Al-Farrāʾ's "Kitāb fīhi Luġāt al-Qurʾān", while listing different dialectal forms, he frequently opines on what is or is not used in recitation. He is our earliest source (d. 207 AH) of normative opinions given about what is appropriate for recitation. A small thread:🧵
faʿīl stems may become fiʿīl if the second root consonant is one of the six guttural consonants among Qays, Tamīm and Rabīʿah: riḥīm, biʿīr, liʾīm, biḫīl, riġīf, šihīd.
"But one does not recite with it, because the recitation is with the former (Hijazi) practice", ar-raḥīm etc
Qurayš and Kinānah say: nastaʿīnu, and the recitation follows it. Tamīm, ʾAsad and Rabīʿah say nistaʿīnu.
The Kufan al-ʾAʿmaš, who is part of al-Farrāʾ's isnād (al-Kisāʾī < Ḥamzah < al-ʾAʿmaš) , in fact recited in this way. But by al-Farrāʾs time no it was no longer accepted.
Hollow passive verbs are qīla "it is said" for the Hijazis. Qays, ʿUqayl and ʾAsad say qǖla with a front rounded vowel.
Some however say qūla: "but this is not introduced in recitation because of its disagreement with [the rasm] of the book" (The rasm has قيل not قول).
Some of Qays pronounce the name of God with a short vowel: aḷḷahu, rather than aḷḷāhu. "This is not introduced in recitation".
For a reason I've never understood, however, modern print editions spell it like this: اللَّهُ. But it is indeed not recited as such.
Most people say yā-ʾayyuhà n-nās. But some of Banū Mālik and Banū ʾAsad say yā-ʾayyuhu n-nas and ʾayyu-hu l-marʾatu. "But it is not introduced into recitation."
Al-Farrāʾ is apparently unaware of Ibn ʿĀmir's reading who did introduce it in the 3 places the rasm drops the ʾalif.
Some of Qays say ʾinšāyan, bināyan (for ʾinšāʾan, bināʾan), "and you do not introduce this in recitation because of the disagreement with (the rasm) of the book".
The rasm is انشا and بنا, with the required yāʾ missing.
The Qays form (as Safaitic) retains the Proto-Arabic form!
Qurayš has ʾan (with hamzah) for the subordinate particle. But Tamīm, Qays and ʾAsad have ʿan (with ʿayn).
"The recitation is upon the dialectal form of the people of the Hijaz because it follows (the rasm) of the book" (the rasm is ان not عن).
The nūn is pronounced clear by Arabs before the Ḫāʾ and Nūn, but some with place of articulation assimilation. "The reading with clear pronunciation is more preferably to me because it is the reading I adopted from them".
ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar recites in this dispreferred way.
"Recitation follows buhita, but al-Kisāʾī claims that among the arabs there are those who say bahita and buhita."
The preposition ladun, is pronounced by some of Tamīm as ladu, but ladun is how the prophet read and it is "the recitation".
The verb ḥasuna has three dialectal practices.
- Hijazi: ḥasuna "this is the best of them, and the recitation follows it"
- Tamīm: ḥasna
- Qays: ḥusna
The people of the Hijaz and the Banū ʾAsad say: rakintu/ʾarkanu.
Qays and Tamīm: rakantu/ʾarkunu.
"The reading follows the dialect of Qurayš"
Indeed all canonical reciters read Q11:113 as wa-lā tarkanū, and none as wa-la tarkunū, although this reading is reported for Qatādah.
The Qurayš read naʾā and raʾā and the recitation follows it.
Some of Hawāzin, Kinānah, Huḏayl and the ʾAnṣār say nāʾa and rāʾa.
Al-Farrāʾ is seemingly unaware that both Ibn Ḏakwān <- Ibn ʿĀmir and ʾAbū Ǧaʿfar read nāʾa (but not rāʾa!)
One may say wa-qarrī (people of the Hijaz) or wa-qirrī (anyone that one encounters in Najd). "The reading of the people of the Hijaz is more preferable to me".
It is indeed the only reading among the canonical readers.
Arabs say either salaktu-kah or ʾaslaktu-kah. "The recitation is upon the dialect of the Hijaz without the ʾalif", he then cites Quranic verses: usluk, salaka-kum and salaknā-hu, whose rasm indeed allows on other reading.
There are six dialectal practices of جذوة:
ǧiḏwatun, ǧuḏwatun, ǧaḏwatun
ǧiṯwatun, ǧuṯwatun, ǧaṯwatun,
"The (forms) with tāʾ are not introduced in recitation" (because it doesn't agree with the rasm)
Indeed all the forms with ḏ are found in the canonical readings.
While several times al-Farrāʾ clearly (and sometimes explicitly) prefers readings that agree with the rasm, for musayṭir he notes both musayṭir and muṣaytir in recitation while the (rasm) of the Quran is with a sīn.
Interestingly however, at Q88:22 where these two readings are mentioned the standard rasm does NOT have a sīn, but is written with a ṣād instead. That's an accurate reflection of what we find in early Quranic manuscripts!
