# W. Wright as a linguistic authority



## TheActingMind

Hello all,

I'd like to discuss a matter which ignited a heated dispute in my workplace: can W. Wright be counted on as a linguistic authority in grammar and syntax issues in modern written Arabic?

Personally, I think that as as a "judge" for what's objectively right or wrong it's even a preferred source, but I'd like to hear a variety of optinions. Thank you very much


----------



## إسكندراني

This guy?
I am not sure, but one immediate problem is that he is an Orientalist, which to most Arabs would mean he couldn't be regarded as an _absolute _authority. Another is that he lived quite a while ago, so can't be an authority on the modern language, which continuously has new nuances.


----------



## Josh_

Yes, that's the guy.  If by 'orientalist' you mean Westerner or non-Arab in general, I would just like to say that the notion that a non-Arab cannot be an authority on the Arabic language is ludicrous. I realize some Arabs may feel that way, but it's unfortunate that they do, in my opinion.  

Sibawayh, not an orientalist of course, but nonetheless a non-Arab, was considered to be an authority on Arabic.

At any rate, Wright's goal was to explain the grammar of the Classical Language, not the Modern; that is, the language as laid out by the ancient Arab grammarians of the Middle Ages.

However, as the overall grammar of Arabic has changed little over the centuries, I believe his work is still relevant to the modern variety of Arabic.  I have used it a lot.  But perhaps it should be used in conjunction with a more modern grammar, such as Karin Ryding's (if for nothing else than to get a different perspective), since there are some differences.  For example, collective nouns, such as نحل، خيل, etc. could be treated as either masculine or feminine in CA, however it seems that in modern times they are most commonly treated as masculine (although it may not be technically wrong to treat them as feminine).


----------



## إسكندراني

Really?
هي خيل - إنّها خيل seems more right.
In any case that's off topic.
I'm not sure anyone can judge what a 'good' linguist is based on general criteria of course, but what I meant by 'Orientalist' is someone who approached the subject from 'outside' as such; someone who only read in Europe won't have the same level of insight as someone who's studied in Fes, Cairo or Damascus, so they are generally not regarded as any kind of _ultimate _authority. As for ethnicity, your example demonstrated that that doesn't matter at all.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Josh_ said:


> Yes, that's the guy.  If by 'orientalist' you mean Westerner or non-Arab in general, I would just like to say that the notion that a non-Arab cannot be an authority on the Arabic language is ludicrous. I realize some Arabs may feel that way, but it's unfortunate that they do, in my opinion.



Generally, when an Arab hears or reads the word مستشرق or orientalist, what is understood is the following definition:

A scholar that studies anything related to Arabs or Muslims from a western point of view resulting in scholarly work that is biased against Arabs and/or Muslims; or, in the best case scenario, seen through a different culture hence giving inaccurate and sometimes very wrong results.

To Arabs (at least) a scholar, whether Western or not, that is not biased is not called an orientalist, just a scholar. Bernard Lewis is an example of an orientalist.

Having said that, I have no idea whether Wright is an orientalist or not because this is the first time I hear of him and I'm aware that in English the use of orientalist is used much more loosely, basically for anyone who studies something from the region. I wouldn't be surprised if he was though because during the time he lived, it was extremely rare to have any unbiased western work of Arabs and Muslims.


----------



## Josh_

Yes, I see what you guys mean.  Yes, I would agree that someone may not be  able to acquire the same level of insight or intimate knowledge having  not been immersed in the culture.  I personally don't know much about  the life of William Wright, however many of the most influential or  well-known Orientalists (e.g. Edward William Lane, Richard Burton) spent  years, in the Middle East immersing themselves in the culture and  language. Regardless though, I don't think this is about Wright's own personal views as an orientalist, but whether his treatment of Arabic grammar is relevant to MSA. 

As far as the term "orientalist" I am aware of the negative associations thereof. I tend to avoid it myself, as it is a bit loaded (due to those negative associations). When I think of the term I tend to think of those Middle Eastern scholars of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.  I generally don't think of it in terms of modern day scholars.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Just to clarify, I was just explaining how we understand the word in general and just saying that to an Arab the word "orientalist" means something significantly different than it does to a Westerner. I wasn't trying to redefine the word or advocate it.

