Talk:Classical Arabic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Is there anyone that can provide more information about this topic? I've added a section on vowels and its relation to modern arabic dialects a couple weeks back and no one has touched this article. Considering its use in Islam and the wide usage of Modern Arabic, I am perplexed at why no one has expanded this article.--67.184.163.248 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Ikiroid


It is said at the end of the aricle that classical arabic is the ancestor of all modern arabic dialects. I have read however that some Yemeni dialects descend from a different ancient dialect called southern arabic, as opposed to northern arabic which later became fus'ha. Can anybody verify and correct this. Iskander Oct/1/2005.

Yes, I've heard of it, wikipedia has an article on Old South Arabian, although I believe it was a completely different language, maybe language family. Here's a link to the Southern Arabian Alphabetif it's of any help. If you of anyone reading this can find more information, the article on it, as well as this article, could recieve some much-needed expansion.--67.184.163.248 01:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Ikiroid

Contents

[edit] Explanation of incomplete edit summary

While I was typing my edit summary, I accidentaly tapped my enter key and submitted it before finishing. The full edit summary should read: "sp 'pronounciation' -> 'pronunciation' x4; 'mispronounciation' -> 'mispronunciation'" Sorry! --Dzhatse 19:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

This article contains a number of NPOV inaccuracies such as "mispronounce" for dialectal pronunciations. Dialects are another language, they are not Classical. (Collounsbury 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).

Why remove information on how it is official in arabic countries?? That's not POV.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The characterisation is inaccurate. "Arabic" is the official language. The actually used version is not Classical but Modern Standard. (Collounsbury 02:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that literary arabic was the same thing as classical arabic.--ikiroid | (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That is certainly not the descriptive position taken in the articles. Most non-Arab scholars differentiate between Modern Standard Arabic and classical. As the wikipedia coverage of Arabic differentiates between the two with seperate articles, the article should be consistent with that. (Collounsbury 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] what the ...?

i have studied arabic for years and i've never heard of the "classical pronunciation" that claims that /r/ is omitted in some words, that /n/ turns into nasalization, etc. etc. certainly this has no relation to the way that modern standard arabic is normally pronounced, nor the way that classical arabic in koranic times was pronounced. where does this supposed pronunciation come from? i strongly believe that either this must be properly sourced, or deleted. (e.g. is it XXX or YYY's school of koranic pronunciation? note that koranic pronunciation is *not* the same as "classical pronunciation", but something special and artificial that's used only in chanting the koran)

Benwing 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, i now believe that this text is quite bogus, after seeing and deleting other clearly bogus parts of this article (e.g. a section on the "pronunciation of saad"). i've deleted it and put it below; if someone wants to resurrect it, you must source it as described above.

nb i'm not claiming everything below is bogus (e.g. the point about sentence-final -an is correct). but most of it is.

[edit] Classical pronunciation

Overall, pronunciation of Classical Arabic differs from pronunciation of Modern Arabic in the following ways:

  1. In Classical Arabic, different sounds are elided. Generally, Classical Arabic pronounces every letter, but there are exceptions governed by complex rules; for example, the final -r is silent in the words baḥr (بحر) and ǧisr (جسر).
  2. Sentence-final -an (marking an indefinite noun in the accusative case) is pronounced -aa.
  3. Post-vocalic n sounds are sometimes suppressed; when this happens, the previous vowel is nasalized. This is governed by various rules.
  4. Classical Arabic is pronounced more slowly.
  5. The letter ǧīm (ﺝ) is pronounced differently. It can be pronounced as /g/ in classicalisms, but usually this pronunciation is attributed to the non-traditional Arabs (to Spanish characters in Andalus-related dramas, or to Byzantine kings). It is never pronounced /ʒ/.
  6. The letter kāf (ﻙ) is sometimes voiced, producing a /g/ sound; however, this is not done if ǧīm ﺝ is being pronounced /g/.

Benwing 07:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Arabic or Quranic Text

This article is not about Classical Arabic as it is on Quranic Text. This is range from the pronunciation (which are used in Quran Tilawa or Chanting) to the special symbols used to help the reader better pronounce. Give me one "classical" Arabic text where you find the special symbols used with the Quran Text or the rules of pronunciation associated with it. Bestofmed (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing or asking for. Yes, this is the Arabic language as it was at the time the Qu'ran was written. The article states that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but here we are discussing the article, so we can not cite from it. Mu point is that this article is talking about the Quran (the used expressions, the chanting, special symbols used) more than talking about the "Classical Arabic" as a language. I mean it does not specify the differences in grammar, syntax, words roots. To make my point clear when you search for Quranic Text you will be redirected to this page! But surely Quran uses extra rules or forms to convey its message (as other holy books), not as a newspaper or a magazine. Bestofmed (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh? Discussing the article rather requires one to cite to, including its own underlying citations. The article mentions the Quran and its usage, but gives an overview of "classic" phonemes - indeed most of the text is linguistically focused (phonology, morphology). One section mentions specific marking for the Quran, which is facilitory for a general reader coming into the subject. As most language articles in Wiki this is a bit of a mess of too specialized and too generic, but that's wiki. You may have a personal issue with respect to how outside scholarship analyzes the language, but that's not the problem of the arty. What could be improved is perhaps inclusion of discussion - I think in Arabic lang. or somewhere else here on Wiki of Classic versus Core Quranic usage, but that easily becomes too specialized in presentation. (collounsbury (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
BTW, when one searchs Quranic text one is not redirected to this page. (collounsbury (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC))