From the late nineteenth century onward, language academies were established in several Arabic-speaking countries to direct and control the modernisation of the Arabic language, equipping it for modern science and journalism, coining scientific terminology, and reining in the proliferation of loanwords for newly introduced objects and concepts.1 Language academies devised several methods and rules to achieve this aim. The four most important means of introducing new terminology were: deriving a new word from an existing root, extending the original meaning of the Arabic word metaphorically (al-waá¸Ê¿ bi-l-majÄz), reviving archaic vocabulary (gharÄ«b al-lugha) to signify new concepts, and paraphrasing/translating the meaning of a concept (al-ishtiqÄq al-maÊ¿nawÄ« or al-ishtiqÄq bi-l-tarjama).2 This approach is how words like muḥarrik (âmotor, engine,â from the second form ḥarraka, âto set into movementâ), qiá¹Är (âtrain,â historically used for a camel train), and takyÄ«f al-hawÄʾ (a translation/paraphrase of the term âair conditioningâ) became part of the modern Arabic standard language.3
The scholars charged with this task could look back upon a millennium of engagement with loanwords in Arabic. They drew on the principles of qiyÄs (analogy) discussed by the earliest Arabic grammarians. The process of âmaking the non-Arabic Arabic,â or âArabicisation,â taÊ¿rÄ«b, is a concept as old as the first Arabic dictionary, al-KhalÄ«l ibn Aḥmad al-FarÄhÄ«dÄ«âs (d. 175/791) KitÄb al-Ê¿Ayn, and the first Arabic grammar book, Ê¿Amr ibn Ê¿UthmÄn SÄ«bawayhiâs (d. ca. 180/796) KitÄb. SÄ«bawayhi was the first to summarise the principles of taÊ¿rÄ«b, while al-KhalÄ«l used the terms muÊ¿arrab and dakhÄ«l to indicate loanwords in his dictionary. In the sixth/twelfth century, AbÅ« Manṣūr MawhÅ«b ibn Aḥmad al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« (d. 540/1144) expanded SÄ«bawayhiâs theory and compiled the first specialised dictionary of loanwords. In subsequent centuries, scholars discussed loanword theory and provided examples that often amounted to new loanword dictionaries.
Arabic language scholars prior to the late nineteenth century did not have the same concerns as members of the Arabic language academies. Al-KhalÄ«l, SÄ«bawayhi, and their successors had other puzzles to solve: How could it be that the QurʾÄn contained words of non-Arabic origin, while it referred to itself as being âin clear Arabic speechâ (bi-lisÄnin Ê¿arabiyyin mubÄ«n)?4 Where did these loanwords come from? How could we recognise and deal with them as loanwords? What are the rules for making a non-Arabic word Arabic? What happens if the word in the source language contains the letter p, which is not found in the Arabic alphabet? What happens if this word does not fit the patterns of Arabic? Can one derive a verb from an Arabicised noun? Can a loanword be fully inflected or should it be a diptote (mamnÅ«Ê¿ min al-á¹£arf), so that the language user may know it is not originally Arabic? Loanwords prompted fundamental discussions about the nature and boundaries of the Arabic language. We see the reflections of these debates in the lemmata of comprehensive dictionaries and in treatises on loanword theory and practice, which proliferated in the post-formative period.
In the previous chapter, I outlined different ways in which scholars engaged with laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma and pointed out the relevance of the genre for language scholarship in the post-formative period. In this chapter, I will discuss the treatment of taÊ¿rÄ«b, loanword adaptation, and muÊ¿arrabÄt, loanwords, during the same period. Like laḥn al-Ämma, this subject (re-)gained focused attention from lexicographers through a work written in the sixth/twelfth century, which then became the most important source and inspiration for subsequent engagement. What al-ḤarÄ«rÄ«âs Durrat al-ghawwÄá¹£ did for laḥn, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs al-MuÊ¿arrab min al-kalÄm al-aÊ¿jamÄ« Ê¿alÄ á¸¥urÅ«f al-muÊ¿jam (âThe Alphabetical List of Loanwords from Foreign Speechâ) did for taÊ¿rÄ«bâit represented both the pinnacle of the discipline up to its authorâs time and the starting point for its further trajectory.
After a brief introduction to the terminology of taÊ¿rÄ«b, which relates closely to that of laḥn, I will summarise loanword theory up to al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« and point out its relevance before moving on to the developments of the post-formative period. We will see that, analogous to laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma, loanword theory retained its basis in the tradition while, subtly or not, being updated to reflect the linguistic conditions of the Ottoman environment. While adhering to canonised rules and terminology, there was space for neologisms and âmodernâ poetry, and lemmata were expanded to include samples of contemporary language use that the consumers of language scholarshipâa constantly increasing, multilingual crowdâcould relate to.
1 Taʿrīb Historically
The term taÊ¿rÄ«b, âmaking Arab(ic), Arabicisation,â specifically refers to incorporating foreign words into the Arabic language. According to al-JawharÄ«, taÊ¿rÄ«b (a second form of the noun Ê¿arab)5 and iÊ¿rÄb (fourth form) share the same meaning.6 Students of Arabic know the term iÊ¿rÄb as inflectionâspecifically, the case endings that words in Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic take to mark their syntactical function. In contrast, Arabic dialects do not display these endings. By the second/eighth century, students had to actively acquire knowledge of these syntactical markers, as they were not inherently contained in their mother tongue. Using case endings correctly was part and parcel of mastery of the Ê¿arabiyya, the high language: mistakes in iÊ¿rÄb were a cause for mockery among language experts. Many of the masÄʾil naḥwiyya, the historical and literary disputes between grammarians, revolve around questions of inflection.7 Moreover, as the historian Ê¿Abd al-RaḥmÄn ibn Muḥammad Ibn KhaldÅ«n (d. 808/1406) pointed out in the Muqaddima (âIntroduction to Historyâ), lack of knowledge of iÊ¿rÄb entailed the risk of misunderstanding the language of the QurʾÄn and ḥadÄ«th:
The QurʾÄn was revealed in [Arabic], and ḥadÄ«th was transmitted in it, and these two are the roots of religion. It was feared that, as a result of the disappearance of the language in which they were revealed, they themselves might be forgotten and no longer be understood. Therefore, it was necessary to document its rules, establish its parameters (waá¸Ê¿ maqÄyÄ«sihi), and extract its laws. It thus became a science (Ê¿ilm) with subdivisions, chapters, premises, and problems. The scholars who cultivated that science called it grammar (naḥw) and the craft of Arabic (á¹£inÄÊ¿at al-Ê¿arabiyya). It became a memorised art and a documented discipline, a ladder to the understanding of the Book of God and the Sunna of his Prophet.8
This explains the synonymy of taÊ¿rÄ«b and iÊ¿rÄb: making a word Arabic essentially meant to subject it to the rules of inflection and the patterns of Arabic speech, so as to fully incorporate it into the Arabic language. SÄ«bawayhi identified several forms of âloanword adaptation,â as taÊ¿rÄ«b would be called in modern linguistics:9
[â¦] Sometimes they changed (ghayyarÅ«) its state from its state in the foreign language by appending (alḥaqÅ«) to the Arabic the non-Arabic letters, they substituted (abdalÅ«) the position of the Arabic letter for another and changed the voweling and the position of the augment [â¦] They did this by appending to their patterns or by not appending, through change, substitution, augmentation and deletion, whenever change was necessary. Sometimes they left the word as it was if its letters were also their letters, whether it fitted their pattern or not. And sometimes they changed the letter that was not among their letters but did not change it from its pattern in Persian.10
Technical terms are important here, as they were taken up and specified by later scholars. TaÊ¿rÄ«b firstly involves taghyÄ«r (âchangeâ) of letters, in case the original letters are not part of the Arabic alphabet. For example, Persian pe and Äe might change into Arabic fÄʾ or bÄʾ, and jÄ«m or kÄf, respectively. Secondly, taÊ¿rÄ«b may include ilḥÄq, which translates as âappendingââchanging the original form of a word in analogy (qiyÄs) to Arabic word structures (abniya).11 A classic example, cited by SÄ«bawayhi and subsequent authors, is dirham, which is said to have be appended from Persian diram to match the pattern of the Arabic word hijraÊ¿ (âlong,â âslender,â said of a dog). IbdÄl (âmodificationâ) involves substituting one letter for another to better align with Arabic language patterns, as seen when Persian muhandiz becomes Arabic muhandis (âarchitectâ or âgeometricianâ). Finally, ziyÄda and ḥadhf refer to the addition or deletion of long vowels, which further adapt a word to fit Arabic word patterns.
Perhaps even more important than the technical terms and the processes that are described is the way SÄ«bawayhi formulated his statement. The third person perfect tenseââthey changed, they substitutedââdenotes a temporal distance between the author of al-KitÄb and the people he is referring to, the speakers of the Ê¿arabiyya, whom we encountered in the previous chapters as the source of the reference corpus, the thiqÄt (reliable informants of Arabic usage). SÄ«bawayhiâs use of the perfect tense suggests that taÊ¿rÄ«b was a process of the past, implying that no new words could enter the corpus of muÊ¿arrabÄt. However, processes of loanword adaptation did not stop after the Ê¿uṣūr al-iḥtijÄj. Words coined later, either from Arabic roots or foreign terms, were distinguished by the term muwallad, âneologism,â which referred to the creations of the muwalladÅ«n or muḥdathÅ«n, the âmoderns.â12
If no new muÊ¿arrabÄt could enter the language after roughly the middle of the second/eighth century, then why did language scholars in the post-formative period continue to engage the subject of taÊ¿rÄ«b at all? Why did they write dictionaries and theoretical treatises on loanwords? What motivated them to distinguish between muÊ¿arrab and muwallad? How did they interpret the existing corpus, and what functions did they ascribe to their work with it? These are the questions I aim to answer in this chapter.
One caveat is in order: while the output of premodern Arabic language scholars in the field of taÊ¿rÄ«b was an impressive intellectual achievement, these scholars did not always correctly identify loanwords or attribute them to their actual source language. For example, in the anecdote about al-Naá¸r ibn Shumayl mentioned in the previous chapter, the ninth/fifteenth-century scholar Ibn al-ḤanbalÄ« attempted to derive the word á¹£irÄá¹ from an Arabic root, while other scholars recognised that it came from Latin [via] strata, âpaved road.â13 Modern editors of Arabic texts on laḥn and muÊ¿arrab often point out such formal errors.14 My objective, however, is not to assess the accuracy of the theoretical framework of taÊ¿rÄ«b and its application, but to show how this theory functioned and evolved within a discourse on language that spanned half a millennium.