If Wright was an orientalist, whether deliberately (by having an ulterior motive such as supporting colonialism) or subconsciously (since he is affected by the society he lived in) then he definitely can not be considered an authority, his views should be reviewed by more objective scholars - people that can in fact distinguish between the parts that are biased and the parts that are not.


----------



## Josh_

Yes, I understand that and completely agree with you, but I think we're getting off topic.  The question is not about his personal views or conclusions of Arab society and culture, but rather whether his treatment of Arabic grammar is relevant to MSA. One's personal views or opinions or conclusions on the culture and society would have no bearing on one's understanding of the grammar and syntax of the language therein or that person's ability to relay that knowledge in a book on grammar. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Wright, despite what his personal views might have been, seems to have thoroughly understood the Arabic language.  In his treatment of Arabic grammar he offers no views, opinions, or conclusions, biased or otherwise (that I have noticed). From what I can tell he describes the different points of grammar and syntax of the language in a fairly systematic and objective way so that non-Arabic speakers can understand it. He often gives the Arabic term, the equivalent English term or an explanation of the Arabic term, numerous examples, and cognates in other Semitic languages if relevant. In the preface of his grammar he says in his own words, "I have availed myself of the labours of Arab Grammarians, both ancient and modern" (available on Google Books here). He then goes on to list many of the Arab works that he used as a basis for his work.  

I would consider him an authority on the Arabic language. Now, whether or not he could be an considered an authority on Arab culture and society...well, that's a different question.


----------



## Tracer

TheActingMind said:


> Can W. Wright be counted on as a linguistic authority in grammar and syntax issues in modern written Arabic?


==========

*Wright’ s Grammar of the Arabic Language* (WG) continues to be published to this day (so someone must be using it).

However, it’s important to remember that this is a reference work – no one actually uses it to study Arabic. 

That would be like trying to learn Islamic history using the *Encyclopedia of Islam* as your textbook. Contemporary courses, at least in the USA, may make reference to it here and there, but it is not a “required” text. At least to start with. 

A lot depends on what your intentions are in learning Arabic. If you’re going to go for the PhD in Arabic Linguistics, for example, it’ll be your bread and butter. If all you’re interested in is being able to read Arabic newspapers and to speak a “colloquial”, you’ll probably never even hear of it.

I remember using Ariel Bloch's *"A Chrestomathy of Modern Literary Arabic"* (1974) during my studies. Almost every page had at least one reference to Wright. The newer _*"Modern Arabic Short Stories"*_ (2008) doesn't have a single one. But the former was used to "analyze" the language whereas the latter text seeks more the "describe" grammatical points that have to be explained. It depends on the approach you (and your professor) takes.

Wright's major drawback is that he uses linguistic terminology that is way beyond the understanding of most modern students. His English is just as difficult as the Arabic he's analyzing. Here's and example:

_*If two "correlative" clauses follow the*_
_*hypothetical particles law (if), law 'anna *_
_*(if that), lawlaa, lawmaa and lawlam (if not), 
[*]*_
_*the verbs in both clauses have usually the *_
_*significance of our pluperfect subjunctive*_
_*or potential, though occasionally too of our*_
_*imperfect subjunctive or potential.*_

This is further "clarified" by the footnote:

_*
[*] The protasis of a sentence, when introduced*_
_*by lawlaa, although it may not have a verb *_
_*actually expressed, yet includes a verbal idea,*_
_*viz. that of the verb kaana.*_


Got that? Is that perfectly clear?


As I said, if you’re doing a “deep” study of Arabic from a scholarly and academic point of view, you’d better know your English grammar and terminology *au fond* first, because you’re going to need Mr. Wright’s tome. (It’ll also help if you have a handle on Latin, German and other languages).


But to specifically address *TheActingMind’s* question: 

Yes, you could use WW Grammar for MSA, but you don’t have to. There are more “accessible” grammars available that would undoubtedly answer any question you and yours might have.


_*Oh, by the way, believe it or not: Wright's Grammar is actually a TRANSLATION of Caspari's GRAMMATICA ARABICA which was originally written in.........what else*_.......*Latin*. *ما شاء الله*
================


----------



## rayloom

Tracer said:


> ==========
> 
> _*Oh, by the way, believe it or not: Wright's Grammar is actually a TRANSLATION of Caspari's GRAMMATICA ARABICA which was originally written in.........what else*_.......*Latin*. *ما شاء الله*
> ================



The Grammatica Arabica itself being "based largely" on a book by Al-Zamakhshari called al-mufaSSal, a book written in the 11th century AD.
If this has anything to say!

