# Qur'anic Arabic vs. modern Arabic



## I Am Herenow

Hello 

First of all, before I start, please be aware that I do not speak Arabic, and therefore please post in English and also bear in mind that concrete examples of grammar using Arabic letters will mean very little to me 

Anyway, this is more something I am interested in as background knowledge of Islam, rather than the Arabic language, but I thought this would be a good place to ask my question.

As the Qur'an was written, I believe, in the 7th or 8th century (please do tell me the exact date if you know!), I assume the Arabic language must have changed drastically since then. I understand that Muslims believe that the Qur'an should not be translated so as not to lose any of its meaning, and that Muslims should learn Arabic in order to properly understand the Qur'an. Now, assuming the language has indeed changed since the time the Qur'an was written, does this mean that people must learn an old form of Arabic in order to read it? And on the same topic, do people living in Muslim countries have to know modern Arabic to speak, read novels etc. and 7th-century Arabic to read/understand the Qur'an?

Or has it been changed subtly over the years to keep it in line with the most modern version of Arabic - or has the language, in fact, not changed at all/hardly changed since the 7th century?

Any information would be appreciated


----------



## Tajabone

Hello,

You can easily guess how touchy the question is. Don't expect ordinary believers to give you a rational answer about it.
One of the major epistemological obstacles is the status of Arabic: held as "sacred" and seen as a divine language, the philological enquiry of Arabic through the historical constitution of the Quran is simply considered as a "deadly sin" (nowadays, it's not only a metaphor ...)
Till the 10th century, Muslims were discussing the different "editions" of the Quran, in an open-minded way. This means that it was admitted that The Quran was not a mere object received "en bloc", a homogeneous book from the very beginning to the rest of eternity.
Anyway, I leave you with a review on Luxenberg's work.


----------



## WadiH

Here's the straight answer.

There are two forms of Arabic at present:
(1) Spoken Arabic: which varies by country, region, city, or lifestyle (nomadic vs. sedantary).
(2) Written Arabic

Some people believe this has always been the case, while others (including most Muslims) believe the two languages were one, and that spoken Arabic developed later.

Written Arabic today (usually known as Modern Standard Arabic, or MSA) is substantially the same as the Arabic of the Quran (which dates from the 7th century) and of the writings of the early centuries of Islam (termed "Classical" Arabic). The Arabic of newspapers, novels, and text-books is written in MSA and tends to draw on a different register from Classical Arabic. Also, some word usages have evolved, and many phrases or cliches have been borrowed in translated form from English and French. However, the difference between MSA and Classical Arabic is about the same as the difference between 21st century English and the English of the 18th century. Also, the writing style of religious scholars today is scarcely different from the Arabic of the 8th or 9th centuries.

In school, people are taught written Arabic exclusively. This is not new. Even many centuries ago, children were sent to schoolmasters who taught them how to read the Quran and other classical texts. Therefore, people with an elementary education in Arabic-speaking countries can often read the Quran and understand the gist of it, though they must consult lexicons and dictionaries to obtain the exact meaning as the vocabulary of the Quran can be archaic. It must be noted, however, that the Quran represents a very high form of literature (similar to the King James Bible in English), and it shouldn't be assumed that all texts dating from that period present the same level of difficulty to the modern Arabic reader.

Spoken Arabic is learned by practice and imitation from one's surroundings. It differs from Written Arabic in that the grammar is simplified and the rules of pronunciation differ. The vocabulary is essentially the same, except that the spoken tongue draws on a different register. Also, loanwords are more heavily present in the spoken varieties and there are many contractions (similar to the contraction of "will not" to "won't" or "can not" to "can't" in English).

The last thing I must say is that there is no clearly marked border between the written and spoken forms of Arabic. People code-switch very often, even within the same sentence. Also, the more educated a person is, the closer his or her version of spoken Arabic becomes to written Arabic. The dichotomy is therefore better viewed as a spectrem.

In conclusion, an ordinary person can learn essentially the same language to be able to read both the Quran and modern writings such as novels and newspapers, but will often sometimes need to consult a dictionary to get the exact meaning.


----------



## HKK

I think the question was more practical than theological.

The language of the Qur'an is Classical Arabic. This language is not spoken today in interpersonal contact. For everyday use, Arabic speakers use dialects specific to their region/country/city. 

