# Pure Arabic vs altered Arabic



## Hibou57

Well... dear all of you... I would like to expose a unfair question here.

In many places, I've heard/red about the consequence of the usage modern medias do of Arabic. Believing peoples I'm OK to trust, the form of Arabic language used in most of modern medias do not respect the deep nature of The Arabic Language. Notice that I'm not talking about old Koranic Arabic, but about standard modern Arabic.

I do not have many examples to illustrate this phenomenon... but perhaps one may be sufficient to be understanded : some imported names are used as if there were generated from a real Arabic root, creating bulk roots. 

_(you're welcome to give some others examples, if you know this, and/or you're interested in it)_

As only know a few about Arabic, I would some clear and concise criterias which may help me to determine where is real modern standard Arabic, and where is alterated Arabic.

Do some ones know a bit about this dumping of Arabic language ?

As an example, I would be very interested in knowing if this site is using real Arabic or alterated Arabic : BBC News in Arabic.

You may have guessed I'm looking for a corpus of real Arabic texts  

_P.S. Forgive me if this topic look like fog... I've tried to do as well as I could to express the idea and the question. Reformulations are welcome._


----------



## elroy

You really need to present examples of what you mean.

For obvious reasons, many words that did not exist in classical times have been added to MSA to "keep up with the times" - for modern concepts like "television," "video," etc.  But since it's *MSA* that this so-called "altered" or "adulterated" (I assume you meant one of these two words, since "alterated" is not a word) Arabic is supposed to have deviated from, I'm really at a loss as to what you're talking about. "[S]ome imported names are used as if there were generated from a real Arabic root, creating bulk roots" is not clear to me. 

As for the BBC website, of course it's Arabic!


----------



## Hibou57

In a shortcut, the question was about the spirit of the language... the example with roots was just a not so good example. It's not easy for me to give good examples, as I'm by the way currently trying to understand what's the real deal with it. Indeed, I would like to know if it is a real question or not.

I've red an article which bring up this question into my mind... but unfortunately, I've lost this link. I will post it here as soon as I will find it back.

_N.B. Yes, the word was « altered », and not the one I errorneously wrote « alterated »._


----------



## elroy

I would say it's not a real question - a farce, much ado about nothing.

Modern standard Arabic partly consists of borrowings - so what? Don't most languages? And if some of the foreign words have been "Arabized" to a degree so that they fit an Arabic pattern, is that a problem? Is the language tainted because of it?

Not in my book.

Isn't it actually more in keeping with the "spirit of Arabic" to adjust foreign words to Arabic morphology?

Life is too short to get up in arms about the natural evolution of a living language.


----------



## cherine

Salut Hibou 

The major flaw in Arabic used in these days media is mainly in the grammar mistakes. Sometimes I hear those grammar mistakes that make me "grincer des dents" ! Written materials are another pain  Many newspapers, with their own growth and the rapid flow of news don't have much time to edit or revise the articles before they publish them. So we get to read awfully written stuff with lots of typos, grammar mistakes (again, of course) and silly translations and/or transliterations of foreign words.

BBC ? Yes, I think they're, luckily, still managing to keep their excellent level of always 

Why is the level of Arabic (Fus7a or MSA) going downward? mainly because of the bad level of education in many of the Arab countries. I'm ashamed to say that many Egyptian students, in all levels of education, can't write properly, don't know much about grammar... And I think the same sad state exists in other Arab countries as well


----------



## SuKi*~

cherine said:


> Why is the level of Arabic (Fus7a or MSA) going downward? mainly because of the bad level of education in many of the Arab countries. I'm ashamed to say that many Egyptian students, in all levels of education, can't write properly, don't know much about grammar... And I think the same sad state exists in other Arab countries as well


 
I agree. My cousins who have been educated in Egypt are more literate in French than Arabic. I at least know enough about letters to figure out what something says, and make an educated guess at spelling, etc., but I have cousins who don't even know the alphabet. (And the only reason I know it is from teaching myself.) Meanwhile, spoken, they're flawlessly fluent, of course.


To Hibou's question, though, I still don't think i understand what you mean. Could you give an example in French?


----------



## elroy

Stylistic and grammatical quality is one thing, and the "purity" of the language is another. Bedeviled as MSA may be with grammatical errors in the media, it's still MSA and not an "altered" version of the language just because we have some foreign influences (I still don't know what other factors, if any, have led to this assumption).