Anyways, it's not a question of linguistic authority, it's a question of "is it a good reference or not?".
I haven't personally used Wright's book, but as Tracer said, it's still being published, referenced, used and studied to this day.

Probably other members who have actually used Wright can be of better help.


----------



## AndyRoo

I haven't read Wright's book either, but know it is very highly regarded. David Cowan, in the preface to his excellent "Modern Literary Arabic" (which he describes as "this little work") says "for a thorough study of Arabic, Wright's _Grammar of the Arabic Language_...is indespensable".

I don't think there is such a thing as "an ultimate authority" in grammar, but I suspect Wright's Grammar is authorative enough for most people's needs.


----------



## إسكندراني

الزمخشري is definitely an authority on Arabic, so if Wright's book somehow descends from it, it must be very valid!


----------



## Ghabi

I think Wright is quite useful if one knows how to use it. I mean it takes some getting used to to learn how to use it. One had better thumb through it once or twice, just to get an impression what one can find there. The terminology used in it shouldn't be a daunting factor, as what it wants to say is usually demonsrated clearly in the examples given (all the Arabic sentences given are fully vowelized). There's an extensive section about the use of the accusative case, which I find particularly useful.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

TheActingMind said:


> I'd like to discuss a matter which ignited a heated dispute in my workplace: can W. Wright be counted on as a linguistic authority in grammar and syntax issues in modern written Arabic?



I think that he is as much of an authority as one can be on this subject. I have immersed myself very deeply in his work and I have found it indispensable and very useful.

I have found some discrepancies between his treatise, Ryding's Grammar, and the Al-Kitaab textbooks in regards to التمييز and المفعول المطلق, but I generally feel the most confident citing Wright when it comes to Classical Arabic. In regards to MSA, I still rely mostly on Wright, because although Ryding's Grammar tries to specifically address MSA and leave CA behind, her book is (relatively) replete with inconsistencies and mistakes.


----------



## suma

In the Western world, Wright is certainly the emiment scholar on Arabic linguistics, one could even say semitic linguistics as well, being that his work is ripe full of comparative examples drawing from Hebrew, Aramaic, and even Ge'ez.

In the Muslim world he would not be considered a scholar for the following:

none of the known scholars of Arabic ever mentioned him, quoted him, or refered to his works
he did not engage or debate the scholars of his era
unlike Sibawaih and the other non-Arab scholars he was not arabicized where Arabic became for all intents and purposes his primary working language and mode of everyday communication
So it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges, each one has its merits within its own domain.


----------



## rayloom

none of the known scholars of Arabic ever mentioned him, quoted him, or refered to his works
Maybe if he has some comparative linguistic points, then his work should be quoted. But if a quotation is needed in a grammatical point, then it's most certainly easier for Arabic grammarians to refer to any of the Arabic grammar sources. No need to go all the way to quote Wright.

If there was a really good English grammar book written in Arabic, which is basically a translation of another famous English grammar book (written in English), would you expect English grammarians to go out of their ways to quote the Arabic work?!


he did not engage or debate the scholars of his era
Unlike other orientalist linguists who have produced works in Arabic, works which provide new insights to the language, new information and new linguistic methods of thinking.
Like August Fischer, Carl Brockelmann and MCA McDonald. Some of them didn't even publish or write in Arabic, but their works were so indispensable, that they were translated into Arabic, and used and discussed by Arab linguists.


unlike Sibawaih and the other non-Arab scholars he  was not arabicized where Arabic became for all intents and purposes his  primary working language and mode of everyday communication
As pointed above, you don't need to be "arabicized" for that. Works won't be judged in the Arab worlds based on the speakers native tongue!
On what grounds do you make such assumptions?!
Other works on Arabic meter in Poetry, were written by scholars who don't even know how to speak Arabic, yet their works are also used in the Arabic world because they present something new.


----------



## suma

rayloom said:


> If there was a really good English grammar book written in Arabic, *which is basically a translation of another famous English grammar book* (written in English), would you expect English grammarians to go out of their ways to quote the Arabic work?!
> 
> 
> *Other works on Arabic meter in Poetry, were written by scholars who don't even know how to speak Arabic,* yet their works are also used in the Arabic world because they present something new.


 
if this is true that Wright's book is essentially a translation from Arabic of an earlier work done by someone esle, then absolutely not Wright is no scholar for obvious reasons.

this is hard to fathom.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

I disagree. Wright was a professor at Oxford and a foremost expert on Semitic linguistics. Translating Caspari's work required a great mastery of the linguistics of English, Latin, and Arabic at the same time. The scholarship in his work lies in his ability to interpret Arabic linguistic phenomena as it relates to English in a way that is useful to us.


----------



## Tracer

Tracer said:


> _*Oh, by the way, believe it or not: Wright's Grammar is actually a TRANSLATION of Caspari's GRAMMATICA ARABICA which was originally written in.........what else*_.......*Latin*. *ما شاء الله*


 
I did not mean to deprecate Wright's Grammar by the above comment or question his credentials as a scholar. In fact, I intended just the opposite.

Believing that a work is of little value or shows little originality because it's ultimately a translation of a previous work is unjustifiable.

If that's what you believe, then you'd have to dismiss the entire *Translation Movement* of the Abbassid period as irrelevant and relegate such works as *المجسطي* to the dustbin of history, when, if fact, everyone agrees that this movement (and its translated works) was and continues to be one of the crowning achievements of Islamic civilization.

Wright's Grammar is an awe-inspiring masterpiece, held in reverence by Western students as the Bible of advanced Arabic studies and is irreplaceable and indispensable.

That it is largely unknown and unused in the Arabic-speaking world should come as no surprise. The Grammar was written with a Western non-native Arabic speaking audience in mind. Its stature can be compared to the position held by the *Encyclopedia of Islam*, another scholarly work little known or appreciated in the Arabic-speaking world.

_*(But then, the Lisan Al 3arab is a little known or appreciated work in the West) *_

_*(Someone once commented - it must have been Voltaire - to the effect that translation is the highest form of art that exists) *_
*
Correction:*

Wright's Grammar is a translation of Caspari's *"Arabische Grammatik",* 5th edition which appeared in *German*, not Latin.

I imagine it was the 1st edition that was in Latin since the text was also called *"Grammatica Arabica"* according to some of the sources I've found, but I can't vouch for it.

[I haven't yet seen a statement that says: *"Caspari's Arabic grammar first appeared in Latin"* or something to that effect.]


----------



## TheActingMind

Wow! Thank you very much, really, all of you 

Not only you've helped me judge and decide on this specific issue, but you've also enriched my knowledge in a deep and most beneficial way.

Again, many special thanks


----------



## berac

The study of Arabic grammar is neglected in the West, the grammar presented in Wright is elementary, any child of normal ability of say 12-14 years following a traditonal curriculum would know the grammar presented here and more, if a PhD student were using this as a reference then it would indicate an unacceptably paltry level of knowledge falling far short of what could and should be expected of someone conducting research.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Have you ever spoken to an Arab? Just like English speakers don't know what the accusative or genitive are, Arabs don't know the rules behind كلمات ممنوعة من الصرف or the intricate rules behind numbers. Maybe they should in theory, but they don't generally.

Wright's work is a comprehensive Arabic grammar for an English, linguistically trained audience, and it is not "elementary." You might be right that Arabic grammar is ignored in the West. If this is the case (and I tend to agree), then Wright's work is an exception.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi all

I'd like to make a couple of remarks.


First, the edition of Wright's "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" that we have in our midst is Wright's second edition which was a thorough going revision of the the first edition with numerous additions and corrections - such that the the work increased from 257 pp to 351 pp. The first edition was already a revised and enlarged translation of Caspari's Arabic Grammar originally in German. In revising his book he consulted the works of both ancient and modern Arab Grammarians as well as European Grammarians. Of the works of the ancient Arab Grammarians he lists Ibn Malik's Alfiyyah (d. 1273 AD) with Ibn 'Aqil's commentary (d. 1367 AD), Ibn Malik's Lamiyyah al-Af'al with his son, Badruddin's commentary (d. 1288), and al-Zamakhshari's Mufassal (d. 1143 AD). Later, two other western scholars (W. Robertson Smith & M. J. De Goeje) subjected Wright's work (in its second edition) to yet another revision, enlarged it even more, and came out with a third edition.