However for literature, science, journalism and often entertainment, an "updated" and evolved Classical Arabic is used. This is called Modern Standard Arabic. Though it is different from Classical Arabic, it's much more conservative than e.g. formal English. Because most people learn it at school, the average Arabic speaker can understand most of the Qur'an just by reading. And for muslims, education will probably include understanding the holy book of their religion.

ps A better answer from Wadi Hanifa seems to have preempted mine


----------



## konungursvia

They are very different, like Shakespearean English and our English. Also, the spelling is different in that modern Arabic leaves off diacritics representing vowels, of which there are many, you just have to guess them. In the Koran, they are there, and look like little slashes above and below the words, as well as little nines below the words.


----------



## Anatoli

konungursvia said:


> ... Also, the spelling is different in that modern Arabic leaves off diacritics representing vowels, of which there are many, you just have to guess them. In the Koran, they are there, and look like little slashes above and below the words, as well as little nines below the words.


I don't think it has to do with differences between Classical Arabic and MSA but rather the style or method of writing. Qur'ān (Koran) is written with diacritics to make its reading easier and to avoid any ambiguity but so can be any Arabic text, e.g. children's books, which are often supplied with diacritics


----------



## Abu Rashid

Wadi Hanifa has provided a very good answer.

konungursvia,



> They are very different, like Shakespearean English and our English.



This is quite an exaggeration. I don't turn on my TV at night and hear the daily news in Shakespearean  English, whilst  all Arabs will take just about all of their media in Fus7a. Also I consider myself to be educated, yet I cannot really understand Shakespearean English that well, whilst any educated Arab will understand fus7a perfectly.



> Also, the spelling is different in that modern Arabic leaves off diacritics representing vowels, of which there are many, you just have to guess them



Again, not really correct. The Tashkeel (vowel markings) appear in modern texts also. Mostly it is used for childrens books and also in some cases for disambiguation within a text. This is not really an issue of classical and modern, it's more an issue of the importance of avoiding confusion. Since the Qur'an is considered the word of God, it is a must to avoid confusion when reading it, so the Tashkeel is used. Likewise when children read, they will not yet know the rules of grammar which will indicate to you how to vowelise the text, so they also use Tashkeel.

...

A point worth noting is that Arabs do not know terms like MSA and Classical, these are purely English constructions that have no equivalents in Arabic. Arabs consider them to be one and the same (ie. Fus7a).

So in answer to the original question, Arabic is essentially the same as it was 1400 years (and probably more) ago. Yes there are colloquial varieties in use for common everyday speech, but the official language of media, education, government etc. is usually the exact same language.

I would compare the situation of Arabic like that of Latin in the early middle ages. Latin was the official language of most of Europe, most correspondence, literature etc. was all in Latin, but colloquial dialects (Called collectively Vulgar Latin) were beginning to emerge in Gaul, Iberia etc. Those colloquial dialects would of course later become French, Spanish etc. and Latin would fade away, but this process is not really happening with Arabic. Arabic simply has that dichotomy of the two variants of the language (known as diglossia in linguistic terms), the formal and the informal.


----------



## elroy

Abu Rashid said:


> This is quite an exaggeration. I don't turn on my TV at night and hear the daily news in Shakespearean English, whilst all Arabs will take just about all of their media in Fus7a. Also I consider myself to be educated, yet I cannot really understand Shakespearean English that well, whilst any educated Arab will understand fus7a perfectly.


 I'm pretty sure Konungursvia was comparing Qur'anic Arabic and modern standard Arabic to Shakespearean English and modern English, respectively - not Shakespearean English to modern (non-Qur'anic) fus7a.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> I'm pretty sure Konungursvia was comparing Qur'anic Arabic and modern standard Arabic to Shakespearean English and modern English, respectively - not Shakespearean English to modern (non-Qur'anic) fus7a.



And nowhere did I state that he's compared Shakespearean English to Fus7a, I think you're a little confused.

I stated that Shakespearean English doesn't hold the same position relative to modern English, as it's not used every day in media etc. like Fus7a is used everyday in the media etc. for people speaking modern Arabic.


----------



## I Am Herenow

How interesting.

I have a few questions:


First of all, what is Fus7a?

Secondly, why do you suppose Arabic has changed relatively little compared to English? The changes you describe (KJV English -> modern English) are probably about 19th century-modern day, and if you look at 7th-century English (Old English), it is a completely different language (look here and here for the obvious differences, and here's the main article). Indeed, even medieval Latin is almost completely unrecognisable (yes, you can pick out some words, but in order to read texts, you would need to learn a new language).


----------



## Beate

Hello,

when I studied arabic, we read also Koran and I must admit that the passages of the Koran were much more easier to unterstand for me than any modern article about politics or economics. No joke.

In Germany too, there are people (who don't know arabic at all by the way) who think that the classical arabic of the 7th century can be compared to Althochdeutsch or MIttelhochdeutsch in the sense that you don't understand anything because grammar, vocabulary and syntax did change fundamentally. But this ist not true with arabic.

I am able to read Koran as well as Ahadith as well as the classical interpretations without any problems (except for looking up some unknown words).

Of course, modern texts don't sound like Koran, but this is a stilistic question not a question of grammar or vocabulary.
This is my point of view as someone who studied arabic as a foreign language.

bye Beate


----------



## Qcumber

Perhaps it would be interesting to compare pre-Islamic poems like those of Imru-l-Qais to 10th-century, 15th-century, and 20th-century writings, and see how the language has evolved.


----------



## I Am Herenow

Indeed - but does anyone know the answer to my question of _why_ it is that Arabic has changed so little in comparison to English - and German, it would seem.

Also, what is Fus7a?!


----------



## elroy

Abu Rashid said:


> And nowhere did I state that he's compared Shakespearean English to Fus7a, I think you're a little confused.
> 
> I stated that *Shakespearean English* doesn't hold the same position relative to modern English, as *it's not used every day in media etc. like Fus7a is used everyday *in the media etc. for people speaking modern Arabic.


 I think you're the one who's confused.  Note the part of your post where you yet again imply that Shakespearean English was being compared with modern fus7a.

The title of the thread asks about the difference between Qur'anic Arabic and modern Arabic (in the latter, it is not specified whether fus7a or colloquial is meant).  Konungursvia states that _they _(in my opinion QA and MSA) are as different as Shakespearan English and modern English.  In other words, the language of the Qur'an is akin to the language of Shakespeare.  I fail to see how this suggests anything about how Shakespearian English compares with modern - non Qur'anic - fus7a.


----------



## clevermizo

The question of usefulness of the Shakespeare-Modern English (actually Shakespeare is technically Modern English too, just really old Modern English) analog to QA-MSA is not totally without justification. I think that the sound of the language of the Qur'an as well as the sound of the language of historical fictional theatre in Arabic (which is Classical) can evoke similar types of either nostalgia for bygone times or a sense of antiquity which is similar to the way that Shakespearean English sounds sometimes to modern English ears. This is just a guess, but I have a feeling it may be the case.

I'm not sure if I ascribe to the analogy 100%, but I could see how someone can say that. And quite like Quranic Arabic and MSA both are fus7a Arabic, Shakespearean English and Modern (Modern) English are mostly the same language except for some archaic vocabulary and expressions.


----------



## MarcB

I Am Herenow said:


> First of all, what is Fus7a?


It is the written form of Modern Arabic and the language of the Qur'an.


----------



## Qcumber

I don't think it is a good linguistic approach to compare an old religious text (the Qur'aan, King James' Bible, etc.), with a text of the modern period. These scriptures are repeated on and on from generation to generation; they are more or less memorized; they supply vernaculars with frozen expressions, etc. No, one should compare texts that the general public doesn't know.

Another approach consists in comparing the various translations of a foreign text. For instance we have passages from the Gospel in Old-English, Middle-English, Elizabethan English (KJB), and 20th-c. English. We can use these to study and / or show the evolution of English.

Arabists could use texts translated from Greek philosophers'. The Medieval versions exist. I suppose modern versions exist, too. So, with them, it is possible to compare two states of the evolution of the Arabic language.


----------



## Abu Rashid

I am here now,



> First of all, what is Fus7a?



I think the word actually means pure or pristine. It is considered the pure or pristine or most eloquent form of the Arabic language.



> Secondly, why do you suppose Arabic has changed relatively little compared to English?



It has probably changed very little because of its religious significance. Since the language is the key to understanding the Islamic texts, losing it would be like losing the connection to Islam.



> and if you look at 7th-century English (Old English), it is a completely different language



This is because English has heavily affected by other languages. Due to the Norman conquests and some other factors, English has changed radically. It was originally a Germanic language, but today probably about 60% of its vocabulary is actually Romance in origin (ie. from Latin and its derivatives).

