Syriac is just a specific Aramaic dialect. You know one if you know the other, essentially.
Tom Send a noteboard - 31/05/2010 10:01:00 PM
It's like saying, "Since I don't speak English or American..."
A hallmark of Aramaic is that nouns have an "emphatic" status that essentially ends in -? and is represented by an aleph. In many cases, Arabic final -a(n) is not actually an accusative, particularly when it is claimed to be a "topical accusative" that actually acts as the predicate of a sentence, but the remnant of an Aramaic-influenced writing system (since there is no significant evidence of written Arabic prior to the Qur'an outside a few petroglyphs bearing no resemblance to the current Arabic script).
The 'Alaq sura reading has a few other corrections. It's hard to see sometimes in the translation because often, the words have been translated correctly as the result of people guessing the context, but the actual etymology proposed in the Lisan or by Tabari is completely bogus and an Aramaic root is the likely source.
In that particular sura, he devotes a lot of time to the transition from Aramaic qr? to Arabic qar? and how the Arabic "end-hamza" is a contrived form that arises out of a misreading of Syriac forms of verbs like q(a)r? and b(a)r?.
He also shows that istaghna does not mean "considers himself his own master" but rather, "he has become rich", and then in Line 7, the conjunction anna, introducing a dependent clause, was contorted to be inna, the intensifying particle introducing a new main clause.
A lot of it is very technical.
As for Islamic theology, I think there is a definite connection between the "anti-intellectual streak" and "anti-critical thinking" that arose in the late medieval period and the decline of the Islamic world generally.
A hallmark of Aramaic is that nouns have an "emphatic" status that essentially ends in -? and is represented by an aleph. In many cases, Arabic final -a(n) is not actually an accusative, particularly when it is claimed to be a "topical accusative" that actually acts as the predicate of a sentence, but the remnant of an Aramaic-influenced writing system (since there is no significant evidence of written Arabic prior to the Qur'an outside a few petroglyphs bearing no resemblance to the current Arabic script).
The 'Alaq sura reading has a few other corrections. It's hard to see sometimes in the translation because often, the words have been translated correctly as the result of people guessing the context, but the actual etymology proposed in the Lisan or by Tabari is completely bogus and an Aramaic root is the likely source.
In that particular sura, he devotes a lot of time to the transition from Aramaic qr? to Arabic qar? and how the Arabic "end-hamza" is a contrived form that arises out of a misreading of Syriac forms of verbs like q(a)r? and b(a)r?.
He also shows that istaghna does not mean "considers himself his own master" but rather, "he has become rich", and then in Line 7, the conjunction anna, introducing a dependent clause, was contorted to be inna, the intensifying particle introducing a new main clause.
A lot of it is very technical.
As for Islamic theology, I think there is a definite connection between the "anti-intellectual streak" and "anti-critical thinking" that arose in the late medieval period and the decline of the Islamic world generally.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran by Christoph Luxenberg
31/05/2010 07:42:58 PM
- 1128 Views
Nice review! *NM*
31/05/2010 08:35:42 PM
- 324 Views
Thanks! I realize most people aren't going to rush out and read this, but the book was interesting. *NM*
31/05/2010 10:01:28 PM
- 290 Views
Sounds interesting.
31/05/2010 09:11:31 PM
- 582 Views
Syriac is just a specific Aramaic dialect. You know one if you know the other, essentially.
31/05/2010 10:01:00 PM
- 677 Views
Right.
31/05/2010 10:58:16 PM
- 685 Views
Modern Arabic dialects should be considered separate languages.
31/05/2010 11:53:37 PM
- 641 Views
Your question about forgetting (before I forget)
01/06/2010 12:12:08 AM
- 555 Views
I see. Interesting.
02/06/2010 12:52:09 AM
- 577 Views
"nasiy" is just one of the possible definitions that Manna gave, not the "proper reading".
02/06/2010 05:07:41 AM
- 563 Views
Ooh, interesting.
01/06/2010 10:51:42 PM
- 594 Views
I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I doubt you'll enjoy the book.
01/06/2010 10:56:12 PM
- 578 Views
Damn.
01/06/2010 11:01:30 PM
- 555 Views
There will probably be a more "general reader"-friendly book on it in the future.
01/06/2010 11:27:15 PM
- 609 Views
The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran for Dummies?
02/06/2010 12:33:47 AM
- 593 Views
That would be a great book
02/06/2010 12:40:38 AM
- 597 Views
excellent
02/06/2010 12:44:50 AM
- 575 Views
Tired?
02/06/2010 01:14:53 AM
- 569 Views
I'm sure he was referring to Sumerian theory in Akkadian grammar.
02/06/2010 01:50:30 AM
- 814 Views
Re: I'm sure he was referring to Sumerian theory in Akkadian grammar.
02/06/2010 03:32:13 AM
- 599 Views
I think there's even a "Children of Tiamat and the Parents Who Flay Them" section.
02/06/2010 05:11:02 AM
- 571 Views