# Do Arabs study their language?



## elroy

I don't know how I missed this comment. 





El Siciliano said:


> I think the main problem is that Arabs generally speaking don´t study their language like for instance the Spanish study Spanish or the Canadians study English. And it is having terrible effects on them.


 Of course Arabs "study their language"!

The difference is that Arabs are generally not taught colloquial Arabic in school, because they already know how to speak it and it has not been standardized, so most people don't even think about the origin of everyday words that they routinely and naturally use.

I don't know if that's what you meant, but if it is, you should have clarified that you meant colloquial Arabic.  However, I suspect you meant something else because I have never come across anyone who said that not systematically studying colloquial Arabic was having "terrible effects" on natives!


----------



## Shakeek

As for Arabs studying their language, most Arabs don't even consider the spoken dialects languages. They regard them with contempt. This is because of all the different idiologies that teach them that formal Arabic IS their language and nothing else.

You could not find one book in Arabic teaching any dialect (except for some small introvert communities in Egypt and Levant who denounce being Arabs to start with). These dialects are not teached nor studied in any Arab university.

For Arabic in all its forms, whether formal or dialectical, there is not any etymoligical dictionaries. Arabs don't care at all about etymology, and I don't why. The only thing that I can think of is that they don't like someone to tell them that much of their language is taken from other languages such as Aramaic, Hebrew, and Persian.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Regarding etymology, what you are saying is not true.  Maybe modern dictionaries don't focus too much on etymology but classical ones do.  You can also find a lot of information about etymology in other language and religion based books.


----------



## WadiH

Shakeek said:


> As for Arabs studying their language, most Arabs don't even consider the spoken dialects languages. They regard them with contempt. This is because of all the different idiologies that teach them that formal Arabic IS their language and nothing else.
> 
> You could not find one book in Arabic teaching any dialect (except for some small introvert communities in Egypt and Levant who denounce being Arabs to start with). These dialects are not teached nor studied in any Arab university.
> 
> For Arabic in all its forms, whether formal or dialectical, there is not any etymoligical dictionaries. Arabs don't care at all about etymology, and I don't why. The only thing that I can think of is that they don't like someone to tell them that much of their language is taken from other languages such as Aramaic, Hebrew, and Persian.


 
Even among academicans in the Arab world, there still is no standard way of rendering dialects phonetically using the Arabic script. That to me shows a profound lack of interest in one's own language, and you're right it's motivated largely by ideological boogiemen and scarecrows.

I disagree about etymology, though.  I think most Arabs are perfectly accepting of the fact that their language, like all others, borrows words from other languages.  There are medieval and post-medieval Islamic works dedicated to Arabicized words in the Quran, and if you were to do a google search on Arabic words of foreign origin, you'll find the topic discussed freely on Arabic web forums.


----------



## Ander

Shakeek said:


> As for Arabs studying their language, most Arabs don't even consider the spoken dialects languages. They regard them with contempt. This is because of all the different idiologies that teach them that formal Arabic IS their language and nothing else.
> 
> You could not find one book in Arabic teaching any dialect (except for some small introvert communities in Egypt and Levant who denounce being Arabs to start with). These dialects are not teached nor studied in any Arab university.
> 
> .


 
The Arabic dialects are studied in the West. I have a book about Classical Arabic and in the same collection there is the book to study Algerian Arabic.


----------



## Shakeek

OK, Arabs studied etymology; but this was in mid ages. We need a modern dictionary that tells us where e.g. the following words came from:

laakin, laysa, layta, rukba, ahl, jabatha ...

Neither of these words has a root, and each one has an interesting etymology (at least in my opinion)... 

I know you can go search in Lisan al 3arab or some huge dictionary, but there ought to be something better than that... much better...

This is, of course, only for the formal Arabic. As for the dialects, tell and no embarrassment...


----------



## Josh_

You make some interesting claims, Shakeek, but I must ask what caused you to arrive at your conclusions?



> As for Arabs studying their language, most Arabs don't even consider the spoken dialects languages. They regard them with contempt.


Do you have statistics or other information that supports your statement?  



> You could not find one book in Arabic teaching any dialect (except for some small introvert communities in Egypt and Levant who denounce being Arabs to start with). These dialects are not teached nor studied in any Arab university.


Perhaps not in Arabic (I don't have enough information to know), but in English there are many works dealing with colloquial on an academic level, as well texts teaching colloquial, and written by native Arabic speakers.  This leads me to believe that it has been studied and analyzed, if only as a part of linguistics. El-Said Badawi is one author I can think of who has treated the subject of colloquial Arabic, namely Egyptian.



> For Arabic in all its forms, whether formal or dialectical, there is not any etymoligical dictionaries. Arabs don't care at all about etymology, and I don't why.


Again, some stats or other info in support of your statement would be appreciated.