1.1 Loanword Anxiety
It is told that AbÅ« Ê¿AlÄ« said: âI saw AbÅ« Bakr turning over this word again and again: būṣī, to find an etymology, and I said: âWhere are you heading? It is Persian! For it is âBuzÄ«dâ and that is the name of our grandfather.â He added: âAnd it means âunblemishedâ.â Then AbÅ« Bakr said: âYou have reassured me.ââ¯â15
This anecdote shows how keen grammarians were to distinguish foreign words or loanwords from Arabic words. The attempt to connect the word būṣī to an Arabic root is deflected by the grammarian AbÅ« Ê¿AlÄ«âs explanation that it originates from Persian, a solution that seemed to ease the concerns of his interlocutor, AbÅ« Bakr, who was apparently troubled by this puzzle.16 But why was this such a hot topic?
The anecdote is cited by AbÅ« Manṣūr MawhÅ«b al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, whom we encountered in the previous chapter as one of the commentators on Durrat al-ghawwÄá¹£. Marking the end of the formative phase of loanword theory, his dictionary al-MuÊ¿arrab min al-kalÄm al-aÊ¿jamÄ« Ê¿alÄ á¸¥urÅ«f al-muÊ¿jam was the first monograph on loanwords outside of the QurʾÄn and became the template for subsequent works on taÊ¿rÄ«b.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« was a language scholar by profession. A long-time pupil and successor of YaḥyÄ ibn Ê¿AlÄ« al-TibrÄ«zÄ« (d. 502/1109), he taught adab at the NiáºÄmiyya in Baghdad, the first madrasa established by the Seljuk vizier NiáºÄm al-Mulk (d. 485/1092). In the introduction to al-MuÊ¿arrab, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« addresses the most important topics of loanword theory, quoting important scholars and their statements, or rather aphorisms, on the subject. His ten-page introduction covers critical areas of loanword theory, including its scope and significance, the discussion of loanwords in the QurʾÄn, and the rules governing taÊ¿rÄ«b.
1.2 Scope and Relevance of Loanword Theory
In the first line of his introduction, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« defines his corpus:
In this book we mention the foreign words that were spoken by the Arabs, uttered in the glorious QurʾÄn, found in the reports of the Prophet, peace be upon him, the Companions, and the generation after them, may God be pleased with them, and mentioned by the Arabs in their poetry and history, in order to discern the foreign from the pure Arabic.17
The primary focus is on distinguishing foreign elements from pure Arabic speech. Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« explains the significance of differentiating between foreign and Arabic words:
In this knowledge lies a significant benefit, namely, to beware of the derived (al-mushtaqq) and not to attribute something that belongs to the language of the Arabs to the language of the non-Arabs.18 AbÅ« Bakr Ibn al-SarrÄj said in his treatise on derivation (ishtiqÄq) in the Chapter âThat which the Observer should Heed and Beware of in Derivation:â âHe has to exert utmost caution not to derive in the language of the Arabs from something that belongs to the language of the non-Arabs, because that would be like claiming that a bird is the offspring of a whale.â19
Scholars focused on muÊ¿arrab are concerned with preventing incorrect derivation. IshtiqÄq, which literally means âsplittingâ but is often rendered as âetymologyâ and, more accurately, as âderivation,â is the discipline that engages the connection between form and meaning in Arabic words.20 To understand a wordâs meaning, one must first analyse its form and trace it back to the correct root. âClaiming that a bird gave birth to a whaleâ encapsulates AbÅ« Bakrâs concern in the anecdote above, as he sought the correct derivation of būṣī.21
By al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs time, ishtiqÄq had developed into a distinct field within Arabic language scholarship. AbÅ« Bakr Muḥammad ibn SirrÄ« Ibn al-SarrÄj (d. 316/928), whom JawÄlÄ«qÄ« cites here, was famous for his systematic approach to grammar. A saying went that âgrammar was crazy until Ibn al-SarrÄj came and made sense of it.â22 In his RisÄlat al-IshtiqÄq (âEpistle on Derivationâ), Ibn al-SarrÄj summarises ishtiqÄq in a dialectical fashion, asking and answering questions about the topic.23 He explains that ishtiqÄq is like forging a ring or an earring out of goldâalthough they look different (al-á¹£uwaru mukhtalifa), they are of the same kind (jins).24 The purpose of ishtiqÄq, Ibn al-SarrÄj notes, is to facilitate the ittisÄÊ¿ of the Arabic language, especially for poetry. The concept of ittisÄÊ¿ or tawassuÊ¿ (âextension, latitudeâ25) is loosely related to taÊ¿rÄ«b and laḥn. It was employed by SÄ«bawayhi to designate language uses that, while not strictly lexically/grammatically correct, extended the boundaries of language.26 We will see this concept resurface in later discussions of taÊ¿rÄ«b.
1.3 Loanwords in the QurʾÄn
The next question addressed in the introduction to al-MuÊ¿arrab concerns the presence of loanwords in the QurʾÄn. By the time al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« was writing, consensus had emerged on a central issue in the study of loanwords: Can the QurʾÄn contain foreign words while proclaiming itself an âArabic QurʾÄnâ? Early in his book, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« acknowledges the presence of loanwords in the QurʾÄn when he refers to âthe foreign words that were spoken by the Arabs and uttered in the glorious QurʾÄn.â This had been a subject of debate in the early stages of Arabic philology. Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« summarises the conflicting views of the philologists AbÅ« Ê¿Ubayda MaÊ¿mar ibn al-MuthannÄ (d. 209/824â825) and his pupil AbÅ« Ê¿Ubayd al-QÄsim ibn SallÄm (d. 224/838):
Scholars have different opinions on the question of loanwords in the QurʾÄn. Some of them have said: The Book of God most High does not contain anything other than Arabic. More than one person has reported to me from al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad from DaÊ¿laj from Ê¿AlÄ« ibn Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z from AbÅ« Ê¿Ubayd, who said: âI heard AbÅ« Ê¿Ubayda say: âWho claims that there is anything in the QurʾÄn in a tongue other than Arabic is committing a sin.â And he corroborated this with the words of God most High: âFor we have made it an Arabic QurʾÄn.ââ¯â AbÅ« Ê¿Ubayd said: âAnd it is transmitted from Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs and MujÄhid and Ê¿Ikrima and others about a lot of words that they are from a tongue other than Arabic, such as sijjÄ«l and al-mishkÄt and al-yamm and al-Ṭūr and abÄrÄ«q and istabraq and others.â And these people are more knowledgeable in interpretation (taʾwÄ«l) than AbÅ« Ê¿Ubayda, but they came to this conclusion, and he came to a different conclusion. Both of them are correct, God willing: that is because these words are originally from another tongue than Arabicâand they were talking about the origin. Then the Arabs used them in their speech and Arabicised them so that they became Arabic through their Arabicisation. And they are Arabic per their current state, foreign per their origin. This statement confirms both groups.27
It seems that the matter was settled for al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«. As we will see, the dictum that the aá¹£l of these words is foreign but their ḥÄl is Arabic was also deemed conclusive by later authors. However, this did not keep them from discussing which words exactly were loanwords. To provide proof that a word in the QurʾÄn was a loanword, an isnÄd going back to a Companion or an early grammarian was typically provided. Outside of scripture, many more lexical borrowings were circulating, but these could not always be verified with a chain of transmission. How could these loanwords be identified?
1.4 Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs Rules of taÊ¿rÄ«b
In the introduction to al-MuÊ¿arrab, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« proceeds to outline practical means of identifying and categorising loanwords. Two main principles apply: Arabicised words are either fully inflected or mamnÅ«Ê¿ min al-á¹£arf, and they either take the definite article or they do not. If they do not take the definite article (as in the proper names MÅ«sÄ and ʿĪsÄ) they remain âforeignâ (aÊ¿jamÄ«).28 Following SÄ«bawayhi, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« observes that foreign words could be altered when Arabicised, such as by substituting foreign letters with Arabic letters:
Of the letters they change, it is the one which is between jÄ«m and kÄf [Äe]: sometimes they make it a jÄ«m and sometimes a kÄf and sometimes a qÄf, as the qÄf is close to the kÄf. They say: kurbaj, and some of them say: qurbaq. AbÅ« Ê¿Amr said: âI heard al-Aá¹£maÊ¿Ä« say: âThat is the place of which they say kurbak (âtavernâ).â He said: âThey mean: kurbaj. SÄlim ibn QaḥfÄn said of qurbaq:
She did not drink after leaving the tavernof a drink other than the gush of cloudsââ¯â29
The example shows how loanwords, due to their foreignness, were prone to variation in pronunciation and spelling (e.g., kurbaj, qurbaq, kurbak). We encountered this phenomenon in the previous chapter: instances of laḥn often concerned loanwords and (foreign) proper names. Other examples al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« provides for different kinds of loanword adaptation are taken directly from SÄ«bawayhi, such as dirham, dÄ«nÄr, IsḥÄq, KhurÄsÄn, etc.
In the following section of the introduction, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« outlines the Arabic letters that cannot coexist in a genuine Arabic word, helping to identify words of foreign origin. These phonetic rules were not invented by al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« but based on principles already discussed by scholars like al-KhalÄ«l and Ibn al-SarrÄj, among others. The general idea was that the points of articulation (makhraj, pl. makhÄrij) of the letters in a word should be distant from one another, not close. The speech of the Arabs allowed for beautiful combinations, not ugly ones.30 The âuglinessâ (qubḥ) of certain letter combinations thus helps to identify muÊ¿arrabÄt, since they do not occur in genuine Arabic words. Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, for instance, mentions that the letter combination jÄ«m and qÄf in a word indicates its foreign origin. Some of these rules presume a thorough knowledge of phonetics:
If you encounter a quinqueliteral or quadriliteral without one or two letters from the liquid consonants (ḥurÅ«f al-dhalÄqa), know that it is not of their speech, such as Ê¿aqjash and ḥuáºÄʾij and the like.31
Rules such as these can have exceptions. Later authors were of the opinion that al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« had failed to mention some of these exceptions. The general principles he introduced were based on examples he was familiar with: the foundation of this discipline is samÄÊ¿, authoritative transmission. This is why al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« says:
None of the reliable sources (al-thiqÄt) have reported an Arabic word consisting of a bÄʾ and a sÄ«n and a tÄʾ. If this occurs in a word, it has entered from outside.32
The emphasis on reliable transmission is also apparent in the dictionary entries, which are often attributed to a named authority, if not accompanied by an isnÄd.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs al-MuÊ¿arrab represents the culmination of engagement with loanwords in the formative period. The dictionary itself contains around 745 words, 130 of which are proper names and toponyms. These words are ordered alphabetically by their first letter, as non-Arabic words do not follow the root principle and cannot be arranged by the root letter. Many of the lemmata are sourced from the comprehensive dictionaries Jamharat al-lugha (âThe Mass of Languageâ) by AbÅ« Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan Ibn Durayd (d. 321/933) and TahdhÄ«b al-lugha by AbÅ« Manṣūr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-AzharÄ« (d. 370/980).33 The entries are frequently concluded with a line or two of poetry, confirming the usage of a foreign word in Arabic. This structure mirrors that of comprehensive dictionaries, where poetry quotations are often used to mark the entry in the layout. Sometimes, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« specifies the source language of a word; at other times, he confesses uncertainty about its origin. Most words are categorised as either muÊ¿arrab (Arabicised) or aÊ¿jamÄ« (foreign).
2 From al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« to al-MuḥibbÄ«: Loanwords in the Post-formative Period
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« provided both a theoretical introduction and its practical application in a single book, yet he did not have the last word on the subject. On the contrary, his work became a template for subsequent discussions. Some of his successors chose to focus on the theory, while others wrote their own muÊ¿arrab dictionaries. Some included loanword theory within their larger compendia, as JalÄl al-DÄ«n Ê¿Abd al-RaḥmÄn ibn AbÄ« Bakr al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« (d. 911/1505) did in al-Muzhir fÄ« Ê¿ulÅ«m al-lugha wa-anwÄÊ¿ihÄ. In the following sections, I will discuss the most prominent loanword treatises of the post-formative period and demonstrate how they expanded the theory and practice of al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«.
2.1 Al-Suyūtī on Loanword Theory and Practice
In al-Muzhir, his handbook of the discipline of lugha, al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« systematically addresses all aspects of the discipline by transferring concepts of ḥadÄ«th terminology, such as á¹£aḥīḥ (âsoundâ) and mutawÄtir (âconcurrently transmittedâ), into discussions of language phenomena. He provides a comprehensive overview of the state of lugha in the ninth/fifteenth century, drawing on a wide range of sources. al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« devotes three sections to discussing expressions that have entered the Arabic language from the outside, distinguishing not only between muÊ¿arrab and muwallad, but also introducing the category of alfÄẠislamiyya (âIslamic expressionsâ).
In the chapter on muÊ¿arrab, al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« lists seven principles for recognising the non-Arabicness (Ê¿ujma) of a word. The first is âtransmission [as non-Arabic] by one of the authorities of the Ê¿arabiyya.â34 The remaining principles focus on word structure: âdeparture from the patterns of Arabic nouns, such as ibraysam,â and specific letter combinations that al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« also listed. These include: nÅ«n followed by rÄʾ (narjis, ânarcissusâ), a zÄy after a dÄl at the end of a word (muhandiz), á¹£Äd and jÄ«m in one word (á¹£awlajÄn, âsceptreâ), and jÄ«m and qÄf in one word (manjanÄ«q, âballistaâ). The last criterion, also mentioned by al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« and cited above, is the absence of ḥurÅ«f al-dhalÄqa (liquid consonants) in words with four or five radicals.35
The prominence of âtransmission by one of the authorities of the Ê¿arabiyyaâ confirms that samÄÊ¿âand, ideally, a chain of transmissionâis the most important criterion for deciding whether a word is muÊ¿arrab. This criterion, while already implied in al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs discussion, is made explicit by al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«.
IsnÄds play a significant role in al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs treatment of loanwords in the QurʾÄn as well. Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« did not specifically focus on the occurrence of loanwords in the QurʾÄn in his MuÊ¿arrab, suggesting it was not a contentious issue for him, and the question remained unresolved.36 Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« wrote two treatises addressing this topic. In the first, al-MutawakkilÄ« fÄ«mÄ warada fÄ« al-QurʾÄn bi-l-lughÄt al-Ḥabashiyya wa-l-FÄrisiyya wa-l-RÅ«miyya wa-l-Hindiyya wa-l-SiryÄniyya wa-l-Ê¿IbrÄniyya wa-l-Nabaá¹iyya wa-l-Qibá¹iyya wa-l-Turkiyya wa-l-Zanjiyya wa-l-Barbariyya (âThe Book Dedicated to al-Mutawakkil bi-llÄh Concerning Words from the Ethiopian, Persian, Greek, Sanskrit, Syriac, Hebrew, Nabatean, Coptic, Turkic, ZanjÄ«, and Berber languages in the QurʾÄnâ), he topically orders the foreign words in the QurʾÄn according to their language of origin. Some words are listed under more than one language, such as the mysterious letters á¹ÄhÄ, which are under Ethiopian and Syriac, and firdaws, under Greek and Nabatean. To assert that a QurʾÄnic word is indeed a loanword, al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« gives one or more isnÄds by referencing a Companion, often Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs.37
Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs second treatise on muÊ¿arrab in the QurʾÄn, titled al-Muhadhdhab fÄ«mÄ waqaÊ¿a fÄ« al-QurʾÄn min al-muÊ¿arrab (âThe Refined on Loanwords in the QurʾÄnâ), shares similar content with al-MutawakkilÄ« but is ordered alphabetically rather than topically by foreign language. In the introduction, the author summarises different perspectives on the issue of loanwords in the QurʾÄn,38 providing a more comprehensive overview than al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs introduction to al-MuÊ¿arrab. Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« addresses the religious implications of the issue while also demonstrating the philological flexibility with which these questions are resolved. He cites the fifth/eleventh-century mufassir AbÅ« IsḥÄq al-ThaÊ¿libÄ« (d. 427/1035) who, on the basis of a ḥadÄ«th, inverted the argument by stating that âthere exists no language in the world that is not in the QurʾÄn.â39 The presence of loanwords in the Book is thus linked to the concept of iÊ¿jÄzâthe human incapacity to emulate its styleâand loanwords are assessed as necessary stylistic elements that cannot be replaced by Arabic equivalents.40
2.2 Loanword Theory Revisited: KemalpaÅazÄde
Around the same time al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« was collecting views and examples of muÊ¿arrab, KemalpaÅazÄde (d. 940/1534) was also engaging with the issue. Fluent in Persian, Arabic, and Turkish, he must have been acutely aware of the linguistic processes at work when Persian words entered the Arabic lexicon, Arabic words infiltrated Turkish vocabulary, and so forth. His contributions to the development of Ottoman Turkish, by writing history and poetry in Turkish, helped shape it into a literary language. As a scholar interested in laḥn and language in general, and as a shaykh al-Islam who authored short lexicological treatises with a connection to legal science, KemalpaÅazÄde also explored the origins of the concepts he worked with. This is evident in his writing on the meaning and definition of zindÄ«q (âunbeliever, atheistâ).41 It is worth recalling that the first step of commentary, broadly speaking, involves the lexical explanation of a word, with etymology being just one aspect.
On the subject of muÊ¿arrab, KemalpaÅazÄde wrote a treatise entitled al-RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya (âEpistle on the Validation of the Arabicisation of the Foreign Wordâ).42 Unlike the works discussed above, KemalpaÅazÄdeâs treatise does not provide an alphabetical word list. So what is his objective in writing on loanwords? The term taḥqÄ«q in the title is indicative of his stance: in the context of premodern scientific method, it refers to the process of âcarrying out original personal investigation of a given matter by the methods of rational syllogistic reasoning.â43 We will explore how KemalpaÅazÄdeâs approach diverges from earlier discussions of muÊ¿arrab and whether he also addresses muwallad in his treatment.
The workâs point of departure is the proposition that words considered to be muÊ¿arrab must be verified. KemalpaÅazÄde sets out to provide a detailed description of the categories of taÊ¿rÄ«b (tafṣīl aqsÄmihi) and to demonstrate how to distinguish muÊ¿arrabÄt from similar but, in fact, unrelated words. He emphasises that this a subtle (daqÄ«q) undertaking, seldom receiving attention, since the Arabs incorporate foreign words into their speech (tajÊ¿aluhÄ juzʾan min al-kalÄm) either after Arabicising them or even before, leaving them in their original form.44 Notably, KemalpaÅazÄde talks about kalÄm al-Ê¿arab but situates loanword adaptations in the present (tastaÊ¿milu, tajÊ¿alu), rather than a remote past. It seems that for this scholar, the taḥqÄ«q of taÊ¿rÄ«b was an ongoing process, with a method that enabled the reader to verify for herself whether taÊ¿rÄ«b was at play in the cases she examined.
By tafṣīl aqsÄmihi (âdetailing its divisionâ), KemalpaÅazÄde refers to the types of Arabicised words we have already seen discussed by SÄ«bawayhi. He delves deeper by distinguishing four categories: a) no change (taghyÄ«r, in the sense of the substitution of letters and change of ḥarakÄt, the vowels on consonants) and no ilḥÄq (âappendingâ to the patterns of Arabic); b) no change, and the word is already mulḥaqa; c) change, but no ilḥÄq; and d) both change and ilḥÄq. KemalpaÅazÄde uses four classic examples to illustrate these different categories: a) KhurÄsÄn, b) khurram, c) Äjurr, and d) dirham. He then examines several scholarsâ definitions of taÊ¿rÄ«b to see how they relate to these categories. His choice of authorities extends beyond the familiar names of the formative period, starting with the view of Ibn Umm QÄsim (d. 749/1348), a commentator on Ibn MÄlikâs Alfiyya, who classified foreign words into three categories (by combining KemalpaÅazÄdeâs first two categories).
Central to this discussion are the definitions of taÊ¿rÄ«b by two authorities that previously did not occupy prominent positions: al-ZamakhsharÄ«âs QurʾÄn commentary al-KashshÄf and al-JawharÄ«âs al-á¹¢iḥÄḥ. From al-KashshÄf, a comment on SÅ«rat al-DukhÄn (Q 44:53) is cited in the context of the loanwords sundus (âsilk brocadeâ) and istabraq (âbrocadeâ) in the QurʾÄn. Al-ZamakhsharÄ« states that
The meaning of taÊ¿rÄ«b is that it [i.e., a word] is made Arabic by freely employing it (al-taá¹£arruf fÄ«hi), by modifying its course, and by adjusting it to the rules of iÊ¿rÄb.45
The term taá¹£arruf (translated here as âfreely employingâ) had already been used in KitÄb al-Ê¿Ayn to describe the principle of root permutation (also known as qalb).46 Al-ZamakhsharÄ« most probably uses it in a broader, yet still technical, sense: taá¹£arrafa is to subject a word to the full range of Arabic grammar rules, implying that it can take the definite article and is not mamnÅ«Ê¿ min al-á¹£arf.