----------



## linguist786

elroy said:


> Stylistic and grammatical quality is one thing, and the "purity" of the language is another.


Well not _completely_. Regular grammatical mistakes (like tending to use the manSuub instead of the majruur*) leads to impurities in the language, doesn't it?

*random example - I don't know if this actually happens.


----------



## elroy

linguist786 said:


> Well not _completely_. Regular grammatical mistakes (like tending to use the manSuub instead of the majruur*) leads to impurities in the language, doesn't it?


 No matter how many people make these mistakes, they do not become correct, nor do they affect the "purity" of the language.  Every language has speakers who make mistakes; unless those mistakes get accepted as correct, they have no effect on the language.


----------



## Hibou57

Elroy said:
			
		

> Life is too short to get up in arms about the natural evolution of a living language


Yes, Elroy, I fully agree, and I'm far to be the last to say the same. Many times I've told elsewhere about the necessity to let language evolve _(as with french, which seems to be a dieing language to me... although it is my first tongue)_.




			
				Chérine said:
			
		

> The major flaw in Arabic used in these days media is mainly in the grammar mistakes. Sometimes I hear those grammar mistakes that make me "grincer des dents" ! Written materials are another pain. Many newspapers, with their own growth and the rapid flow of news don't have much time to edit or revise the articles before they publish them. So we get to read awfully written stuff with lots of typos, grammar mistakes (again, of course) and silly translations and/or transliterations of foreign words.


*Chérine, you're the one who have understood what I was wondering about.* That's it... the example I gave with roots was not a good one, but I was not able to give grammatical examples, but this was in the same time, the major topic which was in my mind while I wrote this.
Hey  Could you give me links to articles on the web which contains such grammatical mistakes ? You seems to know a lot about this subject




			
				Suky*~ said:
			
		

> To Hibou's question, though, I still don't think i understand what you mean. Could you give an example in French?


Strange... very strange, because what you've said right before make me think that you were nicely answering in a useful way




			
				Elroy said:
			
		

> Bedeviled as MSA may be with grammatical errors in the media, it's still MSA and not an "altered" version of the language just because we have some foreign influences _(I still don't know what other factors, if any, have led to this assumption)_.


This is an other mystery to me : what is in facts MSA ? I admit that I do not really understand the difference between MSA and Literal Arabic (not the old one).
As an example : I've red about declination, and the facts that declination are generaly dropped by MSA... but aren't they necessary _(note that I'm not talking about dropping of diacritics in every days writing)_.




			
				Linguist said:
			
		

> Well not _completely_. Regular grammatical mistakes (like tending to use the manSuub instead of the majruur*) leads to impurities in the language, doesn't it?


On more times, you seems to read in my mind  .... more about it ?




			
				Elroy said:
			
		

> No matter how many people make these mistakes, they do not become correct, nor do they affect the "purity" of the language. Every language has speakers who make mistakes; unless those mistakes get accepted as correct, they have no effect on the language.


Yes, but... but, as an universal rule in any other science, it is well know that comparison must be justify. And that comparison are always valid in some extent, and no more. At some levels, comparison are valid, but Chinese is Chinese, Arabic is Arabic, English is English, and so on. A language is always part of the world wide heritage, and its value must be preserve. The question is : when and where may we legitimately consider that a language is losing it's spirit.


----------



## linguist786

Hibou57 said:


> Yes, Elroy, I fully agree, and I'm far to be the last to say the same. Many times I've said elsewhere about the necessity to let language evolve _(as with french, which seems to be a dying language to me... although it is my first tongue)_.
> 
> 
> *Chérine, you're the one who have understood what I was wondering about.* That's it... the example I gave with roots was not a good one, but I was not able to give grammatical examples, but this was in the same time, the major topic which was in my mind while I wrote this.
> Hey  Could you give me links to articles on the web which contains such grammatical mistakes ? You seems to know a lot about this subject
> 
> 
> Strange... very strange, because what you've said right before made me think that you were nicely answering in a useful way
> 
> This is another (un mot) mystery to me : what is in facts MSA ? I admit that I do not really understand the difference between MSA and Literal Arabic (not the old one).
> As an example : I've read about declination inflections, and the facts that declination inflections are generaly dropped by MSA... but aren't they necessary _(note that I'm not talking about dropping of diacritics inflections in everyday writing)_.
> 
> 
> On more times occasions, you seem to have read in my mind  .... more about it ?
> 
> 
> Yes, but... but, as an universal rule in any other science, it is well know that comparisons must be justified. And those comparisons are always valid to some extent, and no more. At some levels, comparisons are valid, but Chinese is Chinese, Arabic is Arabic, English is English, and so on. A language is always part of the world wide heritage, and its value must be preserved. The question is : when and where may we legitimately consider that a language is losing it's its spirit.


I think it's kind of wrong to say that a language is "losing its spirit". You are right that "English is English, etc" but it hasn't always been like it is today.

On the other hand, it would be OK to say that a certain language was better (in whatever way) X number of years ago - but that's just an opinion.

Language evolution is inevitable. It happens because of changes in society, amongst other things.

Personally, I think Arabic (standard, that is) is quite a special language in that it hasn't changed much _grammatically_ since its beginnings, whenever they may be. (infact, it hasn't even changed a bit - correct me if i'm wrong) It is just vocabulary/terminology mainly.

Hope you don't mind my corrections 



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> unless those mistakes get accepted as correct, they have no effect on the language.


"Accepted as correct" by whom?


----------



## cherine

Hibou57 said:


> *Chérine, you're the one who have understood what I was wondering about.* That's it... the example I gave with roots was not a good one, but I was not able to give grammatical examples, but this was in the same time, the major topic which was in my mind while I wrote this.
> Hey Could you give me links to articles on the web which contains such grammatical mistakes ? You seems to know a lot about this subject


I'm glad I could be of any help  I'm not sure about linking to such articles, but I'll try to remember next time I'll see one to put the link.


> Strange... very strange, because what you've said right before make me think that you were nicely answering in a useful way


That's because Suki was commenting on my post  but she wasn't sure we (her and myself) understood you right.



> This is an other mystery to me : what is in facts MSA ? I admit that I do not really understand the difference between MSA and Literal Arabic (not the old one).





> As an example : I've red about declination, and the facts that declination are generaly dropped by MSA... but aren't they necessary _(note that I'm not talking about dropping of diacritics in every days writing)_.


That was the topic of another thread, so you can search for it and if you don't find the info you're looking for you can always revive that discussion 
One simple answer though : MSA/Literal Arabic/Classical Arabic are all -to me- the same thing that we, natives, call fus7a اللغة الفصحى . Foreigners tend to make distinctions between them, but I personally believe that the differences are mainly in the vocabulary not in grammar.



> The question is : when and where may we legitimately consider that a language is losing it's spirit.


I'm not sure I can answer this question.
Speaking of Arabic : I agree with what Elroy saying; that grammatical mistakes and loan words don't change the purity of a language.
But the problem, to me, is that when a growing number of that language speakers can't master that language enough to produce a proper text (proper in the meaning of proper usage of grammar and vocabulary) than that's a danger to the language.
What do I mean by the proper usage of vocabulary ? Many people are mis-using many words, they have a certain meaning in their mind when the words have a different meaning.
And example ? Here's one that's unfortunately getting wide spread : using the verb yatalaa*sh*a يتلاشى to mean avoid !!! when the verb to use is yatalaa*f*a يتلافى  One letter difference, you may say... well, I hope you (or more important, they who use it that way) know that yatalaash means disappear  .



linguist786 said:


> Language evolution is inevitable. It happens because of changes in society, amongst other things.


I agree with that. And I believe that a language must evolve to be able to express new things, otherwise that same language will die. But evolution is something, and deterioration is another. I think we can all agree about that  .


> Personally, I think Arabic (standard, that is) is quite a special language in that it hasn't changed much _grammatically_ since its beginnings, whenever they may be. (infact, it hasn't even changed a bit - correct me if i'm wrong) It is just vocabulary/terminology mainly.


Yes, to my knowledge Arabic grammar hasn't known any changes at all. There are different schools/trends (Basra, Koofa, Misr, Andalus), but the differences are not very big, and they were almost during the same periods, so they're not related to evolution.


> "Accepted as correct" by whom?


I think that the yatalaasha example can illustrate the "accepted as correct" idea. Many people are using this verb in a totally different meaning, even some writers  so there's an example of a dangerous usage  .


----------



## Hibou57

Linguist said:
			
		

> because what you've said you've said
> ...
> I've read I've red
> ...
> but aren't they necessary _(note that I'm not talking about dropping of diacritics inflections diacritics in everyday writing)_.
> ...
> On more times occasions one more time, you seem to have read in my mind  .... more about it ?



Hop you don't mind about correcting your understanding 




> Language evolution is inevitable. It happens because of changes in society, amongst other things.
> 
> Personally, I think Arabic (standard, that is) is quite a special language in that it hasn't changed much _grammatically_ since its beginnings, whenever they may be. (infact, it hasn't even changed a bit - correct me if i'm wrong) It is just vocabulary/terminology mainly.


So far now, I should recall to every body that there were nothing like an affirmation in the initial post, but rather questions...


Thanks to Chérine, for what I consider as the final answer... 

May be to get more : do some one have some examples of common grammaticals mistakes made in modern medias ?

*Edit :*




> One simple answer though : MSA/Literal Arabic/Classical Arabic are all -to me- the same thing that we, natives, call fus7a اللغة الفصحى . Foreigners tend to make distinctions between them, but I personally believe that the differences are mainly in the vocabulary not in grammar.


I think so... now I know this was not just an illusion....


----------



## cherine

Hibou57 said:


> Thanks to Chérine, for what I consider as the final answer...


You're welcome Hibou 


> May be to get more : do some one have some examples of common grammaticals mistakes made in modern medias ?


Most common ones : mixing the inflections رفع، نصب، جر specially in less simple sentences, like those where there's تقديم وتأخير . Problem with determining the gender of numbers (that's a really tough one, but it's not that hard to learn), some words are feminine even when they sound masculine, like الحال that's a feminine word, but many treat it as masculine....


----------



## elroy

Hibou57 said:


> : what is in facts MSA ? I admit that I do not really understand the difference between MSA and Literal Arabic (not the old one).


 MSA and Literar*y* Arabic are exactly the same language (since you're not even talking about Classical Arabic, which usually refers to Qur'anic Arabic or the Arabic of ancient times and as Cherine said differs from MSA in the vocabulary used). Remember that the word "M" in MSA stands for "modern" so any Arabic used today that is not colloquial is MSA. Literary Arabic falls under that category. 


linguist786 said:


> "Accepted as correct" by whom?


 It was a hypothetical statement, but I meant "accepted as correct" either by a formal academy of the language (like the Real Academia Española) or simply by default through sufficient usage (for languages like English that have no such academy). For example, the word "mob" used to be slang but has made its way into standard English. MSA is unique, as you said, in that it is generally immune to the "standardization of errors" that affects most other languages, primarily because it is not used on a daily basis. Even if there are widespread errors (and there are plenty), they are still considered errors; colloquial Arabic, on the other hand, is by definition "the common language" so most changes that occur there tend to "get accepted as correct" because what the people say is correct in colloquial Arabic, by definition. MSA, as you have said, has undergone relatively few changes compared to most other languages except for the introduction of new words as mentioned above. This has helped "protect" it from the acceptance of errors as correct.


----------



## SuKi*~

elroy said:
			
		

> It was a hypothetical statement, but I meant "accepted as correct" either by a formal academy of the language (like the Real Academia Española) or simply by default through sufficient usage (for languages like English that have no such academy). For example, the word "mob" used to be slang but has made its way into standard English. MSA is unique, as you said, in that it is generally immune to the "standardization of errors" that affects most other languages, primarily because it is not used on a daily basis. Even if there are widespread errors (and there are plenty), they are still considered errors; colloquial Arabic, on the other hand, is by definition "the common language" so most changes that occur there tend to "get accepted as correct" because what the people say is correct in colloquial Arabic, by definition. MSA, as you have said, has undergone relatively few changes compared to most other languages except for the introduction of new words as mentioned above. This has helped "protect" it from the acceptance of errors as correct.


