# Arab



## Ali.h

does the word arab have a meaning to it? or is it just a meaningless name referring to who we call the arabs?


----------



## Masjeen

arab (plural) arabi (singular)


----------



## Ali.h

isnt اعراب plural and عرب singular?


----------



## Masjeen

اعراب = Bedouins


----------



## Ali.h

i thought the word badawi means bedouins!


----------



## Masjeen

بدوي = أعرابي
but In the current era we use "بدوي"
Thousand years ago they used "أعرابي"


----------



## WadiH

Ali.h said:


> does the word arab have a meaning to it? or is it just a meaningless name referring to who we call the arabs?



There is no definite answer to this, but most likely the Semitic root ع ر ب had to do with living in the desert.


----------



## Mahaodeh

العُرْب والعَرَب (same) is a plural that has no singular, most of the names of nations are the same (عجم، فرس، روم، كرد، ترك حبش، زنج، هند، إفرنج...الخ) all are plurals with no singular. عربيّ is nisba not singular.

As for it's meaning, the root has the meanings of articulation, clarifying, expressing as well as a cart or wagen and of course beduins. According to the Lisaan, الأعرابي is an Arab nomad while a بدوي is a nomad in general and can be used for non-Arab nomads.

The reason the Arabs have that name is not agreed upon among Arab historians, some say it is after يعرب بن قحطان, the father of العرب العاربة; others say that Ismael's sons (the fathers of العرب المستعربة) lived in a town called عَرَبَة and they were named after is and a third group said it is after a town called العربات and yet others are of the opinion that they are called Arabs because other Arabs can understand their speech, hence they can express themselves and that the name is derived directly from the root.

Personally, I think that it's is just an old semitic name since the Assyrians specifically mentioned Arabs and up to my knowledge in Hebrew they are also called Arabs.

Edit: I didn't see your post Wadi, I didn't know that the Semitic root had to do with living in the desert.


----------



## Masjeen

جميلة كلمة عُرْب


----------



## WadiH

Mahaodeh said:


> العُرْب والعَرَ
> Edit: I didn't see your post Wadi, I didn't know that the Semitic root had to do with living in the desert.



Well, that's just one theory, and it's the one I prefer, but there are others.

Another candidate I've seen is that it is actually from the same root as غرب (as ع and غ are closely related in Semitic languages).  So possibly the Arabs were those who lived west of the peoples of Mesopotamia.  But I don't find that convincing because it doesn't adequately explain why the Arabs referred to themselves only by this name, and why even South Arabian languages referred to them by this name.


----------



## Josh_

Yes, I also think that the best theory out there is the one that has to do with living in the desert. I also have thought that عرب and غرب may be related some how, but I am unsure of that.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Yes, I forgot that one about the west, it sounds very much like the one about the Hebrews, لأنهم عبروا النهر (some say River Jordan and some say Euphraties); personally, I think that these are the least convincing.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Doesn't the root ع ر ب relate to moving? Like عربة (carriage).

I thought this was a reference to the nomadic (always moving) nature of the Arabs?


----------



## Masjeen

في العادة الشعوب تأخذ أسمائها من اسلافها أو من اسم الأرض.. أما في هذه الحالة فالاسم قد جاء من يعرب فلا ناس عبرت ولاغربت


----------



## Ali.h

Masjeen, can you pealse translate what you said in English?


----------



## Josh_

Abu Rashid said:


> Doesn't the root ع ر ب relate to moving? Like عربة (carriage).
> 
> I thought this was a reference to the nomadic (always moving) nature of the Arabs?


Ah, yes. You know what, I had actually made that connection before, but completely forgot about it. In fact I had briefly discussed it here. Yes, I do think that there may be a connection with motion, but I also think that it may have had something to do with living in the desert as well (I am not sure which would have been the primary meaning -- motion or living in the desert -- assuming that it meant both). So perhaps عرب originally meant desert nomads, referring to those people who lived ambulatory lives in the desert.

And this possible meaning having to do with motion is where the connection to غرب may come in, which, as I pointed out in the post I linked to, has meanings related to motion -- to depart; to set (of the sun).

This, perhaps, lends credence to the idea that عرب and غرب (which share two of the same letters (in the same positions), not to mention the ع and غ being closely related as Wadi Hanifa pointed out) may have come from the same root.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I remember following that thread, I don't know how I forgot that part!

