# Classical Arabic: book



## Abubakar2000

Assalamualaikum

What is the difference between كِتاب and سِفْر and سِجِلّ, all of which mean "book" in classical Arabic?

Jazakallahukhaira


----------



## zj73

كتاب is the correct Arabic word while سفر and سجل are loan words from Hebrew.


----------



## WadiH

All of these words are correct Arabic words; their origin is not relevant to whether they're correct or not.

كتاب can refer to any writing, including what we moderns call a 'book'.  سفر is a less-frequently used synonym of كتاب when used to mean 'book'.


----------



## Hemza

Why should سجل and سفر be considered as loanwords since the roots exist in both languages? If I'm not wrong, سجل means to read a book and سفّر means to cover a book in order to protect it, these verbs being related to books, why should their roots or the words deriving from the roots be considered to be loans?


----------



## WadiH

Because Arabs emerged from the depths of the desert sands with no prior history and cannot possibly have a word for something as undesertish as a book. (I don’t necessarily deny that these words are loans but this is basically what a lot of Western etymology theories boil down to.)


----------



## Hemza

That should let us wonder where was the supposed "border", the "transition zone" to other languages, northwards of Arabia? Good luck to find a reply to this. Hence I think the origin of these words/roots are more complex than what some disdainful people wrote. Otherwise why should كتب not be a loan? (Unless it is as well a loan according to some?). I guess it is again a way to drawn an artificial border between Syria and Arabia as it became a trend. Shall we fall for the simple and stupid binary view that literature=Syria and illiteracy=Arabia?

I think Hebrew may have older traces of use of these roots thanks for it being a monotheism's liturgical language before Arabic. That doesn't mean other semitic languages ignored them (in my humble opinion).


----------



## Romeel

قال محمد تقي الدين كلمة (سفر) بكسر السين وسكون الفاء من الكلمات المشتركة بين اللغات السامية التي نعرفها ففي السريانية (سفرا) سواء أكان نكرة أم معرفة لأن كل اسم في السريانية ينتهي بالألف وليس فيها أداة تعريف، وبالعبرانية إذا لم تضف هذه الكلمة تلفظ (سفر) بكسر السين والفاء, وهكذا الأسماء الثلاثية في اللغة العبرانية كثير منها يكون بكسر أوله وثانيه وإذا أضيف إليه ياء المتكلم تقول (سفري) بكسر فسكون كما في العربية. أما الجمع فيختلف ففي العربية وحدها لا في أختيها يجمع على أسفار.
Muhammad Taqi al-Din said the word (Safir) with the breaking of the sine and the sukun of the fa from the common words between the Semitic languages that we know. In Syriac (safra), whether it is indefinite or known, because every name in Syriac ends with a Alef and does not have an identifying tool, and in Hebrew if this word is not added, it is pronounced ( Safar) by breaking the seine and the fa, and so on the three letters nouns in the Hebrew language, many of them are with a first and second fraction, and if you add to it the speaker, you say (Safary) with a fraction, then it will be as in Arabic. As for the combination, it differs, in Arabic alone, not in its two sisters languages, it is pluralize on ِAsfar.


----------



## raamez

Hemza said:


> That should let us wonder where was the supposed "border", the "transition zone" to other languages, northwards of Arabia? Good luck to find a reply to this. Hence I think the origin of these words/roots are more complex than what some disdainful people wrote. Otherwise why should كتب not be a loan? (Unless it is as well a loan according to some?). I guess it is again a way to drawn an artificial border between Syria and Arabia as it became a trend. Shall we fall for the simple and stupid binary view that literature=Syria and illiteracy=Arabia?


It is not a competion. Writing tradions in Syria are older than those in Arabia as simple as is. Writing spread twice to Syria, once from Mesopotamia (Eblaite and Ugaritic script) and a second time from Egypt which is the ultimate source of our modern Arabic script. Greek the first writen European language (if we don't coubt the Hittite language) borrowed the words book and paper from the Middle East.


----------



## WadiH

Hemza said:


> Otherwise why should كتب not be a loan? (Unless it is as well a loan according to some?).



