# Is the word مکة an Arabic word?



## Aydintashar

The usage of this word in modern Arabic indicates that it is treated as a non-Arabic word. For example in the sentence:

فی الساعة العاشرة بتوقیت مکة المکرمة

the word مکة is used as منصوب rather than مجرور


----------



## cherine

Hi Aydintashar,

I don't know about the etymology of مكة but if you're asking why it is مجرور بالفتحة (it is not manSuub) then it's because it is علم مؤنث .
When a word is a feminine proper noun (whether ending with a taa2 marbuuta or not) it is ممنوع من الصرف which means that it doesn't get tanween and, in case of الجر , it takes a fat7a instead of a kasra.
Other examples are: فاطمة، خديجة، سعاد which are all perfectly Arabic names but they would still get a fat7a not a kasra when in case of الجر .

As for it being an Arabic word or not, I'll leave that to more knowledgeable persons.


----------



## berndf

I browsed through a few dictionaries and found that all agreed that the origin is uncertain. Here are two guesses.


----------



## WadiH

What other language could it possibly have come from?


----------



## Aydintashar

Wadi Hanifa said:


> What other language could it possibly have come from?



Possible candidates, in my opinion, are Egyptian or Greek in case it is not Arabic.


----------



## Aydintashar

berndf said:


> I browsed through a few dictionaries and found that all agreed that the origin is uncertain. Here are two guesses.



The suggested dictionary describes the etymology as follows:
_1823, from Arabic Makkah, sacred city of Islam, birthplace of Muhammad, which every Muslim must visit at least once. Origins have been proposed in Phoenician maqaq "ruined" or Arabic mahrab "sanctuary." Fig. sense of "any place one holds supremely sacred" (usually with lower-case m-) is from 1850.

_*[Off topic comment deleted. Please go to TheologyReference.com to discuss this issue.
Frank, moderator EHL]*


----------



## Mahaodeh

According to Arabic dictionaries, makka (the verb) the liquid is to suck it all out with difficulty and they say that Makkah was named so because people have difficulty extracting water from its wells.

The root has many meanings though and may be an old Semitic root; if it existed in Phoenecian then why not other Semitic languages also. By the way, one of the meanings in Arabic is "ruin".
*
* *[Reaction to deleted off topic comment, erm, deleted
Frank, moderator EHL]*


----------



## Aydintashar

Thanks Cherine for the valuable grammatical information.


----------



## WadiH

Are there any other examples of non-Arabic toponyms in that part of Arabia?

Is there anything that appears non-Arabic about the word?

Is there any positive evidence of a non-Arabic origin for this word?

If the answer to these questions is 'no' (and I believe that it is), then there is no reason to believe that the word is anything other than Arabic, especially since the region surrounding Mecca (the southern Hejaz and the upland immediately adjacent to it) is the most probable birthplace of the Arabic language anyway.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

I have no idea about the etymology of the word.
However:


Wadi Hanifa said:


> Are there any other examples of non-Arabic toponyms in that part of Arabia?
> Is there anything that appears non-Arabic about the word?
> Is there any positive evidence of a non-Arabic origin for this word?
> If the answer to these questions is 'no' (and I believe that it is), then there is no reason to believe that the word is anything other than Arabic, especially since the region surrounding Mecca (the southern Hejaz and the upland immediately adjacent to it) is the most probable birthplace of the Arabic language anyway.


You ask for positive evidence for an non-Arabic etymology (and you're right about that), but you're not really bothered about positive evidence for an Arabic etymology. Do I notice some lack of balance here?
Besides, the argument that Mekka was "the most probable birthplace of the Arabic language" (or not) and that hence the name Mekka is (or is not) Arabic doesn't cut wood.

I'd rather see some real, solid, positive evidence.

Frank


----------



## WadiH

Frank06 said:


> but you're not really bothered about positive evidence for an Arabic etymolgy. Do I notice some lack of balance here?