> The only thing that I can think of is that they don't like someone to tell them that much of their language is taken from other languages such as Aramaic, Hebrew, and Persian.


What makes you think this?  And what makes you think that much of the language is borrowed from   Hebrew, Aramaic, and Persian?  Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are all Semitic languages -- they evolved from a common ancestor and thus share similarities -- like the romance languages.  As for direct borrowing, perhaps it has occurred, but not in such a way that much of Arabic is from these other languages.  It seems to me that while these languages came from a common ancestor they grew on separate tracks. 



> laakin, laysa, layta, rukba, ahl, jabatha ...
> 
> Neither of these words has a root, and each one has an interesting etymology (at least in my opinion)...


I'm not sure I know what you mean.  It seems to be they all have roots with the exception of laakin, but that word is a particle and many particles and (one letter) prepositions don't have roots as they are made up of one and two letters.  
I have never heard of jabatha. What does it mean?  At any rate I would guess that the root is ج-ب-ث if it's an Arabic word.  
I suppose what you are trying to insinuate is that if a word does not have a root, it is not Arabic in origin.  Is that correct?

You say that the etymologies of these words are interesting.  What are those etymologies and why do you find them interesting?


----------



## Tajabone

The third (29.7%) of the Arab population is analphabet.

There are 99.5 millions of Arabs who can't read or write.

Among them, 75 millions who are only aged between 15 to 45 years old (46.5% are women).

The worst rates in the Arab world are in Egypt (2.2% of world analphabetism) and Morocco (1.3%)

Sources: Unesco, UNDP

So, something like "of course, Arabs study their language" seems a little bit ... naive and imprecise.

As for the relationship between Arabs and their language(s), sociolinguistics -which is a prominent discipline in North Africa and especially in Algeria - agrees to establish that Classical Arabic is an object of indifference or (strong) rejection among the young fraction of the population which favours by far French or English (except islamist circles).
The case with vernaculars is however changing but nobody would go till thinking of creating a "Dialectal Academy" (the option of promoting the local languages was proposed by intellectuals like Kateb Yacince or Mouloud Mammeri).

So for that matter, I can mention scholars like Lakhdar Maougal, Khalwla Taleb-Ibrahimi, Abderrezak Dourari, etc.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Shakeek said:


> OK, Arabs studied etymology; but this was in mid ages. We need a modern dictionary that tells us where e.g. the following words came from:
> 
> laakin, laysa, layta, rukba, ahl, jabatha ...
> 
> Neither of these words has a root, and each one has an interesting etymology (at least in my opinion)...


 
I'm confused, are you suspecting that any of those words is not Arabic? the roots are as follows:

لكن = لست متأكدة، أظن ل ك ن، على أية حال إنها ليست كلمة بل حرف، مثل أن وإن وإلى وعلى
ليس = ل ي س
ليت = ل ي ت
ركبة = ر ك ب
أهل = أ ه ل
جبذ = ج ب ذ

I don't need to go back to a dictionary to find out the roots or even the meaning or the etymology.  You should not expect that every single word should go back to something "interesting",  even for those with interesting etymologies when you get to the source, where did that come from?  At some point someone made up a word to explain something.

As an example, أهل is the source of that root, there are words derived from أهل not the other way round; it may come from proto-semetic and it may be an Arabic invention (if you consider language to be an invention) but it did not come from anything else.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Tajabone said:


> So, something like "of course, Arabs study their language" seems a little bit ... naive and imprecise.



I think elroy mean "in general"; as in "schools and universities teach Arabic, there are scholars specialized in Arabic, and there are a lot of resources in and about Arabic".  I don't think that he meant "every single Arab studies Arabic whether he is educated or not".




Tajabone said:


> As for the relationship between Arabs and their language(s), sociolinguistics -which is a prominent discipline in North Africa and especially in Algeria - agrees to establish that Classical Arabic is an object of indifference or (strong) rejection among the young fraction of the population which favours by far French or English (except islamist circles).



I don't know how it is in Maghreb countries, I do know that in Mashreq countries people in general (I know there are some persons who feel differently, I'm talking about the majority) have no respect for dialects, even those with little to no education and even the younger generations.

I don't have any scholarly proof per se, I just know what the people around me implicitly suggest and explicitly declare.  It saddens me hear that the case in Maghreb is different.  I would like to know though what you mean by “agrees to establish”; it’s an interesting choice of words.




Tajabone said:


> The case with vernaculars is however changing but nobody would go till thinking of creating a "Dialectal Academy" (the option of promoting the local languages was proposed by intellectuals like Kateb Yacince or Mouloud Mammeri).
> 
> So for that matter, I can mention scholars like Lakhdar Maougal, Khalwla Taleb-Ibrahimi, Abderrezak Dourari, etc.


 

I understand what you are saying, but are they the majority of scholars?  In the early 20th century some Lebanese and Egyptian scholars and writers called for the same, there was so much opposition that the matter didn't last long enough to have effect.


----------



## WadiH

elroy said:


> I don't know how I missed this comment. Of course Arabs "study their language"!
> 
> The difference is that Arabs are generally not taught colloquial Arabic in school, because they already know how to speak it and it has not been standardized, so most people don't even think about the origin of everyday words that they routinely and naturally use.
> 
> I don't know if that's what you meant, but if it is, you should have clarified that you meant colloquial Arabic. However, I suspect you meant something else because I have never come across anyone who said that not systematically studying colloquial Arabic was having "terrible effects" on natives!


 
Elyas,
You must consider the context of that conversation. Siciliano and I were discussing how Arabs often fail to recognize the "Classical" nature of many "dialectical" words or expressions, because they don't study the language closely or systematically. Yes, we study Na7w and 9arf at school, but we are taught implicitly or explicitly to construct an artificial barrier in our minds between "Fus7a" (the "true" Arabic) and "3ammiyyah" (the "corrupted" Arabic), and we're given an image of Fus7a that is fixed, immutable, and existing in the same shape from eternity. If students or scholars were to look at CA closely enough, they would find that many of the "corruptions" of the 3ammiyyah already had precedents and analogues in Classical Arabic, and that many "correct" words and particles in CA clearly began as contractions of older forms that are now lost. Basically, we are shielded from the fact that our spoken dialects are a continuation of Classical (or "Old") Arabic. No wonder the "introverted groups" that Shakeek mentions above think they are speaking seperate languages; that's the natural result of how our language is taught. Another natural result is the opposite view espoused by Maha above, which thinks that dialects should be "disdained" (though I think this view is skin-deep, because most people have a natural affinity to the language of their parents and family).


----------



## Tajabone

Mahaodeh said:


> I think elroy mean "in general"; as in "schools and universities teach Arabic, there are scholars specialized in Arabic, and there are a lot of resources in and about Arabic".  I don't think that he meant "every single Arab studies Arabic whether he is educated or not".



I guess you're right (I thought so as well). This is why I didn't refer to Elroy directly but to his sentence, regardless of his intention(s). 
But in all cases, stating that Arabs study Arabic was not a good start for me (too general and no breaking news).
I rather felt the urge of thinking with data instead of going on with general views.



Mahaodeh said:


> I don't know how it is in Maghreb countries, I do know that in Mashreq countries people in general (I know there are some persons who feel differently, I'm talking about the majority) have no respect for dialects, even those with little to no education and even the younger generations.



I've never heard of a serious pression group advocating for the instauration of dialectal Arabic among the social institutions. There is, however, a kind of revival: books collecting dialectal productions (proverbs and sayings, some sociolinguistic case-studies, etc.)




Mahaodeh said:


> I would like to know though what you mean by “agrees to establish”; it’s an interesting choice of words.


 
 Oh ... well, the construction does exist in English but I intended it as an implicit description of the scientific process : researchers discuss data and hypotheses before the presentation of factual elements.




Mahaodeh said:


> I understand what you are saying, but are they the majority of scholars?  In the early 20th century some Lebanese and Egyptian scholars and writers called for the same, there was so much opposition that the matter didn't last long enough to have effect.



 Except nationalists "experts" or islamist activits who have already the clue from their political or religeous references, the majority of scholars is in favour of a linguistic reform that could both promote Dialectal Arabic and save Classical Arabic from the unproductive pedagogy where it lies.


----------



## Tajabone

Wadi,

I don't think Maha supported the "disdain" point of view. I guess  he was  describing  the prevailing opinion in his background.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Elyas,
> You must consider the context of that conversation. Siciliano and I were discussing how Arabs often fail to recognize the "Classical" nature of many "dialectical" words or expressions, because they don't study the language closely or systematically.


 
In school we are taught the basics, unless you actually study Arabic in university you will not really study it closely or systematically.  It's the same as in other languages, do you think every high school graduate in the UK studied English closely or systematically?



Wadi Hanifa said:


> ... "Fus7a" (the "true" Arabic) and "3ammiyyah" (the "corrupted" Arabic), ...


 
This is my point all along. We feel that the 3ammiyyah is corrupted and the Fus7a is what we are _supposed_ to use.



Wadi Hanifa said:


> Another natural result is the opposite view espoused by Maha above, which thinks that dialects should be "disdained" (though I think this view is skin-deep, because most people have a natural affinity to the language of their parents and family).


 
While my point of view is not as acute as you are implying, but you just said it above, there remains a feeling that the origin is fus7a and 3ammiyya is just a corruption of the fus7a, so we focus on the fus7a rather than the 3ammiyya.

Let me ask you a question. If you were asked to deliver a speach to an audiance of Saudis who all speak your dialect, what would your choice be, your Najdi dialect or Fus7a? What would everyone expect? What would anyone else use?


----------



## Tajabone

Mahaodeh said:


> This is my point all along. We feel that the 3ammiyyah is corrupted and the Fus7a is what we are _supposed_ to use.


 
 In that case, you can try a scientific view like Yasir Suleiman, The Arabic Language and National Identity: a Study in Ideology. Edinburgh University Press (2003).


----------



## Zeidan

But, on the other hand, Arabs kids don't have the adequate knowledge in Standard Arabic, and this is reflected in their competence in it when they move into advanced levels, like when going to universities. Children in schools rarely hear standard Arabic, and this is a problem.


----------



## suma

I believe this fits into the subject here, please forgive me it I'm wrong.
But it's the nature of human language in general that the native speakers often don't seem to possess a good deal of book knowledge about their own language when compared to a well educated second language learner.

We have only to look at the situation with native English speakers to confirm this; who often fail miserably in grammar tests and correct form and usage when compared to educated people who learned English as a second language.


----------



## water

hello,



suma said:


> IWe have only to look at the situation with native English speakers to confirm this; who often fail miserably in grammar tests and correct form and usage when compared to educated people who learned English as a second language.


 
i second this comment. 

from what i know, darja is a mixture of arabic and french. the algerians speak it on tv, but it might be difficult for an arab or french person to understand as we switch from french to arabic indifferently anyway. This is only for some parts of algeria (some parts use mostly arabic,others berber, etc.) Therefore, if you want to speak to another arab, use fusha instead of darja (or learn their dialect for some reason) to communicate with each other. 

I have not heard of plans of standarizing darja. If the younger fraction prefers French over arabic, it is probably because of the lack of arabic texts in advanced studies. 

lastly, i was also taught that *many* words from darja come from fusha. the algerians consider themselves arabs _period_. (there are berbers too )


----------



## Spectre scolaire

Do Arabs study their language? I feel this question requires some precision before it can possibly be answered by anybody. 

_Arabs_ in this context means _people who speak Arabic as their native language_. A native language is always the vernacular whether you live in the Arab world, in Greece, China or Austria. A common problem for all these four places has been _standardization of the vernacular_, i.e. how to put down in writing what you actually say. 

The problem has been solved in very different ways, and I think the interesting question is whether the result, the written result, is still “their language”. Since focusing on how the Arabs have “solved” their problem _in comparison with others_ would basically be off topic in this discussion, we are left with a parochial view. Such a parochial view prevailed in Greece for more than 100 years. Now it has been solved because the “language question” was internationalized. It was also solved in China due to the so-called “May 4th Movement [of 1919]”. It has further been solved in Austria by adopting a standard of their neighbours.

If I may answer the question of this thread I dare say – with a rhetorically exaggerated statement – _Arabs do study Arabic, but they don’t study their language_. 

Finishing with another paradox: Nobody can have first hand knowledge of all the mentioned language situations - we only live once  - but if a comparison is needed in order to judge whether one language is stuck in a parochial view of its eminence (like Chinese was for hundreds of years), some second hand knowledge should probably be accepted.

I don’t speak any Arabic vernacular, but I can read (although laboriously) Fus7a , a fact which might not qualify me as being proficient enough to judge the question of this thread. Even if you are highly proficient, it is _never_ enough if you touch on some of the taboos which all languages of this “group” are haunted with, and, on the top of it, not even belonging yourself to the group. I accept this dilemma, and I am also carefully observing the reactions I get from quite a variety of debates throughout the years.

I think the question – with all its implications! – is an intriguing one:

Will Arabs ever study their language?




			
				Tajabone said:
			
		

> Except nationalists "experts" or islamist activi*s*ts who have already the clue from their political or relig*i*ous references, the majority of scholars is *are* in favour of a linguistic reform that could both promote Dialectal Arabic and save Classical Arabic from the unproductive pedagogy where it lies.


 No comment!
 ​


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi all

It is my contention that both sides in the debate are ideologically motivated. On the one hand you have a religious ideology and on the other hand an anti-religious ideology. Then you have those in the middle who try to see both sides, and may even propose a third alternative. My point here is that it is easy to see others as being ideologically or politically motivated  if you don't share their convictions not knowing that you yourself might be ideologically motivated for having different convictions but nevertheless ideological. 

I admit that for religious as well as other reasons I personally would not like to see the death of fuSHa. While not an Arab myself, I think that many Arabs (Muslim or non-Muslim) would share the same sentiment. At the same time, I would also like to make it known that I'm not against vernacular Arabic, and I often make a point to speak vernacular Arabic (in my own way) to those whose vernacular I believe I have some proficiency in, because I know as a colloquial Afrikaans speaker how difficult it is for myself to speak socalled "fuSHa" Afrikaans. So I can empathise with the native Arabic speakers in this regard.

But let's put ideological considerations aside for now, and consider both fuSHa and dialects in terms of the operative word in the question, namely: "study". An obvious queston that arises is "what is there to study?". It is my contention that fuSHa has a vast and rich literary and linguistic legacy that spans over 14 centuries. I'm not sure if the same can be said for dialectal Arabic. Often what people study of their languages is the literary output (prose and poetry) that has hitherto been produced in those languages. Until dialectal Arabic leaves behind a sizeable literary legacy what is there to study except the rules of the Arabic dialects which are yet to be properly documented and formulated, and which the Arabs know of their respective dialects already. 

Writers and Poets (religiously and non-religiously minded alike) almost always write in fuSHa because it is sort of regarded as a type of "high" Arabic very similar to high art as opposed to popular Arabic or popular art. Whether for ideological reasons or not, there are always going to be people who are going to defend fuSHa and regard it as Arabic par excellence. Anyone that is familiar with the Arabic literary legacy would know that it is legacy to be proud of, and the Arabs are proud of it. Vernacular Arabic is yet to produce such a legacy that makes it worthy of being studied in schools. Also, in the Western World do westerners actually study their vernaculars at school? We are all familiar with some of the British dialects and vernaculars, are these actually studied at school or university? The English that people speak in my community back in South Africa, as well as Afrikaans, is extremely colloquial and interspersed with Afrikaans expressions. Should this vernacular be studied? In schools we learn an English that is very different from the way we speak. The same goes for Afrikaans.

What has been said of the Arab world in terms of the degree of literacy can be said of most of the Third or Developing World. I don't think that there is necessary any colleration between illiteracy and people studying fuSHa instead of dialectal Arabic.

I'd like to know who "the majority of scholars" are who are in favour of the type of linguistic reform that promotes Dialectal Arabic, and how do we know that they are the majority, and where are they from? I know that a great deal of linguistic reform was about coming up with simpler ways of imparting the grammar of fuSHa because classical texts were seen as too difficult and obstruse for the modern Arabic mind. What some of these scholars blamed was not fuSHa per se but the classical methods used to teach fuSha in some of the schools. A smaller number might have argued for a simplification of fuSHa in terms of number and the use of the dual. However, I'd like to know how the majority of scholars argue for a full-blown replacement of fuSHa with dialectal Arabic. I'd appreciate it if that information could be forwarded to me.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> It is my contention that both sides in the debate are ideologically motivated.


 If the question of raising the Arab world out of the quagmire**)* in which it is entrenched represents an ideological stance, my posting was definitely an ideological one. Only, I don’t know which side I am on.  I probably have to accept that the “ideology” I am allegedly professing is not defined by me, but by others. 




			
				Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> I know that a great deal of linguistic reform was about coming up with simpler ways of imparting the grammar of fuSHa because classical texts were seen as too difficult and obstruse for the modern Arabic mind.


 Going back to the time of the _Carolingian Renaissance_, there was a revival – not primarily of the vernacular, but of Latin. The result, however, was precisely the opposite. French was defined as a language and Latin was left behind in its purified form. 

The development of the vernacular required hundreds of years, but there was never a question of abandoning it. Scholars and writers studied and refined this Vulgar Latin until it became French, so to say.

Arabic written language has remained entrenched in its Classical shape for thousand years. During the thousand years of the Byzantine Empire no progress was made towards the development of a written language based on the vernacular. In both cases we are faced with theocratic currents which are not particularly favourable towards basic ideas of Human Renaissance. 

Chiliasm (or millennialism) – words based on the number 1000 in respectively Greek and Latin – predicts a Golden Age and a paradise on earth. Believing in a chimera may be an ideology – not believing in one perhaps another. 

What _Tajabone_ basically says in the passage I quoted in my previous posting is: “Why don’t we get a Carolingian Renaissance in the Arab world?”

Here is the response to the question why Arabs don’t study their own language (in my own “tendentious” definition):




			
				Wadi Hanifa said:
			
		

> [W]e are taught implicitly or explicitly to construct an artificial barrier in our minds between "Fus7a" (the "true" Arabic) and "3ammiyyah" (the "corrupted" Arabic), and we're given an image of Fus7a that is fixed, immutable, and existing in the same shape from eternity.


 **)* See “UN Arab Development Report”.
 ​


----------



## Abu Bishr

Spectre scolaire said:


> Arabic written language has remained entrenched in its Classical shape for thousand years. During the thousand years of the Byzantine Empire no progress was made towards the development of a written language based on the vernacular. In both cases we are faced with theocratic currents which are not particularly favourable towards basic ideas of Human Renaissance.
> 
> ....
> 
> What _Tajabone_ basically says in the passage I quoted in my previous posting is: “Why don’t we get a Carolingian Renaissance in the Arab world?”


 
I have two questions.

What Arabic vernacular would you suggest would be an ideal candidate to replace fuSHa considering the fact that we are dealing here with numerous and diverse dialects and nation-states? From your examples I get the impression that only one vernacular was involved. What happens when you have dialects as varied as those you find in the Arab world?

If I understand you correctly then by calling for a Carolingian Renaissance we should actually be calling for the revival of fuSHa so that the opposite effect can take place. Is that what you are suggesting? Otherwise, please enlighten me and explain to me what it is you are suggesting.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

I am not really suggesting anything, _Abu Bishr_.  I am just trying to find out why the Arabs don’t study *their own language*. For this purpuse, a larger perspective is always refreshing. Only, it is limited what I can contribute with. I am sure you know the cultural and political history of the Arab world much better than I do. 
 ​


----------



## Tajabone

Abu Bishr said:


> Hi all
> 
> It is my contention that both sides in the debate are ideologically motivated. On the one hand you have a religious ideology and on the other hand an anti-religious ideology. Then you have those in the middle who try to see both sides, and may even propose a third alternative. My point here is that it is easy to see others as being ideologically or politically motivated if you don't share their convictions not knowing that you yourself might be ideologically motivated for having different convictions but nevertheless ideological.



Is not believing in mediumship ... a "belief" ?

Can an "ideology" (panarabism, panislamism) fiercely in favour of homogeneity and "oneness" (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer ... plus one religion and one language) be equated with democratic streams open to the diversity ?



Abu Bishr said:


> I'd like to know who "the majority of scholars" are who are in favour of the type of linguistic reform that promotes Dialectal Arabic, and how do we know that they are the majority, and where are they from?



Names and references were given in my previous answers. You are invited to perform a Google search. The relevant results (documents) are  generally in French which will be an obstacle for you. But I'm sure Spectre, Cherine, Elroy and others here will be of great help.



Abu Bishr said:


> However, I'd like to know how the majority of scholars argue for a full-blown replacement of fuSHa with dialectal Arabic. I'd appreciate it if that information could be forwarded to me.



I don't think you were talking to me (or to someone else in specific but I may be wrong) as I have not said so. Therefore, I won't answer this question (which is maybe the echo of your matter of concern : " _I admit that for religious as well as other reasons I personally would not like to see the death of fuSHa._  " )


----------



## Abu Bishr

I've done as you said, and I've done a google search of some of the names that you have mentioned in your earlier posts. Many of them seem to be involved with the language question particularly in Algeria as well as the Berberist (Kabyliast) Movement, and where they stand vis-a-vis the Arabic language. In my search for the name Abderrezak Dourari I came across this interesting article (which is someone's MA Thesis) entitled "Language and Conflict: Kabylia and the Algerian State". The article makes clear that there are definitely two sides if not more to a highly charged debate. At the heart of the debate is not just Arabic (fuSHa and dialects) but also the Berber language, Kabyle, itself, not to mention the Kabyle Question. I read the following sentence in this wikipedia article "Speakers take pride in the Kabyle language and have resisted using Arabic". It is understandable that where a particular language has been the dominant and only official language, that there will be resistance to that language by people who speak a different language. This happened in South Africa, and there was a resistance from the oppressed masses to speak Afrikaans which together with English formed the only official languages, and were made compulsory in schools. Now, in the post-Apartheid era South Africa has 11 official languages. There is now talk that Afrikaans might become extinct. While I can understand the underlying grievance it does not forbode well for Arabic in general let alone the dialects. What is your own view on that?

Still, though, I fail to see how these scholars that you have mentioned form the majority view on the topic.

So if fuSHa is not at stake, what then are we proposing? Just a wider recognition of the dialects? Also, how would you propose Arabs go about studying their vernaculars at school and universities, and where would be the place of fuSHa in this whole scenario if its existence is not at stake?


----------



## El Siciliano

elroy said:


> I don't know how I missed this comment.  Of course Arabs "study their language"!
> 
> The difference is that Arabs are generally not taught colloquial Arabic in school, because they already know how to speak it and it has not been standardized, so most people don't even think about the origin of everyday words that they routinely and naturally use.
> 
> I don't know if that's what you meant, but if it is, you should have clarified that you meant colloquial Arabic.  However, I suspect you meant something else because I have never come across anyone who said that not systematically studying colloquial Arabic was having "terrible effects" on natives!



What I meant is that Arabs, generally speaking, have disregarded Classical Arabic for foreign languages like English, Spanish or French. This is what I meant. Colloquial language by definition isn´t studied at school. It is learned in every day living. What I mean by the terrible effects is that many Arabs, especially the youth, have real problems in expressing themselves completely at a high Academic level. They haven´t studied Fusha which is extremely rich and easy for them (if they just gave it the attention it deserves) and even though they have studied English or other European languages for years, it remains a foreign language. 

