Talk:Classical Arabic

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of incomplete edit summary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is gʲ

message: 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)
replies: text: Why remove information on how it is official in arabic countries?? That's not POV.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  what the ...? 

message: Overall, pronunciation of Classical Arabic differs from pronunciation of Modern Arabic in the following ways:
# 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).
# Sentence-final -an (marking an indefinite noun in the accusative case) is pronounced -aa.
# Post-vocalic n sounds are sometimes suppressed; when this happens, the previous vowel is nasalized. This is governed by various rules.
# Classical Arabic is pronounced more slowly.
# 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/.
# 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)
thread_title: Classical pronunciation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  BTW, when one searchs Quranic text one is not redirected to this page. (collounsbury (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Arabic or Quranic Text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Divine Language 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Error 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Charming as the mythologies are, that is not history. collounsbury (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusha and "Classical Arabic/Modern Standard Arabic" 

message: In the Special Symbols section is a table. Last July (2011) the  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)
thread_title:  Small High Seen in Script Template Breaking Table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quraish Dialect  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Velarization of uvulars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fusha 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Emphatics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dialects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disagree that modern Qur'anic pronunciation matches classical pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allophones 

message: 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)
replies: text: Repeating this sentiment. "Quranic Arabic" should either redirect to Old Hejazi or a disambiguation page. High surv (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quranic Arabic" should not redirect here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classical Arabic to Modern Standard Arabic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What dialects did it originate from and when? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requesting some help  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted edit in the introduction for an 'alternative' name. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical Era 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phonology of Šīn