It is the name of an Arabic city, in an Arabic-speaking part of Arabia (not all of Arabia was Arabic-speaking in ancient times), surrounded by Arabic toponyms, and the word is unknown except through Arabic.  Moreover, it fits in an Arabic morphological pattern and the root exists (separate from the toponym) in the Arabic language.  That's pretty good evidence in my opinion.



> Besides, the argument that Mekka was or was not the birthplace of the Arabic language and that hence the name Mekka is Arabic doesn't cut wood.



Just to clarify, I did not say that Mecca was the birthplace of Arabic.  I said that the part of Arabia in which Mecca is located is the most probable birthplace of Arabic as we know it (or of Arabic's lineal ancestor).

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "proof."  I don't claim that this fact is proof of an Arabic etymology in the sense that I can prove the Pythagorean theorem, but it is important evidence that, when combined with the other points I spoke of above, points strongly towards an Arabic origin.  Of course, if some people choose to go for a Phoenician, Egyptian, or Greek etymology based on zero evidence, then they are certainly free to do so.

I can't *prove* that "Riyadh" is an Arabic word either, but the *evidence* points overwhelmingly in that direction.


----------



## Masjeen

العرب يقولون أن الأسماء لا تعلل
أنا أتبع منهجهم في هذه الناحية


----------



## Frank06

Masjeen said:


> العرب يقولون أن الأسماء لا تعلل
> أنا أتبع منهجهم في هذه الناحية


I think you're mistaking a dead alley for an easy way out.

Frank


----------



## Ghabi

Usually we come to think that a place name is "non-native" when it sounds incongruous. For example, the Ainu place names in Japan, which don't fit the Japanese phonotatics (of course one may say that, since Ainu is the native language of Japan, it's the Japanese place names that are "non-native", but this issue doesn't concern us here). 

As for مكة, there's no incongruity. The original questioner thought the word behaves strangely, but as Cherine explains in #2, there's really no anomaly, since مكة is a feminine proper noun, which is treated as a "diptote" ممنوع من الصرف in Arabic grammar. There's nothing unusual about the word, and it should at least be granted the benefit of doubt, although I think there's no doubt at all in the first place.


----------



## WadiH

Ghabi said:


> Usually we come to think that a place name is "non-native" when it sounds incongruous.



That's the word I needed: "incongruous."  Thank you my most inaptly-named friend.  



> For example, the Ainu place names in Japan, which don't fit the Japanese phonotatics (of course one may say that, since Ainu is the native language of Japan, it's the Japanese place names that are "non-native", but this issue doesn't concern us here).



Yes, you find that in parts of south Arabia between Yemen and Oman, where certain place names probably come from the ancestor of the Modern South Arabian language.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Frank,



> You ask for positive evidence for an non-Arabic etymology (and you're  right about that), but you're not really bothered about positive  evidence for an Arabic etymology. Do I notice some lack of balance here?



It would seem that Wadi's intention here was to point out that in the absence of any clear evidence of it not being Arabic, that suggesting things like Phoenician, Egyptian or Greek is pointless when everything points to it being Arabic. It seems the original questioner was of the opinion that by default it wouldn't be Arabic.


----------



## L.2

I think it's a Hebrew word because the first one who dwelt in Makka was Prophet Abraham with his wife and his son Ishmael.​ 
Bakka is the original name of Makka. It was mentioned in the Holy Quran by this original name in chapter 3:96​ 
{Verily, the first house (of worship) appointed for mankind was that in *Bakka* full of blessing, and guidance for all people}​ 
(إن أول بيت وضع للناس للذي *ببكة* مباركا وهدى للعالمين فيه) آل عمران 96-97​ 

In Hebrew Bakka is בקעה (Bi'kah) it means a valley that surrounds with mountains and we all know that Makka is located in a valley and restricted by mountains 
Bakka also was mentioned once in the Holy Bible.
"They will be still praising you, blessed is the man whose strength is in you, whose heart is set on pilgrimage as they pass through the valley of *Baca* make it a well" Psalms (4-6)​


----------



## berndf

L.2 said:


> In Hebrew Bakka is בקעה (Bi'kah) it means a valley that surrounds with mountains and we all know that Makka is located in a valley and restricted by mountains Bakka also was mentioned once in the Holy Bible.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They will be still praising you, blessed is the man whose strength is in you, whose heart is set on pilgrimage as they pass through the valley of *Baca* make it a well" Psalms (*8*4-*7*)​


בקעה is Bi*q3*ah, not much to do with Ba*kk*ah. If I am not mistaken the Arabic cognate of בקעה is بقاع.