The definition by al-JawharÄ«, which KemalpaÅazÄde cites from the lemma Ê¿-r-b in the á¹¢iḥÄḥ, is very broad: âTaÊ¿rÄ«b of a foreign word is that the Arabs use it according to their own course/method (minhÄj).â47 Through the example shaá¹ranj (âchessâ), taken from al-ḤarÄ«rÄ«âs laḥn treatise Durrat al-ghawÄṣṣ, KemalpaÅazÄde illustrates the principle of taÊ¿rÄ«b through qiyÄs, analogy: the correct form would be shiá¹ranj, since the pattern faÊ¿lall does not exist in Arabic, whereas fiÊ¿lall does. Therefore, the pronunciation should be âappended to the pattern of jirdaḥl, which means âa heavy camel.ââ¯â48
KemalpaÅazÄde elaborates further by quoting Durrat al-ghawwÄá¹£ on the question of whether the word shiá¹ranj should be written with sÄ«n or shÄ«n.49 Here, discussions of laḥn and muÊ¿arrab begin to overlap. The confusion over the correct vocalisation of a word orâin this case, whether to write it with a dotted or undotted letter (muÊ¿jam or muhmal), which we have encountered as topics of laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma, was often directly related to the status of these words as loanwords.50 In this case, al-ḤarÄ«rÄ« used the question of sÄ«n versus shÄ«n in the word shiá¹ranj to suggest derivation from an existing Arabic root:
And it may be possible to say shiá¹ranj with a dotted shÄ«n to allow for derivation from al-mushÄá¹ara (âsharingâ) and to pronounce it with an undotted sÄ«n to allow it to be derived from al-tasá¹Ä«r (âlining upâ), used for mobilisation of an army.51
KemalpaÅazÄde objects to this, asserting that deriving (ishtiqÄq) loanwords from Arabic roots is not possible.52 He then proceeds to present his own etymology for the word shiá¹ranj, deriving it from Persian á¹£adrang, meaning âa hundred ruses.â53
KemalpaÅazÄde also drew upon literary commentaries to buttress his discussion of muÊ¿arrabÄt, such as a commentary on AbÅ« al-Ê¿AlÄʾ al-MaÊ¿arrÄ«âs (d. 449/1057) poetry collection Saqá¹ al-zand (âThe Spark of the Fire Stickâ) on the word khurram,54 and a sharḥ of the DÄ«wÄn of al-MutanabbÄ« on the word shiá¹ranj. Literary commentaries provided a valuable source for such specific matters of lugha, including the discussion of loanwords. Moreover, KemalpaÅazÄde demonstrates his broad knowledge of Arabic literature by incorporating these literary sources.
KemalpaÅazÄde proceeds to discuss the three remaining types of loanword adaptation. He uses muhandis as an example of a loanword that was not appended (mulḥaq) by the Arabs because it already conformed to their patterns; only the original consonant z in muhandiz was adapted to fit Arabic phonological rules, which do not allow a z after a d.55 He then assesses a number of muÊ¿arrabÄt that conform to this principle, such as zindÄ«q, barÄ«d, dasht, and kanÄ«sa. This group, according to KemalpaÅazÄde, is neither included in al-JawharÄ«âs nor in al-ZamakhsharÄ«âs definitions.56 In his discussion of these words, he focuses on etymology, selecting from several cited opinions the one he considers most probableâan assessment informed by his knowledge of Persian. As shawÄhid for the original Persian words from which the loanwords derive, KemalpaÅazÄde cites poets such as NiáºÄmÄ« and FirdawsÄ«, thus modifying the function of probative quotations to corroborate the use of a foreign word in the context of its source language.
KemalpaÅazÄde concludes his treatise with the observation that the phenomenon he just described also works the other way around, mentioning some Arabic words used in Persian to illustrate this point.57 When necessary, he also refers to Turkish, such as when explaining the origin of the name of Samarqand (stating it is from Turkish kent, âcityâ).58 He sometimes takes it too far, as exemplified by his etymology siyÄsa, which he explains as a combination of the Persian se (âthreeâ) and the Mongol yasa (âorderâ). This etymology, enriched with a nice anecdote that may explains its persistent transmission, suggests that Genghis Khan coined the term when he divided his realm into three parts for his three sons.59
Similar to his treatment of laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma, which he âupdatedâ and animated with verses and witty remarks, here too, KemalpaÅazÄde offers a stylistically innovative framework for discussing a linguistic phenomenon. His novel method involves presenting prominent examples of muÊ¿arrabÄt and their critical examination by several philologists, extending beyond the major lexicographers. He links the treatment of individual lexemes to a broader conceptual discussion by filtering definitions of muÊ¿arrab from lexica, grammars, and commentaries. One downside to this approach is that the reader does not learn more about the muwalladÄt current in KemalpaÅazÄdeâs time, as the examples he cites are âclassicsâ of muÊ¿arrab. Nevertheless, he adds a contemporary touch to his discussion by presenting it as a practical means to distinguish (tamyÄ«z) Arabic from non-Arabic words. KemalpaÅazÄdeâs accomplishment is a concise and clear overview of the state of the field, bolstered by his sound knowledge of Persian and Turkish.
2.3 The Loanword Dictionary of al-MunshÄ« al-Aqḥiá¹£ÄrÄ«
Roughly half a century later, Muḥammad ibn Badr al-DÄ«n al-Aqḥiá¹£ÄrÄ« MuḥyÄ« al-DÄ«n al-MunshÄ« (d. 1001/1592) wrote a short taÊ¿rÄ«b dictionary with a theoretical introduction, al-RisÄla fÄ« al-taÊ¿rÄ«b (âEpistle on Loanword Adaptationâ). Al-MunshÄ«, a âleading scholar of tafsÄ«r,â60 became shaykh al-ḥaram al-nabawÄ« in Medina in 982/1574 and died in Mecca.61 His main works are in lexicography. Among them are a KitÄb al-aá¸dÄd (a treatise on enantionyms, words that can have two diametrically opposed meanings) and a dictionary that explains 775 Persian words.62
His RisÄla fÄ« al-taÊ¿rÄ«b begins with what the author calls a muqaddima fÄ« ilqÄʾ al-taÊ¿rÄ«b tahdhÄ«b min al-laḥn, âan introduction to taÊ¿rÄ«b as a means of purifying speech of solecism.â It lays out al-JawharÄ«âs definition of taÊ¿rÄ«b, followed by the Companionsâ statements on the matter (Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs and others, also cited by al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«). Al-MunshÄ« enumerates the seven criteria for determining whether a word is muÊ¿arrab, which we also read in al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs Muzhir.63 The body of the text consists of an alphabetical list of loanwords (again, ordered by letters, not radicals), including words from the QurʾÄn and from other, later contexts, such as asá¹urlÄb (âastrolabeâ)64 and al-ifranja (âthe Franksâ).65 Some entries are literally taken from KemalpaÅazÄdeâs treatise66 but without reference to him. Among the authorities who are mentioned by name are Ê¿AbdallÄh ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889), AbÅ« Manṣūr Ê¿Abd al-Malik ibn Muḥammad al-ThaÊ¿ÄlibÄ« (d. 429/1039), al-JawharÄ«, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, Majd al-DÄ«n Aḥmad ibn YaÊ¿qÅ«b al-FÄ«rÅ«zÄbÄdÄ« (d. 817/1415), and al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«. Interestingly, there are no probative quotations except for some verses by the pre-Islamic poet al-AÊ¿shÄ (d. ca. 7/629). Another feature that sets al-MunshÄ«âs text apart from other treatises on taÊ¿rÄ«b is the fact that, in the majority of lemmata, he gives not only the source language or the original word a loanword derives from, but also a short definition. Al-MunshÄ« even explains the word al-sukkar (âsugarâ) as âthat which is gathered from cane juice.â67 This work could thus be regarded as a compact glossary of loanwords, mainly from Persian, that occur in Arabic.68 The level of detail and accuracy of the authorâs explanations is illustrated by the following example:
al-faylasÅ«f: lover of wisdom, Arabicised from fÄ«lasÅ«fÄ, and fÄ«lÄ means the lover and sÅ«fÄ is wisdom, and from this al-falsafa is derived, just as al-safasá¹Ä is derived from sÅ«fisá¹Ä meaning vain wisdom (âsophistryâ) and from this comes asá¹Ä in Turkish.69
The treatise of al-MunshÄ« thus presents an intermediate form between the short treatise of KemalpaÅazÄde and the elaborate dictionaries of al-KhafÄjÄ« and al-MuḥibbÄ«, which will be discussed in the remainder of this chapter. It shows that there was an interest in loanwords that went beyond the enumeration of muÊ¿arrabÄt that were well known since al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs dictionary: the topic was keenly debated by scholars in all parts of the Ottoman empire. The following loanword dictionaries will help to explain this interest.
3 Loanwords as Pretext
Qaá¹£á¹al: a neologism (muwallad), which the later authors (al-mutaʾakhkhirÅ«n) Arabicised; it is Arabicised from kastÄna which means âchestnut.â The Egyptians call it AbÅ« Farwa (âthe fur-coatedâ). The poet says:
How lovely is the chestnut stripped of its huskshortly after it dried in the treesas if it were the white faces of the Slavsshowing the wrinkles of old age70
This lemma, qaá¹£á¹al (âchestnutâ), appears in the eleventh/seventeenth-century loanword dictionary of ShihÄb al-DÄ«n Aḥmad al-KhafÄjÄ« (d. 1069/1659). The entry presents loanword theory and practice in a nutshell: the word qaá¹£á¹al is identified as muwallad, coined by the mutaʾakhkhirÅ«n, a term denoting authors from the post-formative period. To explain the meaning of qaá¹£á¹al, al-KhafÄjÄ« uses shÄh ballÅ«á¹, its Persian name. He also gives a contemporary Egyptian synonym for chestnut: AbÅ« farwa, âthe one with the fur,â which graphically describes the edible chestnut or Castanea sativa. The Latin etymology castanea (or Spanish castaña) is also given, with a final verse of muwallad poetry to illustrate the use and meaning of the word qaá¹£á¹al.71
In the eleventh/seventeenth century two eminent scholars, al-KhafÄjÄ« from Cairo and al-MuḥibbÄ« from Damascus, penned the next voluminous loanword dictionaries after al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«. They both referenced al-MuÊ¿arrab. In fact, al-KhafÄjÄ« integrated large portions of the introduction of al-MuÊ¿arrabâits ten-page summary on the state of loanword theory in the sixth/twelfth centuryâinto the muqaddima of his own work, thus emphasising continuity. The Damascene historian Muḥammad al-AmÄ«n ibn Faá¸l AllÄh al-MuḥibbÄ« (d. 1111/1699) copied from and built on al-KhafÄjÄ«âs dictionary. But the word qaá¹£á¹al, which receives elaborate treatment in al-KhafÄjÄ«âs dictionary, did not feature in al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs book. What had happened in those five centuries after al-MuÊ¿arrab?