 
I don't think English can be used as a good example, simply because the entire language is basically a mut. English is constantly, CONSTANTLY having more and more words added to it by the day, just because we either invent words, or take them from other languages. In other words, people are more likely to see errors in a language like Arabic or French that is very well established and has a more rigid definition of what goes in the dictionary and what doesn't. It's like elroy said though - the introduction of new words is purely to keep up with the times and establish what this language should call it before more and more errors become more widespread and used.


----------



## elroy

SuKi*~ said:


> English is constantly, CONSTANTLY having more and more words added to it by the day, just because we either invent words, or take them from other languages.


 That's not what I was talking about.  I was talking about informal, sub-standard words acquiring standard status.


----------



## Anatoli

At some stage Elroy created a topic out one of my questions regarding *the future of MSA* but I lost this thread.

I risk the wrath of purists if I suggest that Arabic language needs a reform based on a consensus of a big number of native Arabic speakers. Many parts of Arabic grammar seems to be ignored, badly understood or understudied, even by native speakers. Should MSA be used by all media, not just for formal situations or should dialects be upgraded and become formalised, standardised? Maybe a merger should happen - a simplified version of MSA with some very common dialectal words used across different dialects? All languages change, go through reforms, why should be different for Arabic? Some commonly used dialectal and foreign words to become standard - what's wrong with that? A smoother method would be if a few synonyms along with the current formal words were allowed where multiple version exist.

If this is not possible to upgrade dialects and merge with MSA, for MSA to survive and to be used more often, it needs to be used in entertainment - movies, songs, any informal TV programs. China and Taiwan promotes the usage of standard language in dialectal zones.

Even North and South Korea - two countries - very hostile to each other but with common linguistic background now agree they need to come up with the common vocabulary, otherwise it's becoming harder to communicate.

I know Hans Wehr includes some very common dialectal words. If more dialectal words are used in writing, they become standard and known by all arabs - as easy as that.

If too many people make the same error, it's no longer an error - it's standard 

I read about attempts to standardise Egyptian dialect. Probably this ideas can be used for the whole Arab world?


----------



## ayed

Hibou57 , here are mistakes:

*Grammatical mistakes (**أخطاء نحوية*)
فاز *عشرين* متسابقاً 
فاز *عشرون* متسابقاً 
Twenty racers have won
***
حصل أحمد على *خمسون* درجة 
حصل أحمد على *خمسين* درجة 
Ahmed got fifty marks.
==========
Dictational Mistakes(*أخطاء إملائية*)
*إنشاء* الله 
*إن* *شاء *الله 
Allah willing


----------



## cherine

Anatoli said:


> At some stage Elroy created a topic out one of my questions regarding *the future of MSA* but I lost this thread.


You mean this one ? Would you prefer we move your questions there ?


----------



## Anatoli

cherine said:


> You mean this one ? Would you prefer we move your questions there ?


No, not this one Cherine. It's OK if you leave them here (if it's OK with you) but I remember my questions spawned "Future of MSA" thread, which I wasn't able to find.


----------



## Hibou57

Anatoli said:


> [...] Should MSA be used by all media, not just for formal situations or should dialects be upgraded and become formalised, standardised? Maybe a merger should happen - a simplified version of MSA with some very common dialectal words used across different dialects? [...]


Not sure that it will be a real good idea : the main difference between dialects and standard Arabic is that dialects drops many things _(like dropped inflections, shortened words, and so on)_. In many case, this raise into ambiguities, which is an effect we may not wish.

Ayed, thanks for examples



ayed said:


> [...]
> Dictational Mistakes(*أخطاء إملائية*)
> *إنشاء* الله
> *إن* *شاء *الله
> Allah willing


Me too, I see this one very frequently... even from native speakers


----------



## Anatoli

Hibou57 said:


> Not sure that it will be a real good idea : the main difference between dialects and standard Arabic is that dialects drops many things _(like dropped inflections, shortened words, and so on)_. In many case, this raise into ambiguities, which is an effect we may not wish.


Thanks for answering, Hibou.

Do people get confused when they speak/listen? inflections and (u/un, i/in, a/an) are not written, anyway, so aren't certain verb endings - sharibt(u), sharibt(a), etc. So there is no difference in the written form of the dialect/vs MSA.

What is a vet? A veterinary or a veteran? 

Languages are full of ambiguities, that's why we have context and we can use longer words/forms.

You may like or not like certain words or forms but my idea is if the word is used by a large group of native speakers why not concider including it.

These are different forms of the same word, you use the word you prefer but others are in the dictionary as well because they are used. The dictionary may contain colloquial (coll.) or regional  (Egyptian, Saudi, Lebanese, etc.) marker.

father - dad - daddy - pop - old man - pops


----------



## Hibou57

Anatoli said:


> Do people get confused when they speak/listen? inflections and (u/un, i/in, a/an) are not written, anyway, so aren't certain verb endings - sharibt(u), sharibt(a), etc. So there is no difference in the written form of the dialect/vs MSA.


Ok with that... but fully considered, we must keep in mind that, although written Arabic can legitimately omits some inflections _(via omission of diacritics)_, those inflections are part of the language in it self : that's the reason why they can be written too. The Arabic language and codes used to represent it are not the same things. Inflections may be omitted in some circumstances, ... true, but they are still part of the language.

The difference with dialects, is that they fully and conceptually avoid it.

but may be I'm a bit purist...




> What is a vet? A veterinary or a veteran?
> 
> Languages are full of ambiguities, that's why we have context and we can use longer words/forms.


Not the least... the biggest. In my personal opinion, the spirit of the Arabic language is in its formality, logicality, and its capability of avoiding most of ambiguities.



> You may like or not like certain words or forms but my idea is if the word is used by a large group of native speakers why not consider including it.


Of course, yes, I would not want to be blind... but what about this other alternative : creating an Arabic-world-wide dialect, keeping the standard Arabic in the way it is in the same time ?

What do you think about ?


----------



## Anatoli

It is a sensitive issue, I know but I have impression that sticking to standard Arabic with no change is not exactly working, that's why I think the reform is necessary to make a new standard more acceptable to use in most situations. Why news are broadcast in one language but entertainment in another? Shouldn't some major common dialects be upgraded to become part of the standard language. It's not socially acceptable to write in dialects for some reason and it's not acceptable to speak in MSA in most social situations but you can't receive  any formal education if you don't speak fus-Ha. An Arabic-world-wide dialect is the first step but what do you wish to do with it?


----------



## cherine

Anatoli said:


> Should MSA be used by all media, not just for formal situations or should dialects be upgraded and become formalised, standardised?


As a native, I prefer things the way they are : using fus7a in formal contexts and 3ammiyya in informal ones. I can't see anything wrong with that; isn't there in, say French, a "language familier" & "language formel" ? 


> If too many people make the same error, it's no longer an error - it's standard


No, it's a *common* error 


> If this is not possible to upgrade dialects and merge with MSA, for MSA to survive and to be used more often, it needs to be used in entertainment - movies, songs, any informal TV programs.


There are some Media productions in fus7a (many songs, few movies).


> I read about attempts to standardise Egyptian dialect. Probably this ideas can be used for the whole Arab world?


Can you tell me more about this ? Egyptian dialect _is_ used in some forms of literature, but who is trying to standardize it ?



Anatoli said:


> Do people get confused when they speak/listen? inflections and (u/un, i/in, a/an) are not written, anyway, so aren't certain verb endings - sharibt(u), sharibt(a), etc. So there is no difference in the written form of the dialect/vs MSA.
> [...] Languages are full of ambiguities, that's why we have context and we can use longer words/forms.


True. But there's great difference between sharibtu and sharibta, and when hearing/reading that difference better be clear.


> You may like or not like certain words or forms but my idea is if the word is used by a large group of native speakers why not concider including it.


I think it depends on the word. If, for example, it's an English word, like what we see more and more in everyday usage, then the word can get into the language (arabized). But some words are nothing but a deformation of existing words, so it will be a little harder to include it.



Anatoli said:


> It is a sensitive issue, I know but I have impression that sticking to standard Arabic with no change is not exactly working, for who ? that's why I think the reform is necessary to make a new standard more acceptable to use in most situations. Why news are broadcast in one language but entertainment in another?


Can't we explain it by the idea of language registers? There's a register for news, another for daily life news, another for formal written papers, another for literature... I think this doesn't affect the language but enriches it.


> It's not socially acceptable to write in dialects for some reason and it's not acceptable to speak in MSA in most social situations


We write in dialects already, but not in everything. Poetry and literature, personal correspondances are writen in dialects, because it's the informal (if I may say so) form of the language. But in formal contexts (news, official documents, school books) it's the fus7a that's used.