----------



## L.2

Maybe you confused because you saw Bakka with two k actually it has only one as it's written in Arabic but when transliterate it, it seems like two. 
In my view, we can't say Bak3a with ayin is totally different word than Bakka.
We should keep in consideration that a word may lose a sound or a syllable when converts to another language and sometimes at the same language a sound may be lost or changed after passing of years, just like what happened to Bakka and how it became Makka after years.
Also I should say that what I have written in my previous post is my interpretation and my personal view but if anyone wants to look for another possible meaning of Makka, they should look for the original name Bakka not Makka, that's the point.
Even though I feel it's Bak'a because historical evidence says that Abraham lived in Arabia, particularly in the valley where it's Makka today and Makka really fits the Hebrew word that says a valley surrounds with mountians.

I just remembered another theory I am not sure about I'll think about it later. Bakka perhaps came from Bokaa which means crying, weeping because people were passing through God's house praising Him, praying and crying.


----------



## cherine

L.2 said:


> In Hebrew Bakka is בקעה (Bi'kah) it means a valley that surrounds with mountains and we all know that Makka is located in a valley and restricted by mountains
> Bakka also was mentioned once in the Holy Bible.
> 
> "They will be still praising you, blessed is the man whose strength is in you, whose heart is set on pilgrimage as they pass through the valley of *Baca* make it a well" Psalms (84-6)​


Are you sure it's the same place? Baca is وادي البكاء in the Arabic translation given here.


berndf said:


> בקעה is Bi*q3*ah, not much to do with Ba*kk*ah. If I am not mistaken the Arabic cognate of בקעה is بقاع.


There's بقاع and there's البقيع but they're two different places, and both are different from bakka/Makka. I'm not sure which of them is the Hebrew biq3ah, but I agree with you that it's a different place.


L.2 said:


> Maybe you confused because you saw Bakka with two k actually it has only one as it's written in Arabic but when transliterate it, it seems like two.


Even with one "k", I believe they're still different places.


> In my view, we can't say Bak3a with ayin is totally different word than Bakka.


Why? It's not only a matter of one or two "k"s, it's also the difference between a word with ك and a word with ق _and_ ع .


> Even though I feel it's Bak'a because historical evidence says that Abraham lived in Arabia, particularly in the valley where it's Makka today and Makka really fits the Hebrew word that says a valley surrounds with mountians.


Is Makka the only place that is surrounded by mountains? 


> I just remembered another theory I am not sure about I'll think about it later. Bakka perhaps came from Bokaa which means crying, weeping because people were passing through God's house praising Him, praying and crying.


Are you serious? 
If what you say is true, than maybe it should've been called mabka مبكى .


----------



## berndf

L.2 said:


> In my view, we can't say Bak3a with ayin is totally different word than Bakka.


Yes, that's what I said. It's a different word. בקעה is not related to Bakka. בקעה contains an `ayn (ע) and a "q" (ק) but no "k" (כ or ך) at all. Hebrew ק is Arabic ق and Hebrew ע is Arabic ع.

The word used in Psalms 84,7 is בכא (Baka') and not בקעה (Biq3ah).


----------



## berndf

cherine said:


> There's بقاع and there's البقيع but they're two different places, and both are different from bakka/Makka. I'm not sure which of them is the Hebrew biq3ah, but I agree with you that it's a different place.


I only meant that בקעה and بقاع. are cognate words, meaning "valley". And both have nothing whatsoever to do with Bakka. I didn't have a specific place in mind.