Qcumber,



> Perhaps it would be interesting to compare pre-Islamic poems like those of Imru-l-Qais to 10th-century, 15th-century, and 20th-century writings, and see how the language has evolved.



I think you'll still find them to be the exact same language. I can't say for sure about the pre-Islamic poems, but if you compare hadith (normal everyday speech of the Qur'anic period) with any later Arabic writings, you'll find them to be the exact same language.


----------



## Abu Rashid

elroy,

How about you just put down your red pen for a moment, stop underlining and bolding my text, and just read what I actually said.

1) konungursvia stated that MSA and CA are as different as Shakespearean English and Our English. In his analogy Shakespearean English is estimated to have the same position to our English as CA does to MSA. Are you ok up till this point? His analogy, not mine.. with me?

2) I stated this is overexaggerated and that the language Arabs watch most of their media in is the exact same language as CA (Fus7a). I also stated, that I as a modern speak of English am not able to fully understand Shakespearean English, and that any educated Arab would understand CA (Fus7a) perfectly well. Catching on?

3) You jumped into the conversation and claimed I was comparing "Shakespearean English to modern (non-Qur'anic) fus7a".

Just calm down a little, and read back over it, and I'm sure it will be clear for you.


----------



## elroy

> I think the word actually means pure or pristine. It is considered the pure or pristine or most eloquent form of the Arabic language.


 It means "most eloquent," not "pure" or "pristine." 


Abu Rashid said:


> 2) I stated this is overexaggerated and that the language Arabs watch most of their media in is the exact same language as CA (Fus7a).


 Actually, you did not state this clearly; had you done so, there would have been no confusion.  I assumed you were talking about non-Qur'anic Arabic, which differs from Qur'anic Arabic in terms of style.

But now I see what you were saying. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> It means "most eloquent," not "pure" or "pristine."



Hans Wehr states under the entry: فصيح
*Pure*, good Arabic (language)..

Pristine is perhaps my addition.



> Actually, you did not state this clearly



My humblest apologies for not being clear enough.


----------



## I Am Herenow

Why does the word Fus7a have a number in it? How do you pronounce it?

Fussah?
Fussay?
Fuss-seven-ah?

Confused :S


----------



## elroy

Please read the sticky you were supposed to read before posting.


----------



## WadiH

I Am Herenow said:


> Why does the word Fus7a have a number in it? How do you pronounce it?
> 
> Fussah?
> Fussay?
> Fuss-seven-ah?
> 
> Confused :S


 
7 denotes a letter similar to the English "h".  So, roughly, "Foos Ha".

It means "the most elequoent" or "the most clear", and it's the word that Arabs use to refer to what I referred to earlier as Written Arabic, including the Arabic of the Quran (though it is not strictly written; it is also the form of the language used in newscasts and formal events).


----------



## I Am Herenow

elroy said:


> Please read the sticky you were supposed to read before posting.


 
Oh, sorry, did the question sound rude?



Wadi Hanifa said:


> 7 denotes a letter similar to the English "h". So, roughly, "Foos Ha".
> 
> It means "the most elequoent" or "the most clear", and it's the word that Arabs use to refer to what I referred to earlier as Written Arabic, including the Arabic of the Quran (though it is not strictly written; it is also the form of the language used in newscasts and formal events).


 
Cheers!


----------



## elroy

I Am Herenow said:


> Oh, sorry, did the question sound rude?


 No.  I was just directing you to a place where you could have found the answer to that question as well as lots of other useful information.


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Rashid said:


> if you compare hadith (normal everyday speech of the Qur'anic period) with any later Arabic writings, you'll find them to be the exact same language.


I don't think using hadith is a good idea because they are written in a frozen language that doesn't change. By comparison, nobody would seriously consider comparing Roman Latin texts with Medieval latin texts and modern encyclicals from the Vatican to study the evolution of Latin / Romance languages.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

Abu Rashid said:
			
		

> I cannot really understand Shakespearean English that well, whilst any educated Arab will understand fus7a perfectly.


 To be able to appreciate the comparison implicitly advanced by _Abu Rashid_, i.e. between Elizabethan English and contemporary English on one side and between Qur’anic Arabic and a Modern Arabic dialect on the other, I’d like to say two things.

