# Classical Arabic vs. Modern Standard Arabic



## JLanguage

Thread split from here.


			
				DaleC said:
			
		

> One can never ask a question about just "Arabic". You also have to specify whether (modern) standard, spoken, or Classical/Koranic; and if spoken, which dialect.
> 
> "MSA" (modern standard Arabic) and Classical do not have tenses, but all the major spoken dialects do.



I meant MSA/Classical (Is there a collective term?), which I have been told are very similiar.


----------



## DaleC

Unfortunately, there isn't a universally clearly agreed collective term. What there is is frequent confusion and ideology. You should consult Plus of course, Clives Holes, Modern Arabic: structures, functions, and varieties. Revised ed. 2004, or the grammatical sketch by Alan Kaye in Bernard Comrie, ed., The World's Major Languages.

Linguists agree that MSA and Classical are different, and linguists also agree that they are not much different. To put it another way, that there are reasons why we would need to distinguish MSA, even though the grammar is the same.

As for ideology, there are some who refuse to accept that there is an MSA distinct from Classical. These people would say that there is only Classical. Some others might acknowledge the existence of MSA, but bemoan it.

Yet other people might acknowledge the existence of MSA as a dialect significantly albeit mildly different from Classical, yet they use the term Classical to refer to MSA simply out of convenience. After all, it would be nice to have a cover term. Also, it would seem helpful for research purposes to build on a century or two of western tradition, which used the term. (The description of "classical" is not used in Arabic itself.) I.e., if one were to want to look at studies of nonspoken Arabic 1800 to present, it would be nice to only need to use one search term.

Lastly, in my reading I see that scholars, both western linguists and Arabs, distinguish the language of the Qur'an, which of course is Classical Arabic, from Classical Arabic more broadly. But not because it's its own distinct dialect. Rather, the Qur'an is just one of many surviving texts composed in the Arabic literary language of 500-700 AD.

You might especially be interested in works by Kees Versteegh (also known as C H M Versteegh). (That's a Dutch name.) Here are two of his books:

Arabic Grammar And Qur'anic Exegesis In Early Islam. 1993
The Arabic Language. 1997

Beware, these books and the book by Holes are not lesson books for learning the language.


----------



## audreycalifornie

Does the word _fosHa _include these older forms, then?

I ask because in English, the (to me, odd) phrase "Standard English" excludes most colloquialisms, but also doesn't match up with, say, Daniel Defoe's English--which was a lot more recent than Mohammed's Arabic.


----------



## cherine

Ok, I'll say what I know, what i've learned since childhood :
There are, generally, two forms of Arabic : FosHa and Ammeyya. The first is the written form that has evolved during many centuries, like any other language. So there were words in older FosHa forms/texts that are not used anymore, or used in different way. The Ammeyya is the colloquial form of Arabic, it's mainly spoken but people can write it down the way they see right, hence no fixed rules for writing it. And of course Ameyya differs from an Arabic country to another.
So, to say short : MSA is just the modern form of FusHa : some different words, but the grammatical rules are the same


----------



## audreycalifornie

Thank you for the response. It doesn't exactly answer my question, though. Let me try again.

In Egypt, for example, you have fos7a and 3amiyya, two categories. When we speak about it in English, though, we sometimes have three categories: classical, MSA, and colloquial. As DaleC said, there is no clear distinction between classical and MSA. However, when we have two words for something, I usually believe they do mean different things, even if they are only slightly different. 

It seems the words 'MSA' and 'classical' could refer to stylistic differences, even if the two are not systematically different. For example, if writing in English, you do not use the same kind of language for academic writing as you would for fiction. They're both English, and usually both standard English, but they have enough differences that we distinguish between them, like I just did.

If I have the right idea so far, then my question is:

Does the Arabic word 'fos7a' include _both _English ideas of 'classical' and 'modern standard,' or just one or the other? After all, 'classical' and 'modern' are usually not synonyms.

Thanks.


----------



## Josh_

Yes, fusHa can mean both classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic.


----------



## elroy

We have had multiple threads devoted to this issue.


----------



## cherine

Elroy, please allow me to answer here 


			
				audreycalifornie said:
			
		

> Thank you for the response. It doesn't exactly answer my question, though. Let me try again.


Sorry about that. I thought i'd made myself to the point by resuming the two main categories of Arabic.


			
				audreycalifornie said:
			
		

> As DaleC said, there is no clear distinction between classical and MSA.


Precisely, because both of them are Fos7a.


			
				audreycalifornie said:
			
		

> However, when we have two words for something, I usually believe they do mean different things, even if they are only slightly different.


You're right. We've been taught that there's not such thing as "perfect synonyms, there's always a difference, even in slight connotation


			
				audreycalifornie said:
			
		

> It seems the words 'MSA' and 'classical' could refer to stylistic differences, even if the two are not systematically different. For example, if writing in English, you do not use the same kind of language for academic writing as you would for fiction. They're both English, and usually both standard English, but they have enough differences that we distinguish between them, like I just did.


Same in Arabic. Written language is the same, but styles differ between science, literature, journalism....


			
				audreycalifornie said:
			
		

> Does the Arabic word 'fos7a' include _both _English ideas of 'classical' and 'modern standard,' or just one or the other? After all, 'classical' and 'modern' are usually not synonyms.


Yes Fos7a is the written form of classical and literary Arabic. The difference between classical and modern is mainly in the use of certain words, or not using them anymore (modern), or using them in a different way (modern)... As you know, with the evolution of language some words acquire sort of new meanings or at least new connotations.

Hope this time my answer is of help


----------



## elroy

Cherine,

Your contribution was, of course, welcome.  I was just pointing Aubrey to some of the other threads in which this issue has been discussed, so as to avoid redundancy because many of her questions are answered there. 

By the way, I agree with you 100%.   As I've said previously, the distinction between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic is unnecessary.


----------



## Nikola

Only Westerners make the distinction both are called fusha in Arabic. CA has some words no longer used and  MSA has words for modern concepts.


----------



## Tajabone

The distinction is however made by linguists who can distinguish several states and phases within that language. Otherwise most people live with the mythical idea that Arabic hasn't changed during 15 centuries (which is nowaday a Salafi myth _par excellence_).

One of the major differences is the syntactical order: while Classical Arabic syntactic order is Verb+Subject+Complement, MSA favours the English/French word order: Subject+Verb+Complement.

Other variations concern some agreements with plurals: in CA you would say The Arabs wants (something) while in MSA The Arab want (something) is correct.

And of course, many stylistic changes have occurred.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Tajabone said:


> Otherwise most people live with the mythical idea that Arabic hasn't changed during 15 centuries (which is nowaday a Salafi myth _par excellence_).



This is totally uncalled for. Who are these "most people" and how have you ascertained that? You would've done well to tone down your language somewhat, and stated whatever you wanted to state more objectively and free of any (negative) value judgments directed at groups of people that you seem to have it in for. I sincerely hope that you would stop this negative criticism and refrain from passing (negative) judgments on people esp. when such action is not provoked, and just to try and keep it to the issue at hand.


> One of the major differences is the syntactical order: while Classical Arabic syntactic order is Verb+Subject+Complement, MSA favours the English/French word order: Subject+Verb+Complement.


Well, I've just broswed through a couple of (old) news paper articles and in almost all if not all of these articles was the V-S-O word favoured, e.g.

نشرت صحيفة ...خبراً

شاهد الملايين من الألمان في الأمانيا الشرقية

انتهت دراما العاصمة الأمريكية الليلة قبل الماضية

فقد استقبل الأمير عبد الله قبل ظهر أمس السيد (فلان

من جهة ثانية ذكر مصدر فلسطيني أن

ارتفع سعر الدولار مقابل العملات

These examples have all been taken at random, and there are many other examples. So really beg to differ with you on this one.

Edit:

This I just got from the al-arabiyyah online newspaper:

رفضت طهران السبت 11-8-2007 تحذيرات وجهها الرئيس الاميركي جورج بوش إلى العراق حول التساهل تجاه ايران

أصيب السبت 11-8-2007 أكثر من عشرين فلسطينيا في قطاع غزة

شهدت القاهرة خلال الموسم السياحي الحالي ظاهرة متسولين

These are also just random examples.

All of these examples seem to show that VSO is still the preferred order.


----------



## ihsaan

Tajabone said:


> One of the major differences is the syntactical order: while Classical Arabic syntactic order is Verb+Subject+Complement, MSA favours the English/French word order: Subject+Verb+Complement.
> 
> Other variations concern some agreements with plurals: in CA you would say The Arabs wants (something) while in MSA The Arab want (something) is correct.
> 
> And of course, many stylistic changes have occurred.


 
Ah, interesting. Well, in the course I am taking now (CA) we are taught the verb + subject + Complement, just as you mentioned. I've looked in my MSA book as well, and the book teaches us the verb + subject + object order as well for the verbal sentence, while they seem to use the subject + verb + (object) order when it comes to objective clauses. They do however, refer to the first word order as the "normal" one.'

I'll have to look more into the plurals.
Also, thanks for the many examples Abu Bishr.


----------



## Tajabone

Abu Bishr said:


> All of these examples seem to show that VSO is still the preferred order.


 
You seem to have neglected the tense which is an important parameter: most of your examples use the past and not the present tense (even if such a past tense has a value of present tense or recent past).

As for mentioning the idea that Arabic hasn't changed during 15 centuries, it is indeed a mythical thought studied and criticised in a very normal way in sociolinguistics. It is what this discipline calls a "linguistic imaginary" also spread by religious groups who tend to mix their beliefs with the linguistic nature of Arabic (which has evolved as any other language).

In a nutshell, what I've mentioned is certainly not new and absolutely banal unless one is blurred by his "salafi" beliefs ... which simply should  not be taken for granted and analysed each time the image of Arabic is at stake. This is why it is relevant to mention it.


----------



## Josh_

Tajabone said:
			
		

> One of the major differences is the syntactical order: while Classical Arabic syntactic order is Verb+Subject+Complement, MSA favours the English/French word order: Subject+Verb+Complement.


Like Abu Bishr, I also disagree with your contention that Modern Standard prefers the S-V-O. In the vast majority of Arabic I have read the order is V-S-O. Of course S-V-O is used as well when the author wants to emphasize the subject or for whatever other reason, but this order is not used nearly as much as V-S-O. If you wanted to talk about the dialects, then that is another issue. Anyway, this is probably a discussion for another thread so I will stop.

As for the discussion at hand, in addition to what has already been said about the differences between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic (vocab, word meanings/usages, some grammatical structures, etc.) another difference that I do not believe has been discussed is that of spelling.  In Classical Arabic, or maybe only in the Quran (I can't say I've read many classical Arabic texts) many words that contain a long 'a' sound are spelled using what is sometimes called in English the "dagger alif" ( just called الألف الصغير (small alif) in Arabic) which is that little diacritic mark (that supposedly resembles a dagger) used to indicate a long 'a' sound in the absence of an alif, such as in the word الله (the dagger alif is that little line above the shadda) and رحمـٰـن (which is pronounced رحمان).   In MSA it is only used in a few word such as الله and  هذا (spelled هٰذا but pronounced as هاذا ) and ذلك ( pronounced ذالك ).

I believe there are other spelling differences, but as I am not very familiar with the subject I will not get into it.


----------



## Ali.h

Moderator note:
I merged this new thread to the previous one, as they discuss the same topic. Please don't forget to search before opening a new thread to avoid repetitions.

Please read the following that I read from a grammar book:

The major differences between CA and MSA are stylistic and lexical rather than grammatical.

Example of lexical (differences) would be: vast shift in the lexicon due to the need for technical terminology.

Example of stylistic (differences) would be: A number of stylistic changes due to translations from European languages and extensive bilingualism.

Finally example of grammatical (differences) would be: A series of acceptable simplifications in syntactic structures.

Now my question is that I understnad the example of lexical (differences), but I don't understand the following two: (stylitic and grammatical). Can someone please provide for me examples of those two in accordance to the definitions that I provided above?


----------



## Mandhir

I believe Arabic to be quite conservative in its evolution, and I agree that the main difference is stylistic,
You find some modern syntactical  devices from European constructions, like an agent used with a passive with min al-taraĥi /al-tarafi etc. eg Kutiba al-risālatu min tarafi al-shaykh


----------



## Molonglo

Is the leap from classical Arabic to modern spoken Dialects more like Chaucer's English compared to today, or Shakespeare's? I think of modern standard Arabic as being equivalent to Shakespearean English is that a correct assumption?


----------



## AndyRoo

Hi,

MSA is 100% comprehensible to most if not all Arabs, so it can't be compared to the English of either Shakespeare or Chaucer.

MSA is not antiquated, but has a more formal register than dialects.

If I had to compare it with an English writer, I would choose perhaps Dickens. It is perfectly understandable, but slightly different from the way people speak normally.