Anyway, I feel that the relation to motion makes more sense than the relation to the desert. This is me talking not a dictionary, but think if it did have some relation to the desert we would find some traces of that in the root, but the root doesn't have such trace. I'm not convinced though about the relation to the west. The roots may have a relation in proto-Arabic or proto-Semitic, but I doubt it has anything to do with the name.


----------



## L.2

Mahaodeh said:


> Yes, I forgot that one about the west, it sounds very much like the one about the Hebrews, لأنهم عبروا النهر (some say River Jordan and some say Euphraties); personally, I think that these are the least convincing.


 
yes this 3abar was one of Sam (Shem) son's and thus this name was given to Hebrew and from it derived the word عبري


((هؤلاء بنو حام حسب قبائلهم كالسنتهم باراضيهم و اممهم* 21 و سام ابو كل بني *عابر* اخو يافث الكبير ولد له ايضا بنون))​ 
الكتاب المقدس. التكوين. الاصحاح 10​ 
{21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of *Eber*, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were [children] born}
The Holy Bible, Genesis chapter 10.

I would go with theory of west because I heared once that Europe also means west and it came from a semitic language. Europe sounds like Arab.


----------



## MSA111

Mahaodeh said:


> العُرْب والعَرَب (same) is a plural that has no singular, most of the names of nations are the same (عجم، فرس، روم، كرد، ترك حبش، زنج، هند، إفرنج...الخ) all are plurals with no singular. عربيّ is nisba not singular.
> 
> As for it's meaning, the root has the meanings of articulation, clarifying, expressing as well as a cart or wagen and of course beduins. According to the Lisaan, الأعرابي is an Arab nomad while a بدوي is a nomad in general and can be used for non-Arab nomads.
> 
> The reason the Arabs have that name is not agreed upon among Arab historians, some say it is after يعرب بن قحطان, the father of العرب العاربة; others say that Ismael's sons (the fathers of العرب المستعربة) lived in a town called عَرَبَة and they were named after is and a third group said it is after a town called العربات and yet others are of the opinion that they are called Arabs because other Arabs can understand their speech, hence they can express themselves and that the name is derived directly from the root.
> 
> Personally, I think that it's is just an old semitic name since the Assyrians specifically mentioned Arabs and up to my knowledge in Hebrew they are also called Arabs.
> 
> Edit: I didn't see your post Wadi, I didn't know that the Semitic root had to do with living in the desert.


اعراب is indeed the plural of عرب even though عرب itself can also be considered plural as well, عرب is NOT a plural having no singular, rather it is singular which can also be considered plural such as Hind, Kurd etc..

The reason the ARAB and MUSLIM scholars in the past stated that اعراب means Bedouins is simply because they wanted to modify the meaning of such verses from the Qur’an:

وممن حولكم من الأعراب منافقون ومن أهل المدينة مردوا على النفاق لا تعلمهم نحن نعلمهم سنعذبهم مرتين ثم يردون إلى عذاب عظيم
(9:101)

CORRECT translation:
And among the ARABS round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah, they exaggerate and persist in hypocrisy, you (O Muhammad) know them not, We know them. We shall punish them twice, and thereafter they shall be brought back to a great (horrible) torment.

One wonders who were round about the prophet most, was it the Bedouins?! Surely not, such a claim is absurd, those who were round about the prophet most were either Qurayshi immigrants from Mecca or Medinian Ansar both of which were NOT Bedouins.

Notice that the above Quranic verse is from Surah at-Tawbah which according to classical Islamic scholars was sent as a severe warning against the Arab pagans who were at war with the Prophet, and these Arab pagans who were at war with the prophet when this verse was revealed were NOT the Bedouins, but were Qurayshi Arabs from Mecca.

If one considers the historical and political context around the interpretation of the Quranic verses and the words therein one realizes that a deceitful tactic was employed over and over by many court scholars who were either bought off by the Caliph of their time to interpret the Quran which conformed to that of the Caliphs desire or were forced to comply. Islamic history is filled with such accounts, and one can write countless books on the amount of misinterpretations of the Quranic verses by court scholars especially in the time of the Ummayids who were masters of deception.

Keep in mind that these scholars of Arabic were scholars of Islamic sciences as well, not secular linguists, so one must scrutinise their understanding of Arabic words so much more than any secular scholar, because again many classical Islamic scholars were mere court scholars.

Let us take the example of the four famous Islamic schools of jurisprudence; all of their founders interpreted the famous verse of the Quran known the verse of ul ul-amr (those vested with authority) to be the Caliph of the time! And all the Caliphs of their time were masters of tyranny and corruption.


