Nominal Case in Christian Arabic Translations of the Gospels (9th-15th Centuries CE)

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY Arabica Pub Date : 2023-07-28 DOI:10.1163/15700585-20231668
P. W. Stokes
{"title":"Nominal Case in Christian Arabic Translations of the Gospels (9th-15th Centuries CE)","authors":"P. W. Stokes","doi":"10.1163/15700585-20231668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nMiddle Arabic is conventionally defined as existing on a spectrum between colloquial Arabic on the low end and Classical Arabic on the high end. Differences between Middle Arabic and Classical Arabic that are not attested in a modern dialect are typically treated, historically at least, as due to pseudo-correction. This is especially true of non-Classical manifestations of nominal case. In this paper, I tag all instances of alif al-tanwīn – which in Qurʾānic and Classical Arabic marks the accusative on triptotic nouns that do not end in tāʾ marbūṭa – from representative portions of the manuscripts, both vocalized and unvocalized, of 15 Christian translations of the gospels into Arabic dating from the 9th to 15th centuries CE. The data demonstrate, contrary to previous descriptions, that the majority of case inflection is written in line with Classical Arabic norms. Further, the syntactic contexts in which non-Classical case markings occur follow regular patterns, which recur with remarkable consistency across time and manuscript. Instead of originating in pseudo-corrections, I propose the differences from Classical Arabic originated in attempts by Christian scribes to represent a variety of Arabic in which a vowel merger before tanwīn resulting in a single morpheme erased the vocalic distinctions between case vowels. These syntactic contexts include nominative, genitive, and accusative ones. Since Christian Arabic differed from the varieties for which the Arabic script and subsequent vocalizations were developed to write, scribes originally varied in the degree to which they adhered to the writing conventions, with some closely adhering and others taking greater liberties in order to represent the underlying variety with greater nuance. Over time, this led to several scribal traditions for writing tanwīn in Christian manuscripts, each of which is attested among the vocalized manuscripts included in this study and discussed in detail.","PeriodicalId":8163,"journal":{"name":"Arabica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arabica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-20231668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Middle Arabic is conventionally defined as existing on a spectrum between colloquial Arabic on the low end and Classical Arabic on the high end. Differences between Middle Arabic and Classical Arabic that are not attested in a modern dialect are typically treated, historically at least, as due to pseudo-correction. This is especially true of non-Classical manifestations of nominal case. In this paper, I tag all instances of alif al-tanwīn – which in Qurʾānic and Classical Arabic marks the accusative on triptotic nouns that do not end in tāʾ marbūṭa – from representative portions of the manuscripts, both vocalized and unvocalized, of 15 Christian translations of the gospels into Arabic dating from the 9th to 15th centuries CE. The data demonstrate, contrary to previous descriptions, that the majority of case inflection is written in line with Classical Arabic norms. Further, the syntactic contexts in which non-Classical case markings occur follow regular patterns, which recur with remarkable consistency across time and manuscript. Instead of originating in pseudo-corrections, I propose the differences from Classical Arabic originated in attempts by Christian scribes to represent a variety of Arabic in which a vowel merger before tanwīn resulting in a single morpheme erased the vocalic distinctions between case vowels. These syntactic contexts include nominative, genitive, and accusative ones. Since Christian Arabic differed from the varieties for which the Arabic script and subsequent vocalizations were developed to write, scribes originally varied in the degree to which they adhered to the writing conventions, with some closely adhering and others taking greater liberties in order to represent the underlying variety with greater nuance. Over time, this led to several scribal traditions for writing tanwīn in Christian manuscripts, each of which is attested among the vocalized manuscripts included in this study and discussed in detail.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基督教阿拉伯语福音书翻译中的名义格(公元9 -15世纪)
中古阿拉伯语通常被定义为存在于低端的口语阿拉伯语和高端的古典阿拉伯语之间。中古阿拉伯语和古典阿拉伯语之间的差异,没有在现代方言中得到证实,通常被视为,至少在历史上,由于伪校正。对于名义格的非古典表现尤其如此。在本文中,我标记了所有alif al- tanw n的实例——在古兰经ānic和古典阿拉伯语中,它标记了不以tahu marbūṭa结尾的triptotic名词的宾格——从公元9世纪到15世纪的15个基督教福音书翻译成阿拉伯语的代表性部分,包括发声的和非发声的。数据表明,与之前的描述相反,大多数的大小写变化是按照古典阿拉伯语规范书写的。此外,非经典大小写标记发生的句法上下文遵循规则模式,这些模式在不同的时间和手稿中以显著的一致性重复出现。我认为,与古典阿拉伯语的差异并非源于伪更正,而是源于基督教文士试图表现各种阿拉伯语,其中tanw n之前的元音合并导致单一语素消除了大小写元音之间的语音区别。这些句法语境包括主格、属格和宾格。由于基督教阿拉伯语不同于阿拉伯文字和后来的发声书写,抄写员最初在遵守书写惯例的程度上有所不同,一些人严格遵守,另一些人则更自由,以便用更细微的差别来表现潜在的多样性。随着时间的推移,这导致了在基督教手稿中写tanw n的几种抄写传统,每一种都在本研究中包括的发声手稿中得到证实,并进行了详细讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Arabica
Arabica Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
50.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Du neutre, ici en français mais également là(-bas) en arabe The Earliest Manuscripts of Kairouan (9th-11th Centuries): New Approaches for a More Accurate Dating A Subtle Subversion: From Arabo-Centrism to Universalism in the 5th/11th Century Šāfiʿī School’s Considerations of Lineage for Marriage Suitability (Kafāʾa) A Note on Klb yārh in al-Bīrūnī’s Autobibliography Interpréter le Coran versus défendre le muṣḥaf : l’exemple du verset 2, 184c
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1