Books Messageboard: Right. :P by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Right.

Legolas Send a noteboard - 31/05/2010 10:58:16 PM

It's like saying, "Since I don't speak English or American..."

You'll know best how different they are, obviously, but when you speak of different dialects, in some cases that can still be quite different. I know basic Levantine Arabic, but I wouldn't understand ten words out of every hundred from a Moroccan without some getting used to, I'd say.

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).

Interesting. That kind of thing might have repercussions further than merely religion, really - he might start undermining the fundaments Arabic language itself. After all, the Qur'an played an important role for the early grammarians, too. I think Sibawayhi's grammar ranks only a few places below the Qur'an in terms of books considered sacred.

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.

Ah. I see. As you're no doubt aware, this is considered the first sura to be revealed (or at least the first five verses are), so it'd be even more controversial than everything else...

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?.

Interesting.

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.

Not a big shock, there, as "to become rich" or perhaps "to be considered rich" would be the "natural" meaning of istaghna - I don't think the change in meaning there would have anything to do with Aramaic necessarily, more a matter of daring to challenge the established interpretation. Where does he get "forget" from?

A lot of it is very technical.

Yeah, I bet. If I get around to reading it, I think I'll be doing a lot of skipping - I'm interested in his conclusions about what would be changed, and perhaps about what in Arabic grammar he views as misconceptions, but the Aramaic will go right over my head.

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.

The thing is that Sunni Islam had that anti-critical thinking from, well, one might almost say from the very start. After all, Sunni Islam was created when the majority of Muslims sided with Mu'awiya over 'Ali, when Mu'awiya didn't have the slightest credible claim to the caliphate. Then later on you got the Mu'tazilites, but Ibn Hanbal, the champion of "anti-critical thinking", won that particular battle, and they went from there. That's perhaps even before the apex of Islamic culture - it got worse later on, but the beginnings were there even when Islam dominated the world.

Then in the late medieval period they went to a point where they barely did any new thinking at all, critical or not, and yeah, that went with the decline of the Islamic world - but I'm not sure in which direction the causation runs.

Reply to message

The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran by Christoph Luxenberg Tom - 31/05/2010 07:42:58 PM 1155 Views

Nice review! *NM* everynametaken - 31/05/2010 08:35:42 PM 333 Views

Thanks! I realize most people aren't going to rush out and read this, but the book was interesting. *NM* Tom - 31/05/2010 10:01:28 PM 296 Views

Re: Thanks... everynametaken - 02/06/2010 03:35:47 AM 620 Views

Sounds interesting. Legolas - 31/05/2010 09:11:31 PM 595 Views

Syriac is just a specific Aramaic dialect. You know one if you know the other, essentially. Tom - 31/05/2010 10:01:00 PM 687 Views

Right.

Legolas - 31/05/2010 10:58:16 PM 706 Views

Modern Arabic dialects should be considered separate languages. Tom - 31/05/2010 11:53:37 PM 653 Views

Fair enough. Legolas - 02/06/2010 12:50:32 AM 684 Views

It's hardly revolutionary from a scholarly perspective. Tom - 02/06/2010 05:06:13 AM 590 Views

Your question about forgetting (before I forget) Tom - 01/06/2010 12:12:08 AM 566 Views

I see. Interesting. Legolas - 02/06/2010 12:52:09 AM 588 Views

"nasiy" is just one of the possible definitions that Manna gave, not the "proper reading". Tom - 02/06/2010 05:07:41 AM 575 Views

Ooh, interesting. Rebekah - 01/06/2010 10:51:42 PM 602 Views

I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I doubt you'll enjoy the book. Tom - 01/06/2010 10:56:12 PM 592 Views

Damn. Rebekah - 01/06/2010 11:01:30 PM 565 Views

There will probably be a more "general reader"-friendly book on it in the future. Tom - 01/06/2010 11:27:15 PM 626 Views

Excellent. I shall (forget to) keep an eye out for it. *NM* Rebekah - 01/06/2010 11:30:58 PM 280 Views

The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran for Dummies? damookster - 02/06/2010 12:33:47 AM 603 Views

That would be a great book Tom - 02/06/2010 12:40:38 AM 615 Views

excellent damookster - 02/06/2010 12:44:50 AM 588 Views

Tired? everynametaken - 02/06/2010 01:14:53 AM 581 Views

I'm sure he was referring to Sumerian theory in Akkadian grammar. Burr - 02/06/2010 01:50:30 AM 835 Views

Re: I'm sure he was referring to Sumerian theory in Akkadian grammar. everynametaken - 02/06/2010 03:32:13 AM 609 Views

I think there's even a "Children of Tiamat and the Parents Who Flay Them" section. Tom - 02/06/2010 05:11:02 AM 588 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">It's like saying, "Since I don't speak English or American..." ;)</quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">You'll know best how different they are, obviously, but when you speak of different dialects, in some cases that can still be quite different. I know basic Levantine Arabic, but I wouldn't understand ten words out of every hundred from a Moroccan without some getting used to, I'd say. </quote>

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">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).</quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">Interesting. That kind of thing might have repercussions further than merely religion, really - he might start undermining the fundaments Arabic language itself. After all, the Qur'an played an important role for the early grammarians, too. I think Sibawayhi's grammar ranks only a few places below the Qur'an in terms of books considered sacred. ;) </quote>

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">Ah. I see. As you're no doubt aware, this is considered the first sura to be revealed (or at least the first five verses are), so it'd be even more controversial than everything else... </quote>

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">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?.</quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">Interesting. </quote>

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">Not a big shock, there, as "to become rich" or perhaps "to be considered rich" would be the "natural" meaning of istaghna - I don't think the change in meaning there would have anything to do with Aramaic necessarily, more a matter of daring to challenge the established interpretation. Where does he get "forget" from? </quote>

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">A lot of it is very technical. </quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">Yeah, I bet. If I get around to reading it, I think I'll be doing a lot of skipping - I'm interested in his conclusions about what would be changed, and perhaps about what in Arabic grammar he views as misconceptions, but the Aramaic will go right over my head. </quote>

<quote id="112948"><quote id="112930">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="112948">The thing is that Sunni Islam had that anti-critical thinking from, well, one might almost say from the very start. After all, Sunni Islam was created when the majority of Muslims sided with Mu'awiya over 'Ali, when Mu'awiya didn't have the slightest credible claim to the caliphate. Then later on you got the Mu'tazilites, but Ibn Hanbal, the champion of "anti-critical thinking", won that particular battle, and they went from there. That's perhaps even before the apex of Islamic culture - it got worse later on, but the beginnings were there even when Islam dominated the world. </quote>

<quote id="112948">Then in the late medieval period they went to a point where they barely did any new thinking at all, critical or not, and yeah, that went with the decline of the Islamic world - but I'm not sure in which direction the causation runs. </quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password