Interesting variant reading in Wetzstein II 1913 that I just ran into, rather than the canonical ʾinna ḷḷāha la-hādi llaḏīna ʾāmanū "God is the guide of those who have believed" it has tanwīn la-hādin-i llaḏīna: "God is guiding those who believe" (somewhat forced transl.)
It is recorded as a secondary reading in the much later Kufic Quran Arabe 325(k).
Ibn Ḫalawayh (and others) attribute it to ʾAbū Ḥaywah (Syrian reciter, d. 203 AH). While grammatically equally viable, it ended up not making it into the reading of any of the ten.
It is remarkable though that it would be Wetzstein II 1913 of all manuscripts that marks it as the primary reading. W1913 is a very complete early manuscripts, with Syrian regionality. Its vocalisation is probably early, since it has non-canonical features not found elsewhere.
The fact that we would find a Syrian non-canonical reading in a Syrian rasm Muṣḥaf, may suggest that its vocalisation indeed also took place in Syria. You would obviously want to test more variant readings to further confirm that hypothesis, but it's interesting to see.
If you enjoyed this thread, and would like to support me and get exclusive access to my work-in-progress critical edition of the Quran, consider becoming a patron on patreon.com/PhDniX/!
You can also always buy me a coffee as a token of appreciation. ko-fi.com/phdnix
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another bogus claim of "Arabic" on a Medieval European Object.
The @britishmuseum Website claims that this Brooch has two lines of early Arabic script: šāʾa ḷḷāh, or tubna li-llāh (or bismi llāh?). With no amount of fantasy could one read any of that.
1. What šāʾa ḷḷāh would look like in Early Arabic script. 2. What tubna lillāh (one would expect tubna ʾilā ḷḷāh, but okay) would look like, 3. What bi-smi llāh would look like.
Needless to say, this jumble of line looks nothing like any of these.
The fact that three readings are suggested, all of which are utterly incompatible with each other (and none of which look anything like what the Brooch has), should tip us off that it is, in fact, not Arabic, and that whoever came up with the readings was just guessing wildly.
A strong argument for an oral tradition of the Quran in parallel to the written text that I've heard is that even with the Muqaṭṭaʿāt, there is consensus of the reading, while ٮس (Q36:1) could have been read in 10 different ways. Does it hold up in manuscript evidence? 🧵
This argument rests on the assumption that the original codices of Uthman were undotted. This is likely a myth. Every early Quranic manuscript has sporadic dotting, there is no reason to believe that the original Uthmanic master copies were different. See @Adam_Bursi's article.
So what about the few dotted Muqaṭṭaʿāt? How do they show up in early manuscripts? Do they have dots? Is the consensus because the text was simply unambiguous? This is something we can check, so let's have a look what early manuscripts show!
There is one, I think, unresolveable issue, a place where the Kufic vocalisation deviates so much from modern vowel signs that you cannot translate it one-to-one. This happens with word-initial ʾā preceded by the preposition bi- or li-.
As anyone who knows Arabic will know words are spelled as if they are word-initial, even if certain prefixes precede (namely: al-, bi-, li- etc.) This is *also* true for the Kufic vocalisation. And this is where we get in trouble, because modern Arabic script doesn't do that.
There are two ways of writing the sequence ʾā. 1. Word initially one uses ʾalif mamdūdah, e.g. ʾāyah. 2. Word-internally one uses ʾalif muqayyadah, e.g. qurʾān
In modern Arabic you would use ʾalif mamdūdah (آية, قرآن) for both, in quranic orthography hamzah+ʾalif (ءاية, قرءان).
So... Japanese native numerals are *weird*. People like to talk about the doubling ablaut system
hito-tu '1' ~ huta-tu '2'
miC-tu '3' ~ muC-tu '6'
yoC-tu '4' ~ yaC-tu '8'
But that really doesn't cover all the odd exceptional behaviour found in counters...
Why:
hutu-ka "2 days" not huta-ka?
why miC-ka "3 days" but not muC-ka but muika "six days"
Why yoC-ka "4 days" but not yaC-ka but youka"8 days"
(and why nano-ka "seven days" while it is nanatsu?)
I see no obvious reconstruction that accounts for those irregularities.
Is there any article that tries to account historically for these unusual irregularities?
So red it can't be ʾAbū Jaʿfar. (ʾAbū ʿAmr and Nāfiʿ left).
Black could still be anyone but Ibn ʿĀmir, ʾAbū Jaʿfar Nāfiʿ andʾAbū ʿAmr.
Q18:85
red: fa-ttabaʿa (majority), fa-ʾatbaʿa (ʿĀṣim, Ḥamzah, al-Kisāʾī, Ḫalaf and ibn ʿĀmir)
Black: might be fa-ʾatbaʿa, a bit unclear. If so the reading is Kufan.
Besides the crazy lām-ʾalif what's cool about this manuscript is that the persian uses 'modern' vocalisaiton, while the Quranic citations use the red dot system of Kufic manuscripts.
But seemingly a later hand added modern vocalisations to it too. 🧵
The ink of the modern black vowels added looks kind of similar to the main text, so I wondered whether both the red dots and black signs where put in by the same person. But the red dots and 'normal' vowels were done by different people, and you can tell from the lām-ʾalif.
In the earliest vocalised Kufic manuscripts -- and this is a practice that continues in Maghrebi script -- the leg at the top LEFT is the lām and the top RIGHT is the ʾalif.
This is the ancient pre-Islamic practice, inherited from Nabataean.