> ... but you can't receive any formal education if you don't speak fus-Ha.


I don't know what you mean by formal education. I wished it was true from some fields of study to make it a condition for students to be fluent in fus7a (lawyers, reporters, language teachers...), unfortunately this is not the case, at least in Egypt. The results : lawyers who can't talk properly, write their documents in extremely poor semi-fus7a; reporters who can't write a piece of news with less than a typo/grammatical mistake per line, language teachers who can't teach properly because they didn't study properly ... It *is* sad.


> An Arabic-world-wide dialect is the first step but what do you wish to do with it?


Good question 

Now, the last point :


			
				Anatoli said:
			
		

> Shouldn't some major common dialects be upgraded to become part of the standard language.





Hibou57 said:


> ...but what about this other alternative : creating an Arabic-world-wide dialect, keeping the standard Arabic in the way it is in the same time ?
> What do you think about ?


It's here that lies the problem : who has the authority to create this Arabic-worldwide dialect (or Arabic-worldwide anything)? It's here that the problem is more complicated; it's not only linguistic, it's social/historical/political... can you think of the latest agreement between Arab countries about _*anything*_ ?! I can't   .

Sorry for a boring lengthy post .


----------



## Hibou57

cherine said:


> [...] It's here that the problem is more complicated; it's not only linguistic, it's social/historical/political... can you think of the latest agreement between Arab countries about _*anything*_ ?! I can't   .
> 
> [...]


Why are you crying Chérine , don't be sad , I know one : *Literal Arabic, the big great agreement between all Arab countries and more   *


----------



## Anatoli

Thanks, Cherine. It's not boring at all, your opinion is very interesting. You're a bit contradicting yourself saying that the situation is said but you prefer the status quo.

It is late here but I will post about the language reform suggested Qasim Amin.



> Proponents of language reform in Egypt included *Qasim Amin*, who also wrote the first Egyptian feminist treatise, former president of the Egyptian University, Ahmad Lutfy el-Sayyed, and noted intellectual Salama Moussa. They adopted a modernist, *secular approach and disagreed with the Islamic assumption that Arabic was an immutable language because of its association with the Qur'an*. For a while, Egyptian Arabic enjoyed a period of rich literary output until the movement was halted with the continuing rise of Islamism and Arab nationalism in Egypt and the Middle East, particularly with Nasser's assumption of power in 1954. The first modern Egyptian novel to be written in the vernacular was Muhammad Husayn Haykal's Zaynab in 1913.


 
To be continued...


----------



## cherine

Hibou57 said:


> Why are you crying Chérine , don't be sad , I know one : *Literal Arabic, the big great agreement between all Arab countries and more   *


Merci Yannick, c'est gentil 
Only, Arabs didn't have much choice about it  It's like something they were born with.



Anatoli said:


> You're a bit contradicting yourself saying that the situation is sad but you prefer the status quo.


I'm not. The status quo that I like is having different levels or forms of language for different register or context.
What's sad is having people, supposedly with education, who can't write or speak properly.
Imagine a French/British/Spanish.... reporters who can only write in slang, but can't write a decent article in formal language. It's not only a matter of language level, but also a matter of reaching to a greater readership/audience. Fus7a is the language Arabs have in common, even if they don't use it in informal situations.
Imposing a dialect over others is impossible; first: because each country will say : why that dialect and not ours ? Which is a fair question. Second, because no one has the authority nor the power to do that.


> It is late here but I will post about the language reform suggested Qasim Amin.


Yes, now I understand what you meant.
I heard about suggestions concerning reforming the language, using dialects in literature and formal contexts, changing the alphabet (like what Ataturk did in Turkey).
All those suggestions lead to nothing, and they were only subject for great controversies.


----------



## Anatoli

Thanks, Cherine.

It will always be hard (not impossible) to perfectly master a language, which is not used in daily lives, like if all doctors would suddenly have to speak and write Latin (not just prescriptions). I know it's sad but but not everyone has  motivation in just learning the language before learning other sciences.

I'd rather not expand on dialects any more but the main thing is absence of resistance to change, not the authority, languages/dialects have developed on their own but authorities and purists have been trying to stop it - with the good intention to preserve it, of course.


----------