Now, if you believe I am being unfair, all I can say is this is a phenomenon I have witnessed first hand after having lived in the Middle East for over eight years and working with Arabic daily ( I am a translator from Arabic to English). 

I have some colleagues Syrians, Iraqis and Egyptians who have studied Fusha very well while also studying English. The fact that they have studied their native language so well gives them an advantage when they study foreign languages which they end up commanding after a great deal of hard work and effort.


----------



## El Siciliano

Spectre says: "Arabic written language has remained  entrenched in its Classical shape for thousand years. During the  thousand years of the Byzantine Empire no progress was made towards the  development of a written language based on the vernacular. In both cases  we are faced with theocratic currents which are not particularly  favourable towards basic ideas of Human Renaissance." 

I don't understand what he means by progress. Arabic has always been an extremely rich language capable of expressing the most intellectually advanced concepts. Concerning "Renaissance," the Arabs never needed a نهضة. This is a Western concept only appliable in the West because religion, there, was and is synonymous with ignorance. This is not the case of Islam and if someone decides to base his or her statement on what some crazy terrorists are doing then they are really suffering from myopia or they simpley haven't read.


----------



## clevermizo

El Siciliano said:


> Spectre says: "Arabic written language has remained  entrenched in its Classical shape for thousand years. During the  thousand years of the Byzantine Empire no *progress was made towards the  development of a written language based on the vernacular*. In both cases  we are faced with theocratic currents which are not particularly  favourable towards basic ideas of Human Renaissance."
> 
> I don't understand what he means by progress.



He means that no effort was made to develop a new written language out of the spoken dialects (that's what vernacular means here). Dialects may have influenced standard Arabic a little, but not so much intentionally. It's not the same as in Europe, where spoken dialects of Latin were eventually developed into standardized languages over the centuries. Classical Arabic has been maintained as the written standard of Arabic.

However the way it is written (language like "progress" or "entrenched") makes it sound like somehow this was a bad thing. I don't agree with that, personally, but it does reflect the state of affairs.


----------



## El Siciliano

clevermizo said:


> He means that no effort was made to develop a new written language out of the spoken dialects (that's what vernacular means here). Dialects may have influenced standard Arabic a little, but not so much intentionally. It's not the same as in Europe, where spoken dialects of Latin were eventually developed into standardized languages over the centuries. Classical Arabic has been maintained as the written standard of Arabic.
> 
> However the way it is written (language like "progress" or "entrenched") makes it sound like somehow this was a bad thing. I don't agree with that, personally, but it does reflect the state of affairs.



The Arabs already have a written language. It is a language that is used in the press, university, books, literary and scientific sectors, etc. Coloquial Arabic is used at the home and in the street. Classical Arabic is resorted to when speaking to other Arabs whose dialect is not understood; for example, between Yemenis and Moroccans under what some call a لهجة بيضاء which is no more and no less than MSA with minimal dialectical alterations. 

Are we going to write philosophy in colloquial Arabic? We have MSA for that. When the Arabs study MSA properly, they can apply it beautifully. 

"Entrenched"! Has Spectre or anyone else for that matter read authors like الثعالبي or titles like الحريري. And like the Lebanese say, بلا صغرى, many people who complain about dialects are Orientalists who, in most cases, acquire a limited knowledge of Arabic or a minority of Arabs who do not even love Arabic for whatever reasons they have. But one of them is for sure that they prefer English or French. 

To the participants, I just want to ask you not to interpret my posts in any negative way. I really enjoy the topic and suffer a bit of حماسة. Please, do not hold back.


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello El Siciliano!

I agree with you that given that there is already a very well-developed and very useful literary too, there is much to be said about further cultivating it. I mean fus7a. I then don't see the need to copy trends that took place in Europe centuries ago resulting in the dissolution of Latin and the emergence of romance languages? A person who knows MSA well can move fairly easily from the language of the Arabic press to the works of, say, the pre-Islamic poets. The same obviously cannot be said of speakers of romance languages. They’ll find such a move back in time virtually impossible. I think modern ideas can and should be conveyed in fus7a rather than the dialects.  MSA acquired, and continues to acquire a vast array of neologisms to meet the challenge of modernity and one cannot help but feel that this form of language should be the main vehicle for disseminating new ideas in the Arab world. Why try to “fix” something that is not broken?
 Some scientific and technical literature does get published in fus7a but I think here fus7a faces the same challenges as other major languages (e.g. Russian, Chinese), i.e. the ever-growing challenge from English. The latter has more or less gained dominance as the international language of science and technology and there is no stopping it now, it seems. Even so we do have an Arabic version of_ Scientific American_ which appears to do a good job of communicating modern, technological and scientific ideas to the Arab world in their own language_. _
 There is a point that I might differ with you on, however. Many of my Arab colleagues feel that the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular are in dire need of something like نهضة. But then what better tool than fus7a to launch such a project within the Arab world at least. To this end, the “reverse” translation movement from world literature (scientific and non-scientific) to fus7a, that goes by the name of the Kalima project is, I feel, a good start. I’m referring to this.

