@theodorebeers@ibn_kato The rule according to the Arab grammarians, and normative Classical Arabic is that after a heavy syllable the suffixes should be -hu/-hi, and after short syllables the suffixes should be -hū/-hī. This is not just as poetry, but also prose (including the Quran).
@theodorebeers@ibn_kato In fact poetry is one of the prime contexts that are cited where the rule might be broken and short vowel -hu and -hi may be used after light syllables, and -hū and -hī may be used after heavy syllables!
@theodorebeers@ibn_kato Especially Maghrebi manuscripts, but occasionally also Mashreqi manuscripts can be quite precise about this. Here funūni-hī with miniature yāʾ on top of the hāʾ to mark length in a copy of Risālat ibn Abī Zayd.
Strangely manners for expressing this were never developed for -hū.
It's the Mashreq where they don't usually have a way of expressing it. While the -hī is frequently written with a dagger alif below the hāʾ instead of normal kasrah.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the features of the Quran is that certain words with no obvious rhyme or reason will occur in two different pronunciations even when the formula is essentially identical from one to the other.
This is most notable between Q18:78 and 82.
How to understand this? Thread 🧵
The end of the verse is identical save for the first occurrence having the long form of tastaṭiʿ and the second having the short form tasṭiʿ.
Of course you can come up with endless completely ad hoc case-by-case explanations, but these bring us no closer to *understanding* it.
There are many cases just like this. Q6:42 and Q7:94 are formulaically parallel, yet one has yataḍarraʿūna whereas the other has yaḍḍarraʿūna.
@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.
The first word of Q36:30 is read by all canonical readers as yā-ḥasratan 'O woe!' And this is also the reading we find in the main (red) reading in Arabe 352h, however in blue a different reading is marked, a non-canonical reading that doesn't follow the rasm.
A little blue yāʾ has been added to the tāʾ marbūṭah and a kasrah stands below it, marking يا حسرتى yā-ḥasrat-ē "O my woe!" This expression occurs elsewhere in the Quran with the spelling with a yāʾ, with the special vocative 1sg. ending -ā/-ē "my". quran.com/39/56
Alternatively it could also simply be read as yā-ḥasrat-ī with the normal 1sg. possessive, and both forms are indeed reported as possible reading by ʾAbū Ḥayyān in his monumental al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ.
I've been reading through the long-awaited new book by Shady Nasser "The Second Canonization of the Qurʾān".
There is a lot of marginal transmissions of readings that surprised me, but Šuʿbah reporting he read baʾīs as bayʾas before changing his mind is probably the coolest. 🧵
baʾīs "wretched" is a typical adjectival formation from baʾisa "to be miserable, wretched", whereas bayʾas is rather unusual as an adjective formation, Arabic lexicons also report this adjective as bayʾis which I expect is the more probable reading here too.
Ibn Mujāhid brings a report of Šuʿbah saying: "I memorized it on the authority of ʿĀṣim as bayʾ[a/i]sin, in the pattern fayʿ[a/i]l, but then I started to doubt it, so I dropped the transmission of ʿĀṣim and adopted baʾīs on the authority of al-ʾAʿmaš instead.
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}.
The B.II style is one of the classical Kufic styles, frequently used in a somewhat miniature hand on small folios (usually around 15x21cm) with about 16 lines to the page. The dated copies that we have generally date from the 3rd century AH.
They have striking commonalities:
When examining the regional variants of the rasm of such variants a striking pattern emerges: Many, if not all, manuscripts in this style have Basran variants (as we will see in a forthcoming article by @therealsidky). This might suggest a common center of production.