3.1 (Re-)introducing dakhīl
At first glance, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs al-MuÊ¿arrab is the model for both al-KhafÄjÄ«âs and al-MuḥibbÄ«âs dictionaries. The superficial association with this model has obscured to modern scholarship the actual programmes of these later works and seemingly confirmed the impression of scholarly stagnation during the Mamluk and Ottoman periods.72 A closer look at the content of these loanword dictionaries, however, will shed new light on their authorsâ intentions.
It may be argued that the innovative spirit of both works lies already in their titles. Al-KhafÄjÄ«âs loanword dictionary is entitled ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l fÄ«mÄ fÄ« kalÄm al-Ê¿arab min al-dakhÄ«l (âQuenching the Thirst on Intrusive Words in the Speech of the Arabsâ). Al-MuḥibbÄ«âs lexicon which, as we shall see, is strongly inspired by al-KhafÄjÄ«âs, carries a similar title: Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l fÄ«mÄ fÄ« kalÄm al-Ê¿arab min al-dakhÄ«l (âThe Goal of the Way on Intrusive Words in the Speech of the Arabsâ).73 Both use the word dakhÄ«l in their titles.
The term dakhÄ«l was already employed by al-KhalÄ«l in KitÄb al-Ê¿Ayn to mark expressions that did not conform to the patterns of Arabic and were âintrusive,â to translate dakhÄ«l literally. Al-KhalÄ«l seems to use the term to designate words that do not conform to the structures (abniya) of Arabic.74 From the entries in which the expression dakhÄ«l muÊ¿arrab is used, we may infer that muÊ¿arrab refers to the process of Arabicisation of a dakhÄ«l word. Al-KhafÄjÄ« was not the first author to employ the term dakhÄ«l in the title of a work of muÊ¿arrab. In the ninth/fifteenth century, Ê¿Abd AllÄh ibn Aḥmad al-BishbÄ«shÄ« (d. 820/1417) wrote a supplement on al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs al-MuÊ¿arrab under the title of al-TadhyÄ«l wa-l-takmÄ«l li-mÄ ustuÊ¿mila min al-lafẠal-dakhÄ«l (âThe Supplement and Completion of What is Used of the Intrusive Expressionsâ), that rearranged the lemmata of al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs book in full alphabetical order.75
On the other hand, al-KhafÄjÄ« and al-MuḥibbÄ« both also reference kalÄm al-Ê¿arab in the titles of their dictionaries: what do they mean by this? Al-KhafÄjÄ« uses the first pages of his introduction to explain to his readers what he wishes to incorporate into his dictionary: his primary source is al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, the âbest of the authors who have written on the subject,â but who nevertheless âdid not distinguish between the husk and the pit.â76 Thus, he anchors his work in a longstanding tradition, while intending to emend the errors of his predecessor al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«. Al-KhafÄjÄ« then turns to the topic of muwallad and states that with ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, he is the first to include muwallad, which, up until then (ilÄ al-Än), had not been documented in a book.77 He also defines it: muwallad is what was Arabicised by the mutaʾakhkhirÅ«n, âlater authors,â78 and is often found in works of âwisdom and medicineââmeaning the Graeco-Arabic tradition. He returns to this, saying:
Know that to enhance its utility, I mention in this book of mine what some of the lexicographers might mention, either because they do not point out that it is muwalladâand the author of the QÄmÅ«s does this frequently, he even bases some of the variants (lughÄt) on books of medicine, which is one of his grave errorsâor because they have not verified its meaning and it is a rare word that is seldom used.79
When al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« used Ibn Duraydâs Jamharat al-lugha and al-AzharÄ«âs TahdhÄ«b al-lugha, he did not complain that their authors had included muÊ¿arrab in their dictionaries, because those loanwords were considered part of the Arabic lexicon. The case of muwallad is different: if it is mentioned in a dictionary, the author should at least point out that it is a neologism, and not mix it with genuine Arabic words. One of al-KhafÄjÄ«âs objectives in ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l is apparently to mark neologisms to clearly distinguish them from the âspeech of the Arabs.â To achieve this, he mines al-QÄmÅ«s and other sources for neologisms.
The boundary between muÊ¿arrab and muwallad was vital in upholding the position of muÊ¿arrab in the QurʾÄn: if muÊ¿arrab and muwallad had been on a par, this would have infringed the special status of loanwords in the QurʾÄn, namely as âforeign in their origin, but Arabic in their current state.â One would therefore find muwalladÄt included rather in treatises on laḥn, since issues with them often concerned mispronunciation (mainly of the ḥarakÄt), as with the names Euclid and Ptolemy, or the names of Turkish cities. But as the problem of mispronunciation was connected to their being a proper name of foreign origin, they might just as well be included in a work on dakhÄ«l, which is what al-KhafÄjÄ« and al-MuḥibbÄ« chose to do.80
In the remainder of the introduction, al-KhafÄjÄ« repeats the principles of Arabicisation from Persian that are familiar to readers of SÄ«bawayhi, and continues to cite al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, but also Ê¿Amr ibn Baḥr al-JÄḥiáºâ (d. 255/868â869) al-BayÄn wa-l-tabyÄ«n on language contact between Arabic and Persian.81 Al-KhafÄjÄ« adds a ḥadÄ«th to support his remark that the Arabs âplayed with [Arabicised words] a lot and used them in an endearing way, as when the Prophet said: Ashkanb dard [âIs your stomach hurting?â in Persian] This was transmitted by Muslim.â82 This divergence from al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs introduction shows that al-KhafÄjÄ« did not simply copy his model, but added new elements to the theoretical framework. One of his observations is that the concurrence of jÄ«m and qÄf in a word can point to one of two causes, namely that it is either Arabicised (muÊ¿arrab) or onomatopoetic (ḥikÄyat á¹£awt). Al-KhafÄjÄ« gives examples of the first (juwÄliq, âsack,â of which the name al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, âsack seller,â derives) and the second category (jananbalaq, âthe sound of the doorâ).83
In line with his objective to include muwallad, KhafÄjÄ« does not restrict his theoretical section to theorists from the formative period, but also quotes verses from contemporary poets such as Ê¿Abd al-Barr ibn Ê¿Abd al-QÄdir al-Ê¿AwfÄ« al-FayyÅ«mÄ« (d. 1071/1661), a friend of al-KhafÄjÄ«âs.84 Moreover, he intersperses the body of the dictionary with shawÄhid by Mamluk and Ottoman-era poets, including his own poetry.
3.2 The Programme of al-KhafÄjÄ«âs ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l
Like al-MuÊ¿arrab, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l is arranged alphabetically according to the first letter of the word. Within the chapters, however, the words are not further arrangedâneither by their roots, nor by the alphabetical order of their actual letters.85 Al-ShifÄʾ is comprised of 1389 lemmata, almost twice as many as al-MuÊ¿arrab. But as we will see, it would be wrong to assume that al-KhafÄjÄ« simply added some 600 entries to al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs text.
One of the changes al-KhafÄjÄ« made to his model was the addition of a short chapter on the ligature lÄ before the yÄʾ. He quotes Ibn JinnÄ« on the correct pronunciation of the particle lÄ and then discusses two sayings beginning with the negating particle lÄ: lÄ yushbihu l-Ê¿unwÄnu mÄ fÄ« l-kitÄb (âThe title does not match the bookâ) and lÄ arkabu l-baḥr (âI do not sail the seaâ). Neither of these sayings contain a muÊ¿arrab or muwallad word. In the first case, al-KhafÄjÄ« uses the occasion to cite another two proverbs that have the same meaning; in the second case, he includes a nice line of poetry to corroborate the saying.86
The editor of ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l indexes fifty-five entries as amthÄl (âproverbsâ).87 Al-KhafÄjÄ«âs criterion for selection seems to have been the entertaining aspect of the entries. These entries also point to the authorâs interest in describing language use of his time and relating contemporary expressions to the standard language, much like YÅ«suf al-MaghribÄ« did half a century earlier in his dictionary of colloquial Egyptian, DafÊ¿ al-iá¹£r Ê¿an kalÄm ahl Miá¹£r.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«âs use of biographical and geographical dictionaries, along with the adab encyclopaedia NihÄyat al-arab fÄ« funÅ«n al-adab (âThe Ultimate Ambition in the Arts of Eruditionâ)88 of Aḥmad ibn Ê¿Abd al-WahhÄb al-NuwayrÄ« (d. 733/1333), illustrates the wide scope of his work. The authorâs interest in solecism and dialectal variants is apparent from the topical dictionaries he references, including the works of AbÅ« Manṣūr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-AzharÄ« (d. 370/980) and Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn HishÄm al-LakhmÄ« (d. 577/1181) on the dialect of al-Andalus, AbÅ« Ḥafá¹£ Ê¿Umar Ibn MakkÄ« al-á¹¢iqillÄ« (d. 501/1107) on the dialect of Sicily, and several gharÄ«b works. He makes explicit reference to authors of comprehensive dictionaries such as al-FÄ«rÅ«zÄbÄdÄ« (36 times), al-JawharÄ« (5), Ibn SÄ«da (6), and also refers to Ibn ManáºÅ«râs (d. 711/1311) LisÄn al-Ê¿arab (3 times).
In ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, some lemmata begin by spelling out the pronunciation, such as in the form bi-fatḥi l-hamzati wa-sukÅ«ni l-qÄfi wa-kasri l-sÄ«ni wa-mÄ«mi baÊ¿dahÄ Ê¾alif (âwith a fatḥa on the hamza and a sukÅ«n on the qÄf and a kasra on the sÄ«n and a mÄ«m after which is an alifâ).89 This was especially important as the form of certain dakhÄ«l expressions did not follow Arabic patterns, making it impossible to deduce their vocalisation from analogous forms. Secondly, the word is either explained or marked as maÊ¿rÅ«f (often denoted by m). As I explained in the Introduction, Arabic lexicography concentrated on the unusual, gharÄ«b, rather than the well-established, maÊ¿rÅ«f. We may recall that the main objective of al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs dictionary was to collect loanwords and trace them to their origin, not to provide a definition. Thirdly, a word is identified as either muÊ¿arrab or muwallad, sometimes followed by the foreign word it derives from or the name of the source language, such as aÊ¿jamÄ« (âforeignâ or âPersianâ), fÄrisÄ« (âPersianâ), or bi-lughat al-ḥabasha (âin the language of Abyssiniaâ). The lemma is concluded with a probative prose or verse quotation, attributed to its author.
