While not there in the flesh, #sblaar20 and #iqsa2020 got me in a comparative mood between Hebrew and Arabic. I was reading some Zamaḫšarī's mufaṣṣal today and noticed an interesting comment on hollow root active participles, which may provide a link with Hebrew.
"As for the weakness in the active participle of those like qāla 'to say' and bāʿa 'to sell', the second root consonant is to be replaced with a hamzah, as in your speech qāʾilun 'saying', bāʾiʿun 'selling', and sometimes it is removed like your speech: šākun 'thorny'"
So while the normal pattern of such hollow roots active participles CāʾiC, there is at least one exceptional case where we find a pattern CāC. This caught my attention, because Hebrew has an unusual active participle for hollow roots that looks very similar to this.
Normal active participles have the pattern CoCeC < *CāCiC, just like Arabic, e.g. yošeḇ 'sitting' of the verb yåšaḇ. But hollow verbs surprisingly do not follow this pattern but instead have a vowel CåC. Which @bnuyaminim argues comes from *CawaC, e.g. qåm 'standing up' <*qawam
As a historical linguist, when you see such asymmetries which are difficult to explain synchronically this starts ringing alarm bells. It's an indication that the form may be old (principle of archaic heterogeneity).
While it is irregular in Arabic, šāk- 'thorny' gives us an indication that indeed the Hebrew pattern is old, and while regularized in most forms, is still retained in some works lie šāk-.
While grammarians conceive of this as the outcome of *šāwik > šā(wi)k, šāk is also the regular outcome of a historical *šawak-, which matches perfectly the reconstructed form of the Hebrew active participles of Hollow roots like qåm < *qawam.
This is a pretty strong indication that Hebrew's weird treatment is indeed not an unusual Hebrew-internal innovation, but rather a retention of an ancient asymmetrical system!
If you enjoyed this thread and want me to do more of 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
Of course, as I post this tweet, I realize that Nöldeke noticed this 110 centuries ago. Not just in Quranic studies are we perpetually reinventing the wheel of what Nöldeke already discovered a century ago, also in Semitic studies.
See pages 207-216. menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/ssg/content/ti…
Many more examples of CāC active participles listed in this chapter as well.
But at least the reason why šåḇ has an å instead of o no longer remains unclear thanks to @bnuyaminim. So that's progress!
One of the interesting, but seldom described features of Classical Arabic (i.e. "that which the grammarians describe") is the presence of a front rounded vowel ǖ [yː]. This is said to occur in some dialects in the passives of hollow verbs, e.g. qǖla 'it is said' instead of qīla.
Early descriptions mention this use for underived hollow roots, and it can be seen as the outcome of a Proto-Arabic *uwi which collapsed, not to /ī/, as becomes the standard, but to /ǖ/. Originally then hollow roots had the standard passive pattern *quwila.
As mentioned by al-Farrāʾ (first picture previous tweet), al-Kisāʾī would make ample use of this in recitation. In fact, he regularly does it for every single passive underived hollow verb. Several other readers use it too, but for them the pattern is less regular.
In the new volume by Segovia, there's an article that makes me feel like we have stepped into a time machine, all progress of the past decades is ignored. Emilio Ferrín argues for a Wansbrough-style late (post 800 CE) compilation of the Quran.
Here's why this doesn't work. 🧵
Ferrín pays lip service to the existence of Quranic manuscript fragments, but takes issue with the term "fragments" as it suggests that these "fragments" are part of a "whole". But he considers the texts to be compiled together only later.
It's rather clear that he has never actually looked at any of these manuscripts, otherwise he would not suggest something so absurd. And indeed, his discussion on early manuscripts makes it quite clear he is utterly clueless about them.
A lot of time gets wasted on the polemics of the stability of transmission of the Hebrew Bible and the Quran.
Instead of arguing without evidence let's compare a section the Masoretic Text to a 1QIsaª and the Cairo standard text to the Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus. 🧵
I've selected a 1QIsaª because it is really quite close to the standard Masoretic text. The point of comparison are Isaiah 40:2-28 (949 letters in total) and the Q3:24-37 (1041 letters in total). In number of letters they are therefore pretty similar.
Here is a comparison of the Isaiah scroll with the Masoretic text. Green = extra letter in the scroll, yellow = missing letter, blue = different letter, magenta and red are later additions and deletions.
The texts are very similar, but regardless differences are visible.
In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḫārī there is an interesting Hadith the claims that the prophet would have prolonged recitation, and an example is given, saying he would prolong bismi llāāh, al-raḥmāān, al-raḥīīm. sunnah.com/bukhari/66/70
Thread on 'the prolonged reading of the prophet'. 🧵
This hadith first caught my attention because of its incongruous nature: in Quranic recitation today, prolongation like that doesn't happen at all. In the basmalah only al-raḥīīm would be prolonged if you pause upon it and drop the final case vowels.
Me and @phillipwstokes argue on the basis of rhyme & spelling that in Quranic Arabic words lost their final case vowels not just in pause but in context as well, which would lengthen lengthening in recitation. Could this hadith be a memory of this recitation style?
@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.
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.