@AlCabbage045@SWANA_Heat@azforeman Sure, Classical Arabic was a thing way before colonialism. But I do think you can make a case that expectations of modernism clashing with the existing diglossia have massively exacerbated the problem.
In the Middle Ages Classical Arabic was for a specific learned class.
@AlCabbage045@SWANA_Heat@azforeman And that didn't even necessarily include all those who were literate. There why "Middle Arabic" as "the stage between old and new arabic" and "the stage between low and high arabic" get mixed up. In the middle ages non-use of Classical Arabic in writing was somehow more typical.
@AlCabbage045@SWANA_Heat@azforeman As nationalism as a concept developed, and the idea of a monolithic 'standard language', which due to the sociolinguistics couldn't be anything but the language that up until then was reserved for the highest of the highest worldwide religious elite, really made things difficult.
@AlCabbage045@SWANA_Heat@azforeman As social media gains more ground, this stuff is probably going to become untenable at some point and some middle point is going to be found... but we'll see.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Leafing through al-Zamaḫšarī's al-Mufaṣṣal fī al-Naḥw today, I ran into his chapter on ʾibdāl "replacement", namely his section on the replacement with tāʾ of the consonants wāw, yāʾ, sīn, ṣād and bāʾ. This leads to interesting reflections on Arabic grammatical theory. 🧵
Most of Arabic morpho-phonological theory deals with a concept known as ʾaṣl "root, origin", which is an abstract underlying representation of a word. It has similarities both to a phonemic underlying form, and etymological origin, but is neither exactly.
Rather, it is more of a Platonic ideal representation of an underlying form. The 'source' form from which the surface form (or forms) can be derived through a set of rational rules (ideally). For example, the ʾaṣl of the verb qāla 'he said' is {QaWaLa}.
Great conversation between @dbru1 and Asma Hilali about quranic manuscripts but to me one detail remained a bit vague, it is addressed in the title: "Did the Quran exist early as a book?"
The answer to this should, unequivocally be: Yes. Yes it did.
One of the questions posed in the conversation is "where is Uthman's codex?" and "where are the regional codices?"
We might actually have them, but the fragments we have simply do not come with labels.
But even if we didn't this does not mean they aren't CERTAINLY a reality.
We do not own the autograph of Sībawayh's al-Kitāb, are we to assume al-Kitāb never existed and Sībawayh did not write it? Of course not. And this is true for the vast majority of the Classical Arabic literature (or any literature in manuscript traditions).
It's been a while since I wrote on #Tamazight/#Berber, so I thought it would be nice to do a thread on its plural formation. Much like Arabic (and Semitic more generally), Berber has 'sound plurals' and 'broken plurals'. Let's have a look at how these are reconstructed.
The 'sound plural' is simply formed by a suffix: *-ăn for the masculine, *-en for the feminine. For example:
*a-maziɣ pl. i-maziɣ-ăn "Berber man"
*ta-maziɣ-t pl. *ti-maziɣ-en "Berber woman"
In most dialect *-ăn > -ən and *-en > -in, but some retain the contrast.
If a sound plural suffix is added to a word-final vowel, usually an epenthetic *-t- is infixed to avoid the meeting of two vowels. Perhaps this is due to historical loss of *t (there is some weird stuff with disappearing *t's elsewhere in morphology).
The Arab grammarians describe the occurrence of /ē/ (called ʾimālah) in word-final position of verbs and nouns, e.g. banē "he built" and ḥublē "pregnant". This thread discusses the disagreements between different groups of grammarians, and how the opinions develop. 🧵
The earliest and most famous grammarian Sībawayh (d. 180 AH) tells us: nouns which in Classical Arabic end in -ā, whose third root consonant is yāʾ undergo ʾimālah, while those whose third root consonant is wāw do not, thus: al-hudē "the guidance" but al-ʿaṣā "the stick".
One is sure to notice that this distribution aligns with how the final -ā is spelled. If it is spelled with yāʾ it is pronounced -ē, if it is spelled with ʾalif it is spelled -ā. This is certainly not a coincidence, the spelling seems to retain a memory of this distinction.
In case anyone who cares about my bad fighting game takes among my followers, give me some likes!
1. Probably The King of Fighters 2002UM, though due to bad netplay I haven't played it nearly as much as OG2k2. After that probably Alpha 2.
2. Hard to say. Got burned out the most on Street Fighter 4. But still enjoyed watching it after. Alpha 3 is incredibly ugly and terrible. Have a love-hate relation with SF3: Third Strike.
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!