You are also right about this: 


El Siciliano said:


> ...
> "Entrenched"! Has Spectre or anyone else for that matter read authors like الثعالبي or titles





El Siciliano said:


> like الحريري. ...


  I assume you mean,المقامات للحريري ! He was known for his eloquence:
 لما اقتعدت غارب الإغتراب ، وانأتنى المتربت عن الاتراب، طوَّحت بي طوائح الزمن ، الى صنعاء اليمن  ​ 
 Of course there is much more besides this. A rich harvest of historical, genealogical, philosophical, general prose and poetical literature in fus7a awaits us but much of it goes unread for a number of reasons. For instance, how many of us would bother reading تهذيب الأخلاق لابن مسكويه or رسائل  إخوان الصفاء, not to mention writers like al-Mas3udi, al-Jahiz and Ibn Khaldun, and much else, and all of it very interesting. I know some of us do but generally these numbers are rather low.


----------



## El Siciliano

Faylasoof said:


> Hello El Siciliano!
> 
> I agree with you that given that there is already a very well-developed and very useful literary too, there is much to be said about further cultivating it. I mean fus7a. I then don't see the need to copy trends that took place in Europe centuries ago resulting in the dissolution of Latin and the emergence of romance languages? A person who knows MSA well can move fairly easily from the language of the Arabic press to the works of, say, the pre-Islamic poets. The same obviously cannot be said of speakers of romance languages. They’ll find such a move back in time virtually impossible. I think modern ideas can and should be conveyed in fus7a rather than the dialects.  MSA acquired, and continues to acquire a vast array of neologisms to meet the challenge of modernity and one cannot help but feel that this form of language should be the main vehicle for disseminating new ideas in the Arab world. Why try to “fix” something that is not broken?
> Some scientific and technical literature does get published in fus7a but I think here fus7a faces the same challenges as other major languages (e.g. Russian, Chinese), i.e. the ever-growing challenge from English. The latter has more or less gained dominance as the international language of science and technology and there is no stopping it now, it seems. Even so we do have an Arabic version of_ Scientific American_ which appears to do a good job of communicating modern, technological and scientific ideas to the Arab world in their own language_. _
> There is a point that I might differ with you on, however. Many of my Arab colleagues feel that the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular are in dire need of something like نهضة. But then what better tool than fus7a to launch such a project within the Arab world at least. To this end, the “reverse” translation movement from world literature (scientific and non-scientific) to fus7a, that goes by the name of the Kalima project is, I feel, a good start. I’m referring to this.
> 
> You are also right about this:
> I assume you mean,المقامات للحريري ! He was known for his eloquence:
> لما اقتعدت غارب الإغتراب ، وانأتنى المتربت عن الاتراب، طوَّحت بي طوائح الزمن ، الى صنعاء اليمن  ​
> Of course there is much more besides this. A rich harvest of historical, genealogical, philosophical, general prose and poetical literature in fus7a awaits us but much of it goes unread for a number of reasons. For instance, how many of us would bother reading تهذيب الأخلاق لابن مسكويه or رسائل  إخوان الصفاء, not to mention writers like al-Mas3udi, al-Jahiz and Ibn Khaldun, and much else, and all of it very interesting. I know some of us do but generally these numbers are rather low.




I mean *مقامات الحريري*. Exactly. Arabic can handle the input of new terminology and concepts whether they be _bellas letras _or _sciencia_. Such an example of this effort is the *معجم المصطلحات العلمية والهندسية - أحمد شفيق  الخطيب *. I sincerely believe it is not a question of language but a question of some people. An instance of Arab people who not only have an excellent command of their language but are also capable of learning from outside their nations are the Syrians and Iraqis. 

Just today I was watching the interview on Al-Jazeera of Nasir Shamma an Ud player. He spoke in beautiful Arabic effortlessly. And there are others like him.


----------



## Abu Fahm

Hi, I came across an article at BBC, which is directly related to this discussion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/artandculture/2010/06/100616_lebanon_arabic_language.shtml

Perhaps the situation in other places in the Middle East is not as bad as discribed in this article about Lebanon


----------



## El Siciliano

abu fahm said:


> hi, i came across an article at bbc, which is directly related to this discussion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/artandculture/2010/06/100616_lebanon_arabic_language.shtml
> 
> perhaps the situation in other places in the middle east is not as bad as discribed in this article about lebanon



شكرا على الفائدة أبا فهم (أم فحم)،
سوف أقرأ المقالة غدا. 
الصقلي
​


----------