Ahmad Al-Jallad does think it's a loan from Aramaic.



raamez said:


> It is not a competion. Writing tradions in Syria are older than those in Arabia as simple as is. Writing spread twice to Syria, once from Mesopotamia (Eblaite and Ugaritic script) and a second time from Egypt which is the ultimate source of our modern Arabic script. Greek the first writen European language (if we don't coubt the Hittite language) borrowed the words book and paper from the Middle East.



It's not a competition, but we shouldn't be relying on stereotypes and vague terms like "Syria" and "Arabia".  "Arabia" doesn't mean Arabian Peninsula; this is a relatively late usage.  In ancient times, "Arabia" just meant place with a lot of Arabs living in it.  Most "Arabias" in ancient sources were located in what is now Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt. There's also this assumption that Arabs were always primordially nomads, while non-Arabs were not, and this is simply not true. Pastoral nomadism is later than farming and they always exist together (because nomadism is not self sufficient). There's also an incorrect assumption that nomads don't write, which the Safaitic inscriptions completely overturn. So the idea that Arabic-speakers could not directly be exposed to writing is wrong. Also, the Arabian Peninsula had its own branch of alphabets (North Arabian and South Arabian) and they are almost as old as the Canaanite one.

Again, I don't think it's implausible that سفر is a borrowed word (not convinced about كتب though), but the arguments should be more precise than what we often see here.  A few years ago someone here was arguing that قصر was borrowed from Latin because Arabs couldn't possibly have a native word for 'big building', which is absurd.


----------



## A. Adama

zj73 said:


> كتاب is the correct Arabic word while سفر and سجل are loan words from Hebrew.


I was taught at university that  كتب  is a Proto-Semitic root and not a loanword – I haven't heard alternative etymologies.

Concerning the etymology of  سِجِلّ , I was taught that the root can be traced back to the Latin "sigillum" which means "seal" or, by extension, "sealed letter". Phonetically, I find it to be a very strong argument: the /g/ to /dj/ shift is common in Arabic (and other languages) and also all the other consonants add up, even up to the shadda on the /l/. Also the vowels have been retained, while the Latin nominative suffix "-um" has been dropped. 

In terms of the meaning of "sigillum" and  سِجِلّ , scrolls were closed using seals which, in turn, caused an extension of meaning in Latin from "seal" to "sealed document" – from here on, the path to "scroll" and "book" seems straightforward. Moreover, all of the meanings of the root  سجل  are somehow related to registering, recording or noting down which can be linked to the extended semantic field of seal, scroll and book, especially if you consider the context of the time of the borrowing. The final shadda of  سِجِلّ  has most likely been dropped from the original loanword to form a root which fits into the system of three root radicals in Arabic.

As for  سِفر , it's commonly explained as a loanword from Aramaic where "sepra" means book. I do not have any expertise with regard to Aramaic, unfortunately, so I can't break down the argument beyond what is evident to the layperson: the phonetic correspondence of the root consonants (p>f is a common shift both language typologically and in Arabic) as well as the correspondence in meaning seem to back the claim. Moreover, it seems logical to assume that  سِفر  would be a loan, since the other  س ف ر  root present in Arabic is related to travelling and seems to have little to do with the meaning of  سِفر .

However, in terms of correctness, I don't see how being a loanword would necessairily make a word less correct. Many loanwords, like  سجل , have been a part of the language for at least hundreds of years, some even longer. Loanwords and change are a natural part of language.



WadiH said:


> Because Arabs emerged from the depths of the desert sands with no prior history and cannot possibly have a word for something as undesertish as a book. (I don’t necessarily deny that these words are loans but this is basically what a lot of Western etymology theories boil down to.)





WadiH said:


> Again, I don't think it's implausible that سفر is a borrowed word (not convinced about كتب though), but the arguments should be more precise than what we often see here.  A few years ago someone here was arguing that قصر was borrowed from Latin because Arabs couldn't possibly have a native word for 'big building', which is absurd.


The word for mother is a loanword in my mother language – I'm fairly convinced it doesn't mean my ancestors had no mothers.  Jokes aside, I hope (Western) Arabists are able to shed such Orientalist notions and simplifying explanations. While it is true that the introduction of new objects or phenomena _can_ be a source of loanwords, it is equally true that, for one reason or another, many loanwords simply depose or cause shifts in meaning in older, existing words. Moreover, new concepts are not always named using loanwords, sometimes the meaning of an existing word is stretched to include the new concept. Besides, not all concepts have specific words in all languages – that doesn't mean those things wouldn't exist in the community. In short, making far-reaching conclusions about what objects or skills may or may not have been at the disposal of a certain language community at any given time purely on the basis of vocabulary is completely untennable. Combinging sound, linguistic argumentation and evidence from, for example, archeological findings can justify such conclusions – but language on its own has a more flexible nature.

Finally, reading this thread, I was reminded of this sura: 

 يَوْمَ نَطْوِى ٱلسَّمَآءَ كَطَىِّ ٱلسِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ ۚ كَمَا بَدَأْنَآ أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍۢ نُّعِيدُهُۥ ۚ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَآ ۚ إِنَّا كُنَّا فَـٰعِلِينَ 

"On that Day We will roll up the heavens like a scroll of writings. Just as We produced the first creation, so shall We reproduce it. That is a promise binding on Us. We truly uphold Our promises!"


----------



## raamez

Since Proto-Semitic wasn't a written language كتب with the sole meaning of to write can't be inheritably Arabic.
One common way to develop a word for writing was to pick a pre-exiting verb with the meaning of to scratch/to carve/to cut for this matter, e.g. سطر (as in the loanword ساطور) which in Arabic corresponds to native شطر and سفر which in Arabic corresponds to native شفر hence شفرة.
Even English _to write_ is related to German _ritzen _which means to carve. Greek _grapho _also doesn't mean anything different.
Perhaps a native Arabic word for writing is نقش.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Not necessarily. This is assuming that the earliest writing was carved, but carved writing is the one that is more likely to survive the ages so we find it. The first writing is more likely to have been paint, and possibly drawn on wood, sand, earth, and mud. Don’t forget that the oldest writing found was actually depressed on mud tablets - no carving, scratching, or cutting involved.

My point is, writing is possibly much older than what has actually reached us, it was just not durable enough to reach us. You can’t just assume that Proto-Semitic speaking people had no concept of writing just because we did not find anything written in proto-Semitic. We don’t know that.


----------



## A. Adama

raamez said:


> Since Proto-Semitic wasn't a written language كتب with the sole meaning of to write can't be inheritably Arabic.
> One common way to develop a word for writing was to pick a pre-exiting verb with the meaning of to scratsh/to carve/to cut for this matter, e.g. سطر (as in the loanword ساطور) which in Arabic corresponds to native شطر and سفر which in Arabic corresponds to native شفر hence شفرة.
> Even English _to write_ is related to German _ritzen _which means to carve. Greek _grapho _also doesn't mean anything different.
> Perhaps a native Arabic word for writing is نقش.


I commented on whether  كتب  as a root is borrowed or not, not on what the original or sole meaning of that root in Proto-Semitic was. As it happens, most scholars believe the meaning to have been "to scratch" or "to carve".

Shifts in meaning can occur both independently within the language as well as due to adopting new meanings by mirroring surrounding or contact languages. In other words, semantic shifts can be borrowed but they can also occur autonomously. So, we can't really determine if a shift in meaning is a loan or not without knowing more about the linguistic context of the shift.

As for  نقش , I'm assuming it's a Proto-Semitic word and as far as I know it means to engrave, but I'm not aware that it is used in the sense "to write" – please correct me if I'm wrong. If  نقش  is/was used in the sense "to write" surely it would then be in the same category as  كتب : a Proto-Semitic root that underwent a shift in meaning from engraving/carving to writing. Using  نقش  in the meaning "to write" would then not be any more or less "native" to the language or "inheritably Arabic" than using  كتب  in that meaning (unless you could somehow prove that one shift was borrowed and the other was not).

Overall, I would challenge the undertone that seems to be that if a word does not mean exactly the same as it did some 5000–6000 years ago when a reconstucted Proto-Language is thought to have been spoken, it's not "real" Arabic. To be honest, I think you would struggle to find words that haven't undergone phonetic and/or semantic changes within that time frame! Does that make those words less Arabic? I think it just means that Arabic is a living language that continues to be adapted by the needs of its speakers in a changing world.


