Marijn van Putten Profile picture
Oct 29, 2022 21 tweets 8 min read Read on X
It may not look like it, but the script of this inscription is the script that would eventually evolve to become the modern Arabic script. This is the Nabataean Aramaic script, and I wanted to do a little thread on the evolution of its letter shapes. 🧵
The Nabataean script was originally used primarily for writing a form of Aramaic -- even though many people of the Nabataean Kingdom appear to have been Arabic speakers. Aramaic, however, had much fewer sounds than the Arabic script...
The dental stops (ت د ط) were used to also represent the interdental fricatives (ث ذ ظ).
The pharyngeals fricatives (ح ع) were also used to represent the uvular fricatives (غ خ).
The alveolar fricatives (س/ص) were also used to represent the lateral fricatives (ش ض).
The mismatch between Arabic phonology and what Aramaic script could support therefore gave rise to the 14 Arabic sounds being associated with only 7 letter shapes.

You may also note that the modern Arabic script today marks those 'non-Aramaic' sounds with an extra dot!
That consonantal dotting system did not yet exist in pre-Islamic times, when the Aramaic script was adopted for Arabic. Our earliest evidence for such consonantal dotting is the papyrus PERF 558 which dates to 22 AH/643 CE.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERF_558
Those familiar with the Arabic script will note that these letters mentioned above are not the only ones distinguished with consonantal dots in the the modern Arabic script. Today the Arabic script has only 18 distinct letter shapes word-finally and only 15 word-internally.
Over the centuries, towards the Islamic period, the Nabataean script started to evolve, becoming more and more cursive over time. Cursive meaning that more and more letters starting to be connected in writing (an indication that the script was being used on perishable materials).
Due to this cursive nature of the script, a fundamental difference developed between 'word-medial' and word-final. In word-medial position, letters had to be written together and as a result started losing distinct features they were able to maintain in word-final position.
As a result, the p (= f ف) and q (ق) which were mostly distinct due to a distinct curve in their tail, merged completely in word-medial position, but remained distinct in final position (something that is true for Arabic even today!)
In a parallel manner the b (ب) and n (ن) started to merge in medial position, but n retained a distinct descending curve that b did not have in final-position.

But neither of those immediately merged with the t/ṯ (ت/ث) or the y (ي) which are merged today.
Both t/ṯ and y started to take on a distinctive zig-zag shape in medial position, but remained distinct in word-final position, where interestingly the y had two options, both zigzag (which became modern ي) and curved back (which became modern ے).
Eventually t/ṯ and y lose their distinctive zig-zag shape in word-medial position, at which point their shape becomes identical to word-medial b and n. This brings us to the modern situation where a single medial denticle ٮـ can stand for 5 consonants (t, ṯ, y, n and b)!
In the modern script, however t/ṯ has merged in word-final position with the final b. It is not so obvious how this happened. For most of the letter's development, the t/ṯ clustered with yāʾ, and in final position retained this really distinctive 'looped' shape.
The ḥ/ḫ (ح خ) and ǧ (ج) in the modern script have merged completely, but in the oldest stages of the Nabataean script (as is the case in the closely related Hebrew square script) these signs were still completely distinct.

These develop very similar to the other letters...
That is to say: the signs start to merge in word-medial position early on, but retain a distinct shape in word-final position. ḥ/ḫ took on a curved tail in word-final position whereas the ǧ had a horizontal tail in word-final position.
This is very reminiscent of the evolution of ب/ن and ف/ق where likewise it is specifically the curve of their final tail that continues to distinguish them in word-final position.

Image 1: BBR Ḥ = bi-yarḥ 'in the month of'
Image 2: ḤG = ḥaǧǧ 'feast'
A really cool discovery that I made in 2019 is that it turns out that the merger of the final ḥāʾ/ḫāʾ from the ǧīm was not yet complete in the Islamic period. I discovered a number of ancient Quranic manuscripts that clearly keep them distinct.
journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alus…
Here is an overview of just one of the seven manuscripts that I discovered that maintained this distinction. But even early in the Islamic period the merger was underway. For example, some of the scribes of the Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus had the distinction, others didn't.
A final merger that would take place is between the r (ر) and the z (ز). These signs were distinct in the earliest stages of Nabataean and only have word-final forms because they could not connect to letters on the left side.
Here too, it is not so clear when the merger completes
So to summarize:
From the start some were not distinct: t/ṯ, d/ḏ, ṭ/ẓ, s/š, ṣ/ḍ, ḥ/ḫ
Some only merged but remained distinct in final position: b/n, t/y, f/q.
Some merged only in the Islamic period: ḥ/ǧ
Some details of mergers remain unclear: r/z, final t/b.
And here's a small bibliography of article I consulted to write up this paper!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marijn van Putten

Marijn van Putten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhDniX

Mar 12
The trials of Ibn Shanabudh for his reciting of non-Uthmanic readings is often invoked in the context of the "canonization of the seven readings" by Ibn Mujahid.