----------



## Aydintashar

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Here is a very interesting piece of information which may help clarify the etymology of "Bakkah":


       The origin of the Name         _           'Ba'al-bek'_           -                             'The      first syllable '_Baal_' corresponds to the Sun of the ancient Phoenicians. The Syriac      termination '_Bak_' means town; the Phoenician ending '_Beka_' means 'country'.      However, in a recently discovered Phoenician inscription, the word '_Beka_'      has the meaning of town. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In Egyptian, the word '_Bak_' also means town'.[/FONT] 

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]We may therefore draw the conclusion that "Bakkah" is derived either from ancient Egyptian or Syriac, and simply means "town". On the other hand, the word "Bak" (beg, bag etc) is linked to mesopotamia, and usually means "god". It is interesting to note that the word "God" in Russian and most Slavic languages is different variations of _Бог_.  The word may also be present in the word "_Baghdad_".[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## L.2

cherine said:


> Are you sure it's the same place? Baca is وادي البكاء in the Arabic translation given here.
> 
> There's بقاع and there's البقيع but they're two different places, and both are different from bakka/Makka. I'm not sure which of them is the Hebrew biq3ah, but I agree with you that it's a different place.
> 
> Even with one "k", I believe they're still different places.
> 
> Why? It's not only a matter of one or two "k"s, it's also the difference between a word with ك and a word with ق _and_ ع .
> 
> Is Makka the only place that is surrounded by mountains?
> 
> Are you serious?
> If what you say is true, than maybe it should've been called mabka مبكى .


 
I think you misunderstood my point, I did not say that Makka is the only place that is located in a valley and surrounded with mountains. What I meant is that we have a place, and a name was given to it. The name exactly describes the place and the place fits its given name.
The words to my ear don't sound different for the reasons I already mentioned also I know that there were some Arabs who replace ayen with alef and vice versa and still some Saudi Arabians do that today.

About my other theory, only people who believe in authority of both The Holy Bible and Holy Quran may believe it. if you don't, I am afraid you should look for anothor reference.
Yea actually I believe that the valley of Bakka is the valley of Bokka but I am not very sure if it meant meaning, crying.
If you look in all Holy Bible versions you will find that not all translations of the Bible are accurate from the original scripts so some stuck with the exact sound Bakka like English King James version with the word Baca was written in capital that means it's a name rather than merely a noun. Other like Arabic version interpreted the word Baca and considered it from the root Baka which means, crying, weeping...etc.
It is all associated with water I guess if it was originally Bik'a means a valley making wells (springs according to the Bible) or Baka, tears, water coming out of eyes.
For مبكى I have also read that and because الميم were followed with الباء Arabs omitted one of them therefore, it's Bakka and it is also Makka.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Aydintashar said:


> Here is a very interesting piece of information which may help clarify the etymology of "Bakkah":
> 
> 
> The origin of the Name _'Ba'al-bek'_ - 'The first syllable '_Baal_' corresponds to the Sun of the ancient Phoenicians. The Syriac termination '_Bak_' means town; the Phoenician ending '_Beka_' means 'country'. However, in a recently discovered Phoenician inscription, the word '_Beka_' has the meaning of town. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In Egyptian, the word '_Bak_' also means town'.
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]We may therefore draw the conclusion that "Bakkah" is derived either from ancient Egyptian or Syriac, and simply means "town". On the other hand, the word "Bak" (beg, bag etc) is linked to mesopotamia, and usually means "god". It is interesting to note that the word "God" in Russian and most Slavic languages is different variations of _Бог_. The word may also be present in the word "_Baghdad_".[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
> 
> [/FONT]


 
The Bak and Bakka theory sounds alright. However, Baghdad is not related, it's from Persian. Anyway, are you all sure that the original name was Bakka not Makka? No one gave any proof of this.




L.2 said:


> I think it's a Hebrew word because the first one who dwelt in Makka was Prophet Abraham with his wife and his son Ishmael.​


 
But Abraham didn't live there, he only left Hajir and Ishmael there; after a short time the Arab tribe of Jurhum came and lived with them there. So basically Ishmael probably spoke the language that Jurhum spoke.