----------



## raamez

A. Adama said:


> Shifts in meaning can occur both independently within the language as well as due to adopting new meanings by mirroring surrounding or contact languages. In other words, semantic shifts can be borrowed but they can also occur autonomously. So, we can't really determine if a shift in meaning is a loan or not without knowing more about the linguistic context of the shift.


The same exact semantic shift usually doesn't appear independently but rather appears in one language or language variety and then spreads diffusely into other languages or dialects. You don't need to go thousends of years back to prove this when you see it happen right infront of your eyes. Take for example the word هبد which means speaking utter nonsense in the Egyptian dialect and which is about to semantically displace the Syrian هبد for to strike in Syria.


----------



## A. Adama

raamez said:


> The same exact semantic shift usually doesn't appear independently but rather appears in one language or language variety and then spreads diffusely into other languages or dialects.


Similar semantic (as well as phonetic) shifts can and do occur independently in languages. Therefore, in order to reasonably prove that a semantic shift was likely the influence of another language, you should be able to show that the shift occurred first in one language and was subsequently borrowed into another language. Moreover, you should be able to demonstrate that those two languages were in some contact with each other e.g. because they were spoken in the same area or because one of them was used as a lingua franca etc. 

Commonly, the verb for writing evolved from the tool or technique that was used to produce markings, symbols, decorations and/or writing. The world's languages have shifts to writing from words such as scratch, carve, engrave, decorate by cutting or sewing, paint and brush – this includes languages as linguistically and geographically diverse as Accadian, Japanese, Tagalog, Finnish and (several) Indo-European languages. Some of those shifts could be explained as being analogical extensions of meaning within the language; others might be borrowings from contact laguages – but to prove the latter, you need language historical evidence.



raamez said:


> You don't need to go thousends of years back to prove this when you see it happen right infront of your eyes. Take for example the word هبد which means speaking utter nonsense in the Egyptian dialect and which is about to semantically displace the Syrian هبد for to strike in Syria.


Whether you need language historical evidence to prove a semantic shift depends on when you're claiming for that shift to have happened. In the case of verbs meaning "to write", which we were discussing, those shifts would indeed have happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, not right infront of our eyes.


----------



## Ectab

As I take it from the Quran:

سجل meant "scroll", it was borrowed from Latin via Aramaic.
In the Quran:
"يوم نطوي السماء كطي السجل للكتب"
...the day we roll up the heaven like rolling up a *scroll* of writing...

سفر meant "written book, tome", it is borrowed from Aramaic.
In the Quran:
"كمثل الحمار يحمل أسفارا"
...like the example of a donkey carrying *books*...

كتاب ,which could have been inherited from PWS, meant "book, record, account, (divine) decree" that's not necessary written. I assume so because the Quran repeatedly refers to itself as "كتاب" even though it was orally transmitted and not written back then. The root k-t-b, according to dohadictionary, also meant to "decree (as fate), to count" and not only "to write" as usually taken.
In the Quran:
"لقد أنزلنا إليكم كتابا فيه ذكركم"
...We have sent down to you a "*record*" in which there is a memorial of you...


----------



## Romeel

Ectab said:


> As I take it from the Quran:
> 
> سجل meant "scroll", it was borrowed from Latin via Aramaic.
> In the Quran:
> "يوم نطوي السماء كطي السجل للكتب"
> ...the day we roll up the heaven like rolling up a *scroll* of writing...
> 
> سفر meant "written book, tome", it is borrowed from Aramaic.
> In the Quran:
> "كمثل الحمار يحمل أسفارا"
> ...like the example of a donkey carrying *books*...​


I see this a lot, but without any proof!

Either you proof that Aramaic is older than Arabic, or you proof that this word was not in Arabic and then it is taken from Aramaic?!

Also the Amharic language native is also saying look the Arabic language took that from us?!!

What I know is that all Arabic, Amharic and Aramaic are sisters from one origin Semitic!! Aren't they!? So they must have some similar words!!


