Research Article


DOI :10.26650/jos.1001132   IUP :10.26650/jos.1001132    Full Text (PDF)

The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules

Omar Adeeb Shaker Jnaidi

In its early stages, the Arabic writing system was distinguished by the representation of consonants from spoken speech, while vowel sounds were not represented at all. Long vowels received written representations in later stages. However, short vowels remained without steady representation. The written form of the Arabic language dispenses with short vowels in general. Some current Arab linguists have noticed that these ancient Arab linguists were influenced by the written form of the language, neglected the spoken one, and believed that language is contained in the written symbols of letters, words, and sentences. Therefore, they relied on the written form as a basis for research in their linguistic studies, which led to a lack of clarity in their linguistic rules and judgments. Current linguists believe this contradicts what has been confirmed by modern linguistic studies: the spoken language, not the written one, is the real material being analyzed in linguistic studies. They argue that the rules and provisions that are developed from the written language do not represent the linguistic reality. Therefore, they have called for adopting the spoken language alone as the basis for research and study so that the results are scientific and in harmony with the linguistic reality. This study aims to show the impact that the written language had on the views of ancient Arabic scholars and their oversights in their linguistic rules and judgments from a current point of view by analyzing examples of what the predecessors left us of linguistic sources and texts at different linguistic levels.

DOI :10.26650/jos.1001132   IUP :10.26650/jos.1001132    Full Text (PDF)

Arap Yazı Sisteminde Harekelerin Temsilinin Eski Arap Dil Âlimlerince Kabul Gören Dil Kurallarını Belirlemedeki Etkisi

Omar Adeeb Shaker Jnaidi

Arapça yazı sistemi, ilk günlerinde ünsüzlerin konuşulan konuşmadan temsil edilmesiyle ayırt edilirken, sesli harfler hiç temsil edilmedi. Daha sonra uzun ve ardından kısa ünlüler daha sonraki aşamalarda onlar için yazılı temsiller aldı; Kısa olanlar sabit temsil olmadan kaldı. Arap dilinin yazılı görüntüsü, genel olarak kısa harekelerden vazgeçer. Bir grup çağdaş Arap, eski Arap dilbilimcilerinin dilin yazılı görüntüsünden etkilendiklerini, konuşulan görüntüyü ihmal ettiklerini ve dilin; yazı sembollerinin içerdiği harflerden, kelimelerden ve cümlelerden oluştuğuna inandıklarını gördüler; Dil araştırmalarında yazılı olanı araştırma temeli olarak benimsediler; Kurallarında ve dil hükümlerinde birçok yanılsamaya ve netlik eksikliğine düştüler. Bu çağdaşlar, bunun, dilbilim araştırmalarında analizin gerçek malzemesinin yazılının değil konuşulanın olduğu yönündeki modern dilbilim araştırmaları tarafından doğrulanan şeyle çeliştiğini gördüler. Yazı dilinden ulaşılan tüm kural ve hükümlerin yanlış olduğunu ve dil gerçekliğini yansıtmadığını gördüler. Vardıkları sonuçların ve yargıların bilimsel ve dilsel gerçeklikle uyumlu olması için araştırma ve inceleme için yalnızca konuşma dilinin temel alınması gerekliliğini dile getirdiler. Bu çalışma, yazı dilinin eski Arap dilbilimcilerin algıları üzerindeki etkisini ve onların dil kurallarında ve yargılarında düştükleri yanılsamaları, bir grup çağdaş Arap’a göre, eskilerin bize bıraktığı çeşitli seviyelerden metin ve kaynağı örnek göstererek sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. 

DOI :10.26650/jos.1001132   IUP :10.26650/jos.1001132    Full Text (PDF)

أثر تمثيل الحركات في النظام الكتابي للعربية في تقرير األحكام اللغوية عند علماء العربية القدماء

Omar Adeeb Shaker Jnaidi

 تميز نظام الكتابة العربية في بداياته بتمثيل الصوامت من الكالم المنطوق، أما األصوات الصائتة فلم يكن لها تمثيل مطلقا. وبعد أن حظيت الصوائت الطويلة ثم القصيرة في مراحل الحقة بتمثيالت كتابية لها؛ ظلت القصيرة منها دون تمثيل مطرد. فالصورة المكتوبة للغة العربية تستغني عن الحركات القصيرة في المجمل العام. رأى فريق من العرب المعاصرين أن اللغويين العرب القدامى تأثروا بالصورة المكتوبة للغة، وغفلوا عن الصورة المنطوقة، وأنهم اعتقدوا أن اللغة هي ما تحتويه رموز الكتابة من حروف وكلمات وجمل؛ فاعتمدوا المكتوبة أساسا للبحث في دراساتهم اللغوية؛ فوقعوا في أوهام كثيرة وعدم وضوح في قواعدهم وأحكامهم اللغوية. ورأى هؤالء المعاصرون أن هذا يخالف ما أقرته الدراسات اللسانية الحديثة من أن المنطوق ال المكتوب هو المادة الحقيقية للتحليل في الدراسات اللغوية. ورأوا أن كل ما يتم التوصل إليه من قواعد وأحكام انطالقا من اللغة المكتوبة يعد شيئا زائفا ال يمثل الواقع اللغوي. ودعوا إلى وجوب اعتماد اللغة المنطوقة وحدها أساسا للبحث والدراسة لتكون النتائج واألحكام التي تتوصل إليها علمية، ومنسجمة مع الواقع اللغوي. وتقصد هذه الدراسة إلى بيان األثر الذي جلبته اللغة المكتوبة على تصور علماء العربية القدماء وما وقعوا فيه من أوهام في قواعدهم وأحكامهم اللغوية من وجهة نظر فريق من العرب المعاصرين وذلك من خالل عرض نماذج مما تركه لنا السلف من مصادر لغوية ونصوص من مختلف المستويات اللغوية.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Since its invention, writing has gone through stages of development until it generally arrives at the common practice of assigning one symbol to one sound. The journey of writing began by simulating what is in nature based on drawing pictures of visible objects, “the image stage,” and this is the oldest kind of visual expression of audible speech. At a later stage, it developed into the so-called “symbolic image stage,” when humans used images of a tangible object to convey an abstract meaning, such as drawing a man carrying a weapon to denote an enemy. Then followed the “syllabic stage,” in which a symbol indicates a single syllable instead of a whole word, as in using the “enemy” image to indicate the “e” letter and the ship to indicate the “s”. Then came the “alphabetic stage,” which is considered the most developed stage. It was a long journey until humans were able to free themselves from written systems that require knowledge of hundreds of images as well as the words of the language, to now use a simpler system consisting of a limited number of symbols, each representing a specific phonemic unit.

Written Arabic’s representation of phonetic symbols is mostly limited to consonants. Ancient Arabs used the «و «and the «ي «symbols to express the sounds of the long vowels in addition to their work as half vowels. The «ا «symbol was only for expressing a long vowel, and they used other symbols for the “hamza” sound, which are,”ئ«.“ؤ «and,”أ «At a later stage, Arab linguists would develop written representations for short vowel sounds, but they remained without steady representation for a long time except in limited, specific cases.

Although some linguists have considered the absence of the vowels’ written representation to be a deficit, another group has justified this absence and noted that it is not limited to Arabic writing alone, but includes Semitic writing systems in general, as Semitic languages show a clear bias toward consonants and lean on them more than vowels. Therefore, Semites have usually contented themselves with just representing consonants. Others have even defended this non-representation and attributed it to the morphological and grammatical system features in Semitic languages. Still others attribute this absence to economical motives, as they see that the first author corresponded with the linguistic characteristics and reduced the effort expended.

However, another group of modern Arab linguists considers the absence of the vowels’ written representation to be a weakness. They believe that ancient Arab linguists were influenced by the written form of the language, neglected the spoken one, and believed that language is contained in the written symbols of letters, words, and sentences. As a result of that belief, they relied on the written form as a basis for research in their linguistic studies which led to a lack of clarity in their linguistic rules and judgments. Current linguists believe this contradicts what has been confirmed by modern linguistic studies: the spoken language, not the written one, is the real material being analyzed in linguistic studies. They argue that the rules and provisions that are developed from the written language do not represent the linguistic reality. Therefore, they have called for adopting the spoken language alone as the basis for research and study so that the results are scientific and in harmony with the linguistic reality.

This study aims to show the impact that the written language had on the views of ancient Arabic scholars and their oversights in their linguistic rules and judgments from a current point of view by analyzing examples of what the predecessors left us of linguistic sources and texts at different linguistic levels. 