In all cases, who said Abraham spoke Hebrew to start with? Up to my knowledge, Hebrew began to be spoken several centuries after he died.


----------



## origumi

L.2 said:


> Even though I feel it's Bak'a because *historical evidence* says that Abraham lived in Arabia, particularly in the valley where it's Makka today and Makka really fits the Hebrew word that says a valley surrounds with mountians.


Historical evidence? Can you elaborate?



Aydintashar said:


> The origin of the Name _'Ba'al-bek'_ - 'The first syllable '_Baal_' corresponds to the *Sun* of the ancient Phoenicians.


Ba`al means master, owner, lord, and was the name of an important God (or several gods), not necessarly corresponds to Sun. More likely to Hadad, the Storm.



Mahaodeh said:


> In all cases, who said Abraham spoke Hebrew to start with? Up to my knowledge, Hebrew began to be spoken several centuries after he died.


Abraham is likely to have spoken early Canaanite or Canaanatized Aramaic.


----------



## Frank06

L.2 said:


> Even though I feel it's Bak'a because historical evidence says that Abraham lived in Arabia


Which historical evidence exactly?
(And I mean: which evidence says that Abraham is a historical figure in the first place and which historical evidence says he lived in Arabia?)


> About my other theory, only people who believe in authority of both The Holy Bible and Holy Quran may believe it.


Neither science, linguistics nor this forum deal with the "authority" of religious writings.

Frank


----------



## clevermizo

origumi said:


> Abraham is likely to have spoken early Canaanite or Canaanatized Aramaic.



Canaanite is a family of languages to which Hebrew belongs. I know of no "Canaanite language" or rather, Hebrew *is* a Canaanite language. Or do you mean a language ancestral to all of these?



L.2 said:


> Even though I feel it's Bak'a because historical evidence says that Abraham lived in Arabia, particularly in the valley where it's Makka today and Makka really fits the Hebrew word that says a valley surrounds with mountians.



There is no historical evidence (i.e., unaffiliated with religious texts) that Abraham was a real individual who lived anywhere. However, he has been dated, based on a literal reading of scripture, to the 18th century BCE (since it is believed he was a contemporary of Hammurabi). Nevertheless, Abraham, even in the Bible, was from modern day Iraq, so his native language would not logically have been a Canaanite language at all but probably a Babylonian dialect of Akkadian. I doubt it would have been Aramaic, which wasn't even spoken in the 18th century BCE (not attested till the 11th century I believe), let alone in the land of Canaan. If you start moving Abraham's pseudo-historical date forward in time to when Hebrew or Aramaic were actually spoken, he starts to overlap with other Biblical figures which _are_ attested archaeologically, and thereby making no chronological sense, or at least making a rip in the space-time continuum and violating basic laws of physics.

Anyway, none of this changes the point that there is no real etymological link between בקעה and *بكّة, nor is there any reason I can see to think that مكة is not an Arabic word.


----------



## origumi

clevermizo said:


> Canaanite is a family of languages to which Hebrew belongs. I know of no "Canaanite language" or rather, Hebrew *is* a Canaanite language. Or do you mean a language ancestral to all of these?


Some of the Canaanaite languages are very similar, mutually legible, and therefore must have been one language sometime after the day they were separated from Aramaic and before (or even during) biblical (pre- or post-Abraham) time. Call it "Proto-Canaanite" it you like. Therefore Hebrew is not Cannanite, Hebrew is one of the Canaanite languages and got its distinct characteristics later than the time canaanite appeared. Abraham is not likely to have spoken Hebrew.

According to the conventional view Abraham (historical figure or not) represents the era in which Aramaic families / tribes migrated from Northern Syria or Iraq to Canaan. In the beginning they were Aramaic (not Babylonian), later started establishing separate identity, and in the end became simply Canaanites. As nomads they could dwell in areas near Akkadian population and yet be totally different.


