Talk:Classical Arabic

More Info

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

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)

What is gʲ

gʲ is:

gʲ is a palatalized voiced velar plosive, expressed using IPA symbols. It's basically a g with the dorsal part of the tongue rised toward the palate. The sound is very similar to ɟ.--Neqitan (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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))

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwing (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2006 July 23 (UTC)

Yes, these are actually very common practices when chanting the Qurʔān, as you say, something special and artificial. There's also many more situations where assimilation occurs, e.g. why the end of the šahāda is often pronounced "...muḥammadur rasūlu...", instead of "...muḥammadun rasūlu...".--Serafín33 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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))

Divine Language

I removed the part about it being a divine language, because I don't believe it is referred as such in Islamic texts, including the quoted verses of the Qur'an in the section.

http://www.islamicity.com/dialogue/Q44.HTM

X5Dragon (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)X5Dragon 12:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Merging with Literary Arabic

This article should be merged with Literary Arabic as a section, in my opinion. --Atitarev (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic

Regarding the notes quoted below:

"The palatals /ɟ/ /ç/ (<ج> <ش‎>) became postalveolar: /dʒ/ /ʃ/"

"The uvular fricatives /χ/ /ʁ/ (<خ> <غ>) became velar or post-velar: /x/ /ɣ/"

I'm not sure what was the source of Watson's observations, but to me they seem to be based on how certain varieties of Arabic are pronounced; not on MSA as it is ideally taught in schools and elsewhere.

Likewise, regarding the note "/ɬˤ/ (<ض‎>) became /dˤ/ (Certain Tajweed traditions actually preserve the original value of this sound synchronically.)"

In fact all tajweed traditions aim to preserve the sound /ɬˤ/ (/dˤ/ is frowned upon as inexperienced/sissy), otherwise the reciter is considered to be mistaken/not articulate. TV announcers and [classical] Arabic music الموسيقا العربية singers are trained on what in Arabic is called مخارج الألفاظ which aim is to have their pronunciation modelled on classical Arabic, and correct the deviation which may be influenced by their native spoken variety of Arabic.

Since MSA is not the native tongue of anyone (as much as received pronunciation is), except maybe for the the most linguistically-reserved of households, and since this article is about MSA as it is defined and taught, instead of being about Arabic as it is commonly spoken (in which case we'd be talking about some Arabic variety other than MSA) then these differences should not even be there.

In other words, these are phonetic differences between Classical Arabic and a given variety of spoken Arabic.

--A. Gharbeia (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that the sound changes are the result of a natural progression from an earlier form of Arabic (similar or identical to Classical Arabic) to contemporary dialects so that Watson is describing the generalities of a large portion of the Arabic dialects rather than one specific dialect, it is also the case that the acceptable and prescribed pronunciation of, for example, Qur'anic recitations is indeed different today than it was when Amr ibn Uthman ibn Qanbar Sibawayh (Watson's source) described the sounds of Standard Arabic in the eighth century. Although the pronunciations have changed, the phonemic contrasts remain the same.

As for the difference between what the article states (and Watson is not the source for this) about Tajweed pronunciations and what you say is perhaps the difference between descriptive and prescriptive pronunciations. If the statement has no source, I can't really defend it too strongly but keep in mind that simply because a certain pronunciation is deprecated by a certain group doesn't mean that there aren't large portions of people who make that pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The phonetic changes in the article seems based only on Watson's research. If somebody would care to enlighten us with some other research. Else it could be considered WP:OR.--Xevorim (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not original research. OR is when editors put their own conclusions without citation. If you're trying to call into doubt the actual source, then I assure you that Watson is a reputable linguist. The work in question is cited by at least 29 academic articles. In addition, she seems to base this description on page 13 as being based by descriptions of Arabic by Amr ibn Uthman ibn Qanbar Sibawayh. There's certainly room for additional sources, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The palatals /ɟ/ /ç/ (<ج> <ش‎>) became postalveolar: /dʒ/ /ʃ/

• The uvular fricatives /χ/ /ʁ/ (<خ> <غ>) became velar or post-velar: /x/ /ɣ/

The demand for quotations must be reasonable. I don't have the info on the classical pronunciation but the 1st 2 lines are a very general knowledge. I mean the modern Arabic pronunciation of (<ج> <ش‎> <خ> <غ>) /ʃ/ /dʒ/ /ɣ/ /x/ (in this order, left-to-right). Letter ج may be pronounced as /ʒ/ or /g/ in some areas as in Arabic phonology both in formal and informal situations (MSA and dialects). --Atitarev (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Watson's book refers to the changes between Classical Arabic and dialectal Arabic on page 13 and onwards. It makes no mention of Modern Standard Arabic. As such, I will change that section to dialectal Arabic. This can be considered synthesis of published material on the part of the author WP:OR.--Xevorim (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are implying that the modern pronunciation of (<ج> <ش‎> <خ> <غ>) as /ʃ/ /dʒ/ /ɣ/ /x/ is incorrect when referring to MSA? Even if Watson didn't mention the modern pronunciation, this is taught in any Arabic textbook, even if they don't use IPA symbols.