This standard structure is present in only a minority of entries. In most cases, the author prefers to provide anecdotal details about a keyword rather than follow a consistent structure for the lemma. Some chapters (bÄb) are introduced with general remarks on the letter itself. For example, in the chapter yÄʾ, al-KhafÄjÄ« comments on the writing of a yÄʾ in verb forms where a kasra would be correct:
The muwalladÅ«n add the yÄʾ in the second person feminine and say instead of á¸arabtihi á¸arabtÄ«hi. I have said (qultu) that this is a dialectal variant of RabÄ«Ê¿a but it is bad. Similarly, they add an alif to the fatḥa and kÄf of the pronoun and say qumtÄ and innakÄ. The poet said:
You targeted him (ramaytÄ«hi) and aimedand the shot did not missAnd this resembles what is said in the commentary on the TashÄ«l. They also exchange the alif before the possessive pronoun yÄʾ and say mawlÄ« instead of mawlÄyÄ. I have said that this is a dialect variant of Ḥimyar and al-Ḥasan read âYÄ bushrÄ«.â90 Al-ZamakhsharÄ« said: âI have heard the people of the hills say âYÄ sÄ«dÄ«â and âYÄ mawlÄ«.ââ¯â End of quote.91
This is an example of an error that entered the written language under the influence of dialect, where the feminine ending âi is pronounced âÄ«.92 Notably, al-KhafÄjÄ« attributes this pronunciation to pre-Islamic Arabian tribes, as some authors on laḥn might have done.93 With qultu he also inserts his own teachings. The dictionary reads more like a collection of anecdotes than a word list.
One can thus say that al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs al-MuÊ¿arrab functions only as a template for ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l. Anchoring his work in the tradition, al-KhafÄjÄ« consciously introduces this model with the first words of his muqaddima and the subsequent theoretical discussion. In the body of the dictionary, al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs influence is hardly recognisable. Al-KhafÄjÄ« does not engage in a direct critique or commentary of al-MuÊ¿arrab, nor does he follow the lemmata offered by al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«. Instead, he opens up the form of the loanword dictionary to new content, broadening its scope to a host of words and expressions he considers dakhÄ«l, imported into the Arabic language in various ways. Even though he discusses many instances of solecism, compared to works of laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma, al-KhafÄjÄ« rarely assesses an entry as falling outside of the Arabic lexicon. By and large, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l is descriptive, not normative. What strikes the reader are the extremely diverse pieces of knowledge the book contains. From the etymology of bimÄristÄn (âhospitalâ) and the founder of that institution,94 to the provenance of the colloquial barrÄ (âoutsideâ),95 and the correct construction of a conditional clause starting with law,96 the work is a collection of errors and curiosities encountered in books and conversationsâan adab work as much as a dictionary.
Are there any further characteristics of al-ShifÄʾ that can be explained by the authorâs time and environment? Al-KhafÄjÄ« often adduces his source in the format qÄlahu X, âX said this,â in which X can be a sixth/twelfth-century authority, as an addition to a quotation that would otherwise remain unmarked. This illustrates al-KhafÄjÄ«âs reliance on written sources rather than personal teaching, as there is no chain of transmission linking him to most of the authorities he cites.
As in al-Muʿarrab, many expressions derive from Persian. The ample occurrence of Persian words in the book cannot solely be attributed to its model; it is also indicative of the Ottoman environment. A parallel can be drawn to the appearance of Arabic-Persian bilingual dictionaries in the ninth/fifteenth-century Ottoman Empire. Ferenc Csirkés notes that bilingual dictionaries
facilitated the addition of Arabic vocabulary elements to Persian, or rather, they aided the interpretation of new vocabulary that was being incorporated into the language. These works also represented a scholarly need to monitor and control the process of vocabulary borrowing.97
Taking into consideration the large number of Persian words present in ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, it is tempting to suggest that a similar process is at play here. The author simply took the Persian words prevalent in his own time and incorporated them into a format that was universally acknowledged as the authoritative loanword dictionary of Arabic. This not only provided the reader with anecdotes about words and expressions that they might not have been familiar with, but also helped to gain acceptance for these words, which were still in the process of entering Arabic scholarly vocabulary. We are reminded of the work of the Arabic Language Academies at the turn of the twentieth century. The language scholar al-KhafÄjÄ« assumed the role of an authority on this new vocabulary, acting as a language academy member avant la lettre.
3.3 Al-MuḥibbÄ«âs Notion of dakhÄ«l
Muḥammad al-AmÄ«n ibn Faá¸l AllÄh ibn Muḥibb AllÄh ibn Muḥammad Muḥibb al-DÄ«n, known as al-MuḥibbÄ«, was the most prolific member of a renowned family of scholars.98 He was born in Damascus in 1061/1651. His father Faá¸l AllÄh (d. 1082/1671) attended al-KhafÄjÄ«âs classes in Istanbul and may have acquired a copy of ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l as well as al-KhafÄjÄ«âs literary anthology RayḥÄnat al-alibbÄʾ wa-zahrat ḥayÄt ad-dunyÄ (âThe Basil of the Sensible and the Flower of Earthly Lifeâ) from the author. In any case, Muḥammad al-MuḥibbÄ« was well-acquainted with and inspired by both works. He wrote a supplement to al-RayḥÄna and reworked al-ShifÄʾ.99 Today, al-MuḥibbÄ« is particularly known for his biographical dictionary of the scholars of his time, KhulÄá¹£at al-athar fÄ« aÊ¿yÄn al-qarn al-ḥÄdÄ« Ê¿ashar (âThe Quintessence of the Legacy on the Celebrities of the Eleventh Centuryâ), a rich source on the intellectual life of the eleventh/seventeenth century.
In the introduction to his loanword dictionary Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l fÄ«mÄ fÄ« kalÄm al-Ê¿arab min al-dakhÄ«l, al-MuḥibbÄ« declares his intent to supplement the work of his predecessors, who did not âfully bring to an end their intentions.â100 He specifically mentions al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-KhafÄjÄ«, and al-QÄá¸Ä« al-Aná¹ÄkÄ« (d. 1100/1689).101 Al-MuḥibbÄ« criticises al-KhafÄjÄ« for contenting himself with what came to his mind, rather than addressing all that should be said on the topic.102 The professed objective is not a slavish emulation of the master text but a critical discussion of its content.
Al-MuḥibbÄ«âs loanword dictionary is significantly more voluminous than al-KhafÄjÄ«âs. The editor of Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l suggests that the extant manuscript is an incomplete mubayyaá¸a of the draft manuscript, as it ends at the letter mÄ«m with the lemma MaqadÅ«niya. Baalbaki attributed the increase in volume compared to ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l to al-MuḥibbÄ«âs inclusion of numerous words not directly pertaining to the topic, such as proper names, in what he described as âa clear attempt at inflating the bookâs content.â103 If, however, we consider that al-KhafÄjÄ« and al-MuḥibbÄ« might have had other intentions than merely reproducing or âinflatingâ al-MuÊ¿arrab, it becomes necessary to examine the text more closely to uncover these intentions.
Al-MuḥibbÄ«âs sources suggest that his programme was even more comprehensive than al-KhafÄjÄ«âs. For instance, he draws from al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs treatise al-Muhadhdhab for loanwords in the QurʾÄn,104 which were not covered by al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs book, and Ibn al-AthÄ«râs NihÄya for rare words from ḥadÄ«th. Al-MuḥibbÄ« therefore updates al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs al-MuÊ¿arrab by incorporating other sources from the post-formative period, providing the service of consolidating previously scattered content into one volume, reflecting the state of the field in his own time.
But how do we explain his inclusion of expressions that, at first glance, do not appear as muÊ¿arrab, muwallad, or laḥn? Take, for instance, the lemma al-jÄhiliyya, which initially seems perfectly Arabic:
al-jÄhiliyya: In the KitÄb Laysa of Ibn KhÄlawayhi: an expression that was coined in Islam for the period before the mission [of the prophet Muḥammad].105
We must read carefully to understand why al-MuḥibbÄ« considered al-jÄhiliyya a dakhÄ«l word. The Baghdad grammarian and exegete al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad Ibn KhÄlawayhiâs (d. 370/980) KitÄb Laysa fÄ« kalÄm al-Ê¿arab (âBook of Expressions not Found in the Speech of the Arabsâ), referenced by al-MuḥibbÄ«, is a gem of the formative phase of Arabic lexicography, collecting expressions and nominal patterns (abniya) that were not used in the speech of the Arabs. Unfortunately, the modern edition of KitÄb Laysa does not include an entry for jÄhiliyya.106 However, Ibn KhÄlawayhiâs statement, as quoted by al-MuḥibbÄ«, indicates that the word was coined in Islam, alongside another helpful source: al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«âs al-Muzhir. Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä« provides the exact same example under alfÄẠislÄmiyya.107 Just as the language of fiqh was coined in Islam as religious and legal terminology, the term al-jÄhiliyya could only exist after the fact of, and in contrast to, Islam. It is neither muÊ¿arrabâbecause it derives from an Arabic root (j-h-l, âto not knowâ)ânor muwallad, as it was coined in Ê¿uṣūr al-iḥtijÄj and not by later poets.
The entry al-jÄhiliyya in Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l mirrors dialogues between authorities in establishing the boundaries of the Ê¿arabiyya. While the inclusion of terms such as al-jÄhiliyya or al-á¹£aḥīḥ min al-ḥadÄ«th in a dakhÄ«l dictionary may puzzle modern scholars, it likely did not strike the readers of al-MuḥibbÄ«âs work as odd or misplaced. This is because, if we consider the loanword dictionaries discussed in this chapter, they were undoubtedly familiar with the development and expansion of the concept of dakhÄ«l during the post-formative period.
The inclusion of technical terminology in works of lugha developed during the post-formative period. In the fourth/tenth century, the poet and secretary Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-KhwÄrizmÄ« (d. 387/997) observed a lacuna in the lexicographical tradition. In his MafÄtīḥ al-Ê¿ulÅ«m (âKeys to the Sciencesâ), a compendium of technical terms for scribes, he observed that scientific terminology was entirely absent from books devoted to the discipline of lugha, leaving language scholars unprepared to engage with scientific and philosophical texts.108 This chapter illustrates that language scholarship in the post-formative period increasingly recognised the need to define and debate technical terms, a trend reflected in lexicological treatises on dakhÄ«l.