----------



## Faylasoof

L.2 said:


> …Bakka is the original name of Makka. It was mentioned in the Holy Quran by this original name in chapter 3:96 …


 
According to al-Zamakhshari, a noted Quran commentator, and concurred by Fakhraddin al-Razi, in some old Arabic dialects the two labial consonants ب and م were interchangeable, hence the بَکَّة -> مَکَّة change. So yes, بَکَّة is the original name of مَکَّة but, as others have said, بَکَّة is not related to the Hebrew  בקעה. 



L.2 said:


> …In Hebrew Bakka is בקעה (Bi'kah) it means a valley that surrounds with mountains and we all know that Makka is located in a valley and restricted by mountains …


 
Well, if we are to consider the geographical features of the region around مَکَّة , i.e. it being situated in a valley surrounded by mountains, then there is a much more appropriate name for this city and its surrounds, and this too is very old:
البَطحاء = The Meccan valley -  attested in both old Arabic poetry and later prose. 
[بَطحاء = a broad, dry, pebbled river bed. The verb is بَطَّحَ = to strew with pebbles.] 

It is quite clear that the etymology of مَکَّة  is obscure and looking at the meanings of the verbs  مَکَّ  and  بَکَّ doesn’t seem to help either.  But I agree, there is no reason to doubt that it is an Arabic word.


----------



## L.2

Frank06 said:


> Neither science, linguistics nor this forum deal with the "authority" of religious writings.
> 
> Frank


 
First of all I do not refer to them for religious purposes. I am neither Christian nor Jew so the Holy Bible is not my religious book, you may want to know.
I referred to them for their history writings and for their historical accuracy of people and other communities in the area. History helps us understand better why a city was called this or that. Scientists can not tell us why San Francesco, Alhambra, and other places were given these names but yet historians can. I think historical analysis helps us determine the good explanations and it helps us lay the foundation for best interpretations.
Historians tell us that a man named Ibrahim came to the valley with his Egyptian wife Hager and their son Ishmael. Ibrahim left them there but used to visit them from time to another. When first he left them they faced thirst that Ishmael started to cry, Hager begun to run looking for water...at last she found a spring of water, it is called Zamzam and is still flowing to this day, after that some nomads came and settled around the spring and Ishmael became the progenitor of Arabs.
This is the historicity of Makka and how it became a famous city after it was only a dry desert.



Faylasoof said:


> Well, if we are to consider the geographical features of the region around مَکَّة , i.e. it being situated in a valley surrounded by mountains, then there is a much more appropriate name for this city and its surrounds, and this too is very old:
> البَطحاء = The Meccan valley - attested in both old Arabic poetry and later prose.
> [بَطحاء = a broad, dry, pebbled river bed. The verb is بَطَّحَ = to strew with pebbles.]
> 
> It is quite clear that the etymology of مَکَّة is obscure and looking at the meanings of the verbs مَکَّ and بَکَّ doesn’t seem to help either. But I agree, there is no reason to doubt that it is an Arabic word.


 
As I said before whatever Bakka was, I think it is associated with water.
Bakka means tears also balsam tree is called Bakka because it produces water or something alike the verse "valley of Baca" was translated to valley of crying, valley of weeping, valley of balsam trees, and valley that lakes streams....etc
Also an Arabian poet said once:
إذا الشريب أخذته أكــه....فخله حتى يبك بكه
edha ashsharebu akhthathu akka…..fa khalihi hata _yabbuku bakka_
it means until [camels] throng and push each other to reach to water.
Moreover, in a quick search I read that there is a valley in Sinai that was called Bakka also if, and it's a big IF, the verse in psalms 84:6 doesn't refer to Bakka in Arabia then we would have 3 _valleys_ in the same area were called Bakka, this can not be coincidental.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Nevertheless, Abraham, even in the Bible, was from modern day Iraq, so his native language would not logically have been a Canaanite language at all but probably a Babylonian dialect of Akkadian.