----------



## Mahaodeh

MSA111 said:


> اعراب is indeed the plural of عرب even though عرب itself can also be considered plural as well, عرب is NOT a plural having no singular, rather it is singular which can also be considered plural such as Hind, Kurd etc.


You cannot say, as an example, هو عرب; that is grammatically wrong, but you can say هم عرب as well as هو من العرب. It is like the word ناس - it's not a singular in meaning but it _can be_ treated as a singular grammatically.


MSA111 said:


> The reason the ARAB and MUSLIM scholars in the past stated that اعراب means Bedouins is simply because they wanted to modify the meaning of such verses from the Qur’an:





MSA111 said:


> وممن حولكم من الاعراب منافقون ومن اهل المدينة مردوا على النفاق لاتعلمهم نحن نعلمهم سنعذبهم مرتين ثم يردون الى عذاب عظيم
> (9:101)


This is a huge assumption and accusation. I trust you have a renowned linguist to back up this statement?


MSA111 said:


> CORRECT translation:
> And among the ARABS round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah, they exaggerate and persist in hypocrisy, you (O Muhammad) know them not, We know them. We shall punish them twice, and thereafter they shall be brought back to a great (horrible) torment.


You forgot to mention whose translation you quoted, I trust it's not yours because that would be a _personal opinion_.

Regardless, reading the Arabic, it clearly says "around you" in the plural - so the aya is not saying "around the prophet" as in "inside the city and living in the houses next door", rather it is "around you and those with you"; i.e., around the city. Otherwise, why does the aya need to follow up by saying "and of the inhabitants of al Madina"? It needs to do so because the first part about al a3raab does not include the inhabitants of the city.

To further enhance that, a few ayas later, exactly in aya 120 of the same sura, it clearly states:

مَا كَانَ لأَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُمْ مِنَ الأَعْرَابِ 

Clearly, it says "the inhabitants of Madina and those around them (referring to the inhabitants of Madina) of the A3raab.

I'm not even going to attempt to discuss the rest because it is no longer related to the meaning of the word but is a religious debate.


----------



## MSA111

It is very funny that this pattern of making a singular noun plural by placing a hamzah at the beginning (of the word) and an alif in the middle (after the second consonant) exists and is very much prevalent in the Arabic language.

Examples:

حُرّ
أحرار

عدد
أعداد

ملك
أملاك

وقت
أوقات

I can provide you with hundreds more examples of this “pattern” being prevalent in Arabic, yet it is very funny that when it comes to this one word it does not mean Arabs to you but it means Bedouins!

Also your understanding of this word implies that the author of the Qur’an did not understand the meaning of اعراب, in other words the author of the Qur’an made a mistake!

Take a look at the following verse from the Qur’an:
‏48:11سيقول لك المخلفون من الاعراب شغلتنا اموالنا واهلونا فاستغفر لنا يقولون بالسنتهم ماليس في قلوبهم قل فمن يملكم من الله شيئا ان اراد بكم ضرا او اراد بكم نفعا بل كان الله بما تعملون خبيرا

Correct translation:

Those of the Arabs who lagged behind will say to you: "Our possessions and our families occupied us, so ask forgiveness for us." They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say: "Who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your behalf with Allah, if He intends you hurt or intends you benefit? Nay, but Allah is Ever All-Aware of what you do.

Now it is so well known (as is the sky is blue is well known) that people who lagged behind and refused to fight were not (just) Bedouins but were mostly Medinian Arabs and some who had migrated from Mecca to Medina.


Again do not forget that Arab is Arab!


----------



## Muwahid

Wow, you're clearly lacking basic historical knowledge of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. We are talking historically, aside from linguistically, that these were Bedouins, and you didn't even respond to what Mahaodeh said! Why would the Qu'ran differentiate between the Arabs of Medinah, with the اعراب?

And if you choose to say the Qu'ran's Author was wrong then your previous baseless accusation you admit is wrong; giving you no real credibility in the first place.

The fact modern Arabic grammar; the grammar you're talking about is derived from the Qu'ran after linguists examined it and found the patterns you speak of, I don't understand how on earth you determine this. If you don't believe the Qu'ran then what about the authenticated Hadith like مَنْ سَكَنَ  الْبَادِيَةَ جَفَا، وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَ الصَّيْدَ غَفَلَ، وَمَنْ أَتَى  السُّلْطَانَ افْتُتِن  THIS is clear that there were Bedouins, not only that but they were trouble makers in this aspect, other stories from this time, include that of the Bedouins doubting sincerity of the Sahaba, and so on. 