----------



## Schem

A distinction should be made between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic. The latter, as the name implies, is still a modern Arabic and understandable to nearly all Arabic-speakers (albeit in a formal register as AndyRoo mentions) while the former may be more appropriate for your comparisons.


----------



## fdb

AndyRoo said:


> MSA is 100% comprehensible to most if not all Arabs,


That is because they learn it in school. The modern spoken dialects of Arabic are at least as distant from Classical Arabic as Italian from Latin.


----------



## kalilah wa dimnah

I can mention several differences between MSA and Classical Arabic. Here is just one:

إذا and إن are perfect synonyms in MSA (and the former is far more widely used than the latter).
But in Classical Arabic, they are not synonyms. The latter, إن, is used when you want to say "if", e.g. "If Zaid comes I'll tell you." إن جاء زيد أخبرتك
But the former means something like "when". It is similar to "if", but it is used when you know that something is going to happen, so it's not a matter of if but a matter of when. E.g. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ ۚ
Because a Muslim is going to say his or her prayers sooner or later, so it's not a matter of if but when.


----------



## Hemza

I don't think that a distinction is relevant. Some people on the thread gave differences but when these shifts began to occurs? Who decided it? Is it used by everyone? Of course, shifts occur in all languages (I can give hundred in French), does it mean that we have to put them into categories like "classical/ancient/modern" etc? On which critera do we base ourselves to do that? Are these critera enough to put a fence between a same language? If some words like "je connaiss*ois*" (I knew) became written officially "je connaiss*ais*" after the French reform of 1835, does it mean that we have to speak about a "pre 1835 old French" (kind of "classical, old") and a "post 1835 modern French"?

To sum up, in my opinion, talking about shifts in the way people use a language, grammar rules, orthographe, etc, why not yet, I don't understand why adding adjectives like "modern/ancient/old/classical" (and not only in Arabic)


----------



## akhooha

Although the division between just فصحي and عامية has traditionally been the only distinction with no differences admitted between what Western linguists call "MSA" and "Classical", there have been a number of Arab linguists who do make that division of فصحى, the most notable being el-Said Badawi (السعيد بدوي) who in his 1973 work "مستويات العربية المعاصرة في مصر" made the distinction between فصحى التراث ("heritage _fuṣḥā_") and فصحى العصر ("contemporary _fuṣḥā"), _pointing out differences in syntax and vocabulary, along with influences of non-Arabic languages.


----------



## kalilah wa dimnah

Hemza said:


> I don't think that a distinction is relevant. Some people on the thread gave differences but when these shifts began to occurs? Who decided it? Is it used by everyone? Of course, shifts occur in all languages (I can give hundred in French), does it mean that we have to put them into categories like "classical/ancient/modern" etc? On which critera do we base ourselves to do that? Are these critera enough to put a fence between a same language? If some words like "je connaiss*ois*" (I knew) became written officially "je connaiss*ais*" after the French reform of 1835, does it mean that we have to speak about a "pre 1835 old French" (kind of "classical, old") and a "post 1835 modern French"?
> 
> To sum up, in my opinion, talking about shifts in the way people use a language, grammar rules, orthographe, etc, why not yet, I don't understand why adding adjectives like "modern/ancient/old/classical" (and not only in Arabic)



I agree that there is really no need to give separate labels to the Arabic of fourteen centuries ago and the Arabic of today, _so long as one is aware of the differences_. 

Unfortunately, many people are under the delusion that, except for the addition of neologisms such as ‫هاتف (telephone) and ‫صاروخ (missile), MSA is identical to classical Arabic. Failure to recognize the changes in syntax (‫النحو), morphology (‫الصرف), and lexicon (‫المفردات) that have taken place over the past fourteen centuries can lead to misinterpretations.

For instance, the word ‫جَيْب referred to the opening at the neck and bosom of a shirt in classical Arabic (and could metaphorically mean “bosom”). The fifth and latest edition of the premier dictionary of MSA (Modern Standard Arabic), the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, gives “pocket” as the first signification of ‫جَيْب. This meaning is quite inaccurate with respect to CA (classical Arabic). So too is the second meaning, “casket”. Only the third meaning, “chest, bosom”, is acceptable in a classical context. A student of the Qur’an armed with Hans Wehr would thus immediately conclude Allah ta’ala instructed Musa (alaihissalam) to insert his hand in his pocket!

