Modern Arabic dialects should be considered separate languages.
Tom Send a noteboard - 31/05/2010 11:53:37 PM
In most cases, instances when "dialects" are not mutually intelligible someone is artificially designating them as the "same" language for political reasons. In the case of "Arabic" it's all about the unity of disparate polities that have little in common beyond a shared heritage that stopped being "shared" centuries ago. Of course, it cuts both ways, because if you recognize "Arab unity" then you undermine the argument that Palestinians should live in Palestine, because it's hard to say why they couldn't live in, say, Damascus or Baghdad.
Another great example is Chinese. Cantonese sounds radically different from Mandarin and, although they're related, it's more like the way Russian and Polish are related. The only plausible argument is that literary Mandarin and literary Cantonese would look alike (but not if one picks up popular writing - Cantonese uses a bunch of its own characters that are different from the standard Chinese characters).
In response to your point about undermining the fundamentals of the Arabic language, yes, he does a great job of it. He shows how many of the "archaic" and "classic" constructions were the result of a poor understanding of an Aramaic substratum and were only ever really used by people trying to model their language on the Qur'an.
As for the 'Alaq sura, his contention is that the "first sura revealed" is the result of a poor understanding of what it's saying.
Essentially, if you boil it all down, he says "The Arabs weren't literate and the Qur'an is the result of borrowing Aramaic words and phrases from the high literary culture of the region and applying it to Arabic to sound more 'proper', and after two centuries the Arabs had so distorted the original readings as a result of no pointing that they had to mark it all to avoid drastically variant readings. This led to the creation of a grammar that had never existed as they struggled to understand their own holy book."
Another great example is Chinese. Cantonese sounds radically different from Mandarin and, although they're related, it's more like the way Russian and Polish are related. The only plausible argument is that literary Mandarin and literary Cantonese would look alike (but not if one picks up popular writing - Cantonese uses a bunch of its own characters that are different from the standard Chinese characters).
In response to your point about undermining the fundamentals of the Arabic language, yes, he does a great job of it. He shows how many of the "archaic" and "classic" constructions were the result of a poor understanding of an Aramaic substratum and were only ever really used by people trying to model their language on the Qur'an.
As for the 'Alaq sura, his contention is that the "first sura revealed" is the result of a poor understanding of what it's saying.
Essentially, if you boil it all down, he says "The Arabs weren't literate and the Qur'an is the result of borrowing Aramaic words and phrases from the high literary culture of the region and applying it to Arabic to sound more 'proper', and after two centuries the Arabs had so distorted the original readings as a result of no pointing that they had to mark it all to avoid drastically variant readings. This led to the creation of a grammar that had never existed as they struggled to understand their own holy book."
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
- 323 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
- 676 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
- 593 Views
I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I doubt you'll enjoy the book.
01/06/2010 10:56:12 PM
- 577 Views
Damn.
01/06/2010 11:01:30 PM
- 554 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
- 813 Views
Re: I'm sure he was referring to Sumerian theory in Akkadian grammar.
02/06/2010 03:32:13 AM
- 598 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