You're literally applying an elementary understanding of the language to explain an enigmatic word in an ancient Semitic language. If only the world were that simple.

But etymology wise, I would assume the split in the word for 'Arab', to refer to Desert Arabs, and City Arabs, was because historically there are three types of Arabs, the Ancient Arabs, Qahtani Arabs, and Adnaani Arabs, perhaps this caused a change in the word to make a distinction between types of Arabs which I assume was a more important issue then, than it is now. In today's times all these groups are assimilated so these terms are probably archaic more or less.


----------



## Ali.h

But does not Arab mean Arab?

And according to Wadi Hanifa who posted in the first page, in etymology the root of اعراب being ع ر ب refers to Nomadic peoples, so if this is correct that means that Arab is Arab linguistically, meaning that when we read it in the Qur'an there is no distinction between bedouin arabs and "city" Arabs. I am in no way an expert i'm just a beginner but this is very interesting topic to discuss and delve into, so please do make comment/s.


----------



## Muwahid

Ali.h said:


> But does not Arab mean Arab?



Well my point is, if they come from the same root ع ر ب then they may have just wanted to make a distinction between themselves.


----------



## cherine

عرب - أعراب do come from the same root: ع-ر-ب but they are different.

I won't get into this sweet discussion about the "author of the Qur'an" being right or wrong. Religion discussions are beyond the scope of the forum anyway.
I'll only put this:
The singular عربي has the plural عرب
The singular أعرابي has the plural أعراب
All were ethnically and linguistically (?) Arabs, but there was, and still is, a difference between nomadic and urban Arabs. Even if this is not equally clear in English.


----------



## Mahaodeh

In reply to Ali's last post:

Yes, but Wadi also mentioned that this is an old Semetic word; hence it's BEFORE classical Arabic. The point is, by the time of the Quran the meaning split and shifted as happens in all languages.


----------



## Faylasoof

Lane has an interesting discussion about this in his lexicon (here), under عرب of course (page 1993 – but the preceding and following pages are also worth looking at). 

أعرابي / أعراب refer to the desert Arabs ( أَعرابِیّ = بَدَوِیّ ), while  عَرَب were so called because of, according to _some_,   "the perspicuity of their speech". He also gives one or two more explanations. 

He also discusses / mentions these terms: 
العرب العربية، العرب العرباء، العرب العاربة، العرب العربة ، العرب المستعربة، العرب المتعرّبة

Regarding the derivation of the word  العرب itself, in Lane’s opinion it is a derivation of the Ancient Hebrew word עֵרֶב_ =_ _mixed people_. This, according to him tallies with what “_the Arabs assert themselves to have been, almost from the first; and in favour of this derivation it may be reasonably argued that the old Himyeritic language agrees more with Hebrew and Phoenicians than it does with the Classical and Modern Arabic_”. 

Now I’m not an expert in Old Hebrew or Himyeritic (or for that matter Classical Arab) to judge the veracity of all this.


----------



## WadiH

أعراب is the plural of عرب, that much of what "MSA" says is true.

But that doesn't mean it didn't refer to bedouins.  When the Quran speaks of "A'raab" surrounding Medina, it means bedouins, as Medina was surrounded by bedouins at the time and remained so until a few decades ago.  So the notion is anything but absurd.

In modern Arabic (as spoken in Arabia), they used to use the word عربان, which is also a plural form of عرب and which also refers solely to bedouins.


----------



## MSA111

Mahaodeh said:


> العُرْب والعَرَب (same) is a plural that has no singular, most of the names of nations are the same (عجم، فرس، روم، كرد، ترك حبش، زنج، هند، إفرنج...الخ) all are plurals with no singular. عربيّ is nisba not singular.


This analogy is dishonest, because (عرب) is not the name of a nation/country, (عرب) refers to the name of a people. Whereas some of the above such as (روم) and (هند) are names of nations. 

And furthermore the names of all nations are singular and they cannot be used in the plural. For example I cannot say, "Hind are a good people or "Ruum are a good people"!


cherine said:


> The singular عربي has the plural عرب
> The singular أعرابي has the plural أعراب


Both (عربي) and (أعرابي) are nisbahs, meaning they are adjectives and not nouns.


Mahaodeh said:


> You cannot say, as an example, هو عرب; that is grammatically wrong, but you can say هم عرب as well as هو من العرب. It is like the word ناس - it's not a singular in meaning but it _can be_ treated as a singular grammatically.


Yes you can say (هو عرب), and no it is NOT grammatically wrong. and no you cannot say هم عرب

The word (ناس) which means “people” is singular in form but not in meaning, in Arabic there are certain collective nouns which, though singular in form, are always used as plurals. (ناس) is a collective noun (اِسْمُ جَمْع), and thus it cannot be used as singular.
For example you cannot say “he is people”.

More examples of collective nouns in Arabic:

(قَوْم) – nation 

Example of collective nouns in English:

*Poultry*: These poultry are Mr. Michael’s.
*Cattle*: The cattle are grazing in the field.
*Vermin*: Vermin spread disease.
*People*: Who are these people?

Again don't try to compare the word (ناس) with (عرب) they are NOT the same!


Mahaodeh said:


> Regardless, reading the Arabic, it clearly says "around you" in the plural - so the aya is not saying "around the prophet" as in "inside the city and living in the houses next door", rather it is "around you and those with you"; i.e., around the city. Otherwise, why does the aya need to follow up by saying "and of the inhabitants of al Madina"? It needs to do so because the first part about al a3raab does not include the inhabitants of the city.


Here is the ayah you were referring to:

(وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ) [The Qur’an 9:101]

And among the ARABS round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah...

*My Response:*

Where the verse says around you in the plural it refers to (around) the Prophet and his family (ahlul bayt), and the hypocrites around them were some amongst the immigrants from Mecca (al-muhajiriin), and the hypocrites of Medina are the natives of Medina (i.e. from the Jews) (both of whom were URABAN ARABS) and that is why the distinction is being made in the verse; the distinction between the hypocrites amongst the immigrants and the hypocrites amongst the natives of Medina.

Again this verse is speaking of urban Arabs. and there are other verses which make a general statement with reagrds to the Arabs being called hypocrites.


----------



## Mahaodeh

MSA111 said:


> This analogy is dishonest, because (عرب) is not the name of a nation/country, (عرب) refers to the name of a people. Whereas some of the above such as (روم) and (هند) are names of nations.



Actually, every single one of them refers to an ethnicity. I don't know what you mean by "nation", I assume you mean "country". While الهند is used nowadays to refer to the country, it is originally short for بلاد الهند = the land of the Indians. As for روم, it never referred to anything other than a group of people. What it generally means is "the Romans", the country is بلاد الروم and the city is روما.



MSA111 said:


> And furthermore the names of all nations are singular and they cannot be used in the plural. For example I cannot say, "Hind are a good people or "Ruum are a good people"!



Of course you can, and we do that all the time. I'll give you an example:

إنما الناسُ بالملوكِ وما === تفلح عربٌ ملوكها عجمُ
لا أدبٌ عندهم ولا حسبٌ === ولا عهودٌ لهم ولا ذِمَمُ 

and before you say "see, you are using the singular", well that is the feminine singular that is used for the plural, you can see that in the next verse:

بكلِ أرضٍ وطئتها أممٌ === تُرعى بعبدٍ كأنها غنمُ



MSA111 said:


> Both (عربي) and (أعرابي) are nisbahs, meaning they are adjectives and not nouns.



In Arabic, every adjective is a noun. It's only an adjective because it's used that way in the sentence. There are only three divisions of words in Arabic, اسم وفعل وحرف. If it's not فعل أو حرف (which is the case here), then it's a noun. a nisba is also a noun.



MSA111 said:


> Yes you can say (هو عرب), and no it is NOT grammatically wrong. and no you cannot say هم عرب



Excuse me?!! Care you give me some valid example? By valid example I mean something from the Quran, Hadith, or classical poetry. What you are saying is not true, you can not decide, on the spot, what suits your argument. Nor can you defy all grammarians, linguists, old texts, primary and secondary sources, not to mention native speakers and make up a rule simply because it suits your political or religious agenda.

We are not here to defend agendas. We talk about languages here; if you want to prove something that differs from the general accepted understanding then you provide a valid source that is accepted by the *language authorities*. If you have none, then you have no argument to start with and we have nothing to discuss.