His doing so, and being punished for it are often touted as examples of the establishment of the canon.
This framing doesn't make much sense. There are countless Uthmanic readings that fall outside of Ibn Mujahid's seven, including, of course, the three after the seven that are today considered canonical.

What Ibn Shanabudh did was unusual by that time, but unrelated to the seven.
One might come away reading such discussions about Ibn Shanabudh that he would have been considered beyond the pale, and to be abandoned in all things Quranic recitation (especially in how his position is framed in western academia), but... this is not really the case.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 7
I've been interested recently by the question of where the asseverative particle la- in Quranic sentences is supposed to go. This is more complex than one would think. Image
First, it is important to note that there are functionally, and syntactically quite different uses of la-.

First, verbs that end in the energic -an(na) always have an obligatory la- in the Quran, no exceptions.
Q2:96 wa-la-tajid-anna-hum "you will find them"
The second use of la- is the apodosis of conditional sentences introduced by law "if (hypothetical)" or lawlâ "if not (hypothetical)".

Such a la- is necessarily phrase-initial and always followed by a verb.
Q2:20 wa-law šāʾa ḷḷāhu la-ḏahaba bi-samʿihim wa-ʾabṣārihim
Read 25 tweets
Sep 10, 2025
In the reading of the reader al-ʾAʿmaš (d. 148) already on verse 5 of al-Fātiḥah he recites something that no canonical reader does: he reads nistaʿīnu rather than nAstaʿīnu.

This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 541), but this is absent in other descriptions, what's going on? 🧵 Image
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ says:
al-ʾAʿmaš recired in the path of al-Muṭṭawwaʿī "nistaʿīnu" with a kasrah on the first nūn, and it is likewise for the kasrah of the tāʾ in "tiʿlam", "tiʿṯaw", "tirkanū", "fa-timassakumu n-nāru" and what is like that. Image
To Hebraists this distribution should look familiar: this clearly represents what they call the "Barth-Ginsberg Law". The prefix vowel of the verb is an /i/, whenever the stem vowel is an /a/. This is well-known among the medieval grammarians.
Read 19 tweets
Mar 1, 2025
To what extent was knowledge and transmission of the reading traditions dependent on written works and/or notebooks rather than the semi-oral process of reciting the Quran to a teacher?

In the transmission of Ibn Bakkār from Ibn ʿĀmir the written transmission is very clear. 🧵
The reading of the canonical Syrian reader Ibn ʿĀmir is not particularly well-transmitted. The two canonical transmitters Ibn Ḏakwān and Hišām are several generations removed from Ibn ʿĀmir, and Ibn Ḏakwān never had any students who recited the Quran to him.
Al-Dānī preserves three other transmission paths besides the canonical paths, although all of them only through a single ʾisnād.

The one we are interested in here is Ibn Bakkār's transmission. The ʾisnād is cool, it's transmitted through the fanous exegete Ibn Ǧarīr al-Ṭabarī! Image
Read 19 tweets
Feb 8, 2025
An interesting interplay of orality and written transmission of the Quran that I recently ran into going through the Taysīr, at Q37:123 al-Dānī has a curious statement about the recitation of وان الياس... let's dive in! Image
al-Dānī says: "Ibn Ḏakwān in my recitation to al-Fārisī from al-Naqqās (sic, Naqqāš) from al-ʾAḫfaš from him: wa-inna lyāsa with removal of the hamzah, and the rest read it with the hamzah (i.e. ʾilyāsa).
And this is what I recited for Ibn Ḏakwān i the path of the Syrians" Image
"But Ibn Ḏakwān said in his book: "[الياس] is without hamzah. And God knows best what he meant by that."

So... what did he mean by that? The interpretation of al-Dānī's teachers is that it is with ʾalif al-waṣl. But, at least by later wording, that's a weird way of saying it.
Read 14 tweets
Jan 13, 2025
Seeing how al-Dānī works his way through competing reports for certain readings is really interesting. There is often a conflict between what he gets from books and oral tradition. Oral tradition does not always win out (though it often does).

Let's look at Q38:46 🧵 Image
al-Dānī starts: "Nāfiʿ and the transmission of Hišām [from Ibn ʿĀmir] in my recitation [to my teachers] read "bi-ḫāliṣati ḏikrā d-dār" (Q38:46) without tanwīn as a construct phrase; the rest read "bi-ḫāliṣatin" with Tanwīn."
However, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī from Ibn Muǧāhid said that Nāfiʿ only removes the nūn.

This is a citation from ibn Muǧāhid's kitāb al-sabʿah, which al-Dānī receives through Muḥammad b. ʿAlī.

And indeed Ibn Muǧāhid does not mention Hišām ʿan Ibn ʿĀmir but only Nāfiʿ! Image
Image
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(