3.4 The Social Life of Loanwords
Like laḥn treatises, loanword dictionaries provided a space for both edification and entertainment. In some cases, the connection between linguistics and literature, as well as scholarship and social contexts, becomes apparent, offering a glimpse into the lexicographerâs workshop and the role that discussions of language and poetry played in a scholarâs life. A notable example is al-KhafÄjÄ«âs lemma ghurÄb (lit. âravenâ):
ghurÄb: [said] of a type of ships that is widespread in the poetry of the muḥdathÅ«n, especially those from the Maghreb. I do not know whether it is a metonymy (tashbÄ«h) or a translation error. Ibn as-SÄÊ¿ÄtÄ« [d. ca. 604/1207] said:
I sailed the sea of the Turks which was like a racecoursethe waves youâd think were horses runningHow many black ghurÄb in the flockwere flying there on white wingsand Ibn AbÄ« Ḥajala [d. 776/1374] said:
Their ghurÄb, black and white their sailsmake their blue enemy turn paleand I have said:
And while departing I had enough of itoh, how many more departures and ghurÄb!As for the ghurÄb in the words of al-AÊ¿shÄ [d. ca. 7/629]:
And I do not ask of you what you would not knowif the ghurÄb of ignorance fell from youHis [al-AÊ¿shÄâs] commentators said: âThe ghurÄb is the extent of something, i.e., the extent of your ignorance has gone and the extent of your knowledge has taken its place.â And it is said: âThe ghurÄb of ignorance is his ignorance, just like you say âthe bird of ignorance.ââ¯â And it is said: âThe raven of ignorance is black hair.â End of quote. The muwalladÅ«n call the catamite a ghurÄb, i.e., he secretly commits a disgraceful act on his brother, and this is a form of metonymy.109
Al-KhafÄjÄ« cites the verses and sayings he knows on the lemma ghurÄb, including lines of his own poetry. The range of quoted poetry spans the period from the first century before Islam to al-KhafÄjÄ«âs own time, encompassing both Ê¿arabÄ« and muwallad poetry as part of a continuous tradition connected by the loanword discussed. This gives the impression of a work of adab rather than a dictionary. It is plausible that one motivation for collecting and studying these loanwords was to flaunt them in social gatherings.110
Now, if we move to Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l, we again see that al-MuḥibbÄ« repeats al-KhafÄjÄ«âs entry without mentioning him. Additionally, he mentions the usage of the word ghurÄb in mystical terminology, as âthe universal body,â as the first part of his entry.111 This knowledge is taken from al-Sayyid al-SharÄ«f al-JurjÄnÄ«âs (d. 816/1415) KitÄb al-TaÊ¿rÄ«fÄt, one of the first dictionaries of scientific terminology from philosophy, grammar, law, and other disciplines.112 Both al-MuḥibbÄ« and al-KhafÄjÄ« seem to have striven for a comprehensive discussion of the figurative uses of the word ghurÄb.
The word is also mentioned in al-MuḥibbÄ«âs biographical dictionary KhulÄá¹£at al-athar fÄ« aÊ¿yÄn al-qarn al-ḥÄdÄ« Ê¿ashar, an excellent display of language debate at play in a different context. In the biography of a good friend, the Damascene scholar Ê¿Abd al-BÄqÄ« ibn Aḥmad ibn al-SammÄn (d. 1088/1677), al-MuḥibbÄ« shares the story behind the entry ghurÄb in his loanword dictionary:
One day I made a trip on the sea with him in a boat, and we headed towards the place known as BeÅiktaÅ. On that occasion I recited to him the words of Ibn Malaá¹iya:
And the boat, I saw it floatingstretching over the surface of the seaits form resembling a birdspreading its wings over the waterThen my companion went on to enumerate the different types of ships and their names, until he mentioned ghurÄb, which is a large ship that moves with rudders. On this he cited Ibn al-SÄÊ¿ÄtÄ«:
Yes, I sailed the sea which was like a racecoursethe waves youâd think were horses runningHow many black ravens in the flockwere flying there on white wingsThen he mentioned to me that some people wrongly think that the name of this type of ship, ghurÄb, is translated from Turkish, because their name for it is qÄdirÄ¡a, and they think qÄdirÄ¡a means raven in Turkish. And he who erroneously assumes that it is a translation based on the close similarity of the words, does not know that what he said is wrong. Rather, the reason that the name is fitting is the fact that it resembles a raven because it is black, and the rudders resemble wings. This is correct. And then I saw this in ShihÄb al-KhafÄjÄ«âs his book ṬirÄz al-majÄlis, where you can look it up if you like.113
While al-MuḥibbÄ« incorrectly identifies the source (ṬirÄz al-majÄlis, âThe Fine Fleur of the Gatherings,â is a collection of al-KhafÄjÄ«âs lectures), he accurately attributes the etymology of ghurÄb to al-KhafÄjÄ«. More importantly, this lemma illustrates that subjects of etymologyâand language more broadlyâwere not confined to the lemmata of commentaries but were also discussed on boat trips, at picnics, and in gatherings. Similar to YÅ«suf al-MaghribÄ«âs documentation of speech errors in scholarly circles, al-MuḥibbÄ« reveals that loanwords were a gratifying topic of conversation through which a scholar could flaunt his mastery of the Arabic language.
4 Conclusion
Even though laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma and muÊ¿arrab presented distinct genres of writing, they both contributed to a broader engagement with processes of language changeâchanges that were not always explicitly acknowledged and were sometimes outright condemned. However, as we observed in the previous chapter, scholars did recognise these processes and endeavoured to explain and even justify them in various ways.
In the post-formative period, the topic of taÊ¿rÄ«b displays parallels to laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma. Loanwords were prone to mispronunciation as they deviated from the structures of the Arabic language, sometimes resulting in the circulation of multiple âversionsâ of proper nouns or technical terms. In the absence of a language academy that could rein in these deviations, language scholars viewed themselves as the arbiters of language use. They collected laḥn, muÊ¿arrab, and muwallad in treatises on dakhÄ«l, adding categories such as lafẠislamÄ« for further differentiation. Additionally, they contested and corrected authoritative dictionaries such as al-QÄmÅ«s and al-á¹¢iḥÄḥ by extracting words that had not been previously identified as muwallad. Through the dynamics of the commentarial form, they consolidated authoritative knowledge, discussed and (re-)arranged it, ensuring the transmission of five hundred years of loanword theory and practice to future generations.
Like laḥn, the engagement with taÊ¿rÄ«b was not merely an exercise in linguistics for its own sake; it directly impacted the scholarâs everyday life and reputation. The technical terms and sayings in loanword dictionaries often emerged from scholarly debates in the majlis or from learned conversations during boat trips on the Bosporus, and often returned to these settings. The eleventh/seventeenth-century dakhÄ«l dictionary is a work of adab that illustrates how language issues were deeply intertwined with culture and ethics.
On the establishment and functions of Arabic language academies, see Mohammed Sawaie, âLanguage Academies,â in Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed. Kees Versteegh (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 2:634â642.
Jaroslav Stetkevych, The Modern Arabic Literary Language. Lexical and Stylistic Developments, reprint of the 1970 edition, Georgetown University Classics in Arabic Language and Linguistics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 18.
These and other examples can be found in Stetkevych, The Modern Arabic Literary Language, chap. 1.
Cf. QÂ 12:2, 20:113, 39:28, 41:3, 42:7, 43:3: â®
The noun Ê¿arab has the connotation of âspeaking eloquently,â the opposite is Ê¿ajam, which both means âforeignâ and âhaving a speech impediment.â KhalÄ«l ibn Aḥmad al-FarÄhÄ«dÄ«, KitÄb al-Ê¿Ayn, vol. 1, s.v. Ê¿-j-m.
Al-JawharÄ«, TÄj al-lugha wa-á¹£iḥÄḥ al-Ê¿arabiyya, s.v. Ê¿-r-b:
â®
تعرÙب اÙاس٠اÙأعج٠٠أ٠تتÙÙ٠ب٠اÙعرب عÙÙ Ù ÙÙاجÙØ§Ø ØªÙÙÙ :عرÙبت٠اÙعرب Ùأعربت٠أÙضا٠.â¬â
As, for instance, the much-discussed masʾala zunbÅ«riyya (âQuestion of the Hornetâ): see Joshua Blau, âThe Role of the Bedouins as Arbiters in Linguistic Questions and the Masʾala az-zunbÅ«riyya,â Journal of Semitic Studies 8 (1963): 42â51.
Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddima, 462:
â®
ÙÙا٠اÙÙرآ٠٠تÙزÙا٠ب٠ÙاÙØدÙØ« اÙÙبÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙا٠بÙغت٠ÙÙ٠ا أصÙا اÙدÙÙ Ùخش٠تÙاسÙÙ٠ا ÙاÙغÙا٠اÙØ£ÙÙا٠عÙÙ٠ا بÙÙدا٠اÙÙسا٠اÙذ٠تÙزÙا ب٠ÙاØتÙج Ø¥Ù٠تدÙÙ٠أØÙا٠٠ÙÙضع Ù ÙاÙÙس٠ÙاستÙباط ÙÙاÙÙÙÙ ÙصارعÙ٠ا ذا ÙصÙÙ ÙأبÙاب ÙÙ Ùد٠ات Ù٠سائ٠س٠ا٠أÙÙ٠بعÙ٠اÙÙØÙ ÙصÙاعة اÙعربÙØ© .ÙØ£ØµØ¨Ø ÙÙا٠٠ØÙÙظا٠ÙعÙ٠ا٠٠ÙتÙبا٠ÙسÙ٠ا٠إÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ùتاب اÙÙÙ ÙسÙØ© رسÙÙÙ .â¬â
My translation of Ibn KhaldÅ«n is loosely based on Franz Rosenthalâs translation: Ibn Khaldûn, The Muqaddimah. An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal, 2nd ed., 3 vols., Bollingen Series, XLIII (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967).
See Christian Uffmann, âLoanword Adaptation,â in The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, ed. Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 644â666.
SÄ«bawayhi, al-KitÄb, 4:305â307:
â®[â¦]
Ùرب٠ا غÙرÙا ØاÙ٠ع٠ØاÙÙ Ù٠اÙأعج٠ÙØ© ٠ع Ø¥ÙØاÙÙ٠باÙعربÙØ© غÙر اÙØرÙ٠اÙعربÙØ©Ø ÙأبدÙÙا Ù Ùا٠اÙØر٠اÙØ°Ù ÙÙ ÙÙعرب عربÙا٠غÙرÙØ ÙغÙرÙا اÙØرÙØ© ÙأبدÙÙا Ù Ùا٠اÙزÙØ§Ø¯Ø©Ø . [â¦]ÙÙد ÙعÙÙا ذا ب٠ا Ø£ÙØ٠ببÙائÙÙ Ù٠ا ÙÙ ÙÙØÙØ Ù Ù Ø§ÙتغÙÙر ÙاÙإبدا٠ÙاÙزÙادة ÙاÙØØ°ÙØ Ù٠ا ÙÙز٠٠اÙتغÙÙر .Ùرب٠ا ترÙÙا اÙاس٠عÙÙ ØاÙ٠إذا ÙاÙت ØرÙÙÙ Ù Ù ØرÙÙÙÙ Ø Ùا٠عÙ٠بÙائÙ٠أ٠ÙÙ ÙÙÙ [â¦]Ùرب٠ا غÙرÙا اÙØر٠اÙØ°Ù ÙÙس Ù Ù ØرÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙغÙرÙا ع٠بÙائ٠Ù٠اÙÙارسÙØ©  â¦â¬â
On the concept of ilḥÄq, see Ramzi Baalbaki, âIlḥÄq as a Morphological Tool in Arabic Grammar,â Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 4 (2001â2002): 1â26.