MSA111 said:


> The word (ناس) which means “people” is singular in form but not in meaning, in Arabic there are certain collective nouns which, though singular in form, are always used as plurals. (ناس) is a collective noun (اِسْمُ جَمْع), and thus it cannot be used as singular.
> For example you cannot say “he is people”.
> 
> More examples of collective nouns in Arabic:
> 
> (قَوْم) – nation
> 
> Again don't try to compare the word (ناس) with (عرب) they are NOT the same!



I'm not "comparing", I know they are the same and I have a source - one that is accepted as an authority in this area of knowledge and one that you can easily look up yourself. Yes they are the same; on what basis do you say they are not? 

As for my source: Just open لسان العرب under عرب the first thing you will find:

العُرب والعَرَب جيل من الناس معروف
...
والعَرَب العَاربة: هم الخلص منهم
...
وقيل: ليس الأعراب جمعا لعرب كما كان الأنباط جمعا لنَبَط وإنما العرب اسم جنس
...
رجل عربيّ إذا كان نسبه في العرب ثابتا وإن لم يكن فصيحا وجمعه العَرَبُ كما يقال رجل مجوسيّ ويهوديّ والجمع بحذف ياء النسبة اليهود والمجوس
....
وسواء كان من العرب أو من مواليهم...
...
ومن نزل بلاد الريف واستوطن المدن والقرى العربية وغيرها ممن ينتمي إلى العرب: فهم عرب وإن لم يكونوا فصحاء
...
والعرب هذا الجيل لا واحد له من لفظه
...
واختلف الناس في العرب لم سمّوا عربا
...
وهم العرب العاربة
...
والعرب المستعربة هم الذين دخلوا فيهم بعد
...

As you can see, it explicitly states that it's a collective noun, it explicitly states that it differs from أعراب and wherever it's used it's used as a plural.

I don't see how one can deduce it's singular from this. All you want to do is to prove that أعراب is "Arabs". Sorry pal, it's not up to you.



MSA111 said:


> Here is the ayah you were referring to:
> 
> (وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ) [The Qur’an 9:101]
> 
> And among the ARABS round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah...
> 
> *My Response:*
> 
> Where the verse says around you in the plural it refers to (around) the Prophet and his family (ahlul bayt), and the hypocrites around them were some amongst the immigrants from Mecca (al-muhajiriin), and the hypocrites of Medina are the natives of Medina (i.e. from the Jews) (both of whom were URABAN ARABS) and that is why the distinction is being made in the verse; the distinction between the hypocrites amongst the immigrants and the hypocrites amongst the natives of Medina.
> 
> Again this verse is speaking of urban Arabs. and there are other verses which make a general statement with reagrds to the Arabs being called hypocrites.



You are repeating yourself. I don't intend to repeat myself again so please go back and read what I said in my other post.


If you still don't understand the Quran, then maybe you need to learn Arabic, obviously, you don't speak it very well.


----------



## Jadoch

I have a wholly different question. Is the Arab word for Hebrew "3ibriy" related to "3arabiy" since the root differs only in order of b and r (metathesis)?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Well, some say that there was an ancient connection between the two. It's been noticed by many and theories include something about switching letters (which is a phenomenon that does exist in colloquial Arabic). The strongest in my opinion is the one about Hebrew switching the letters, because both the Hebrews and the Arabs were originally nomadic or semi-nomadic pastorals from the Arabian desert, except that they emerged to the north at different times in history. The word Arab as we mentioned earlier is from an old Semitic root for "moving".

Maybe even the Araami may have a very distant connection - you never know, at some point in the development of Semitic languages the letters may have been changed through time since they two traveled north from the Arabian desert at some point in ancient history and they too started out as nomadic pastorals. But this last paragraph is just me thinking out loud so I'd advise being careful if you want to quote it.


----------



## Abu Rashid

*Jadoch,*



> I have a wholly different question. Is the Arab word for Hebrew "3ibriy"  related to "3arabiy" since the root differs only in order of b and r  (metathesis)?


Possibly, but there is also the verb 3abara which means to "cross over" (in both Hebrew and Arabic). Perhaps a reference to them leaving the bulk of nomadic/arab peoples and crossing over the Jordan to Canaan and Egypt.

*Mahaodeh,*



> Maybe even the Araami may have a very distant connection - you never  know


According to the Bible Araam was a person, he was ibn Sam bin Nu7. His descendants were the Aramaeans (Aramaieen?) who occupied most of the area of modern day Syria/Lebanon and northern Iraqi.

But note that so too was 3ibr a person according to the Bible, a grandson of Sam through another son.


----------