----------



## Sadda7

@Romeel
You may find this useful, from معجم الدوحة التاريخي للغة العربية:


----------



## Romeel

Sadda7 said:


> @Romeel
> You may find this useful, from معجم الدوحة التاريخي للغة العربية:
> View attachment 71094


هل اللاتينية أقدم من العربية أو السامية؟!


----------



## raamez

يبدو أن البعض في هذا المنتدى لا يفهم كيف يسير علم التأثيل ومازال يعتمد على التأصيل الشعبي للكلمات ونظرية أن العربية لغة آدم ولغة أهل الجنة للأسف.


----------



## Hemza

Romeel said:


> هل اللاتينية أقدم من العربية أو السامية؟!


تحديد أقدمية لغة ما صعب لأن هي عملية معتمدة على أثار مقيّدة. ومع ذلك أقدمية أثار مكتوبة/منقوشة لا تدّل على .أقدمية لغة (طبعا هنا لا أزعم أن أجيب على سؤالك) لا أظن أن
@Sadda7
عنى أن اللاتينية أقدم من العربية بل أن الكلمة سجل فقط دخلتها من اللاتينية.​


----------



## Hemza

raamez said:


> It is not a competion. Writing tradions in Syria are older than those in Arabia as simple as is.


I wasn't trying to oppose Arabia to Syria in a competition but rather deploring that many writers did so as if there was a border between both areas. Northern Arabia shares the same cultural and historical background as Southern Syria (if we consider Northern Arabia and Southern Syria as separated geographical entities for practical matter here) hence if some authors claim these roots and words were borrowed in Arabic from its Northern sister languages, that means two things:

-Arabic wasn't spoken northwards let's say Jordan/Western Iraq/Northern Saudi Arabia (which is a wrong assumption in my opinion).

-All the quoted roots (كتب/سجل/سفر whatever the semantic shifts they may have undergone) etc didn't exist in the mother semitic language since according to these same authors, they have been borrowed by Arabic which implies that these roots/words developped independently in the sister languages of Arabic. And that must be proven.

I may lack information so feel free to tell me if I've missed something.


----------



## Romeel

raamez said:


> يبدو أن البعض في هذا المنتدى لا يفهم كيف يسير علم التأثيل ومازال يعتمد على التأصيل الشعبي للكلمات ونظرية أن العربية لغة آدم ولغة أهل الجنة للأسف.


من قال هذا؟


----------



## Romeel

Hemza said:


> تحديد أقدمية لغة ما صعب لأن هي عملية معتمدة على أثار مقيّدة. ومع ذلك أقدمية أثار مكتوبة/منقوشة لا تدّل على .أقدمية لغة (طبعا هنا لا أزعم أن أجيب على سؤالك) لا أظن أن
> @Sadda7
> عنى أن اللاتينية أقدم من العربية بل أن الكلمة سجل فقط دخلتها من اللاتينية.​


شكرا لك!

المشكلة أنهم كلما وجدوا كلمة عربية في الآرمية قالوا مصدرها الآرامية!! ولماذا لا يكون مصدرها العربية ثم انتقلت للآرمية! وقد يكون مصدرها اللغة السامية الأم! أليس كذلك؟

من يقول كلاما عليه أن يثبته أما بأقدمية الآرامية على العربية أو بأقدمية الكلمة في الآرامية عن العربية، أما أخذ الكلام على عواهنه فليس مقبولا ولن يفيد احدا!


----------



## Ectab

Romeel said:


> من يقول كلاما عليه أن يثبته أما بأقدمية الآرامية على العربية أو بأقدمية الكلمة في الآرامية عن العربية​


.لا علاقة لأقدمية اللغة بانتقال الكلمة من لغة إلى أخرى.