Now, a great many Arab Grammarians preceded and succeeded the ones mentioned by Wright. The ones mentioned by Wright are well known in the Arab world and so are many others, however, all of these Arab Grammarians operated with basically the same raw materials in the form of ancient Arabic production data. It is from this data that Arabic Grammar (the complex system of grammatical rules governing the Arabic language) was extrapolated, and its is this system of rules that Wright has attempted to capture within a western perspective and for a western audience. And this brings me to my second remark which is really the point that I would like to make.

In order for the ancient Arab Grammarians to have extrapolated the grammatical rules from the ancient Arabic production data, they needed to have operated with an underlying theoretical  system or framework that served as the basis for their conclusions and results. Anyone who delves deeply into the Arabic linguistic tradition soon realises a highly systematic and organised theory at play in the works of almost all of the Arab grammarians. Not only did they observe and faithfully describe  what the ancient Arabs produced in terms of language and speech output, but they also attempted to explain and account for the linguistic phenomena that they encountered from the ancient Arabs. Compare this also with Naom Chomsky's 3 levels of adequacy: observational adequacy, descriptive adequacy and explanatory adequacy.

Many westerners who study Arabic grammar or the Arabic grammatical tradition through the works of the likes of Wright often fail to see this underlying systematic theory at work. What Wright gives you is a conglomeration of Arabic grammatical rules and descriptions, in other words, a body of rules and descriptions, while ignoring the spirit that is the life force (elan vital) that runs throughout. This point has been put very eloquently by Jonathan Owens in his book "The Foundations of Grammar" in describing his own work in comparison to Wright's grammar:



> This is not a grammar of Arabic. Many have been written in European languages, the most famous of which is Wright's (1898) revision of Caspari's grammar. This is a work which does an admirable job of summarizing the grammatical descriptions of the Arabic grammarians (Wright did not base his data on original textual research), though it gives little hint of the systematic theory that served as the foundation of these descriptions. It is this latter point that I concentrate on.



Incidentally, Owens named his book after the work of 10th century scholar by the name of Ibn al-Sarraj whose work was titled: "al-Usul fi al-Nahw" which is a highly systematic and rational account of Arabic grammar in which the author attempts to provide rational linguistic explanations for all the grammatical descriptions of the ancient Arabic production data.



> All this has changed by Sarraj's (d. 928 AD) time. He begins his major work, Al-Usul fi l-Nahw ("The Foundations of Grammar", the inspiration for my title) with an explicit definition of what grammarians nahwiyyuna study. The study of grammar (nahw) is divided into two parts, a descriptive account of the Arabic language, and an explanatory account that informs us why the Arabic language is as it is.



My own participation in this forum has almost always been of this latter type (explanatory account), because this is what you gain by studying the traditional and classical Arabic grammar works. Naom Chomsky's father, William Chomsky, in his annotated translation of David Kimhi's Mikhlol (A Hebrew Grammar) makes extensive reference to this tradition because the first Hebrew grammars were written in Arabic as early as the time of Saadia Gaon (882-942) who died 15 or so years after Ibn al-Sarraj (if these dates are anything to go by), and culminating in the works of the famous Hebrew grammarian, Judah ben David Hayyuj (d 1000). William Chomsky writes in the introduction:



> As time went on, the philological movement initiated by Saadia, gathered momentum and grew apace, especially under the spur of Arabic philological pursuits and the urge for literary and religious expression in Hebrew.



Concerning Hayyuj this wiki link on him has the following to say:



> His thorough knowledge of Arabic grammatical literature led him to apply to the Hebrew grammar the theories elaborated by Arabic grammarians, and thus to become the founder of the scientific study of that discipline.



The point to underscore here is "the theories elaborated by Arabic grammarians" and not just the grammatical descriptions which they provided. It is often the theory behind the rules that makes a particular subject interesting to study, and the same goes for Arabic grammar. Wright's Grammar while fairly rich in its descriptive account of Arabic falls rather short in its explanatory and theoretical account, and it is this latter account that tries to make sense of what would otherwise just be a complex conglomeration of disparate and seemingly unrelated rules describing the workings and behaviour of the Arabic language on a word and sentence level. It is also this latter account that causes one to appreciate more the Arabic linguistic system developed by the ancient Arab Grammarians esp. from the perspective of modern (theoretical) linguistics.


----------

