Arabic - Proof of it Being the Original Language

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

To repeat the previous OP:

The first speech taught to men was the one taught by God Himself, and that this speech was Arabic -- all other languages being the offsprings or offshoots of Arabic. A strong piece of evidence to support this claim is to be found, according to The Promised Messiah, Hadhart Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, in the highly organised system of Mufradaat possessed by Arabic. These Mufradaat are the so-called 'root-words' -- the 'simples' or the elementary symbols of speech -- which are the divinely communicated basis of all human articulation, and which are so varied and of such a comprehensive character as to the serve the needs, not only of ordinary speech, but also the demands of all knowledge, religion, philosophy, culture and science.

Source: Arabic - the mother of all languages - Al Islam Online

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Note that all arguments are taken from the aforementioned link. The proof is 3-stage and comes to the eventual conclusion:

1. To prove the common origin of languages
2. To prove Arabic to be the mother of all languages
3. To prove Arabic to be a Divinely inspired language by reason of its extraordinary features.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Arabic:History:

Modern Arabic is considered to be part of the Arabo-Canaanite sub-branch of the central group of West Semitic languages. While Arabic is not the oldest of the Semitic languages, it shares many features with the common ancestor for all Semitic languages in the Afro-Asiatic group of languages, Proto-Semitic whose phonological, morphological, and syntactic features have been determined by linguists. Many linguists consider Arabic to be the most conservative of the modern Semitic languages because of how completely it preserves the features of Proto-Semitic.

The earliest texts in Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, are the Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BC, written not in the modern Arabic alphabet, nor in its Nabataean ancestor, but in variants of the epigraphic South Arabian musnad. These are followed by 6th-century BC Lihyanite texts from southeastern Saudi Arabia and the Thamudic texts found throughout Arabia and the Sinai, and not actually connected with Thamud. Later come the Safaitic inscriptions beginning in the 1st century BC, and the many Arabic personal names attested in Nabataean inscriptions (which are, however, written in Aramaic). From about the 2nd century BC, a few inscriptions from Qaryat al-Faw (near Sulayyil) reveal a dialect which is no longer considered "Proto-Arabic", but Pre-Classical Arabic.

By the fourth century AD, the Arab kingdoms of the Lakhmids in southern Iraq, the Ghassanids in southern Syria the Kindite Kingdom emerged in Central Arabia. Their courts were responsible for some notable examples of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, and for some of the few surviving pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in the Arabic alphabet.​

Sanskrit:History:

Sanskrit is a member of the Indo-Iranian sub-family of the Indo-European family of languages. Its closest ancient relatives are the Iranian languages Old Persian and Avestan. Within the wider Indo-European language family, Sanskrit shares characteristic sound changes with the Satem languages (particularly the Slavic and Baltic languages), and also with Greek.

In order to explain the common features shared by Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages, many scholars have proposed migration hypotheses asserting that the original speakers of what became Sanskrit arrived in what is now India and Pakistan from the north-west some time during the early second millennium BCE. Among the evidence in favor of such a theory is the close relationship of the Indo-Iranian tongues with the Baltic and Slavic lanauges, vocabulary exchange with the non-Indo-European Finno-Ugric lanauges, and the nature of the attested Indo-European words for flora and fauna. Some scholars remain attached to the so-called "Out of India theory", which maintains that the Indo-Aryans were indigenous to India.

The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are certain books of the Rigveda, which may be located in the Punjab region and dated to the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive. However, scholars are confident that the oral transmission of the texts is reliable: they were ceremonial literature whose correct pronunciation was considered crucial to its religious efficacy.

From the Rigveda until the time of Pāṇini (circa 4th century BCE) the development of the Sanskrit language may be observed in the Samaveda, Yajurveda, Atharvaveda, Brahmanas, and Upanishads. During this time the prestige of the language, its use for sacred purposes, and the importance attached to its correct enunciation all served as powerful conservative forces resisting the normal processes of linguistic change.

The oldest surviving Sanskrit grammar is Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī ("Eight-Chapter Grammar") dating to circa the 4th century BC. It is essentially a prescriptive grammar, i.e., an authority that defines (rather than describes) correct Sanskrit, although it contains descriptive parts, mostly to account for some Vedic forms that had already passed out of use in Pāṇini's time.

The term "Sanskrit" was not thought of as a specific language set apart from other languages, but rather as a particularly refined or perfected manner of speaking. Knowledge of Sanskrit was a marker of social class and educational attainment in ancient India and the language was taught mainly to members of the higher castes, through close analysis of Sanskrit grammarians such as Pāṇini. Sanskrit, as the learned language of Ancient India, thus existed alongside the Prakrits (vernaculars), which evolved into the Middle Indic dialects, and eventually into the contemporary modern Indo-Aryan languages.​

I would be interested in seeing you make explicit

• your proof, and
• your criteria for proof.

Thanks.

 

[Father Heathen]

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Yes and I am categorically rejecting these researches. And the basis for which I am rejecting these are the special characteristics that the Arabic language posesses that any man-made language can not possess. And I believe if I can show these special features it should be evidence enough to redirect the above research to reconsider the possibility of Arabic being an original language.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes and I am categorically rejecting these researches. And the basis for which I am rejecting these are the special characteristics that the Arabic language posesses that any man-made language can not possess.

That a fundamentalist would "categorically reject" scholarship is hardly news ...

 

[tariqkhwaja]

hat a fundamentalist would "categorically reject" scholarship is hardly news ...

That a fundamentalist would actually provide rational logical evidence to support his/her claim is news!

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Now the first burden of proof seems easiest. Is there anyone here who disagrees that all languages are very related and that in the beginning there was only one language?

 

[Ashuri10]

Now the first burden of proof seems easiest. Is there anyone here who disagrees that all languages are very related and that in the beginning there was only one language?

Before migrating from Africa to other parts of the world, the human language must have been very primitive, and as we migrated in different waves, different languages started to evolve in different parts of the world.

Arabic is a very young language, and the grammar that you see today is not made up by God, but by men who contributed to the Arabic language.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

"Among the special points of excellence of the Arabic language, which are exclusive to it, which I shall explain and dilate upon in their respective contexts, and which constitute a conclusive argument in favor of its being the Mother of Languages and a perfect language and the language of Revelation are five points which are as under:

1. Arabic has a complete organised structure of roots, that is to say, the roots meet fully all the needs of human beings in the field of expression; the other languages are not so fitted.

2. In Arabic, the names of the Divine Being, the names of the principal constituent parts of the universe, of plants, animals and minerals and of the members of the human body, possess, in the why and wherefore of their contents, deep philosophy and learning. Other languages can never equal Arabic in this respect.

3. The additions and the roots of Arabic words are perfectly organized. The scope of this organization, by linking into one philosophical chain, all the verbs and nouns, belonging tot the same root, points out their interrelationships. This is not to be found, to this degree of excellence, in other languages.

4. In Arabic expressions, words are few but meanings are many, that is to say, the Arabic language makes use of alif, laam, and nunation and the sequence of words, in such a way that to express the same meaning the other languages need a number of sentences to be linked up for the same purpose.

5. Arabic possesses roots and expressions which are the perfect means of portraying the most delicate and deep things of the mind and human ideas."

Source: Minan-ur-Rahman​

Now, to prove each of the above.

 

[Caladan]

I think there's a pattern, when people choose to believe the absurd.. they go all the way.

some people seem to miss the fact that the name of the forum is religious EDUCATION. this pseudo history, theology, science trend drags down the forum a few levels down.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think there's a pattern, when people choose to believe the absurd.. they go all the way.

The embarrassingly sloppy thinking that enables the former encourages the latter.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

And challenging well-established scholarly works is not at all contradictory to the principles of EDUCATION as long as it falls within the domain of rationality and reason. Tell me what is unreasonable in my claiming Arabic to be a perfect language of human expression after proving the aforementioned 5 statements?

 

[Caladan]

Let me ask you a simple question.

do you think any teacher in any university around the world could get away with teaching this kind of theory? his own students will make sure he wont teach again, let alone his colleagues of his department.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Tell me what is unreasonable in my claiming Arabic to be a perfect language of human expression ...

It must be silly season ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Tell me what is unreasonable in my claiming Arabic to be a perfect language of human expression ...

Parenthetically, mindlessly shifting the discussion from

Arabic - proof of it being the original language​

to

Arabic - proof of it being a perfect language of human expression​

is more than a little interesting. You literally do not know what you are talking about.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

But therein lies the proof of the former.

To prove that Arabic is free from all grammatical modifications humans make as time progresses to languages that create "exceptions to the rules" and that Arabic contains that original structure that has no exceptions not only proves that it is a perfect language but proves that other languages related to it that have, in themselves, additions and deletions, must have originated from Arabic.

For example, in another thread Ashuri pointed out that the word "Tur" is found in Arabic as well as Aramaic. He stated that "Tur" must be something that crept into Arabic from Aramaic. I stated that the opposite could be equally true. However, a relationship (one way or another) is established by these and many other words. Now, subsequently, if it could be proven that Arabic is perfect language of human expression then by inference it must have been the original language and "Tur" must have gone from Arabic to Aramaic and not vice versa.

 

[Magic Man]

But therein lies the proof of the former.

To prove that Arabic is free from all grammatical modifications humans make as time progresses to languages that create "exceptions to the rules" and that Arabic contains that original structure that has no exceptions not only proves that it is a perfect language but proves that other languages related to it that have, in themselves, additions and deletions, must have originated from Arabic.

I think what you need to do is take a class on languages and linguistics. No language is without "grammatical modifications humans make as time progresses". If I was at home, I'd grab my Arabic textbook and point out several exceptions to rules. Maybe I'll do that later, if I'm in the mood. Just know that Arabic is not "perfect" or "divine". It is the same as any other language, and I've studied it along with many other languages and linguistics.

For example, in another thread Ashuri pointed out that the word "Tur" is found in Arabic as well as Aramaic. He stated that "Tur" must be something that crept into Arabic from Aramaic. I stated that the opposite could be equally true. However, a relationship (one way or another) is established by these and many other words. Now, subsequently, if it could be proven that Arabic is perfect language of human expression then by inference it must have been the original language and "Tur" must have gone from Arabic to Aramaic and not vice versa.

While that is very slightly possible, it's not the case. Arabic is not the original language. It has evolved from other languages just as every other language has. That's why they call what is spoken now "modern Arabic". It is the modern version of the language, and as such, is not the same thing that was spoken 2,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that Arabic is no different than English. They both have roots in a common language from many millenia ago. Neither is the mother of all languages in the world. There really is no "mother of all languages" as such. By the time communication got to the point that we would call language, most likely there were already several languages that had arisen simultaneously.

 

[gnostic]

Does Elamite falls into any family grouping? Indo-European/Indo-Iranian? Or is Elamite an independent language?

 

[painted wolf]

Cherokee is such a precise language that you don't need to hear a whole sentence to know what is being talked about.
Verbs classify the subject as solid, liquid, living and so on. All before even mentioning what the object is... thus from the verb you already know if the gravy is lumpy or not.

wa:do