لكن ما رأيك أن تثبت أنت أن كلمتا سجلّ وسِفر عربيتان؟
الجذر الثلاثي س-ف-ر ليس له معنى يمكن ربطه بالكتاب. فهو يتعلق بالسَفَر والتنقل فكيف جاءت كلمة سِفر بمعنى كتاب من هذا الجذر؟
.وبما أنك تتحدث عن أقدمية اللغة فإن كلمة "سِفر" بمعنى كتاب موجودة في اللغة الآرامية واللغة العبرية قبل مئات السنين من اللغة العربية

أما كلمة سجلّ بشد اللام فتركيبها شاذ في اللغة العربية فهي على وزن فِعِلّ! كيف تفسر هذا؟​


----------



## Romeel

Ectab said:


> .لا علاقة لأقدمية اللغة بانتقال الكلمة من لغة إلى أخرى.
> 
> لكن ما رأيك أن تثبت أنت أن كلمتا سجلّ وسِفر عربيتان؟
> الجذر الثلاثي س-ف-ر ليس له معنى يمكن ربطه بالكتاب. فهو يتعلق بالسَفَر والتنقل فكيف جاءت كلمة سِفر بمعنى كتاب من هذا الجذر؟
> .وبما أنك تتحدث عن أقدمية اللغة​






Ectab said:


> فإن كلمة "سِفر" بمعنى كتاب موجودة في اللغة الآرامية واللغة العبرية *قبل مئات السنين من اللغة العربية*​


ما مصدر هذا الكلام؟!


Ectab said:


> أما كلمة سجلّ بشد اللام فتركيبها شاذ في اللغة العربية فهي على وزن فِعِلّ! كيف تفسر هذا؟​


هل يعني أن كل كلمة تركيبها شاذ نجعلها آرامية؟ هل هذا منطق معقول ؟!

ثم أنت لم تفهم كلامي

أنا لا أنكر أن تتبادل اللغات الكلمات، ما أنكره القاء أي كلام بدون إثبات! هل الكلمة موجودة في اللغات السامية الأخرى أم لا ؟ فإن وجدت كيف أقول أنها من الآرامية وليس من العبرية أو الأمهرية أو إلخ؟ هل اطّلعت على اللغات السّامية الأخرى؟


نحتاج لكلام علمي لنثبت أصل الكلمة.

بالنسبة لشذوذ الجذر فقد تكون الكلمة مأخوذة من السامية مياشرة بدون أن تطبق عليها أساسيات اللغة العربية فظلت على ما هي عليه! لا أعلم عن هذا!

أمّا عن أقدمية اللغة فهذا تساهلا مني لأشجعكم على إثبات أقدمية الكلمة.


----------



## Romeel

على سبيل المثال ممن يقولون أي كلام بدون إثبات

صاحب هذه الصفحة يقول أن كل هذه الكلمات العربية من أصول أمهرية! كيف حكم بهذا لا ندري؟!

كلماسوفت - قاعدة بيانات الأصول الأمهرية في اللغة العربية


اقتبس من كلامه


> لملخص​اللغة الأمهرية تعتبر من اللغات الإثيوبية الأفريقية الكوشية وهي تتميز بذخيرة واسعة جداً من المفردات إضافة لنظام فريد للقواعد وتصنيفات نحوية ودلالية ذات عمق تاريخي وحضاري عظيمين.
> العلاقة بين الأمهرية وبقية اللغات في المنطقة يصيغها أهل علوم اللغات بكونها تنتمي لعائلة اللغات المسماة بمصطلح "سامية" التي تشمل أيضاً التغرينيا والعبرية والآرامية والعربية.
> 
> وبالرغم من أن الجعزية والتغرينيا هي الأقرب من حيث الاشتراك في المظاهر الصوتية وفي المعاني أيضاً إلا أن دلالات الأصول الأمهرية للمفردات العربية القديمة والمعاصرة تتضح ليس فقط في المفردات السماعية بل حتى في الإملاء وقواعد صياغة الجمل والأدوات النحوية المختلفة، والأدل على ذلك وجود معظم المفردات الدينية في ذات الوقت الذي تنعدم فيه شروحات ذات المفردات في المعاجم العربية قديمها وحديثها.


----------



## Sadda7

Romeel said:


> أنا لا أنكر أن تتبادل اللغات الكلمات، ما أنكره القاء أي كلام بدون إثبات! هل الكلمة موجودة في اللغات السامية الأخرى أم لا ؟ فإن وجدت كيف أقول أنها من الآرامية وليس من العبرية أو الأمهرية أو إلخ؟ هل اطّلعت على اللغات السّامية الأخرى؟
> 
> 
> *نحتاج لكلام علمي لنثبت أصل الكلمة.*


كلامك سليم والكلام العلمي موجود في المصادر التي تحت تأثيل الكلمة في الموقع, اطّلع عليها فقد تجد فيها مرادك.

واقرأ مقالة القائمين على الموقع في هذه المسألة:


> يعتمد معجم الدوحة التّأريخي مبدأ تأثيل الألفاظ غير العربيّة: الدخيلة والمعرّبة عن طريق فحص تاريخها، وتطوُّرها، وأصولها غير العربيّة بإرجاعها إلى تلك الأصول، وقد أُسْنِد الأمر إلى *لجنة من المتخصِّصين* للعودة بها إلى أصولها الفارسيّة أو اليونانيّة أو الهنديّة... وللاستعانة *بالمعاجم المختصّة* بتأثيل الألفاظ المعرَّبة من أصول أعجميّة لِما لذلك من قيمة لغويّة وحضاريّة.


----------



## Romeel

Sadda7 said:


> كلامك سليم والكلام العلمي موجود في المصادر التي تحت تأثيل الكلمة في الموقع, اطّلع عليها فقد تجد فيها مرادك.
> 
> واقرأ مقالة القائمين على الموقع في هذه المسألة:


شكرا لك يا أخي سداح مرة أخرى!!

أولا ما هو موجود في متحف الدوحة مأخوذ من ويكي ديكشنري علما أن الأخير قاموس مفتوح للكل ويقول أصل الكلمة من *الإغريق*.

فأنصحك أن تذهب لـ سجل - Wiktionary

الأمر الآخر هل تريدني أن أترك ما هو موجود في لسان العرب عن سجل وسجيل وسجين لأختار كلام لا نعرف من حقق فيه ولا كيف حققوه ؟ سبحان الله!

مع أني لا أعترض إن ثبت ما ذكرته


----------



## WadiH

A. Adama said:


> The word for mother is a loanword in my mother language – I'm fairly convinced it doesn't mean my ancestors had no mothers.



I never made that point, though. The word for 'window' in my dialect is a Persian word, even though there are other words for 'window' in Arabic that could be used.  It was someone else who was arguing that Arabs could not possibly have a native word for 'palace' or 'enclosed building' because these were alien concepts to people living in the desert.  There is a pervasive assumption on this forum that Arabs were 'simple' and 'primitive' and 'isolated', and hence their language has to be either composed of loans from a 'higher civilization' or it must have been unwittingly inherited from an ancient forgotten civilization (there is an old thread here that seriously makes this conjecture and many supposedly rational members found it plausible!).  One user here tried to make an analogy between Arabic and the language of an isolated Indian Ocean island -- it's not that there's anything wrong with isolated island languages, but applying this analogy to Arabic is absurd to anyone who understands the history and geography of Arabic, yet it is considered common sense for some reason.



raamez said:


> سفر which in Arabic corresponds to native شفر hence شفرة.



I think this is a neologism, probably inspired by 'cipher'.  The only meaning appearing in old dictionaries is 'lip' or 'edge' (and other related secondary meanings).



raamez said:


> The same exact semantic shift usually doesn't appear independently but rather appears in one language or language variety and then spreads diffusely into other languages or dialects. You don't need to go thousends of years back to prove this when you see it happen right infront of your eyes. Take for example the word هبد which means speaking utter nonsense in the Egyptian dialect and which is about to semantically displace the Syrian هبد for to strike in Syria.



Yes semantic shifts can be inspired by other languages, but that doesn't mean the word is a 'borrowing'.  There are plenty of native Arabic words that shifted in meaning under the influence of English or French, yet at most we consider these calques, not loans.

The هبد example is an interesting one, but I would argue that this is a special case where the Egyptian هبد should be a considered a different word that was borrowed and co-exists with the other هبد, since it's completely unrelated to the original هبد.  The same word was borrowed into dialects of Saudi Arabia, but the original هبد meaning 'strike' still exists alongside it as a homonym.  It's more than just a semantic shift.