Actually the theory that Ur Kasdim (the Biblical birthplace of Abram) was in Akkadian Iraq is only one theory. It's more likely to have been in Northern Iraq or perhaps more in Syria, where people spoke Aramaean. And in fact one of the places they stopped on the way to Canaan was the Aramaean city of Harran. Some Rabbinical sources also quote Ur Kasdim as being in the Aramaean territories.



> I doubt it would have been Aramaic, which wasn't even spoken in the 18th century BCE (not attested till the 11th century I believe), let alone in the land of Canaan.



It seems you've mistaken "attested" for meaning spoken here. Although I'm sure you're aware of the difference, and it's obviously difficult to know a language was spoken if it wasn't recorded, but I think the fact the commencement of written records coincide with the Aramaeans settling down from a previously nomadic lifestyle, would tend to suggest they were probably just not big writers before that change of lifestyle.


----------



## origumi

L.2 said:


> Historians tell us that a man named Ibrahim came to the valley with his Egyptian wife Hager and their son Ishmael.


Historians or theologists? Based on human knowledge or on belief? Holding documents / oral tradition from Abraham's period or 2300 years later?

As this info is highly disputed, in my opinion you must provide more tangible data. For example, are there any other historical facts known about Arabia of c. 1700 BC? Are these facts acceptable by conventional historians?


----------



## rayloom

Some scholars (I think Carl Brockelman is one of them) view that Makkah is related to Old South Arabian MKRB, which is made of 2 parts "mak" (house) "rab" (god).  Which is how they view the origin of mkrb in Epigraphic South Arabian, usually translated as holy. mkrb is usually attached to South Arabian king names, which have come to be called makaaribah مكاربة in Arabic. Also their priests were called mkrb (probably vocalized as makrab or mukarrib), and their temples (makrab).
What supports this theory is that Makkah appears as macoraba (for those who identify Macoraba as Makkah) in the writings of Ptolemy of Alexandria. 
Patricia Crone argues against this view however.

It could be that makkah meant house (of God) in the language of the earliest inhabitants of the city. Whether North Arabians or South Arabians (Jurhum).

There are no indications, however, that Bakkah is the original name, nor that it precedes the name Makkah. In fact if I were to say what came first I'd say Makkah.


----------



## Abu Rashid

rayloom said:
			
		

> Some scholars (I think Carl Brockelman is one of them) view that Makkah is related to Old South Arabian MKRB, which is made of 2 parts "mak" (house) "rab" (god). Which is how they view the origin of mkrb in Epigraphic South Arabian, usually translated as holy.



Are you sure about that? My Ancient South Arabian dictionary lists _mkrb_ as coming from the verb _krb_ meaning to carry out obligations/instructions. _Mkrb_ being the place (Temple, Shrine, Synagogue) in which religious obligations/instructions are carried out, or possibly from the common Semitic verb for blessing.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> ...or possibly from the common Semitic verb for blessing.


You mean B-R-K in reverse order?


----------



## Outlandish

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Are there any other examples of non-Arabic toponyms in that part of Arabia?
> 
> Is there anything that appears non-Arabic about the word?
> 
> Is there any positive evidence of a non-Arabic origin for this word?
> 
> If the answer to these questions is 'no' (and I believe that it is),  then there is no reason to believe that the word is anything other than  Arabic, especially since the region surrounding Mecca (the southern  Hejaz and the upland immediately adjacent to it) is the most probable  birthplace of the Arabic language anyway.




Revising some of the Qur'anic verses opened up some issues for me. I thought that maybe the name of the city did not start as Makkah but rather Bakka. My only evidence is the Qur'anic usage which did not say Makkah, but Bakka for the place of the holy House

إن أوّل بيت وضع للناس للذى ببكة  مباركاً وهدىً للعالمين​
By the time Prophet Abraham took to Makkah with Hagar and Ismail, it still was not called Makkah in the Qur'an but rather وادىٍ غير زرع عند بيتك المحرم,  which indicates that this abandoned place might had not been known as  Makkah yet. This further consolidates the possibility of it being an  Arabic word, since the migration of the Abrahamic family to Makkah  marked the conception of an emigration wave of _al-Arab Al-Areba _(the genuine Arabs, precisely the tribe of Jurhum) to Makkah, and there it might have gained its new pronunciation or name. 