PDF View

References

  • Abduttevvâb, Ramazan. Fusûl fî fıkhi’l-Arabiyye. Kahire: Mektebetu’l-hancî, 6.baskı, 1420/1999. google scholar
  • Cantineau, John. Durûs fî ilmi esvâti’l-Arabiyye. Arapçaya nakleden: Sâlih el-Karmâdî. Tunus: Tunus Üniversitesi-Neşriyyatu merkezi’d-dirâsât ve’l-buhûsi’l-iktisâdiyye ve’l-ictimaiyye, 1966. google scholar
  • De Saussure, Ferdinand. Durûs fi’l-elsuniyyeti’l-âmme. Arapçaya çev. Sâlih el-Karmâdî, muhammed eş-Şâviş, Muhammed Acîne. Dâru’l-Arabiyye li’l-kitâb. google scholar
  • De Saussure, Ferdinand. İlmu’l-lugati’l-âmm. Çev. Dr. Youil Yusuf Aziz. Ed. Mâlik Yusuf el-Matlabî. 1985. google scholar
  • Dek el-Bâb, Cafer. "es-Sâkin ve’l-muteharrik fî ilmi’l-luğati’l-Arabiyye". Mecelletu’l-lisâni’l-Arabî. google scholar
  • Ebû Îd, Muhammed Ahmed Sâmî. " Pragmatiyyetu’l-kitâbeti’l-Arabiyye". Dirâse fi’l-lisâniyyâti’l-iktisâdiyye. Câmi ‘atu Balkâi’t-tatbîkiyye, Kulliyetu İrbid el-câmi‘iyye. google scholar
  • Ebû Îd, Muhammed Ahmed Sâmî. "Eseru’l-luğati’l-mektûbe fi’t-tasavvuri’n-nahvî li’d-divâli’l-i‘râbiyye". Mecelletu mecma‘i’l-luğati’l-Arabiyye bi-Mekketi’l-Mukerreme. 6:18/2018. google scholar
  • Ebû Îd, Muhammed Ahmed Sâmî. "Kırâ’a luğaviyye li’l-cuhûdi’l-mu‘âsıra fî ıslâhi’l-kitâbeti’l-Arabiyye". Mecelletu’l-âdâb ve’l-ulûmi’l-ictimâ‘iyye. t.y.. google scholar
  • el-Bennâ, Muhammed İbrahim. el-İ‘râbu simeti’l-Arabiyyeti’l-fushâ- Dirase tetenâvel vazîfetehu ve takvîmen li-menâbi‘i beyânihi ve alakatihi bi’l-edâ’. Dâru’l-ıslâh li’t-tıbâ‘ ve’n-neşr ve’t-tevzî‘. google scholar
  • el-Ekva‘, Hâlid b. Ahmed İsmâ‘îl. "Eseru’l-İslâm fi’t-tevhîdi’l-luğavî". Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Câmi ‘at Ummi’l-Kurâ-Kulliyetu’l-luğati’l-Arabiyye. google scholar
  • el-Esterebâdî, Muhammed b. el-Hasan er-Râzî. Şerhu Şâfiyeti Ibni’l-Hâcib me‘a şerhi şevâhidihi. Thk. ve Şerh: el-Ustâz Muhammed Nûru’l-Hasen, Muhammed ez-Zefzâf, Muhammed Muhyiddin Abdulhamîd. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kutubi’l-ilmiyye, h.1395- m.1975. google scholar
  • el-Fernevânî, Hânî. Zâhiretu’l-ictizâ fi’l-Arabiyye. İskenderiyye: Dâru’l-vefâ li-dunya et-tıbâ‘a ve’n-neşr, 1.baskı, 2005. google scholar
  • el-Ğâmidî, Muhammed Rebî‘. "Rıhletu’l-alâme mine’n-nutk ile’l-kitabe". Alâmât.10:40/2001. google scholar
  • el-Hamd, Gânim Kudûrî. İlmu’l-kitâbeti’l-Arabiyye. Amman: Dâru’l-ammâr, 1.baskı, h.1425- m.2004. google scholar
  • el-Hamd, Gânim Kudûrî. Resmu’l-mushaf: Dirâse lugaviyye târîhiyye. el-Lecnetu’l-vataniyye li’l-ihtifal bi-matla‘i’l-karni’l-hâmis aşar el-hicrî, 1.baskı, 1402/1982. google scholar
  • el-Isfehânî, Hamza b. el-Hasen. et-Tenbîh alâ hudûsi’t-tashîf. Thk. Muhammed Es‘ad Talas. Edt.:Esmâ el-Hımsî ve Abdulmu‘în el-Melûhî. Beyrut: Dâru sâdir, 3. Baskı, h.1412-m.1992. google scholar
  • el-Matlebî, Gâlib Fâdıl. Fi’l-esvâti’l-luğaviyye: Dirase fî esvâti’l-meddi’l-Arabiyye. Irak: Menşûratu vizâreti’s-sekâfe ve’l-i’lâm silsile dirâsât. google scholar
  • el-Muşrî, Ali Kâzım. "es-Sevâitu’t-tavîle fi’l-Arabiyye beyne’l-hareke ve’s-sukûn". Mecelletu’l-Kâdisiyye li’l-ulûmi’l-insâniyye. 14:1-2/2011. google scholar
  • er-Râzî, Ahmed b. Fâris. es-Sâhibî fî fıkhi’l-lugati’l-Arabiyye ve mesâiliha ve suneni’l-Arab fî kelâmiha. Thk.: Muhammed Ali Beydûn, 1.baskı, h.1418- m.1997. google scholar
  • es-Sak‘abî, Faysal. "Mekânetu’l-lehecâti’l-muhkiyye fî ilmi’l-luğati’l-hadîs: Kırâ’a fi kutubi ilmi’L-luğati’l-âmmi’l-Arabiyye ve mâ fî hukmihâ". Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Câmi ‘at Ummi’l-Kurâ-Kulliyetu’l-luğati’l-Arabiyye. google scholar
  • eş-Şâyib, Fevzî Hasan. "el-Harekât: Nuktatu’d-da‘f fi’d-dirâsâti’s-savtiyye ınde’l-Arab". el-Mecelletu’l-Arabiyye li’l-ulûmi’l-insâniyye. c.20, sy.80. google scholar
  • eş-Şâyib, Fevzî Hasan. "Eseru’l-luğati’l-mektûbe fî takrîri’l-ahkâmi’l-luğaviyye". Mecelletu câmi‘ati’ş-Şarkıyye li’l-ulûmi’ş-şer‘iyye ve’l-insâniyye. 2:3/2005. google scholar
  • es-Suyûtî, Celâleddin. el-Muzhir fi ulûmi’l-luğa ve envâ‘iha. Thk.: Fu’âd Ali Mansûr. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kutubi’l-ilmiyye, 1.baskı, h.1418- m.1998. google scholar
  • ez-Zeccâcî, Ebu’l-Kâsim. el-Îzâh fî ileli’n-nahv. Thk.: Dr. Mâzin el-Mubârek. Beyrut: Dâru’n-nefâis, 5. baskı, h. 1406- m.1986. google scholar
  • ez-Zemahşerî, Ebu’l-Kâsim Mahmûd b. Amr. el-Keşşâf an Hakâiki ğavâmizi’t-tenzîl (me‘a kitâb: Hâşiyetu’l-İntisâf fî-mâ tezammenehu el-Keşşâf li- İbni’l-Munîr el-İskenderî ve tahrîcu ehâdîsi’l-Keşşâf li’l-İmâm ez-Zeyle‘î). Beyrut: Dâru’l-kitabi’l-Arabî, 3.baskı, h.1407. google scholar
  • Ferîha, Enîs. Nazariyyât fi’l-luğa. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kitabi’l-Lubnânî, 2.baskı, 1981. google scholar
  • Hanûn, Mubârek. fi’s-Savâteti’l-Basriyye min lisâniyâti’l-mantûk ilâ lisâniyâti’l-mektûb. Dâru’l-kitâbi’l-cedid el-muttehide, 1.baskı, 2013. google scholar
  • Hassân, Temmâm. el-Lugatu’l-Arabiyye Ma‘nâhâ ve mebnâhâ. Alemu’l-kutub, 5.baskı, h.1427- m.2006. google scholar
  • Ibn Akîl, Abdullah. Şerhu Ibn Akîl alâ Elfiyyeti İbn Mâlik. Thk.: Muhammed Muhyiddin Abdulahmid. Kahire: Dâru’t-turâs ve Dâru Mısr li’t-tıbâ‘a, Saîd Cevdet es-Sehhâr ve Şurekâhu. 20.baskı, h.1400- m.1980. google scholar
  • Ibn Haldûn, Abdurrahman. el-Mukaddime. Thk. talik ve takdim: Abdusselâm eş-Şedâdî. Hizânetu Ibn Haldûn, Beytu’l-ulûm ve’l-funûn ve’l-âdâb, 1.baskı, ed-Dâru’l-beydâ’, 2005. google scholar
  • Ibn Şakîr, Ebu Bekr Ahmed el-Muhallâ. Vucûhu’n-nasb. Thk.: Dr. Fâiz Fâris. Muessesetu’r-risâle: Dâru’l-emel, 1.baskı, 1408/1987. google scholar
  • Ibn Usfûr, Ali b. Mu’min el-İşbîlî. el-Mumti‘u’l-kebîr fi’t-tasrîf. Lübnan: Mektebetu Lübnan, 1.baskı. google scholar
  • Ibn Ya‘îş, Ya‘îş b. Ali. Şerhu’l-mufassal li’z-Zemahşerî. Takdim: Dr. Emîl Bedî‘ Ya‘kûb. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kutubi’l-ilmiyye, 1.baskı, h.1422- m.2001. google scholar
  • İbnu Cinnî, Ebu’l-feth Usmân. el-Hasâis. Mısır: el-Hey’etu’l-Mısrıyye el-âmme li’l-kitâb, 4. baskı. google scholar
  • İbnu Cinnî, Ebu’l-feth Usmân. el-Lem‘u fi’l-Arabiyye. Thk.: Fâiz Fâris. Kuveyt: Dâru’l-kutubi’s-sekâfiyye, t.y. google scholar
  • İbnu Cinnî, Ebu’l-feth Usmân. el-Munsif: Şerhu kitâbi’t-tasrîf li-Ebî Usmân el-Mâzinî. Dâru ihyâi’t-turâsi’l-kadîm, 1.baskı, h.1373- m.1954. google scholar
  • İbnu Cinnî, Ebu’l-feth Usmân. Sırru sınâ‘ati’l-i‘râb. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kutubi’l-ilmiyye, 1.baskı, h.1421-m. 2000. google scholar
  • İhvânu’safâ. Resâilu ihvâni’s-safâ ve hillâni vefâ. Edt.: Hayreddin Zirikli. Lübnan: Dâru’l-kalem. google scholar
  • Şahîn, Abdussabûr. el-Menhecu’s-savtî li’l-bunyeti’l-Arabiyye: Ru’ye cedîde fi’s-sarfi’l-Arabî. Beyrut: Muessesetu’r-Risâle, h.1400- m.1980. google scholar
  • Selmân, Azmî Muhammed Iyâl. "Teskînu’l-luğa: İşkâlâtu’l-mantûk ve’l-mektûb fi’l-lisâniyyâti’l-hadîse". el-Lisâniyyatu’l-Arabiyye. sy.11, 2020. google scholar
  • Şevâhine, Sa‘îd. "el-Harekât ve hurûfi’l-medd ve’l-leyn beyne’l-kudemâ ve’l-muhaddisîn". Mecelletu câmi‘ati’l-Kudüs el-meftuhâ li’l-ebhâs ve’d-dirâsât. sy.16, 2009. google scholar
  • Sîbeveyhî, Amr b. Usmân. el-Kitâb. Thk.: Abdusselam Muhammed Harun. Kahire: Mektebetu’l-Hancî, 3.baskı, h.1408- m.1988. google scholar
  • Valfonson, İsrail )Ebu Zu’eyb(. Târîhu’l-luğâti’s-Sâmiyye. Mısır: Matba‘atu’l-i‘timâd bi-şâri‘i Hasan el-Ekber, 1.baskı, h.1348- m. 1929. google scholar
  • Vendryes, Joseph. el-Luğa. Çev.: Abdulhamid ed-Devâhilî ve Muhammed el-Kasâs. Takdim: Fâtıma Halîl. 2014. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Jnaidi, O.S. (2022). The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules. Journal of Oriental Studies, 0(40), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132


AMA

Jnaidi O S. The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules. Journal of Oriental Studies. 2022;0(40):173-194. https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132


ABNT

Jnaidi, O.S. The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules. Journal of Oriental Studies, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 40, p. 173-194, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Jnaidi, Omar Adeeb Shaker,. 2022. “The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules.” Journal of Oriental Studies 0, no. 40: 173-194. https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132


Chicago: Humanities Style

Jnaidi, Omar Adeeb Shaker,. The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules.” Journal of Oriental Studies 0, no. 40 (Jun. 2022): 173-194. https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132


Harvard: Australian Style

Jnaidi, OS 2022, 'The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules', Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 0, no. 40, pp. 173-194, viewed 30 Jun. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Jnaidi, O.S. (2022) ‘The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules’, Journal of Oriental Studies, 0(40), pp. 173-194. https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132 (30 Jun. 2022).


MLA

Jnaidi, Omar Adeeb Shaker,. The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules.” Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 0, no. 40, 2022, pp. 173-194. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132


Vancouver

Jnaidi OS. The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules. Journal of Oriental Studies [Internet]. 30 Jun. 2022 [cited 30 Jun. 2022];0(40):173-194. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132 doi: 10.26650/jos.1001132


ISNAD

Jnaidi, Omar AdeebShaker. The Representation of Diacritics in the Arabic Writing System and Ancient Arabic Scholars’ Determination of Linguistic Rules”. Journal of Oriental Studies 0/40 (Jun. 2022): 173-194. https://doi.org/10.26650/jos.1001132



TIMELINE


Submitted17.11.2021
Accepted02.02.2022
Published Online28.04.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.