Admittedly, the word ‫جيب being translated as “pocket” is not likely to lead to much misunderstanding, since it is patently obvious that the context of the word does not admit of such a translation. What is far more consequential is the relatively _minor_ semantic shifts many words have undergone over the past fourteen centuries. In such cases, the context will practically never suffice to detect a misinterpretation, since the shift in meaning is much more subtle and as a result easier to overlook. Thus ‫حاول has the primary meaning of “to try” in MSA, whereas in CA its signification was “to desire”, “to seek”, “to demand”, “to seek by a ‫حيلة (artful contrivance)”. The Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “‫اللهم بك أحاول وبك أصاول وبك أقاتل”, which, according to al-Azhari, siginifies "O Allah! By means of You I demand [that which I want]…” According to another translator it means “O Allah! By means of You I seek by artful contrivance…”

Similarly, the word ‫يجب means “it is necessary” in MSA as well as CA. Its negation, ‫لا يجب, however, has quite different denotations in each. In the latter it means, predictably enough, “it is not necessary”. In the former it signifies the necessity of not doing, as any Arab will tell you. When Dr. Sa’d al-Hilali issued a fatwa in favor of the permissibility of beer under certain circumstances he was criticized by people saying, “‫لا يجب أن نأخذ بكلام أبى حنيفة إذا خالف كلام الرسول". The purport of this statement is evidently not “It is not necessary to adopt the opinion of Abu Hanifah when it contradicts the sayings of the Prophet” but that it is necessary not to do so! On the other hand, when Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh (rahimahumallah) said “‫لا يجب أن يفطر أيامًا غير هذه الخمسة التي نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عنها”, it is quite clear they were of the opinion that it is not necessary to abstain from fasting on days other than the five specifically mentioned by the Prophet (saw).

“Kadhib” means “to lie”, as anybody with a nodding acquaintance with Arabic will know. When the verb is used transitively, e.g. ‫كذبني it means “He lied to me”. When used with the preposition ‘ala, i.e. ‫كذب عليّ ask any Arab and he’ll tell you the meaning is the same. This can lead to serious problems when reading classical Arabic texts such as the Qur’an and Hadith literature, for ‫كذب عليّ meant not “He lied _to_ me” but “He lied _about_ me” at the time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus the last part of the following hadith would make little sense otherwise:


‫حَدَّثَنَا عَلِىُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُوسَى عَنْ إِسْرَائِيلَ عَنْ سِمَاكٍ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ مُوسَى بْنَ طَلْحَةَ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ مَرَرْتُ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِى نَخْلٍ فَرَأَى قَوْمًا يُلَقِّحُونَ النَّخْلَ فَقَالَ مَا يَصْنَعُ هَؤُلاَءِ قَالُوا يَأْخُذُونَ مِنَ الذَّكَرِ فَيَجْعَلُونَهُ فِى الأُنْثَى قَالَ مَا أَظُنُّ ذَاكَ يُغْنِى شَيْئًا فَبَلَغَهُمْ فَتَرَكُوهُ وَنَزَلُوا عَنْهَا فَبَلَغَ النَّبِىَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ إِنَّمَا هُوَ ظَنٌّ إِنْ كَانَ يُغْنِى شَيْئًا فَاصْنَعُوهُ فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِثْلُكُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّنَّ يُخْطِئُ وَيُصِيبُ وَلَكِنْ مَا قُلْتُ لَكُمْ قَالَ اللَّهُ فَلَنْ أَكْذِبَ عَلَى اللَّهِ

(Sunan ibn Majah, Kitab ar-Ruhoon, Bab Talqih an-Nakhl, no. 2564)

Conversely, a student of CA perusing a book written in MSA may similarly be the victim of misunderstandings. A teacher of mine who was lecturing from as-Sabuni’s _at-Tibyan fi Ulum il-Qur’an_ misinterpreted the word ‫تشريح as “explanation”, which was indeed its primary signification in CA. In MSA, which is the idiom of the book, however, it has no meaning other than “to slice up” or “to dissect”.

Similarly, take the word ‫عمل, which meant “work” or “action” in CA. While browsing a bookstore I came across a book by the famous Egyptian author Mustafa al-Manfaluti entitled ‫الأعمال الكاملة. In CA this translates to “The Complete Actions” and makes no sense, but in MSA it means “The Complete Works”. What has happened is the semantic range of ‫عمل has been extended, under the influence of Western languages, to include “work” in the sense of “artistic production”, while retaining the original meaning of “work” in the sense of “action” or “activity”.

Similarly, in CA the word ‫هناك signified only “there” in the spatial sense, but in MSA has acquired an additional, existential sense, i.e. the meaning of “there is/are” (once again under the influence of Western languages). Thus one commonly hears such MSA sentences as ‫هناك مشكلة and ‫ليس هناك فرق بينهما (“There is a problem” and “There is no difference between them” respectively). These make no sense from the point of view of CA, which prefers the verb ‫يوجد  to express an existential state, i.e. to express the meaning “there is/are”.

ثَمَّ, too, meant “there” in CA but in MSA is used to denote existence, a development parallel to that mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Thus when Mahmud Safi discusses the meaning of ألم in his book إعراب القرآن he says ثمة آراء متعددة حول المقصود بهذه الأحرف الواردة في أوائل السور, where he clearly means “There are numerous opinions…” (ثم is often used with a ت or ة suffixed to it). On the other hand, when the Qur’an says وإذا رأيت ثم رأيت نعيما the meaning is “And when you cast your eyes there you shall behold enjoyment”.

This verse of the Qur’an leads us to yet another difference between CA and MSA: the usage of إذا. In CA, إذا and إن were both used as conditional particles, the difference being that إن introduced a condition that may or may not be fulfilled (like the English “if”), while إذا was used where the condition was certain to be fulfilled (like the English “when”). In MSA, however, إذا is almost always used in place of إن, with the result that the aforementioned nuance has been lost.

The same page of Mahmud Safi’s book contains another brand-new usage: بدورِ, which he uses in the sentence هذه بدورها تحمل إلينا رسالة القرآن to mean “for its part”. This can also be used with other pronouns, such as أنا بدوري... “I for my part…”


----------



## Hemza

kalilah wa dimnah said:


> I agree that there is really no need to give separate labels to the Arabic of fourteen centuries ago and the Arabic of today, _so long as one is aware of the differences_.



I agree.


kalilah wa dimnah said:


> ‫Conversely, a student of CA perusing a book written in MSA may similarly be the victim of misunderstandings. A teacher of mine who was lecturing from as-Sabuni’s _at-Tibyan fi Ulum il-Qur’an_ misinterpreted the word ‫تشريح as “explanation”, which was indeed its primary signification in CA. In MSA, which is the idiom of the book, however, it has no meaning other than “to slice up” or “to dissect”.



It retains the meaning "explanation" too today, I don't understand your point.


kalilah wa dimnah said:


> ‫Similarly, in CA the word ‫هناك signified only “there” in the spatial sense, but in MSA has acquired an additional, existential sense, i.e. the meaning of “there is/are” (once again under the influence of Western languages). Thus one commonly hears such MSA sentences as ‫هناك مشكلة and ‫ليس هناك فرق بينهما (“There is a problem” and “There is no difference between them” respectively). These make no sense from the point of view of CA, which prefers the verb ‫يوجد  to express an existential state, i.e. to express the meaning “there is/are”.
> 
> ثَمَّ, too, meant “there” in CA but in MSA is used to denote existence, a development parallel to that mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Thus when Mahmud Safi discusses the meaning of ألم in his book إعراب القرآن he says ثمة آراء متعددة حول المقصود بهذه الأحرف الواردة في أوائل السور, where he clearly means “There are numerous opinions…” (ثم is often used with a ت or ة suffixed to it). On the other hand, when the Qur’an says وإذا رأيت ثم رأيت نعيما the meaning is “And when you cast your eyes there you shall behold enjoyment”.



ثَمَّ with the meaning "there" is retained in some dialects (as in one of mine). And according to my few readings, يوجد is also used  to means "there is" in Arabic today.

Thanks for all these precious information but overall, I noticed that according to what you wrote, the meaning of words is never really too far whether being the old use or the more recent one.


----------



## kalilah wa dimnah

Hemza said:


> Thanks for all these precious information but overall, I noticed that according to what you wrote, the meaning of words is never really too far whether being the old use or the more recent one.



That is exactly my point! Where the meaning has changed drastically, there is no danger of misinterpretation there. For example, the word ھاتف could obviously not have meant "telephone" in Classical Arabic. It is where the differences are _slight_ that there is a danger. A prominent example of this is محاولة "to try", which was never used in this sense in Classical Arabic. Classical Arabic only had سعي instead.


----------

