Talk:Modern Standard Arabic/Archive 1

message: This article could be much better.  It does not answer basic questions like "Who made up MSA?", "When was MSA created?", and "Who sets the standards for MSA?"
It would be good if someone more knowledgable than myself could address these deficiencies.
:: No one "creates" a natural language, and with respect to standards, Arabic does not have a single standard setting body - not unlike most langauges - so I am afraid these are somewhat silly questions. That being said, the article is poorly written as an explanation of Modern Standard Arabic as a "langauge" or "register" of the Arabic language. I also agree with the critic belong, Hasan that there are a number of peculiar statements. (Collounsbury 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: Just peeking my head in to find a mess! I'll be back with help. Hold on!!!!!
*Our hero bolts out of the room quickly, a bead of sweat trickling down his cheek, swept up by the urgency of the situation* Angrynight 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article keeps getting progressively worse with every edit! Are there no editors who know about about the subject to write a good balanced article in proper English? Each time the page is edited, it requires even more copyediting for language and format. It's also very heavy on the political talk. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template provides a rough guideline to writing a good language/linguistics article. — Zerida 09:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YIKES!!! 

message: A reply to Zerida's edit.
You believe there is political propoganda in this article.
I agree:
But for the most part, what I wrote is what many Arabs believe. That should probably go under its own heading.
I apologize for the inconsistencies in the article, and shall work to remove them, in an effort to help clean up the article.
"
Foreign students usually learn both MSA and the spoken language of their choice. Arabic language education produces good reading, comprehension and writing skills in both. Some countries include MSA "conversation" classes, though the felt inappropriateness of spoken MSA in most situations prevents them from being conducted regularly.
"
But I would like to point out something you keep editing incorrectly:
The first sentence in the following paragraph is not related to the second sentence.
The first sentence is about foreign students and the other sentneces are about how Arabs learn MSA in school.
I think the paragraph should be removed.
"
There is no significant vernacular influence on written MSA. The MSA used in Iraq is virtually the same as that in Morrocco (technical vocabulary might differ). However, Egyptian Arabic, the spoken and national language of Egypt, has increasingly gained prestige within Egypt and has become better understood across the Middle East in the last 50 years due to the Egyptian film industry.
"
-This paragraph should be removed as well. The article is supposed to be about MSA. And the first line needs explanation.
This following part is also unnecessary, because there is no proof presented, and it doesn't give the reader information.
" which might be due to Aramaic or Egyptian influence."
:I agree with these changes and the most recent edits. Perhaps it's a better idea to keep the article strictly focused on MSA. Also, if it's necessary to provide information on how Arabs use MSA (such as info on sociolinguistics) a separate section sounds like a far better idea. Thanks for your help. — Zerida 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the MSA article

message: This article is completely stupid. Modern_Standard_Arabic doesn't exist it is the same 15 centuries old classical arabic. It uses the same grammar rules, the same spelling rules, the same dictionaries. For example, new arabic books used in arab schools are made from very old linguistic books (about 2 century after hijra) and one of the most used dictioanries in arabic is Lissanu AlArab by Ibn Mandur is also very old. Well, this article is completely wrong (and of bad quality).
By the way, why not create  Modern_Standard_English, Modern_Standard_French? The differences will be very very much big than those cited about Arabic.
Hmm.  I don't know anything about Arabic (or French, for that matter), but I suggest you check out the History of the English language page, and you will find that, in fact, there is a whole timeline of classifications describing the evolution of the English language.  It seems that your suggestion has already been implemented for the English language.  So, um, good idea!  --Nomenclaturist 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely stupid 

message: MSA does exist, all the assertions above are sensationalistic with no backing. The existance of MSA is proved by observation and example, I don't see any valid argument as to why it shouldn't be considered different (even if slightly) from CA.
The assertion that a modern Arab can read mediaeval texts with ease is abdurd. Anyone who went to high school in Arab countries will attest to the frustration of enigmatic words and unusual constructs. I can clearly remember some poems which required reference to a vocabulary list every other word. Can someone explain why I can't understand a single line of the mo3alaqat while I can read a thick contemporary novel in a couple of hours? The reason is that the language has developed, whether we like this fact or not.
As to backflow from dialects, the easiest example is in technical terms, Arabic language academy notwithstanding.
I can't, though, think of any case where SVO looks or sounds normal in MSA, I read a whole Egyptian pulp fiction book looking for a single example, I couldn't.
-
Egyptian Arabic is different, even in some basic words ("yes"- MSA "na3am," EA "'aywa") so that might be it. I've seen some regular-looking SVO all over the place.
From "Arabic, Verbs and Essentials of Grammar"-
(hiya) naamat fii sariir 'ummha.
(she) she-slept in bed mother-her's.
So there you go. I think.
71.240.161.241 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical texts use some difficult vocabulary, but that doesn't make it a different language. The fact that people have a hard time understanding it just shows that even the Arabs themselves aren't fluent in Classical/Standard/Fus-ha Arabic. -Hasan aljudy 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs cut the politics 

message: Can anyone please add the Arabic alphabet equivalents of the words and letters represented in this article? Basawala 03:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arabic Alphabet 

message: Move everything to a page entitled "Standard Arabic" instead of "Modern Standard Arabic". We can leave the page "Modern Standard Arabic" for indicating differences between "Classical Arabic" and "Modern Standard Arabic". 
I believe that would solve the problems Arabs have with the title of "Modern Standard Arabic". Note that the title is somewhat controversial as can be seen by posts above, and that many scholars don't agree on the title of "Modern Standard Arabic". Although the title could be considered equivalent to " فصحى العصر", the capitilization of the word "Modern" could be the source of the problem. Most of those people who denied the existance of Modern Standard Arabic above, most likely believe in the existance of modern Standard Arabic (If they didn't it would mean that they believe the Standard Arabic is not used anymore or that it is ancient despite modern times).
--TwoThirty 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the proposal: MSA is the standard term used by Western academics, along with most Arab academics working in English. So it's the right term to use: wikipedia reflects current usage, rather than trying to bring in new terms. There is an interesting issue here: using MSA and CA as labels is in no way meant to imply that these are different languages, but they are different varieties with different norms. It's not quite the same situation as American English vs. British English, but most people happy to use those terms are not claiming they are different languages, rather different versions of English, again with a few norms that differ. But some people don't understand that the implication is not there... --Drmaik 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Change title to "Standard Arabic"

message: I disagree on the usage of Literary Arabic in conversation between two claimed Arabs!
In fact, both of them try to change his dialect to Egyptian or to the more understood dialect. The last thing they try to do, is speaking Literary Arabic.
This topic is politically oriented!
Literary Arabic is on it's way to be dead & only the Quranic Arabic would be used for Islamic teachings.
Our countries must recognize themselves & recognize their languages, as all self-respecting countries. Many countries did so & our countries are waiting to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.129.182 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Standard Arabic usage!