period the variety with full ʾiʿrāb and tanwīn gained such incredible prestige that the medieval grammarians simply refused to acknowledge any other form of Arabic existed.
It is clear from Arabic written in non-Arabic script, that already in the first and second centuries, the period before and up until the time of the earliest grammarians the absence of ʾiʿrāb and tanwīn was the norm... but if you would read grammarians you would never know.
This demonstrable collective willful blindness of the grammarians forces us to be very careful about the data they generate. As a result we cannot assume that all the written Arabic produced in the Islamic period had ʾiʿrāb+tanwīn, as there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise.
For this reason, me and @phillipwstokes have looked closely at the oldest layer of the Quran, the Quranic Consonantal Text, looking at orthographic and rhyme patterns and concluded that even Quranic Arabic probably lacked full ʾiʿrāb+tanwīn academia.edu/37481811/Case_…
When the "Classical system" of ʾiʿrāb+tanwīn developed its now ubiquitous prestige, the Quran could of course not stay behind, and this system was imported into its recitation.
A trace of that transition can probably be seen in the way early manuscripts are vocalised...
When vowel signs, by means of red dots, were invented they were not applied to mark all vowels. The vocalisers are uninterested in the vowels on the inside of a word, which suggests they considered those self-evident. It was used almost exclusively to mark ʾiʿrāb+tanwīn.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.