In fact this is a crucial point: is Makkah a variant of Bakka (which  raises the possibility of it being from non-Arabic origins), or is it a  distinct name uninfluenced by the name Bakka, and in this case it would  be more closely seen as an Arabic word? This question will help us form  an approximate date on the time by which the name started. This is  purely a speculative analysis but could be of help as a starting point.  We need to find out when was Makkah fist used as a name for Makkah.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> You mean B-R-K in reverse order?



Well obviously k-r-b is b-r-k in reverse order... Is there something else you are suggesting there that eludes me?


----------



## rayloom

Abu Rashid said:


> Are you sure about that? My Ancient South Arabian dictionary lists _mkrb_ as coming from the verb _krb_ meaning to carry out obligations/instructions. _Mkrb_ being the place (Temple, Shrine, Synagogue) in which religious obligations/instructions are carried out, or possibly from the common Semitic verb for blessing.



makrib has been treated by the Sabaeans and Himyarites as derived from the root k-r-b. However some scholars doubt that etymology altogether, some have hypothesized that it's a contraction of an older mk & rb.

Another similarly interesting thing, the word miizaan (scale) in Arabic. It's treated by the Arabs as derived from the root w-z-n, with the morphology being mif3aal. The root wzn has become fully productive in Arabic.
Some scholars are also doubting this now, claiming the miizaan is borrowed from Akkadian miizaani (which is the dual form of miiz, and the dual oblique form is miizayni). The Semitic root m-y-z is also present in Arabic and it means something like to differentiate.
I'm not sure if the root w-z-n is present in other Semitic languages.

I think the OSA root krb is similar to the Arabic root wzn in this way.

Others argue the OSA krb is related to the West Semitic root qrb which means to make close (also used in religious contexts like qurban (offering)). But it would seem strange since OSA (the most conservative Semitic language phonologically) would shift the q to k, when Ethiosemitic (supposedly descended from OSA) still retains the q in the qrb root like Qurbaan (offering to God) and other derived words for example.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Thanks for your explanation on why you hold that view Rayloom.



> But it would seem strange since OSA (the most conservative Semitic language phonologically) would shift the q to k, when Ethiosemitic (supposedly descended from OSA) still retains the q in the qrb root like Qurbaan (offering to God) and other derived words for example.



Sabaic at least has the verb q-r-b too.

Although OSA languages are the most conservative in many respects (especially phonology and etymology) that doesn't mean they didn't sometimes mix up letters and roots, they did.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Well obviously k-r-b is b-r-k in reverse order... Is there something else you are suggesting there that eludes me?


I was just wondering why you should associate K-R-B with "to bless". I know B-R-K having this meaning but _to bless_=K-R-B doesn't ring a bell.


----------



## origumi

Regarding root k-r-b:

1. In Hebrew this root constructs the word "kruv" (= cherub), some kind of angel. The word appears in the earliest parts of the Bible. The etymology is unknown, two suggestions are Babylonian "karabu" = "blessed" or Assyrian "kirabu", a certain deity.

2. Babylonian "karabu" of root k-r-b has the same meaning of root b-r-k = "blessed" in Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic. Therefore such letter swap (or existence of the two similar roots with very similar meaning) in other Semitic languages is plausible.

More info (maybe more accurate) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> 2. Babylonian "karabu" of root k-r-b has the same meaning of root b-r-k = "blessed" in Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic. Therefore such letter swap (or existence of the two similar roots with very similar meaning) in other Semitic languages is plausible.


Thanks, that was the core of my question.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> I was just wondering why you should associate K-R-B with "to bless". I know B-R-K having this meaning but to bless=K-R-B doesn't ring a bell.



Both roots exist in several Semitic languages, with meanings related to blessing.

K-r-b carries this meaning in at least Akkadian, Ugaritic and the OSA languages, which to me seems common enough..


----------

