@Falecius the Quran would likely be incomprehensible that this period. The language would not make sense and the references to Aksum, Byzantium, Sassanids, would make no sense. The Arabs then likely spoke a very crude Arabic and many likely spoke many different other Semitic languages that likely merged into Arabic some time in the 400s.
What if Islam was as old as Christianity?
- Thread starter King Thomas
- Start date
"Arabic" attested at the time is known to scholars as "Ancient North Arabian", but this is essentially a convenient label for a bunch of distinct Semitic varieties who appear closely related to each other, to Old Arabic and Classical Arabic. At present though, none of these varieties can be seen as the direct ancestor of what would become Classical Arabic, which must have risen to importance (and documentation) somewhat later, in the fourth-fifth century BCE (the inscription of En Avdat seems to be in Old Arabic, and probably dates from the second Century BCE. But that's just two lines). There is a further series problem in the origin of Arabic vernacular varieties, that orientalists often believe to be a continuiation of something different from Classical Arabic.
Well this whole discussion is difficult. As far as I know, scholars are not conclusive upon which branch of Semitic Arabic belongs to. As well, the southern Semitic distinction seems the most distinct and oddity, many even say Amhara is not Semitic.
Until we conclusively decide which area modern Arabic and Classical Arabic is, we certainly cannot decide the style and classification of so called old Arabic.
Yeah, it's quite complicated. However. Contemporary Semiticists vastly agree that Arabic and North Arabian both belong to a "Central Semitic" branch, where (to put it simply) Arabic and North Arabian share some conservative features with a bunch of southern branches which used to be classified together as "Southern Semitic", a branching that is no longer generally accepted. Earlier classifications put Arabic and Ancient North Arabian within this putative "Southern Semitic" branch, but this is no longer considered correct.
Central Semitic also includes "Northwest Semitic" (Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.) while Southern Semitic, for those who accept it as valid, includes Modern South Arabian (on which more work is needed) and the Semitic languages of Ethiopia and Eritrea (otherwise classified as two separate groupings). The position of Ancient South Arabian is less clear, but it is usually considered as Central Semitic as well (some regard it as Southern Semitic; it's messy).
However, AFAIK nobody questions that Arabic is more closely related to Ancient North Arabian than to anything else, so that they could form an "Arabian" sub-branch within Semitic, with considerable attested differences within it. The paucity of linguistic information available from Ancient North Arabian extensive documents complicates things a bit, but its closer relations to Arabic is not controversial (OK, very few people are able to study Ancient North Arabian anyway).
Also, it is normally accepted that "Southern Semitic", if it exists (or it constituent branches anyway) and "Central Semitic" do form a higher order branch called "Western Semitic" in contrast to extinct "Eastern Semitic" represented by Akkadian and (very probably) Eblaite. All extant Semitic languages since the first century CE are "Western Semitic".
Other branchings are proposed, and this picture may change in some details (as noted, some varieties are difficult to classify, while others simply are not known enough) but there is a wide agreement on the general outline.
I've never heard of anyone disputing that Amharic is Semitic. Linguistically, the matter seems quite clear-cut: I don't know much about Amharic but the little I know about its lexicon and grammar shows Semitic features very clearly to me.
Well...
We did. Just, not in the Germanic languages.
In Latin (and therefore, in the Romance languages) and in Greek, God is Deus or Theos, both of which are derived from the original Proto Indo European Dewos, which also meant God (and, originally 'to shine'). In Greek, that name became associated with their supreme thunder god, and Dewos shifted a little into Zeus, or, if they wanted to be more specific, they called him Father Zeus, or Zeus Pater. Meanwhile, the Romans titled their almost identical supreme thunder god the same thing, just in Latin. Jupiter (dies-piter).
So, Italian Dio, Spanish Dios, Portuguese Deus, French Dieu, its all the same name as Zeus and Jupiter, after a few millennia of linguistic shifts.
@Falecius Well there have been some that disagree on the criteria of Semitic or non Semitic or Semitic vs Afro Asian.
Again, some have tried to purport that Southern Arabian is closer to Arabic than Arabic to Hebrew and that makes Arabic southern Semitic.
I disagree to this theory and am with you. When you listen to languages like Soqotri and Mehri they despite numerous borrowings from Arabic seem less close to Arabic than say Syriac.
Again, some have tried to purport that Southern Arabian is closer to Arabic than Arabic to Hebrew and that makes Arabic southern Semitic.
I disagree to this theory and am with you. When you listen to languages like Soqotri and Mehri they despite numerous borrowings from Arabic seem less close to Arabic than say Syriac.
Just to be precise, the form "Theos" in Greek may ve unrelated to that root (whose regular form in Greek is, as you state, "Zeus"). AFAIK, no one is very sure of where "Theos" comes from.