Ectab said:


> أما كلمة سجلّ بشد اللام فتركيبها شاذ في اللغة العربية فهي على وزن فِعِلّ! كيف تفسر هذا؟​



الأرجح أن سجلّ مستعارة لكن لا أرى أن التركيب شاذّ، فهناك كلمات شبيهة مثل "جِبِلّة" و"عُتُلّ"، لكن عموماً هذه النقطة لا تقدّم ولا تؤخر في مسألة أصل الكلمة لأن العرب وغير العرب يكيّفون الكلمات المستعارة لتتناغم مع القواعد الصرفية واللفظية الخاصة بلغتهم.


----------



## A. Adama

WadiH said:


> I never made that point, though. The word for 'window' in my dialect is a Persian word, even though there are other words for 'window' in Arabic that could be used.  It was someone else who was arguing that Arabs could not possibly have a native word for 'palace' or 'enclosed building' because these were alien concepts to people living in the desert.  There is a pervasive assumption on this forum that Arabs were 'simple' and 'primitive' and 'isolated', and hence their language has to be either composed of loans from a 'higher civilization' or it must have been unwittingly inherited from an ancient forgotten civilization (there is an old thread here that seriously makes this conjecture and many supposedly rational members found it plausible!).  One user here tried to make an analogy between Arabic and the language of an isolated Indian Ocean island -- it's not that there's anything wrong with isolated island languages, but applying this analogy to Arabic is absurd to anyone who understands the history and geography of Arabic, yet it is considered common sense for some reason.


For sure – I know you weren't making that point but rather criticizing it. Mine was a comment on the overall absurdity of making far-reaching assumptions about the existense of things on the basis of loanwords. You're definitely right in your criticism of sloppy linguistic argumentation and claims based on orientalist notions about Arabs. It's really a case for addressing the colonial and orientalist thought patterns in the study of the Middle East and Arabic language.


----------



## raamez

WadiH said:


> I think this is a neologism, probably inspired by 'cipher'.  The only meaning appearing in old dictionaries is 'lip' or 'edge' (and other related secondary meanings).


I didn't mean شفّر which is indeed a loanword from French chiffrer and ulimataly from Arabic صفر but شفر a theortical verb which is not listed in dictionaries but etymologically corresponds to Hebrew להסתפר to get a haircut or to לְסַפֵּר to tell stories which corresponds nicely to Arabic قصّ حكاية


WadiH said:


> The هبد example is an interesting one, but I would argue that this is a special case where the Egyptian هبد should be a considered a different word that was borrowed and co-exists with the other هبد, since it's completely unrelated to the original هبد.  The same word was borrowed into dialects of Saudi Arabia, but the original هبد meaning 'strike' still exists alongside it as a homonym.  It's more than just a semantic shift.


هبد for ضرب بشدة is about to die out in Syria and so they don't really co-exist as you say. Do you use هبد by the way for "strike" too?


----------



## WadiH

raamez said:


> I didn't mean شفّر which is indeed a loanword from French chiffrer and ulimataly from Arabic صفر but شفر a theortical verb which is not listed in dictionaries but etymologically corresponds to Hebrew להסתפר to get a haircut or to לְסַפֵּר to tell stories which corresponds nicely to Arabic قصّ حكاية



Ah I see.  Interesting that شفر can mean 'blade' and قصّ can mean cutting.



raamez said:


> هبد for ضرب بشدة is about to die out in Syria and so they don't really co-exist as you say. Do you use هبد by the way for "strike" too?



Well they are co-existing to some extent, even if temporarily.

Yes, هبد is a common word here meaning 'strike' or 'hit hard', while the Egyptian هبد meaning 'nonsense' has only recently made its way into common speech.


----------



## mahfuz1966

Abubakar2000 said:


> Assalamualaikum
> 
> What is the difference between كِتاب and سِفْر and سِجِلّ, all of which mean "book" in classical Arabic?
> 
> Jazakallahukhaira


كتاب
book. letter, or anything written on paper, stone,goatskin... 
سفر
book, or a big book, or Torah
السجل
big book or check .


----------

