Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Origins of the definite article of BHebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origins of the definite article of BHebrew
  • Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:11:34 +0000

On 18/12/2005 21:50, Herman Meester wrote:

...


No, I think laam is always meant as -L-, be it to be actually
pronounced, or "virtually".
All I do suggest is:

* say we have a type of spelling (i.e. Arabic spelling) where the
pausal form is the way a word is represented, not the context form
(i.e. each word is spelled as if it stands alone). For this we have
thousands of examples all over each Arabic text: - taa marbuuta (in
context, usually pronounced (in classical Arabic grammar) as -t-, but
never written as taa'; - alif al-wasl for stems vii, viii, x (surely
no historical hamz!), and some more.
* this means, we have no attempt at phonetic speling, rather a certain
artificial approach to spelling;
* then we see that there is an "article" that was originally only
C1-gemination;
* however, because of dissimilation in certain consonants, in quite a
few cases the "article" looks like -l-
* the, in a way very practical, thought comes up (speakers/users of
Arabic not always being interested in comparative linguistics nor in
phonetic spelling, just as it goes with any language): "that laam must
be something real; we may not pronounce it all the time, but let's
write it whenever we think it "is there/could have been there", i.e.
in the definition marker of nouns."
* then we don't really have the Laam as a sign of gemination, we just
have a certain interpretation of the dissimilated laam as the "real"
article.


OK, I understand you. If this is really how Arabic spelling developed, you may have a point. But I suspect that in fact the written language reflects reasonably accurately a particular stage of historic spoken Arabic - perhaps approximately that of the originally spoken Qur'an, because that seems to have become an orthographic standard. In that stage of Arabic taa' marbuta was I think always pronounced something like "t", but maybe in fact not quite the same as taa' (perhaps an aspirated t, or something like English "th") which would explain it being written differently. Of course the Arabic and general Semitic writing system required a consonant at the start of a word, and so alif was written even there is no glottal stop as also in long A vowels. Of course this was an ambiguity in the writing system, but then it is well known that Arabic writing at this time was ambiguous e.g. no vowel marking, certain consonant distinctions not fully made.

... (quoting Tropper)

"In the Arabic branch [of Semit. lang. HM], the situation of the
definite articles that we find is complex... The article (')al- [sic,
I wonder why not ('a)l- ? HM] of classical Arabic seems to differ
completely from the epigraphic material of early Northern Arabic
dialects; the latter, like Canaanitic, have as the normal form h-."


This is clearly because Qur'anic Arabic was not a Northern Arabic dialect, i.e. one from around Damascus and Petra which is where I think the oldest material comes from (and which would have been strongly influenced by Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite and Edomite which I think all had h- for the article, in texts in which gemination is not marked), but one from much further south, where the article had developed a slightly different form. But yes, the situation is complex.

...

This process is of course possible, although unlikely simply because as
you say "Arabic is a stenographic type of script" which avoids writing
anything unnecessarily. But my point is that written records prove that
this writing convention must go back to the time of Mohammed, or at the
very latest shortly afterwards.


Or ages prior to that; ...


Possibly. But we don't have any evidence, or only a very small amount, for writing in this part of Arabia before the Qur'an - and we know there were at least different writing conventions in northern Arabia.

...

But my issue here is not the comparison between modern Egyptian Arabic
and other modern dialects, it is between modern Egyptian Arabic and the
dialect of the Qur'an, as indicated by the spelling of the article in
the oldest Qur'an MSS.


I have to take a good look at that. The only Qur'an I have at home is
the traditional text. However, I think the oldest MSS are unvocalised,
so of little use to us: they'll all show the alif, the laam, ...


But that was my point! It is the alif and the laam, consonants not vowel marks, which I want you to look at, in the very oldest surviving Qur'ans. You don't need vocalisation to confirm that the article was written alif-laam before any word in the earliest surviving texts in this dialect of Arabic.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page