Books Messageboard: Fair enough. by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Fair enough. Legolas Send a noteboard - 02/06/2010 12:50:32 AM

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.

Indeed. I'm not a big fan of Arabic nationalism. I can see why they would want to keep insisting that they all speak the same language, though. Are you familiar with the literature on diglossia?

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).

Yeah, kind of similar in a way, I guess - languages that aren't mutually intelligible in oral form, but use the same written language.

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.

Oh dear. Controversial doesn't begin to cut it, then.

Although obviously most of those constructions aren't used too often anymore, if they ever were.

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.

If "iqra" doesn't mean "read!" anymore, I can see why he'd see it that way, yeah... but it's a shame, because that's one of the best parts of the Qur'an if you ask me.

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."

Ouch. I can't think there would be many societies or cultures that would take something like that in stride. Of course none of it is earth-shattering or even all that new from a foreign point of view, other than the extent of their Aramaic borrowing, but for them...

Reply to message

The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran by Christoph Luxenberg Tom - 31/05/2010 07:42:58 PM 1156 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 621 Views

Sounds interesting. Legolas - 31/05/2010 09:11:31 PM 597 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 689 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 685 Views

It's hardly revolutionary from a scholarly perspective. Tom - 02/06/2010 05:06:13 AM 592 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 590 Views

"nasiy" is just one of the possible definitions that Manna gave, not the "proper reading". Tom - 02/06/2010 05:07:41 AM 576 Views

Ooh, interesting. Rebekah - 01/06/2010 10:51:42 PM 603 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 566 Views

There will probably be a more "general reader"-friendly book on it in the future. Tom - 01/06/2010 11:27:15 PM 628 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 604 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 589 Views

Tired? everynametaken - 02/06/2010 01:14:53 AM 583 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 610 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="113338"><quote id="112967">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="113338">Indeed. I'm not a big fan of Arabic nationalism. I can see why they would want to keep insisting that they all speak the same language, though. Are you familiar with the literature on diglossia? </quote>

<quote id="113338"><quote id="112967">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).</quote></quote>

<quote id="113338">Yeah, kind of similar in a way, I guess - languages that aren't mutually intelligible in oral form, but use the same written language. </quote>

<quote id="113338"><quote id="112967">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="113338">Oh dear. Controversial doesn't begin to cut it, then. :P Although obviously most of those constructions aren't used too often anymore, if they ever were. </quote>

<quote id="113338"><quote id="112967">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="113338">If "iqra" doesn't mean "read!" anymore, I can see why he'd see it that way, yeah... but it's a shame, because that's one of the best parts of the Qur'an if you ask me. :P </quote>

<quote id="113338"><quote id="112967">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."</quote></quote>

<quote id="113338">Ouch. I can't think there would be many societies or cultures that would take something like that in stride. Of course none of it is earth-shattering or even all that new from a foreign point of view, other than the extent of their Aramaic borrowing, but for them... </quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password