Well, Arabic has been considered Southern Semitic for a long time, but nowadays most experts disagree. Arabic may be as close to Ancient South Arabian (often now called Sayhadic to reduce confusion) as it is to, say, Hebrew, although Modern South Arabian is another matter entirely (the relationship between Ancient and Modern South Arabia is not clear - they are commonly supposed to belong to different Semitic branches, but Mehri does share some features with Ancient Hadramutic that are not found in Sabaean). To complicate matters (as if they aren't complicated enough already), there's a whole bunch of ancient undeciphered inscriptions in Dhofar near where Mehri and Jibbali are spoken nowadays. I suppose they could represent a language ancestral to Modern South Arabian. When somebody manages to make sense of those, the picture may change.
Interesting. All that I had read (which was not a huge volume) said otherwise.
Where does the name Sayhadic come from?
If Arabic's history is THAT complicated, what does it make my attempts to figure out a Egyptian-Canaanite hybrid?
Where does the name Sayhadic come from?
If Arabic's history is THAT complicated, what does it make my attempts to figure out a Egyptian-Canaanite hybrid?
What's complicated is largely the scholarly debate. "Sayhad" is the ancient name of the desert area between the valleys where most of the inscriptions (esp. the older ones) in these varieties have been found. Since several scholars have supposed several other more distantly related (and poorly, if at all, attested*) languages in various areas of South Arabia , I think it is a useful name. However, the most recent edition of my Semitic Languages handbook puts Sayhadic into South Semitic. Other sources would have it as Central Semitic.
* Let's not get started with THIS can of worms.
Every language's history may be that complicated or even worse (Persian is an unholy mess, Aramaic is a lot worse, and I'm not touching Sanskrit with a barge pole
) when documents are: 1) numerous 2) sparse.Hmm, It would be very complex to see various varieties of Semitic in Yemen which some are central and others southern. There are numerous geographic terms and words used in Arabic of the past for place names that Saudi scholars deem as not found originally in Arabic.
Have you heard of the Sulayb of the Haasa and Nejd?
I think I've heard that name before but I am not familiar with them. I suppose it's a tribe?
Yes. They were said to be extremely distinct from Arabs. Using donkeys and traps they hunted the vast Najdi desert and flew kites across the sky. They further were often hold overs in terms of religion have distinct pagan practices such as the worship of large rocks or trees. Arab Bedouin saw them as highly distinct and not Arabs of any culture or tribe, but used them as guides as they were the only people who knew the desert better than the Bedouin. In the early reign of Ibn Saud, many of them, perhaps a thousand or so, were slaughtered by the Akhwan for accusations of paganism. The remnants of the tribe gained remittances from Ibn Saud as the Sultan recognized their plight and injustice and paid them for their loses.
I do not know if they still exist, and I am not travelling to the desert to find out; but as far as I know, none have been seen on Hajj and likely they are extinct or at least absorbed into other tribes. Either way, a serious study on them would be interesting to determine origins and a possible folk language and determing the origin of people in Arabia.
Fascinating. I suppose that some study on those people exists, although they appear pretty obscure. Pre-Islamic Eastern Arabia is a near-blind spot linguistically so who knows, but I suppose they spoke (or speak) some sort of local Arabic, perhaps a divergent variety. I am also tempted to guess their odd religious traditions may trace back to some Qarmatian or Kharijite local holdover, but I really don't know and it could be something else entirely.
It is amply known that many Arabic tribes originated from Yemen and they must have spoken something closer to Ancient South Arabic or possibly Himyarite (if they were indeed distinct, which is not really certain). Also, Ancient North Arabian is more a close cousin than a direct ancestor of Arabic, but speakers of both must have lived in close connection. There certainly ample scope for ancient borrowing, as ancient grammarians indeed recognized (saying that, for instance, the language of many Yemeni tribes was not authoritave reference for "pure" Arabic; the same for coastal and northern groups who took Persian, Indian or Syriac linguistic influxes, etc.). Even the "dialect" of the Quraysh was deemed slightly divergent from "pure" Arabic by some (they apparently did not pronounce the hamza sound).
@John7755 يوحنا ?
This seems like the place for this question: do you believe, is it a common belief among Muslims, that another prophet will arrive if humans forget the message of the Koran? Could humans on another planet who could never hear the message receive a prophet?
No need to derail, it's just too small a question for a new thread. I'll start one in FH if you like.
This seems like the place for this question: do you believe, is it a common belief among Muslims, that another prophet will arrive if humans forget the message of the Koran? Could humans on another planet who could never hear the message receive a prophet?
No need to derail, it's just too small a question for a new thread. I'll start one in FH if you like.
Yea, I typically would feel that some of their odd religious practices were linked to the Qarmatians. However, their cultural traditions are profoundly different from the Araba and thus they are an oddity in a sea of Arabs during the reign of Islam. Also, sources on them increase during the Saudi period then die out as they reach relative extinction as victims of the takfiri rebels. I know that no genetic study has been performed on them, which I know is somewhat of a goal of certain studiers of Arab culture and genetics. The language part I am unsure of, the Arab Bedouin reported no difficulty in speaking to them.