You can listen here for the sounds (this site teaches MSA, not dialects): http://www.madinaharabic.com/Arabic_Reading_Course/AR_Lesson_001.htm

If you wish to listen to the Qur'an recital, I can point you where to listen to with specific sentences and sounds. (I apologise if I misunderstood you)

Atitarev (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern dialectal pronuciation of (<ج> <ش‎> <خ> <غ>) is incorrect when referring to MSA. And if Watson doesn't mention MSA then you shouldn't mention it then falsly cite Watson.--Xevorim (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen your edit before commenting. I have reverted your edit, Xevorim, the classical pronunciation is non-existent in modern Arabic. Listen to some al-Jazeera or other Arabic media to check how MSA is read out loud. Pity, native speakers are not involved here.

Search for specific sounds here: http://transliteration.org/quran/WebSite_CD/MixNoble/Fram2E.htm Atitarev (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Listening to aljazeera is not a good enough source. How a certain individual pronounces the phoneme is not a proof that MSA phonology is different from CA. It could be related to dialectal background. I know this well.--Xevorim (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't trust the media language, then what is MSA in your opinion? As in my link above, this is also the accent used to recite Qur'an. Why care separating CA and MSA notions, if there is no difference? Yes, Arabs reveal their native background when speaking in standard Arabic but there are still things that are accepted as standard. Out of the 4 (<ج> <ش‎> <خ> <غ>), only ج may be arguable, since it's just too common to pronounce it as /ʒ/ in the Levantine Arabic (which is still very close to /dʒ/) and as /g/ in northern Egypt and southern Yemen. The other 3 letters are pronounced rather similarly both in dialects and standard Arabic. Do you care to find an example of the pronunciation you are referring to? --Atitarev (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between CA and MSA in stylistics and lexicology as you would expect in a modern language. However, it is the same language with the same phonology, morphology and syntax. Arabs don't have such a distinction for Arabic. Both are called al-Fuṣ-ḥā (الفصحى). In schools the proper pronounciation is taught as that of the Quran. They aren't taught as MSA. The phonemic changes in modern dialects aren't only for those 4 phonemes. It's also for (and not limited to) ذ ط ض ث ق غ ع ظ . All of these phonemes do reflect differently on the spoken MSA language (of reporters for example) according to the dialectal background of the reporter. For more information regarding these differences check Varieties of Arabic#Phonetic variation.--Xevorim (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

>>Both are called al-Fuṣ-ḥā (الفصحى) That's my comment in the article, I know this well, of course. Don't forget, that al-Fuṣ-ḥā centuries ago is different from al-Fuṣ-ḥā taught today. The grammar and the core vocabulary of the written language today is, of course largely the same but the pronunciation could not be preserved as well as the written form. I searched before but I couldn't find any samples of the classical pronunciation. (It's one of the reasons why Western linguists differentiate between CA and MSA, admitting the fact that many things are not the same.)

/ʃ/ /dʒ or ʒ/ /ɣ/ /x/ are accepted as standard and the only standard today, which wasn't the case centuries ago. I agree about the other sounds, which may be different between al-Fuṣ-ḥā and the colloquial. /ɟ/ /ç/ /χ/ /ʁ/ is for a historical reference only, not the guide how to pronounce al-Fuṣ-ḥā today.

I recommend to ask some educated Arabs to understand this better. Check http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41 They are always willing to help.

Listen to the classical Arabic poetry as it pronounced today: http://www.princeton.edu/~arabic/poetry/ (you can view the text and the translation as well). --Atitarev (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there is a difference between al-Fuṣ-ḥā of today and that of centuries ago. The pronounciation is described in Arabic grammar books and differences have been also noted. It is very hard to reconstruct a pronunciation centuries old. However, Arabic phonology is quite well "preserved" (you can say) in oral Quranic traditions (that's not good enough though). You will always find disputes on how the "original" pronunciation is. Regarding the forum you listed, I write there under a different username :)--Xevorim (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source, not sure where you got the pronunciation you are talking about? http://public.csusm.edu/aitken_html/m330/arabic/pronunciation.pdf --Atitarev (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing Watson when she doesn't even mention MSA in her book. That is synthesis of published sources. You can't do that. Find a reliable source that makes these claims in the difference between CA and MSA and i'll be OK with it. Don't go edit warring!--Xevorim (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can say the same, where is your source? Where's the proof that the 8th century phonology hasn't changed? Is there any Arab who pronounces خ as something other than [x] and غ as something other than [ɣ]? And who's edit warring here? You are insisting it's the dialectal pronunciation only, this is simply wrong! Is ش not pronounced as [ʃ]? I challenge you to find me a Qur'an recital where it's something else.--Atitarev (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that Watson doesn't mention MSA. I get that Xevorim is saying that simply adding a source that presents the MSA consonant system would be synthesis, but the real measure of if this is OR synthesis is if a person without expertise wouldn't be able to make the connection. I happen to think they would.

If it's simply a difference between "There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic" vs "...the majority of Arabic dialects" then I actually find the latter to be more accurate though it implies that there are modern dialects that are identical to CA, which I doubt. "and modern Arabic dialects" is probably best. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"the majority of Arabic dialects" is inaccurate on itself. However, it is more accurate than "Modern Standard Arabic". I have a problem with adding MSA in the stead of Watson's "majority of Arabic dialects". Since there is a great difference between the two. I'm against using the changes in modern dialects and saying it occured in MSA when there is no source that says that. You can't actually make a connection. If you open a Semitic linguistics book you will find proposed theories on changes between CA and MSA such as the changes in ج and ض . There are no modern dialects identical to CA. And I never said that CA phonology is identical to MSA.--Xevorim (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to say that ش is not "shiin" [ʃi:n]. I don't understand what you guys are talking about. Are you talking about Arabic or some other language? Xevorim didn't bother explaining the source of his "standard Arabic phonology". You, Aeusoes1, seem to be agreeing. You are ignoring the links I have provided (including the Quranic recitals), insisting these 4 sounds are pronounced that way in dialects, not in MSA. After a while I am going to revert that edits again, if you don't provide a source of your claims. Where is your common sense? Did you hear the Arabic alphabet song? --Atitarev (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a source that states that modern dialectal variations of Arabic are similar to MSA...and i'll be ok with you using Watson as a source. Otherwise, what you're doing is synthesis of published material. i.e saying that Watson meant something that wasn't mentioned in her book.--Xevorim (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy. I've been busy. What is wrong with your edit, it implies that modern standard Arabic pronunciation of those sounds is different from modern dialects but is the same as in Classical Arabic (it's ancient form).

• Modern dialectal variations have phonetical differences with MSA but the 4 letters are pronounced the same in MSA and in most dialects, except for ج, which also has 2 more common variations, which I mentioned before. The modern standard Arabic phonology is already described Arabic phonology and especially Arabic alphabet. They also mentioned some variations from dialects.
• The CA and MSA as it is taught today, is not using the phonology of the 8th century. It is largely similar to the dialect pronunciation. I am not an expert in the old pronunciation of Arabic but I know well what is considered the standard pronunciation today.
• I haven't used Watson as a source and I haven't read her works but there are too many other sources of the correct pronunciation, which I have already supplied. I am worried about the quality of the article, if something said was correct but you changed just because the source does not say this explicitly. It's like demanding the source that English "sh" (in "English") is pronounced [ʃ]. There are way too many sources for the correct modern pronunciation, whether they use IPA or common descriptions, they point to what I have already explained. Look at other Arabic related Wiki pages, the individual Arabic letters have also articles: ج Gimel#Arabic ǧīm, خ Ḫāʼ, ش Shin (letter)#Arabic shīn and غ Ghain#. You will find: [ʤ] / [ʒ] / [ɡ], /x/, /ʃ/ and /ɣ/ as the standard phonetic values of these letters. Check against Arabic alphabet article.
• Letters/sounds that ARE often different between MSA/CA and dialects are: ث ,ذ ,ظ ,ق, not the 4 letters you edited and I am trying to explain to you that they are the same in dialects and in CA/MSA today. --Atitarev (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two main things that make the current phrasing ("modern Arabic dialects") ideal here.

1. Firstly, it is the explicit claim that the source makes. Saying "modern standard arabic", no matter how accurate, is arguably a violation of WP:SYNTH. If it's as true as we believe, we shouldn't have too much difficulty finding a source that states as much.
2. Secondly, it does not exclude MSA. The section is laid out in such a way as to imply that MSA and CA are largely similar phonologically but for some phonetic attributes of a few consonants. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It doesn't have to be in the same paragraph, mentioning MSA can follow after the reference link. I disagree it's ideal because it's misleading and incorrect. Making a difference between CA and MSA is more difficult if we don't take into account the historical changes. Pronunciation of the CA as it is heard/taught today is no different from MSA, which may be even 100% match for each region, neither TV anchors nor people reciting Qur'an use 8th century accent. My point is, sounds /ɟ/ /ç/, /χ/ /ʁ/ and /ɬˤ/ are no longer part of the current standard pronunciation, be it CA, MSA or dialects. The current standard sounds are ج /dʒ/, ش /ʃ/, خ /x/ غ /ɣ/ and ض /dˤ/ but if we are comparing the CA with the modern pronunciation, the article should not mislead the readers into believing that the standard pronunciation today is the same as in the 8th century.
2. Let me know what is wrong with the links I have already provided. Note that not all sources use IPA, as it is more common for the Western linguistics but the common romanisation and the sound description used is unambiguously showing the same phonetical values.
3. Do you question the accuracy of the articles I have listed in my previous post in terms of which letter represents which sound? --Atitarev (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. How is it misleading and incorrect? 8th century pronunciations differ from all modern dialects; MSA is a modern dialect that has the same phonemes, though a number of these phonemes are different phonetically. I'm confused at your objection since it seemed by our discussion at Talk:Arabic phonology that you understood that MSA is not pronounced identically and is often influenced by a speaker's native dialect. Where does the article give the impression you argue that it does?
2. It seems as though you're arguing that if we get exhibit A, a description of CA, and exhibit B, a description of MSA that we can then fully justify or OR comparison of the two. Xevorim disagrees with that and would like to see a source comparing the two. I don't have a problem with the high standard. Keep in mind also that sound samples aren't good as sources because they require a native or near-native proficiency (i.e. specialist knowledge) to draw conclusions, which would technically be OR anyway. Internet forums are not reputable sources either, and the pdf is an authorless document. See WP:RS for more on what constitutes acceptible sources on academic subjects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Check out Musaed Bin-Muqbil's dissertation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Our discussion in the phonology article was about new sounds (borrowed from dialects or foreign languages), which didn't exist in the classical Arabic, anyway.

There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects.

• 1. Today, phonetically CA = MSA, except for foreign words and simplifications.
• 2. The changes are not between CA and dialects but between Arabic then and Arabic now.
• 3. The few sounds mentioned are mostly pronounced the same way no matter what settings (CA/MSA/dialects), I keep saying this, doesn't seem to get through. The sounds /ɟ/ /ç/ can be found in Czech, Russian (1st one) and German (the 2nd one), not modern Arabic. The letters and the values: are ج /dʒ/, ش /ʃ/. It's ridiculous to say they are pronounced /ɟ/ (Czech dělám) /ç/ (German nicht) in CA/MSA today. That's the past, not the present pronunciation.
• 4. By insisting that the 4 or 5 letters have changed their phonetic value, you put all other Wiki articles mentioning Arabic pronunciation under question.
• 5. I am tired trying to convince such an obvious (from my point of view) thing. Sorry, if I sound irritated. I also find it difficult to find another reliable source for the moment but if you read point 3, you will understand my frustration. Hopefully, I will find a source or we need to read Watson more carefully. --Atitarev (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't get what your issue is. You say it's misleading but then don't explain how. 3 makes it seem as though you're drawing wild conclusions from the phrase "modern arabic dialects" and 4 doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How does saying that Shin used to be [ç] and is now [ʃ] call to question descriptions of Arabic elsewhere? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

>>

You say it's misleading but then don't explain how.

• Didn't I say that "changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects" makes you believe that these changes only apply to dialects. Xevorim has changed the passage from "MSA" to "dialects" because Watson didn't mention MSA?

>>

How does saying that Shin used to be [ç] and is now [ʃ] call to question descriptions of Arabic elsewhere?

• No Wiki page describes ش as [ç] and claims that is the standard way. It's me who should ask for a citation if a person claims that [ç] is CA and [ʃ] is dialect. You are right in saying that Shin used to be [ç]. The current standard (i.e CA/MSA) pronunciation is different, CA has changed too!). The article should make it clear. The passage doesn't say it used to be (in CA)[ç] and now it is [ʃ] (in CA) but says, it changed from CA to dialects!
• Does it make sense now? --Atitarev (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how your concerns reflect the realities of the language or the article. MSA is a modern dialect and if the article is unclear about CA being an older variety (which I don't think is the case) then it should be fixed in other parts of the article, not in this one bit of phrasing.

As far as I understand, Arabic speakers see CA and MSA as being the same. Bin-Muqbil describes MSA as "a direct descendent of CA that fills the need for a standardized form of Arabic that can also be expressed in writing." The differences between the two include syntax, lexicon, and certain idioms. He makes no mention of phonological differences between MSA and CA and says MSA's phonemes are "essentially directly inherited from CA." Saying that "CA has changed too" is like saying that Classical Latin has changed in the last two thousand years. The way people pronounce what they call Classical Latin has changed, but our article on Latin spelling and pronunciation makes a distinction between the two. This article is about CA as it was originally spoken, not MSA/"CA" of today. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

/ɟ/ /ç/ /χ/ /ʁ/ are as listed in Watson's book. Which is quite an accurate rendition of Sibawayh's descriptions. There are a few problems though:

1- The 8th century Arab grammarians phonological system wasn't as accurate and specific. For example, There are only 3 sources of sounds (The pharynx, tongue and lips) with 17 points of articulation.

• Sibawayh describes ش as a voiceless mid-lingual sound. Watson, based on Sibawayh's description, lists ش as a voiceless palatal fricative ç . While, via comparative Semitic linguistics, ش is a voicless postalveolar fricative ʃ. The fact that the ʃ sound is preserved in most Arabic dialects and other Semitic languages precludes (in my opinion) it from being a ç (so to speak).
• A similar problem, Sibawayh describes ج as a strong voiced mid-lingual sound. Watson again interprets midlingual as palatal. While the description as "strong" could point to the affricate nature of the ج (dʒ)

• /خ/ /غ/ are described as high pharyngeal sounds. I don't have a problem with interpreting them as uvular.

2- Current teaching of fuṣḥā Arabic is based on these 8th century Arab grammarians (not so specific) descriptions. And on oral Koranic traditions of maḫāriǧ al-ḥurūf. The changes you hear in MSA are due to the effect of the dialectal background. Clive Holes agrees with this point in the phonology chapter in his book: "Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties".

3- 8th century Arab grammarians have documented phonetic variations which have appeared, via comparative Semitics, to be much older than what is considered "Classical". (eg ج and ض (being a lateral fricative))

4- Saying that MSA is similar to modern dialectal Arabic is a very broad generalization (given the large number of dialects which are also very different), and undermines the accuracy of the article. That's why I need a source for such a piece of information.

5- And Atitarev, you don't have to believe in something so religiously. Nothing is really worth being irritated over that much! --Xevorim (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not criticizing Watson's work. It's not my place to do so on Wikipedia. I'm just listing some points for the sake of discussion --Xevorim (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Aeusoes1 has provided a pdf file (thanks), which can be used as a source for /ʃ/, /dʒ/ and /dˤ/ (vs /ç/, /ɟ/ and /ɬˤ/). I am not going to fight over /x/ and /ɣ/. The document uses /χ/and /ʁ/. The difference between /x/ and /χ/ escapes me, I will check it later. I tend to think that Arabic غ is closer to /ɣ/, not /ʁ/ (Dutch g, not French r) but I am not going to fight. I hope you accept this as a reliable source and change that passage to refer to "Modern Standard Arabic and the majority of dialects", rather than just dialects. In fact, Classical Arabic is pronounced the same as MSA (at least, /ʃ/, /dʒ/ and /dˤ/).

Xevorim, yes, I was irritated because you forced to me to prove the obvious, the ABC of Arabic. That ش is /ʃ/, etc. You reverted my edits because your passage makes people believe that ش is /ç/ is standard and /ʃ/ is dialectal.

Sack your Arabic teacher, tell him, it's شكرا جزيلا /'ʃukran dʒa'ziːlan/, not /'çukran ɟa'ziːlan/. :) Accept that you were mistaken.

You are referring to names I am not familiar with in your number 2. Not sure what you are trying to say. But MSA pronunciation is the same as the current oral Quranic pronunciation, call it the dialect influence, if you wish.

What do you believe in so religiously, Xevorim? Do you still insist that ش is /ç/? Atitarev (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as /χ/ and /ʁ/ vs /x/ and /ɣ/, I've seen MSA transcribed both ways and Watson says that they're often post-velar (i.e. somewhere in between) so the choice may be somewhat arbitrary for MSA. For eighth century CA, though, it's /χ/ and /ʁ/.

The problem with "Modern Standard Arabic and the majority of dialects" is that it's still technically synthesis and saying "majority of dialects" implies that there's a minority of dialects that are identical to 8th century Arabic, which AFAIK there aren't.

Remember, this article is about eighth century Arabic, not about the modern pronunciation of al-Fuṣ-ḥā (which is equivalent to MSA). So the current wording doesn't state or imply that the standard pronunciation of ش for anyone is /ç/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was saying that ش is a ʃ and was never a ç. Reread my previous reply (carefully)!

غ and خ are reconstructed via comparative Semitic studies as velar not uvular. I agree with Ƶ§œš¹ on the "Modern Standard Arabic and the majority of dialects" statement problem. Anyhow, reconstruction of CA should be phonemic. A phonetic reconstruction should be kept for spoken languages. And the name you're referring to is Clive Holes...well he was a cool guy!!--Xevorim (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "Modern Standard Arabic and the majority of dialects" is that it's still technically synthesis and saying "majority of dialects" implies that there's a minority of dialects that are identical to 8th century Arabic, which AFAIK there aren't.

There are individual dialects (like Sudanese or Yemeni) where some sounds (e.g. ɟ) were retained. I don't see any problem again with "majority". Besides, who has the authority to say that all the small dialects have been described with 100% accuracy.

I don't agree with you, guys, about the wording but I'm tired. There are better things to do, like improve my Arabic skills and other languages I am learning. Do what you want with this article. I don't like it. Not everyone trusts the reconstructed phonology (even if you and I do) and Classical Arabic is a language, which is still used and pronounced out loud more frequently than Latin. The complicated wording makes readers believe that those exotic sounds are still part of the Classical Arabic (today, of course, not as it was centuries ago), or there should be an unambiguous note explaining the current CA/MSA. Atitarev (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Besides, who has the authority to say that all the small dialects have been described with 100% accuracy." True, which is why we aren't saying all modern dialects.

If there's a part of the article that you believe is worded to imply that this it's is talking about "modern" CA, please point it out. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let me recall you. We edit warred about this phrase: "There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects." I disagreed and said it should be MSA, not (only) modern Arabic dialects." Even just modern Arabic is perhaps better. Atitarev (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that in response to my query? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you asked:

If there's a part of the article that you believe is worded to imply that this it's is talking about "modern" CA, please point it out.

I am explaining what I think the passage is implying and why I am not happy about it. It's implying that the changes listed apply to dialects only. Do you feel we are making a new circle? --Atitarev (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to put things in context. The rest of the article makes it clear that this is about an earlier version of Arabic. Looking at just this phrase outside of the context makes your concern seem silly. If you look at the phrase "...the Pennypack valley was occupied by Swedish colonists..." from Pennypack Creek and say "hey, Swedish people don't live in the Pennypack valley" you'd be just as guilty of looking at a phrase out of context. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the Najdi differ the accent at Mecca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not really convinced but thanks for trying, anyway. :) Atitarev (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we write something we can all agree on? 1. The Classical Arabic pronuciation. 2. How it -can- contrast to the spoke (the present) Modern Standard Arabic. 3. Why it -can- contrast. 4. Is there anyone look up to as an example of what viewed as "proper" or "neutral" in the spoken Modern Standard Arabic varing pronuciations, for example in English used in all of North America it generally the American midland accent and pronuciation, grammar & etc, used by CNN that is favored. 5. Are there example of accents look down on too? Thanks--24.57.60.200 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Error

"It is the only language in which Muslims recite their prayers, regardless of what language they use in everyday life." That's not true. It is the languange in which the *obligatory* prayers are recited. Other prayers can be in any language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.240.204 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

History section

{{All the Arab tribes in Arabia, Iraq and Syria traced their roots to Yemen: If you analyze the lineage of the Ancient Arabs, they all trace back to Saba' the Son of Iram the Son Sam the Son of Noah. See the Geneology of the Arabs in the books by Ibni Hisham, At-Tabariyy, Ibni Manthur, Al-Halabiyy and Ibni Hiyyan}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying here but it doesn't prove that Sabaeans 'spoke' Classical Arabic. I looked in the books you mentioned in the edit summary, like "Tareekh al-Tabari", but I haven't found any page that states that Sabaeans were speakers of Classical Arabic. In your edits you also removed important and sourced material comparing Classical Arabic with Modern Standard Arabic, that's why I reverted all of your changes. MassimoAr (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the references in Arabic, I don't have an English translation: At-tabariyy page 189, under "Himyar" the main Sabaean tribe in Yemen. Also see Al-Baqhawiyy in his Ma'aalimut-Tanziil, under Sabaa` (Sheba) Vol.3, page 600 -604. See Ibnu Manthur, in Lisaan Al-Arab (the famed Arabic Lexicon (12th Century CE), under Sabaa`, Vol. 4, page 458. (talk) 7 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Charming as the mythologies are, that is not history. collounsbury (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

After spending some time reading on the topic, I found that the Himyarites were not speakers of Classical Arabic either (see for example the results of this google search in Arabic). I now returned the material of the section but added some sources, one in English and the other in Arabic, with other additions. To anyone willing to make changes, please cite your edits with contemporary research, not medieval books written ten centuries ago. MassimoAr (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fusha and "Classical Arabic/Modern Standard Arabic"

There is clearly quite a confusion about the Arabic language in the Wikipedia articles concerning the subject, as well as a misrepresentation where the sources cited are mostly western sources and very few. To get straight to the point, the Distinction made between MSA and Classical Arabic is not there in the Arab World. In the Arab world it is one language and is known as the "Fusha". This view of the Arabs, and it is their language may I remind you, is not as pronounced in these Wikipedia articles. However, as per the "Wikipedia's" request I am assuming good faith, and acting accordingly I wish to make some clarifications.

The "Arabic Language" can be "categorized" if you like into Dialect and Fusha. Dialect is not the same as Fusha, far from it, however it is "derived" from it, but hardly the same. However, because of this derivation Arabs from different countries usually, but not always, can understand each other and even learn to speak in each other's dialect in very short time. I personally can speak in three different dialects, but the switch from one dialect to another is no where near the same as the switch between say, Arabic and English. Why? Because the dialects have the same root, and that is the Fusha. The articles in Wikipedia are not too at odd with I just said, but there is clearly a lot of confusion especially in the discussion pages. And because the western voice is more pronounced on Wikipedia (after all English is your Language, not the Arab's) I am posting this little "discussion" and making it as clear and complete as possible in hope to reason with you.

The real problem with these Wikipedia articles is the distinction between alleged two types of Fusha. This distinction is not in the Arabic World. Ask any Arab, not some Arab who lived all his life in the west and graduated in some western Universtiy, no, but a true Arab. Someone who lived and studied in the Arabic World. There is simply no distinction. The confusion? The articles on Wikipedia claim that MSA is what is spoken by the media outlets and taught in school, but the Arab will tell you that is Fusha, and Classical Arabic is what ancient texts like the Quran are written in, but the Arab will also tell you that is Fusha. What the westerner seems unable to understand is that the Fusha is extremely vast and rich, however it is not a black and white matter of "you can speak it" or "you can speak it not", no. It is simply a matter of "you can speak it" and "you can speak it better." In plain English, the differences between one speaker/writer and another simply reflects his Skills, and like English his Style. The westerner is pointing at the media outlets and is saying that to look at how they speak, and then points at the work of great Arab scholars, or the Quran, and says that to look how they speak. Well I am telling you that this is a reflection of skill and style; the foundations are the same. The Arabic language is simply very vast. If you look at the Arabian history and study the rivalry that existed between poets throughout the ages, you will find that each was with different style, and skill. It is remarkable. About 1400 years ago, in the Ka'aba (the structure Muslims visit in Saudia Arabia during pilgrimage) people would hang the best poetic verses ever made. Until the time they were finally taken down during the Islamic era, only seven verses (if my memory serves me right) ever made it on its walls. People were incredible with the language, and more importantly they had the tool; the language.

What I am trying to point out to you is the complexity of the language, not rigidity. There is a difference. Its complexity is what gives rise to the countless number of different styles of writing and speaking; rigidity would do the opposite. What the Western scholars point out in the media is simply a reflection of that. No Arab can master the whole language, and no Arab ever did, with emphasis on "ever". If you are a linguist, I dare you to prove me wrong. Going back to the articles, this confusion is clearly presented with statements in the articles like "On the whole, Modern Standard Arabic is not homogeneous; there are authors who write in a style very close to the classical models and others who try to create new stylistic patterns." Which is what I am saying to you, but the way the articles are presented give you the impression that the are two different "Fusha". Some articles even state that there exists not a standard definition of "Modern Standard Arabic"; I hope you see the irony in that. And such statements are the result of the confusion I am trying to clear.

To put it another way. Is the English English-speaking people speak the same as the English they learn in school? No. Do not say yes, because currently I live in North America and I know exactly what I am talking about. The Spoken English language here is very weak, and different from the language taught at schools. For example, the people's use of the vocabulary is extremely limited, for one thing a few number of profane words replace half the "spoken dictionary". There are other examples, far more serious. For example "going to" becomes "gonna", or "Are you not going to eat?" becomes "Aren't you going to eat?" (pay attention to the position of the pronoun). Should we now say this is a new English. Would you like that? Calling it "Modern Standard English" which is complete rubbish? No, of course not. But not are you yourselves doing that, but you are taking it a step further with MSA by claiming in the articles that it is what is taught in school, not Classical Arabic. I am asking you Why? If non-English nations were to create something called "Modern Standard English" and claim publicly that this is what you are teaching at your school, with "gonna" and "ain't", and "bro", and upside grammar, and half the vocabulary replaced by profanity, how would you take this? Would these non-English speakers have not a point? They would. Not only can they point out a change of vocabulary set, but a change of the grammar. You might say what nonsense, why would they do that? Well that is what you are doing, and all will this lead to is unnecessary resentment and hate.

In summary, the Arabs are learning Fusha in schools (Classical Arabic) not what you want to call MSA. There is no such thing, Fusha is Fusha. Our scholars spend decades studying the Arabic, and then some non-Arab, or an Arab who studied outside for a few years wants to claim some sort of "Intellectual Supremacy"?!; Is it "My view matters and no one else's"? If anything, and with all due respect, it is the Arab's view that matters in this matter, not yours. After all it is his language. Now, does that mean your point of view matters not? No! But it is what the Arab says about his language that needs to made clear first, and then your point of view can be explained in a subsection. Not the other way around. Otherwise, you will create unnecessary hate without knowing. And if you can not comprehend this much, you are an arrogant fool.

Also, I like to add, if I may, that when you present MSA that you point out the differences between it and Classical Arabic. "New vocabulary" is not a difference. Otherwise we would have a new English language everyday. Using comma's in a list, instead of the Arabic 'and' is also not a difference. That is simply a style. Subject-initial sentences being more common in MSA than in Classical Arabic is also not a difference. This last statement is the most ridiculous of the three; I doubt it was even by a linguist. Anyways these are my personal views; "MSA" is your topic, the Educated Westerner. I understand that you have your own views regarding the subject.

If you read this far, thank you very much.--173.32.129.241 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You've brought up the same point at Talk:Arabic language. It's probably best if we stick to discussing it there than having two conversations about the same thing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Small High Seen in Script Template Breaking Table

In the Special Symbols section is a table. Last July (2011) the {{script/arabic}} template was applied to each symbol. However, for some reason, the use of "small high seen" in this template causes the table to horizontally expand by several page widths (making it unreadable) when viewed with Firefox browser (it appears to work ok in Chrome browser). I tried replacing the unicode character with HTML entities (both hex and decimal) but neither one fixed it. Only after removing the template around the character does the table return to normal. I'm not sure if this is an issue within the Wiki script template that somehow is only seen in the Fx browser, or weird issue with Firefox browser. Does anyone know what the issue may be so that we can return the script template to that one entry without making the table unreadable for Firefox users? — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative

Wasn't the Arabic letter ش was one's pronounced as a voiceless alveolar lateral fricative. The ancient Arabic language didn't had a voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant, that why the words for example Moses, Saturday, five, seven and nine are pronounced musa, sabt, χamsa, saːbaʕa, tisaʕa unlike other Semitic languages like Hebrew that had voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant (ʃ) and they pronounced it moʃe, ʃaːbat, χaːmiʃa, ʃibʕaː, tiʃʕa. now about the Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative, the Arabic letter ش was pronouced as [ɬ] and later as [ʃ]. for example the word ten in Arabic is pronounced ʕaːʃara (عشرة), and in ancient times it was pronounced ʕaːɬara. Or this was before the Qur'anic language?.--Adamsa123 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quraish Dialect

I believe it should be more specific and actually mention that classical arabic is mainly based on the Quraisyh dialect of arabic. However I'm new to wikipedia and don't want to change it myself if it'll cause trouble...

At the very least this sentence 'It is based on the Medieval dialects of Arab tribes' mostly the [Quraysh tribe] added to it.

J2dafa (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Source 1:

Prior to the emergence of Islam, Arabic was spoken as a native language in the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen and was a minor language among the other Semitic languagessuch as Babylonian, Assyrian, Canaanite, and Aramaic (Versteegh, 1997a). However, native speakers of Arabic at that time, who were primarily nomads and Bedouins, spoke different dialects of Arabic. The dialect spoken by a tribe called Quraish �qabylatu qurayˇs in Mecca is assumed to have been the most prestigious Arabic dialect due to the elevated position the tribe held among other Arab tribes and due to its wealth and strategic location in Mecca. Mecca at that time was a trade and religious center which housed all the idols worshiped by the Arabs and all Arab tribes would make a pilgrimage to Mecca to worship their gods. Most significantly, the Prophet Mohammed was a member of the Quraish tribe and it was their dialect that became the language of the Quran Farghaly,A. (2010) The Arabic Language, Arabic Linguistics and Arabic Computational Linguistics . Arabic Computational Linguistics. http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30690410/acl-chap2.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIR6FSIMDFXPEERSA&Expires=1370538784&Signature=YQs5yxWqPmwQOPBKCM%2Bbz%2B7qra8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline

Source 2:

Medieval Moslem writers were generally agreed on two points: 1) That the language in which the poems were composed was identical with the spoken language of the bedouins of central and eastern Arabia; 2) That the language of the Koran was the spoken language of the Prophet, i.e. the dialect of Quraish. Since they also held that the language of the Koran was essen- tially the same as that of the poems, and that it represents Arabic at its best and purest, some (4) drew the conclusion that the dialect of Quraish was the most correct of all Arabic dialects. Rabin,c. (1955) The beginnings of Classical Arabic. Studia Islamica No. 4 pp. 19-37

Source3:

The introduction (along with the texts of Gharib and Masd'il) on the other hand, is pursuing the argument of the pure Arabic Qur'an written in ' classical Arabic ', that is Quraish dialect Rippin,a.(1981) Ibn 'Abbās's Al-lughāt fī'l-Qur'ān.Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 44, No. 1 pp. 15-25

Velarization of uvulars

The article says that the uvular consonants [ɢˠ, ʁˠ, χˠ] were pronounced with velarization. What does this mean? Uvular consonants are right in back of velars; aren't they "velarized" by default? — Eru·tuon 01:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fusha

The lede of this topic says that Classical Arabic is Quranic Arabic, as does the redirect. This is not actually true. Quranic Arabic was a archaic dialect that influenced fusha for religious reasons, but the Syrian dialect was its actual ancestor. Ogress _smash! 05:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Emphatics

Watson gives voiceless ṭ /tˤ/, while here in the table it is ḍ /dˤ/. She as well says that there was a voiceless lateral fricative ɬ̣ /ɬˤ/ not voiced /ɮˤ/ as transcribed here in the article. Could anybody comment?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. ط should be transcribed here as tˠ, not dˠ. The posited pronunciation as dˠ is not widely accepted --> the only evidence at all being Sibawayh's claim (and the word translated as "voiced" might not actually mean "voiced"). Sawtguren (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is OK with Sibawayh, at least his testimony is widely cited, so it is worth mentioning. We can just provide both variants. The problem is that the sole source (Watson) says not too many details about Classical Arabic, as it is written here. Some other sources must be added.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dialects

I have deleted the section Dialects for It doesn't match up with the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Sheva2 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree that modern Qur'anic pronunciation matches classical pronunciation

Currently in the phonology section, the article has the line "Quran reciters still preserve the Classical Arabic pronunciation of the above letters". This doesn't seem accurate however. For example, ج & ض pretty uncontroversially do not have the same sound value in modern Quranic recitation as the sound value in Classical Arabic (since the modern Quranic recitation pronunciation are [d͡ʒ] & [dˤ], not the classical values). In fact, for ج, [g], [ɡʲ], & [ɟ] are actively stigmatized by modern recitors, so even recitors from dialects that retain these more conservative sounds instead use [d͡ʒ], which ironically and unbeknownst to modern religous tajweed scholars is actually a more unconservative pronunciation. So for example, Egyptian recitors will use [d͡ʒ] and will look down on [g] as a mere dialectalism. Modern Qur'anic pronunciation matchs MSA projunciation. There are no differences. Thus, since MSA differs from Classical Arabic phonology, Modern Qur'anic Arabic phonology also differs from Classical Arabic and Classical Qur'anic phonology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:0:E67:497D:CE51:424C:F3EA (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Allophones

I was bothered by the notes in §Vowels not being referred to by anything and found that vowel allophones were removed from the vowel table in this revision. I went ahead and put them back in for cohesiveness, but I'm not sure if they belong there. How are allophones usually treated when discussing phonology? Are they not mentioned at all, are they put into the main phoneme table (like here), do they get their own paragraph or two, or something else? (I'm totally ok with this edit being reverted, but if it is, I would hope the three notes get deleted or restructured into their own paragraph(s).) Oatco (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Quranic Arabic" should not redirect here

Quranic Arabic is distinct from Classical Arabic, which is the standard that only came into being during the Arabisation of the Islamic empire under the Umayyads and early Abbasids. Even the doctors of Islam agree that Qur'anic Arabic is peculiar. Western scholarship has underlined this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.130.120 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Repeating this sentiment. "Quranic Arabic" should either redirect to Old Hejazi or a disambiguation page. High surv (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Classical Arabic to Modern Standard Arabic

According to the article, Classical Arabic was spoken for only two centuries and was then replaced by Modern Standard Arabic in the 9th century. This is absolute nonsense, as Modern Standard Arabic didn’t exist until over 1,000 years later in the 19th century as part of the Nahda. — LissanX (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What dialects did it originate from and when?

The section on its history does not state this explicitly. From the overall context, I assume it developed from the 'poetic Koine ... based on the Bedouin dialects of Najd', as opposed to the Quranic Hijazi dialect. But if that's correct, it should be written clearly. Or perhaps there was some influence of the Quranic Hijazi variety, too, given the cultural importance of the text?--77.85.55.14 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

From what I have read the Poetic Koine and the Najdi dialects would be considered Old Hijazi as well since they contain the “alladhi” particle. Classical Arabic seems to have been based on the Poetic Koine in addition to the numerous dialects of the peninsula, and there was a lot of variation in the pronunciation of early Classical Arabic. Both Hijazi and Najdi features were used. Eventually the standard became fixed but this was centuries after the grammarians and seems to have been a gradual bottom-up process. Jadhimah (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

There are few references are available, indicating Aurats (word) had considerable origins from medieval era Classical Arabic , medieval era Persian and Ottoman Turkish too and more references are likely to be available if searched deep enough.

Inputs and references regarding historical usage and present usage ,if any, socio-political construct around Aurats (word) are requested.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit in the introduction for an 'alternative' name.

User 172.110.68.134 have added an alternative name for Classical Arabic in the introduction (High Arabic). I have removed it as I couldn't find it mentioned elsewhere nor in native Arabic (عالية؟). Perhaps I'm mistaken in this case please correct me/discuss here. Thank you. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical Era

The article cites "7th to 9th century AD" as the period of Classical Arabic. This is very surprising, considering that some of the most famous Classical Arabic texts were written centuries later, including the writings of Avicenna, Ibn Khaldoun, Averroes, and Hayy ibn Yaqdhan. High surv (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Phonology of Šīn

In the article, it says "Šīn is traditionally pronounced as /ɕ/ in Quranic recitation" I've never heard this. Is there a source to back up this claim? Should there be [citation needed] put there? Rayz9989 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)