From: nmouawad@waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad)
Subject: Re: AlpaLeb V 1.0
Organization: University of Waterloo
	<1992Oct2.172405.4772@ulrik.uio.no>
	<NMOUAWAD.92Oct4154041@neumann.waterloo.edu>
	<BvMDF2.on@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:26:42 GMT

In article <BvMDF2.on@ecf.toronto.edu> hyper@ecf.toronto.edu (Hypersonic CFD Combust Diag) writes:

   Naji, that's where the objection stemed from, that it was more of
   a political move than it was, as claimed originally, a way of making
   network communication easier using our mother tongue. In other
   words, the above clearly reinforces the original doubts about it 
   being an attempt to distance the lebanese from their arabic
   origin/environment.

   As I am sure you are well aware, the syrian  and the Lebanese
   dialects are much closer together than are the Belgian and the French.
   Linguistically, as also I am sure you are aware, the Lebanese, the Syrian,
   the Palastenian and the Jordanian are grouped together as a single
   dialect.  It has been mentioned earlier, that those slight differences
   that exist between the inhabitants of those countries also exist within 
   the people of the same country itself. An example was given as to the 
   different accents within Lebanon and how some lebanese share more in 
   their accent with the bordering countries than with the Beiruties, per se.

   What it boils down to  is that it is an old tune played on a new fiddle.

   These ventures to obliterate the arabic heritage in the lebanese
   culture date back to the days of the french occupation, or should I
   said mandate.

   As in answer to Naji's question

   > @am b-tefham @alleyeh

   Loud and clear, long before the obvious was clearly stated. 





Hum... I am not sure of that. When you say that Syrian and Lebanese
languages are "closer" one to each other than "Belgium French" and
"France French", what are your criterion ? If you can come-up with one
single linguistic criterion backing-up your argument you will win me
over. 

All criteria so far are political. When someoen says: "Lebanese,
Syrian, Palestenian and Jordanian are grouped together" I must ask by
whom and to which end ? Furthermore you say: "being an attempt to
distance the lebanese from the Arabic origin/environment". Once again
a political statement.

Which origin ? Which environment ? You seems to have a political
image (not only political, cultural and maybe even religious) in mind.
This is fine. It is not necessarily mine. It may not be that of
others. Have I said you or anyone else should not use/speak/talk/teach
Arabic the language, the culture and the traditions ? 

I am saying let me use/speak/talk/ and teach Lebanese the language the
culture and the traditions. 

This is the most fundamental Human Right: that of freedom of speech
and associations. I know that most countries of the Middle-East
(except for Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and more recently Morocco) did not
sign the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. It boils down to
values and wisdom: you either accept to partake with the views of
other or you choose to impose you own on them. As far as I can tell
the History of the Arabs of Lebanon has been of the later kind.

Let those of you who believe in Arabism prove me wrong, not in words
... in action.

naji.

--
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Naji Mouawad  |          nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu            |
    |  University   |---------------------------------------------------|
    | Of Waterloo   |   "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self"  |
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon