-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arabic - Proof of it Being the Original Language
- Thread starter tariqkhwaja
- Start date
Worshipper
Active Member
Okay. What if he felt like it would be better for our spiritual development to try to remember his word and fail than to write it down and rely on that? I don't know if the Qur'an has anything in it to suggest that he wanted that, but the New Testament has it talks about how God wants his people to write his law not on tablets of stone but on the fleshy tablets of their hearts. Maybe we'd be better followers of God if we imperfectly memorize his whole word than if we have it in a book that we know we can read whenever we want so we don't bother learning it as well as we otherwise might.
Maybe. I am winging it here.
Okay. Yeah. That makes good sense. Especially in light of what Riverwolf said:
Divine MO certainly seems to include revealing writing systems. (Though remember that the Futhark isn't just for Scandinavians, but for all Germanics!)
I'm kind of stumped here.
I can say that just because God revealed something doesn't make it perfect. I think God sometimes gives baby steps, giving us something that's not quite perfect on an absolute scale, but exactly what we need at the moment. So he might have revealed Arabic as a much better tool for communication than what was being used before it, but hoped that eventually the people would be ready for something better that he had in mind for them. Kind of like John the Baptist prepping people for Jesus. It's also possible that Arabic was kind of a rough draft, like the creation of man in the Popol Vuh using mud failed, then using wood failed, but finally corn worked.
And I guess that if God was using Arabic as a preliminary thing or some kind of first attempt, then he might not have figured it was worth writing down, so didn't provide a writing system to go with it. But then the people (being the dummies we are) took the heavenly gift, worshipped it, and decided to preserve it for all their descendants by writing it down the way other languages were written down. Now God's up there saying, "Come on, folks, you were just the beta testers! I've got the real deal for you now!" but we're too busy il-hamdu-lillah-ing what he gave us before to hear it. So in the end, he had to reveal Quenya to some kooky South African instead.
Worshipper
Active Member
Oops. Sorry. We cross posted there, and I missed the memo!
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
OK, then you have no leg to stand on.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
We'll see how leaving God out of the equation hinders the progress of my debate.
Now as I tried to establish the very fact that philology focuses on scriptures rather than focus is a matter of convenience but not the correct approach. Arabic scriptures' coming into being years after other languages can in no way suggest it being a language of the latter days especially given the lack of literacy prevalent in the Arab world for a long time. So I ask all you scholars in these forums to consider that before displaying figures and graphs showing Arabic not to be the first language.
Sir William Jones considered to be the first great European Scholar of Sanskrit in an address said:
The last part is the key point I beg to differ with. If using the methods of root comparison it can be shown that Arabic is that language that unites all the other languages then ... well that's it then, isn't it?
Now as I tried to establish the very fact that philology focuses on scriptures rather than focus is a matter of convenience but not the correct approach. Arabic scriptures' coming into being years after other languages can in no way suggest it being a language of the latter days especially given the lack of literacy prevalent in the Arab world for a long time. So I ask all you scholars in these forums to consider that before displaying figures and graphs showing Arabic not to be the first language.
Sir William Jones considered to be the first great European Scholar of Sanskrit in an address said:
(William Jones (philologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)).
The last part is the key point I beg to differ with. If using the methods of root comparison it can be shown that Arabic is that language that unites all the other languages then ... well that's it then, isn't it?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
As I said before, the fact that other languages were written down before Arabic doesn't necessarily mean they are older languages. It does point in that direction, though. In other words, it does indeed suggest Arabic being a younger language than others. There are other languages that were written down very long before Arabic was.
It's pretty hard to believe that Arabic spawned all other languages and yet the languages it spawned somehow got written down before it ever did. That's especially hard to swallow, considering other languages were written down thousands of years before Arabic was. If it was a difference of a couple of hundred years, that argument might be remotely plausible. However, the fact that the oldest written language we have dates back to around 3100 BC and the oldest written Arabic we have is at best from around 500 AD. That's a gap of 3600 years. There are other written languages from the areas where Arabic came up, but not Arabic.
If that could be shown, it would have already been shown. It is not the case. Arabic has a lot in common with many other languages. Every language does. That's because every language came from the same original source, and that source is not Arabic. You need to realize that every language changes and evolves. English is still English, but it's a very different form of it than what was used 200 years ago, and that's very different from what was used 200 years before that. Arabic in its modern form is not that old. What is spoken today is very different from what was spoken 500 years ago, and that from what was spoken 500 years before that. What you are advocating is that the Arabic that is spoken now is the first language ever spoken. The Arabic spoken today is not even the same as the Arabic spoken a few centuries ago. If it was so perfect and without "normal language flaws", it wouldn't change at all. It can easily be shown how and when it has changed. That right there shoots down your theory.
I'd actually like to point out the fatal flaw in the argument, not mainly that Arabic was only the original language, but also that it was divinely inspired.
The very word for God.
If Arabic were divinely inspired and the first language, all subsequent languages should use some variant of the word Allah.
Our word is God. Japanese is Kami. Sanskrit has(from Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, bold words used to describe God himself) Deva, Devata, Isvara, Bhagavat, Paramasvera, Amara, Divaukas, Vibhuda, and Sura. (Sanskrit speakers, correct me if I'm wrong) Do ANY of those words resemble the word Allah even remotely? (maybe with a stretch of imagination...)
I would expect that if God had endowed us with his language, he would surely have guided all subsequent languages to make sure his name was not changed or altered in any way.
And also I'd like to point out that languages change over time, even if the writing stays the same. Do you think that if you went back 1500 years ago and sat down and talked to Mohammad, that you would understand each other? Of course not! Even 500 years ago, English was very different. Shakespeare did not speak English as we know it now, that is true, but it's more than that; Middle English was pretty much another language as far as its vocalizations were concerned. (Thou, for example, is pronounced "Thoo", not " Thow")
The very word for God.
If Arabic were divinely inspired and the first language, all subsequent languages should use some variant of the word Allah.
Our word is God. Japanese is Kami. Sanskrit has(from Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, bold words used to describe God himself) Deva, Devata, Isvara, Bhagavat, Paramasvera, Amara, Divaukas, Vibhuda, and Sura. (Sanskrit speakers, correct me if I'm wrong) Do ANY of those words resemble the word Allah even remotely? (maybe with a stretch of imagination...)
I would expect that if God had endowed us with his language, he would surely have guided all subsequent languages to make sure his name was not changed or altered in any way.
And also I'd like to point out that languages change over time, even if the writing stays the same. Do you think that if you went back 1500 years ago and sat down and talked to Mohammad, that you would understand each other? Of course not! Even 500 years ago, English was very different. Shakespeare did not speak English as we know it now, that is true, but it's more than that; Middle English was pretty much another language as far as its vocalizations were concerned. (Thou, for example, is pronounced "Thoo", not " Thow")
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Riverwolf we are keeping God out of the equation here. And I have been pointing out why Classical Arabic is the same now as it was 1400 years ago. Look for the "one-to-one" argument in the Quran and its translations thread.
mball, your argument is a good rebuttal. I can agree with that.
On your second point languages have a lot in common. But the primary three languages do not have enough in common, as pointed out by Sir Williams, to be termed derivitives of each other. There is an original and my opinion (that I have yet to prove) is that Arabic is that original and that the ever-watchful eyes of philologists missed this.
And then there is Chinese that is very different. So if I can show a language that has so many roots in common with all these other languages that coincidence becomes as laughable as Creationism then I have attained my objective.
So, for example, the word "run" translated in different languages has varying words. Nearly all those words are in very close if not exact sound found in Arabic. If I can show several such examples ... well.
mball, your argument is a good rebuttal. I can agree with that.
On your second point languages have a lot in common. But the primary three languages do not have enough in common, as pointed out by Sir Williams, to be termed derivitives of each other. There is an original and my opinion (that I have yet to prove) is that Arabic is that original and that the ever-watchful eyes of philologists missed this.
And then there is Chinese that is very different. So if I can show a language that has so many roots in common with all these other languages that coincidence becomes as laughable as Creationism then I have attained my objective.
So, for example, the word "run" translated in different languages has varying words. Nearly all those words are in very close if not exact sound found in Arabic. If I can show several such examples ... well.
Worshipper
Active Member
Even if you could show that Arabic is the source for Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, it wouldn't show that Arabic is the source for all languages. What about Navajo? Quechua? Basque? Fijian? Warlpiri?
You see, all we scholars already agree that Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin come from a common source. But we also all agree that all these other languages do not come from that source. So showing that a language is the source for Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin does nothing to show that it's the source for all the world's languages.
This is a rather minority opinion among scholars. Why do you believe this?
Of course, a single lexical item isn't enough to definitively show anything one way or another, but that's not what I want to focus on. I think it's important to point out that he'll have to do more than show a resemblance between the various languages of the world on the one hand and Arabic on the other. To make a convincing argument, he'll have to show the regular systematic changes that occurred in the development of each daughter that derived that daughter from the parent. And those changes, being regular and systematic, will have to apply for hundreds of lexical items and (more importantly, since the lexicon is the part of the language most susceptible to borrowing) phonological and morphosyntactic categories.
That's the standard we're going to have to hold him to. It takes a lot more than pointing out resemblances to make someone a comparative linguist.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
He is going to have a very tough time. He recommends you just read the book he pointed to in the first place. But he is going to do it the long way too. He sighs because he really did bite what will take some time to chew.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm not saying there was one language that begat all other languages. I'm just saying that all modern languages came from other languages. Modern English came from Middle English, that type of thing. Of course it is highly likely that by the time language came to be (as opposed to communication through other more rudimentary means), humans were dispersed widely enough that several languages popped up separately.
Of course, you could also look at it as all language did come from the same source, the human mind.
Worshipper
Active Member
Well now that I'm quoting you, I'll talk straight to you!
I'm glad you're going to do it the long way. I'm afraid I don't have much time to read extra books. And to be honest, I'm kind of glad it will take you a long time, since that lets me break up my exposure to the idea into smaller, easier-to-read pieces.
And don't worry about taking a long time. One of the wonderful things about writing is that it lets us be a lot more patient. It's not like we're having a conference call or something where a half-minute of dead time starts to get us antsy. Take your time! It's a big claim, and it would take a whole lot of time to prove it, so we can all bear with you!
Ah. I misunderstood you before. Thanks for the clarification.
Ah! A Chomskyian!
Of course, you're not necessarily saying that you believe in Universal Grammar or anything like that. You simply allowed me the opportunity to see things that way!
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Ah! A Chomskyian!
Of course, you're not necessarily saying that you believe in Universal Grammar or anything like that. You simply allowed me the opportunity to see things that way!
Yeah, that doesn't necessarily point to a universal grammar. Basically, it was more the difference between language made up by humans and language given to humans from God.
I think there's only a universal grammar because of societies.
Worshipper
Active Member
Man! I'm just really good at misunderstanding you today! Maybe four and a half fours really wasn't enough sleep last night!
...Middle English which is a combination(is there actually a technical term for it?) between Old English and Old French.
Worshipper
Active Member
ME is not a combination between OE and OF. It is overwhelmingly the product of natural internal developments within OE. It might be possible to make a case for ME being a combination (or creole) between OE and Old Norse, but even that's pretty shaky when you consider the development of the other Germanic languages, which all kind of tended to follow the same sorts of paths as OE > ME.
The primary French influence on ME was the spelling reform introduced by the Normans. That's what makes early ME look so different from late OE. But that shift happened (as one would expect of a spelling reform in a largely illiterate society) essentially overnight, as can be seen in the Petersborough Chronicle, which shifts from lOE to eME from one year to the next.
Early ME is late OE spelled according to the rules of writing French.
The primary French influence on ME was the spelling reform introduced by the Normans. That's what makes early ME look so different from late OE. But that shift happened (as one would expect of a spelling reform in a largely illiterate society) essentially overnight, as can be seen in the Petersborough Chronicle, which shifts from lOE to eME from one year to the next.
Early ME is late OE spelled according to the rules of writing French.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Oh, you're fine. I wouldn't say it was so much a misunderstanding on your part. I was just clarifying is all.
Well thanks for correcting me on this... to be honest most of it is speculation from looking at the two languages and seeing all kinds of similarities that might not be immediately obvious. (Heck, I noticed something my French teacher in High School didn't notice: the similarities between the French word Ecrive, to write, and the English word Scribe. one vocalization of 'v' is a vocalized 'b', for one thing, and when you replace the first 'e' with an 's'... there you go)
But you can't deny that there are TONS of "borrowed" words directly from French(attention, to name one of them), in addition to the spelling changes such as the -tion end. Not to mention I know that French culture heavily influenced English culture, such as the influencing of medieval English folklore like King Aurthur. I firmly believe that culture and language are intermingled. When I read Beowulf, I see little to no Latin influence in it other than the occasional Christian-influenced passage (though to be honest I can't read Old English that well, so who am I to speak? ^_^) yet when I read Shakespeare I see all kinds of Latin-based influences, specifically of French. (though I suspect spelling changes were made as time went on) So I know that somewhere along the way, Old English and an ancestor of modern French combined. And as history says, the French did in fact invade England at one point and influenced the culture. I don't know the details, though...
Basically your information didn't debunk my thinking, but added to it, as I didn't know the details and I've never seen(because I never looked, keep in mind) any writings between the time period Beowulf was written(I know the French had already invaded at that point... gotta admire the author) and the time Shakespeare lived. Or if I had, it was translated into Modern English.