First, nobody would ask an Englishman to write his native tongue in an “Elizabethan way”. There is a continuous development of the English language inside the period which extends from the sixteenth century to our own days and which is called “Modern English” (subsequent to the two previous, also highly conventional periods of “Middle English” and “Old English”). Nobody expects an Englishman (or any other person with English as a native tongue) to emulate in writing earlier periods of the language. In the Arab world the situation is very different. Not only are you asked to write in (or _imitate to the best of your knowledge_) an idiom which was spoken 1000 years ago, but there is not even a choice. Your native language cannot be written at all. Of course, it could be written – if there had only been a willingness to do so. There isn’t.

Spoken Arabic is prestigious as far as it goes. But _writing_ a modern dialect is not a prestigious thing to do. I know that Naguib Mahfouz produced dialogues in the vernacular, but so did the Greek writer Alexandros Papadiamantis (1851-1911) who consistently wrote in _katharevousa_ (the hybrid classicizing Greek language of which he was _the_ master.

Secondly, one should inquire into the reasons why only *fus7a* can be written, and how this so-called “Modern Standard Arabic”, which for all intents and purposes is, as much as _katharevousa_ was, a _hybrid language_, came into being as the national language of the Arabs. I’ll follow up very shortly this last point.

The situation is basically the same as some few hundred years ago in Europe when the intellectual elite had an intimate knowledge of Latin. For ordinary people this language was abracadabra – if not _hocus-pocus_. The latter characteristic may be the better one, cf. the (probable) etymology < Latin _hoc est [enim] corpus [meum]_, “this is my body”, used in the church liturgy but only understood as a formula. The magic of this formula, however, is well understood by the Catholic believer, i.e. you are inculcated to understand the religious content, but you are not educated as a classical philologist to understand the nitty-gritty of the formula – which is of course the reason why a passage of the holy language could become “hocus-pocus”. As this word became associated with magic, it later got the meaning of “nonsense or sham used especially to cloak deception” (Webster) – a symptomatic semantic development. 

It is interesting to see how communication operates on such different levels as religion and language. A Christian dogma postulates that the ‘bread’ offered by the priest during Eucharist is turned into the body of Jesus Christ. Next step is that ‘wine’ is turned into blood. No wonder that ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ became taboo words in Greek and had to be changed. (The same happened to ‘water’ and ‘fish’ – also because of the religious connotations they had). During the Eucharist god is thought to descend from heaven and arrive on the altar in front of the faithful. In fact, there is nothing strange about these quasi-cannibalistic practices or about any other religious beliefs. The point is that once you are told that these practices (and their meaning) form an essential part of your group behavior, you will also accept that this is the way god speaks to humans.

There is one problem, however. The language which follows these practices is not holy per se - only to the extent that it is linked to god’s alleged communication with humans. Holy language is normally written – an exception is to be found in Zoroastrianism and in various so-called “primitive cultures” – and it is always communicated by a specially initiated person. _Natural language_ is common to all human beings and has nothing holy linked to it. Spoken Arabic is _natural language_ and has a perfectly structured grammar. Only a written version of it may become holy if certain texts are thought to be the words of god. If a text is considered holy, the alphabet with which it is written may easily follow suit. In the end the language itself, i.e. the tool by which god communicates to humans, is thought to be holy. This maelstrom of sacrosanctity happened not only to Arabic, but to several other languages. The enormous impact of Latin during the Middle Age – and, in fact, far beyond – can only be understood in religious terms.

In modern societies communication is basically understood as exchange of information between humans. Written languages would then tend to be shaped in the same mould as spoken languages. There would be no hucus-pocus about this type of communication. Since “god’s language” is oldish and revered, we will always need an initiated person to interpret it. If we needed a ترجمان, an interpreter, between native speakers, one “with” education and one “without” (cf. “functional illiteracy” further down), there is no point in having a national written language. 

To discuss this topic with Muslims whose native language is some form of Arabic – they only constitute between a fourth and a third of all Muslims – is a difficult task. The posting of _Tajabone_ is therefore a marvellously open-minded one! The combination, by the way, of Berber [local Kabylian], French [standard] and Arabic [maghrebine] in Kabylia is not uncommon, but it is most unusual to have _Classical_ Arabic as a “native tongue”...




			
				Tajabone said:
			
		

> Don't expect ordinary believers to give you a rational answer about it. One of the major epistemological obstacles is the status of Arabic: held as "sacred" and seen as a divine language.


 Here is the heart of the matter and indeed the reason why there is a _diglossic_ situation in Arab countries. 

It was the American arabist Ferguson who came up with the _diglossic_ model almost 50 years ago. It consisted of four languages: Arabic, Greek, _Haitian Creole_ and _Schwyzertüütsch_. The first two being “sacred languages,” ought to be singled out as a separate category, not uncommon around the world – depending on place and time. The Greek diglossia is basically eradicated (since 1976), but the Arabic one is very much alive – to great detriment of people living with this situation. There is something called “functional illiteracy” which implies _the inability to master in a functional way the official language of the state within the time of compulsory schooling_. The United Nations’ “Arab Development Report” does not mention this concept, but it does tell you the result of it.




			
				Wadi Hanifa said:
			
		

> In school, people are taught written Arabic exclusively. [...] Spoken Arabic is learned by practice and imitation from one's surroundings.


 We all learn a language “by practice and imitation from [our] surroundings” – it is normally called a native language (excluding the numerous cases in which you learn, say, a mother tongue, a father tongue, a school language and one or even two languages of the surroundings). The “abnormal” is that once you go to school you don’t learn the same language as your native tongue, but a version of it which was used perhaps thousand years ago. An Italian from Puglia or Veneto or Sicily or wherever “dialects” still thrives, are basically faced with the same situation, but there is one important diffference: An Italian does not have to _go back in time_ to learn the standard language of the country. For an Arab of today - as for a Greek of yesterday and for a Frenchman previous to the Carolingean Renaissance (more than 1000 years ago) – all written manifestations are dependent on solid knowledge of an extinct language which is kept alive for religious reasons. 

To answer the question of this thread: “Is the Arabic language of the Qur’an different from Arabic of today?”, I would refer to an article written by the same Ferguson who came up with a modern interpretation of _diglossia_. The article is called “Myths about Arabic” and contains the following story (paraphrased by me):

Since Classical Arabic has such an enormous prestige compared to modern vernaculars, all Arabs would like their own dialect to be as closely linked to Classical Arabic as possible. Instead of asking an Arab which is his native country, you should rather ask him which contemporary Arabic dialect he would consider to be the closest one to the language of the Qur’an, and he would (almost) invariably tell you where he is from.
  ​


----------



## Abu Rashid

Spectre,



> To be able to appreciate the comparison implicitly advanced by _Abu Rashid_, i.e. between Elizabethan English and contemporary English on one side and between Qur’anic Arabic and a Modern Arabic dialect on the other




Actually my comparison was between CA (Classic/Qur'anic Arabic) and what is termed MSA. The difference between Fus7a and dialects is another kettle of fish altogether, and is probably much closer to the difference between Shakespearean [Early Modern] English and Today's English.




> Your native language cannot be written at all. Of course, it could be written – if there had only been a willingness to do so. There isn’t.




Actually the trend in the Arabic world has been towards the acceptance of dialects and the shedding of Fus7a. If you watch a session of the Egyptian parliament for instance, you'd question whether Fus7a is the official language of the country, also a lot of media in Egypt is produced in their dialect. Almost all TV serials, Disney cartoon translations and movies are in their dialect as well. This situation exists to some extent in other countries too. Also a lot of kids programs on TV now are being produced in dialects rather than in Fus7a.




> The situation is basically the same as some few hundred years ago in Europe when the intellectual elite had an intimate knowledge of Latin.




This is a very inaccurate analysis. a Few hundred years ago, very few people in Europe had any understanding of Latin at all, and their spoken languages were so far removed from Latin that the average person would have very little connection to it at all. If however you turn the clock back to the early middle ages (500-900 C.E perhaps), when most people were still speaking Vulgar Latin with regional variations and most still understood Formal Latin quite well, then the comparison is a lot more accurate.

For a native speaker of Arabic (dialect only) today to understand Fus7a doesn't require a lot of effort. A Frenchman would have to study it specifically, perhaps for a Spaniard, Italian or Romanian it'd be a little easier, but not much more.




> all written manifestations are dependent on solid knowledge of an extinct language which is kept alive for religious reasons.




I don't think it's kept alive merely for religious reasons. I think there's perhaps just as much, if not more, political reasoning for the clinging to Fus7a.

I think also it's considered more holy by non-Arab than by Arab Muslims.


----------



## I Am Herenow

Abu Rashid said:


> I think there's perhaps just as much, if not more, political reasoning for the clinging to Fus7a.[/color][/font]


 
And what might those political reasons be?


----------



## coptiyah

Hi,

just want to say that fus7a is used in most cartoons in fact most of us have grown up on arabic fus7a, I really can't think of any cartoon which spoke a dialect except very recently when egyptian actors and actresses spoke in the arabic version of the disney cartoons, but the majority of cartoons are in pure fus7a.


I am afraid even if it is my country I will have to admit that it is more the poverty of the teaching method at school than anything else that causes egyptians to be such poor grammarians. I am talking of secondary and primary schools and comparing the schooling of syrians, saudis and tunisians and yemenese ( some of my friends) their arabic curriculum is far richer than the egyptian one and therefore their fus7a doesnt suffer. 

So you would naturally find differences in the ability to cope with fus7a in the region. Fus7a is very important because it bridges gaps sometimes you know I can't make head or tail of what a maghrebi is saying it is extremely difficult, though maybe not as difficult as the algerian dialect, and likewise sometimes they don't understand my dialect-which is a bit strange because most films are Egyptian but anyway, when something like that happens fus7a usually saves the day. I shouldnt think it was a dead language or even dying, dialects change and they change dramatically, I mean an Egyptian teenager will use words that someone who is forty or fifty wont even understand, but everyone understands fus7a even if they cant speak it well.


----------



## I Am Herenow

Sure, sure - but, as the other guys have said, you're never actually explicitly taught the Egyptian dialect of Arabic, is that correct?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Why should you be taught a dialect that you already know? Just as English vernaculars are not taught in schools, why should Arabic vernaculars be taught in schools. Is Aussie English, for example, taught at school, and used commonly in writing? Is African American English (Black vernacular English) taught at schools, and commonly used in writing? Is Guyanese creole taught at schools or even used extensively in writing? Is any of the English slangs commonly written and taught at schools? So why should Arabic be singled out?

I find this discussion, sorry to say so, extremely irritating. Who is Ferguson that Arabs and Muslims have to give up fuSHA. If they want to be connected with it then let them be. Is there anything wrong with that? What used to be the Arabs' pride in being able to preserve their language almost intact, has now all of sudden become a burden, if not a humilation. In whose eyes? I find the discussion oozing with Eurocentricism, with non-Arabs dictating to Arabs regarding which Arabic they should focus on and which they should dump, because other European countries have done so.

I know of Christian Lenabese Arabs who have been in the forefront of promoting fuSHa Arabic by writing grammar manuals, dictionaries, etc. As I'm writing this the Yaziji family comes to mind. They and other Christian Arabs feel proud of fuSHa just as Muslim Arabs do.

In South Africa, I speak a vernacular of Afrikaans which uses a lot of English words, but when you write Afrikans you always do so in pure Afrikaans. So why should Arabic be any different?

As for the writing of Arabic dialects in all their splendour, you ought just to search the net and visit Arabic forums and blogs, and you will find that it is quite common phenomenon among Arabs. So they do write their dialects, but not to the extend that they see a need to replace fuSHa. Imagine (academic) books written in all the different Arabic dialects. I just don't see the practicality in that.

Arabic is an extremely rich language, with an extremely rich heritage. Long before Westerners knew about the ABC's of linguistics (the scientific study of langauge), Arabic scholars were engaged in highlevel linguistic research since the 8th Century. So if Arabs are proud of their linguistic heritage whether for religious or other reasons, then let them be.


----------



## Beate

Hello,

I am irritated, too, I must admit.

In Germany you find the same phenomenon. You have the written Hochdeutsch and the spoken dialects that sometimes differ highly from the written german.
But why should one try to create several germanic languages out of the different dialects?
People are happy with the situation. Everyone in Germany is taught the written german called Hochdeutsch at school and is free to speak whatever he wants. 

There is no problem in this kind of bilinguality.
So I imagine that there is no problem for arabs in their form of bilinguality.

bye Beate


----------



## elroy

Moderator Note:

Once again, we have failed to stay on topic.
Once again, a thread that started out with a relatively straightforward question about the Arabic language has evolved into a series of unrelated digressions.
Once again, I find myself having to point people to the title of the thread, and to the first post.
I realize that it is tempting to weigh in about some of the complexities of Arabic diglossia at any given chance, but this is a discussion forum, and it is important to keep the threads organized into clear, focused discussions - *one topic per thread*.
I find myself wondering why we are talking about the Arabic dialects, and whether they have or should have a written form, when the topic of the thread is supposed to be a comparison of Qur'anic Arabic and the Arabic of today.
As that question has been answered, and we do not seem to be discussing it anymore, this thread is closed.


----------