Some conclusions: It's clear that to al-Farrāʾ recitation frequently was thought to be best when recited in the Qurashi manner. There are also several quite pervasive examples where that is not the case, but when he gives normative judgement, it's always towards Qurayš.
It is also worth appreciating the many places where he does *not* give a normative judgement of one form over the other. In his view there was clearly nothing wrong, for example, with reciting bihū, instead of bihī; a form basically lost in the canonical recitations.
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
Whenever one learns Classical Arabic, they are usually told that it has 6 vowels, three short ones: /a/, /i/, /u/, and their long counterparts: /ā/, /ī/, /ū/.
But many Quranic reading traditions have more than those, a short thread on the vowel systems of the seven readers. 🧵
Every single reader may have an overlong pronunciation of every single long vowel the reader has. These overlong vowels are phonetically conditioned and therefore non-phonemic. They occur: 1. Before hamza /ʔ/: [samāāʔ] /samāʔ/ 2. In super heavy syllables: [dāābbah] /dābbah/
Ibn Kaṯīr simply what we would think of as the Classical Arabic vowel system. The only difference is it has the non-phonemic overlong vowels. But I've argued in a recent paper that that is actually a feature more broadly in Classical Arabic prose.
It's clear that the Uthman's Quran recension is a very stable text tradition, and I'm sometimes asked: is there any text in antiquity that shows a similar kind of stability over such a long time?
The answer: Yes there is. The (proto-)Masoretic tradition of the Hebrew bible.🧵
The Masoretic Text (MT) is one of several text traditions of the Hebrew Bible, and it is the tradition in which it is printed today. We technically speak of the Masoretic Text only when it has full vocalisation signs and marginal reading notes. thetorah.com/article/the-bi…
This tradition gets the form as we know it around the 10th century, and has remained basically unchanged since then.
However, with new discoveries (especially the Dead Sea Scrolls) it became clear that a consonantal skeleton of the MT is much much older. thetorah.com/article/judean…
Question for my followers who know Japanese: I'm looking at a Japanese Quran translation, and for the honorific form it uses compounds with 給う. But past tense isn't the expected tamatta, but 給うた, I'm guessing tamōta. Is that Classical Japanese? And how does it work?
I suppose this is the way that Kansai-ben would do a past tense like that. 笑うた warōta instead of 笑った waratta. But I don't think this translation is aiming to be in Kansai-ben. So is conventional modern pronunciation of Classical Japanese kansai-ified?
Im aware that there are other cases of polite/honorific speech where Japanese verbal conjugation suddenly start working as if it is Kansai-ben. Most notably with verbs like 御座る gozaru, which in the renyoukei form suddenly loses the expected /r/, 御座います.
Today, by far the most dominant recitation of the Quran is that of Ḥafṣ (d. 180/796) who transmits from the Kufan reciter ʿĀṣim (d. 127/745). But this dominant position it has today appears to have been a rather recent one.
Thread on looking for Ḥafṣ in early manuscripts 🧵
Contrary to certain pseudoscholarly modern claims, there is absolutely no evidence that Ḥafṣ represents the "reading of the masses" from time immemorial until today. The reading was one of many and it only started to become dominant during the ottoman empire.
But just because it became dominant then, of course does not mean the reading was not transmitted before that. It certainly was, that much is clear even from the literary sources. Already with Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936) who canonized the seven, Ḥafṣ is included in transmission.
What is it with Classical Arabic/Qurʾānic Arabic textbooks and teaching people incorrect Arabic...
It seems like everyone has decided collectively it's better to lie about the details than actually teach it correctly.
So then you get the joy of unlearning all you learned wrong!
Of course there's also just the downright ignorant stuff about the Arabic script.
Why on earth write on the history of the script at all, if you're not going to reality check even a single thing you're saying! ARGH!
Moreover, a book that purports to be about "Quranic Arabic" but is actually specificlaly about the Arabic of the reading of Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim is defensible, but at the very least you should *mention* that it is.
Al-Farrāʾ's maʿānī al-qurʾān is an important early source of a somewhat systematic description of the Kufan readings. Usually what he reports agrees with what we find in the canon. But sometimes he deviates from it, like this discussion for Q29:66. He tells us:
"ʿĀṣim and al-ʾAʿmaš recited wa-l-yatamattaʿū, taking it as a command or rebuke, with no vowel on the Lām, and the people of the Ḥijāz read wa-li-yatamattaʿū with a kasrah (on the lām) taking it to mean kay 'in order to'"
But that's not how ʿĀṣim is said to read!
Indeed at least for the Medinan Nāfiʿ, disagreement is reported for reading wa-li-yatamattaʿū. In canonical transmissions both the Medinans Waṛš from Nāfiʿ and ʾAbū Jaʿfar indeed read wa-li-yatamattaʿū as al-Farrāʾ reports (but Ibn Kaṯīr, the other Hijazi does not).