For a discussion of the term muwallad, see Chapter 2, section 1.3.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« does not mention á¹£irÄá¹ except in a quotation implying that it is an Arabic word. See AbÅ« Manṣūr MawhÅ«b ibn Aḥmad al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab min al-kalÄm al-aÊ¿jamÄ« Ê¿alÄ á¸¥urÅ«f al-muÊ¿jam, ed. F. Ê¿Abd al-Raḥīm (Damascus: DÄr al-qalam, 1410/1990), 155. Al-MunshÄ« (see below) tells us that it is from RÅ«miyya. See SulaymÄn ibn IbrÄhÄ«m al-Ê¿Äyid, ed., RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Ibn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ« (Mecca, 1407/1986), 130.
See, for instance, the introduction to Muḥammad al-AmÄ«n ibn Fadl AllÄh al-MuḥibbÄ«, Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l fÄ«mÄ fÄ« al-lugha al-Ê¿arabiyya min al-dakhÄ«l, ed. Ê¿UthmÄn Muḥammad al-SÄ«nÄ« (Riyadh: Maktabat al-tawba, 1415/1994), 1:94. On the other hand, in the nineteenth century, Eduard Sachau explicitly stated that he edited al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs MuÊ¿arrab on account of its significance for literary history: ânicht die Aussicht, in dem Werke wesentliche Beiträge für die etymologische Forschung unserer Zeit zu geben, sondern die literärgeschichtliche Bedeutung desselben hat es mir der Herausgabe würdig erscheinen lassen.â Eduard Sachau, ed., Ç´awâlîḳîâs AlmuÊ¿arrab nach der Leydener Handschrift mit Erläuterungen herausgegeben (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1867), vii.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 91â92:
â®
ÙØÙ٠ع٠أب٠عÙÙ Ùا٠:رأÙت أبا بÙر ÙدÙر Ùذ٠اÙÙÙظة بÙص٠ÙÙشتÙÙا ÙÙÙت :Ø£Ù٠تذÙØ¨Ø Ø¥ÙÙا ÙارسÙØ© .Ø¥Ù٠ا Ù٠بÙزÙد ÙÙ٠اس٠جدÙا .Ùا٠:Ù٠عÙا٠اÙساÙÙ ÙÙا٠أب٠بÙر :Ùرجت عÙÙ .â¬â
AbÅ« Ê¿AlÄ« may be the Basran grammarian known as AbÅ« Ê¿AlÄ« al-FÄrisÄ« (d. 377/987); who AbÅ« Bakr refers to is unclear to me: probably neither to AbÅ« Bakr Ibn al-SarrÄj (d. 316/928) nor AbÅ« Bakr Muḥammad Ibn al-AnbÄrÄ« (d. 328/940).
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 91:
â®
Ùذا اÙÙتاب ÙØ°Ùر ÙÙ٠٠ا تÙÙ٠ت ب٠اÙعرب ٠٠اÙÙÙا٠اÙاعج٠٠ÙÙط٠ب٠اÙÙرآ٠اÙ٠جÙد ÙÙرد Ù٠أخبار اÙرسÙ٠صÙ٠اÙÙ٠عÙÙÙ ÙسÙÙ ÙاÙصØابة ÙاÙتابعÙ٠رضÙا٠اÙÙ٠عÙÙÙ٠أج٠عÙÙ ÙØ°Ùرت٠اÙعرب Ù٠اشعارÙا ÙأخبارÙا ÙÙعر٠اÙدخÙ٠٠٠اÙصرÙØ .â¬â
I translate lughat al-Ê¿ajam here as âlanguage of the non-Arabs.â Most often, as in SÄ«bawayhiâs definition of taÊ¿rÄ«b quoted above, Persian is the implied reference language.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 91:
â®
ÙÙ٠٠عرÙØ© Ø°ÙÙ Ùائدة جÙÙÙØ© ÙÙ٠أ٠ÙØترس اÙ٠شت٠ÙÙا Ùجع٠شÙئا٠٠٠Ùغة اÙعرب ÙØ´ÙØ¡ Ù Ù Ùغة اÙعج٠.ÙÙد Ùا٠أب٠بÙر ب٠اÙسراج Ù٠رساÙت٠Ù٠اÙاشتÙا٠Ù٠باب ٠ا Ùجب عÙ٠اÙÙاظر Ù٠اÙاشتÙا٠أ٠ÙتÙÙا٠ÙÙØترس Ù ÙÙ :٠٠ا ÙÙبغ٠أ٠ÙØذر Ù ÙÙ Ù٠اÙØذرأ٠Ùشت٠٠٠Ùغة اÙعرب ÙØ´ÙØ¡ Ù Ù Ùغة اÙØ¹Ø¬Ù Ø ÙÙÙÙ٠ب٠ÙزÙØ© ٠٠ادع٠أ٠اÙØ·ÙرÙÙد اÙØÙت .â¬â
Cf. AbÅ« Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-SirrÄ« Ibn al-SarrÄj, RisÄlat al-IshtiqÄq, ed. Muḥammad Ê¿AlÄ« al-DarwÄ«sh and Musá¹afÄ al-MudrÄ« (Damascus, 1972), 31.
See Abdellah Chekayri, âIÅ¡tiqÄq,â in Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (Leiden: Brill, 2011), ed. Kees Versteegh,
Cf. Chekayri, âIÅ¡tiqÄq:â âSome Arab grammarians consider the semantic relationship between the root and its derived forms to be crucial. Only when the semantic relationship is satisfied are derived forms regarded as belonging to this root.â
Ibn al-SarrÄj, RisÄlat al-IshtiqÄq, 15: â®
He also mentions that he has written an alphabetical dictionary KitÄb al-IshtiqÄq, but this is not extant. See Ibn al-SarrÄj, RisÄlat al-IshtiqÄq, 40.
Ibn al-SarrÄj, RisÄlat al-IshtiqÄq, 20.
See Kees Versteegh, âFreedom of the Speaker? IttisÄÊ¿ and Related Concepts in Arabic Grammar,â in Studies in the History of Arabic Grammar II. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on the History of Arabic Grammar, Nijmegen, 27 Aprilâ1 May 1987, ed. Michael G. Carter and Kees Versteegh (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990), 281â293.
Versteegh, 283: â⦠ittisÄÊ¿ is used for the process by which a word is placed beyond its proper boundaries, as an extension of its normal domain.â On the concept of ittisÄÊ¿, see also Avigail Noy, âReading Poetry with SÄ«bawayhi: IttisÄÊ¿/SaÊ¿at al-KalÄm and Metaphorical Thinking in the KitÄb,â in From SÄ«bawayhi to ʾAḥmad Ḥasan Al-ZayyÄt: New Angles on the Arabic Linguistic Tradition, ed. Beata Sheyhatovitch and Almog Kasher (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 37â90.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 92:
â®
Ùأ٠ا ٠ا Ùرد Ù ÙÙ Ù٠اÙÙرآ٠ÙÙد اختÙÙ ÙÙ٠أÙ٠اÙعÙÙ .ÙÙا٠بعضÙÙ :Ùتاب اÙÙ٠تعاÙÙ ÙÙس ÙÙÙ Ø´ÙØ¡ ٠٠غÙر اÙعربÙØ© .أخبرÙ٠غÙر ÙاØد ع٠اÙØس٠ب٠أØ٠د ع٠دعÙج ع٠عÙ٠ب٠عبد اÙعزÙز ع٠أب٠عبÙد Ùا٠:س٠عت أبا عبÙدة ÙÙÙÙ :٠٠زع٠أ٠Ù٠اÙÙرآ٠ÙساÙا٠سÙ٠اÙعربÙØ© ÙÙد أعظ٠عÙ٠اÙÙ٠اÙÙÙÙ .ÙاØتج بÙÙÙ٠تعاÙÙ :Ø¥Ùا جعÙÙا٠ÙرآÙا٠عربÙا٠.Ùا٠أب٠عبÙد :ÙرÙ٠ع٠اب٠عباس Ù٠جÙد ÙعÙرÙÙ Ø© ÙغÙرÙÙ Ù٠أØر٠ÙØ«Ùرة Ø£Ù٠٠٠غÙر Ùسا٠اÙعرب ٠ث٠سجÙÙ ÙاÙÙ Ø´Ùاة ÙاÙÙÙ ÙاÙØ·Ùر ÙأبارÙÙ Ùاستبر٠ÙغÙر Ø°ÙÙ .ÙÙؤÙاء أعÙ٠باÙتأÙÙ٠٠٠أب٠عبÙØ¯Ø©Ø ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ø°ÙبÙا Ø¥ÙÙ Ù Ø°Ùب ÙØ°Ùب Ùذا Ø¥Ù٠غÙر٠.ÙÙÙاÙ٠ا ٠صÙب إ٠شاء اÙÙÙ ÙØ°Ù٠أ٠Ùذ٠اÙØرÙ٠بغÙر Ùسا٠اÙعرب Ù٠اÙأص٠ÙÙاÙÙا Ø£ÙÙئ٠عÙ٠اÙأص٠.Ø«Ù ÙÙظÙا ب٠اÙعرب بأÙسÙتÙا Ùعربت٠Ùصار عربÙا٠بتعرÙبÙا Ø¥Ùا٠.ÙÙ٠عربÙØ© Ù٠اÙØاÙØ Ø£Ø¹Ø¬Ù ÙØ© اÙأص٠.ÙÙذا اÙÙÙÙ Ùصد٠اÙÙرÙÙÙ٠ج٠Ùعا٠.â¬â
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 93.
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 94â95:
â®
Ù٠٠ا غÙرÙا ٠٠اÙØرÙ٠٠ا Ùا٠بÙ٠اÙجÙÙ ÙاÙÙاÙØ Ùرب٠ا جعÙÙ٠جÙ٠ا٠Ùرب٠ا جعÙÙÙ ÙاÙا٠Ùرب٠ا جعÙÙÙ ÙاÙا٠ÙÙرب اÙÙا٠٠٠اÙÙا٠.ÙاÙÙا :Ùربج ÙبعضÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ :Ùرب٠.Ùا٠أب٠ع٠ر٠:س٠عت اÙأص٠ع٠ÙÙÙÙ :ÙÙ Ù Ùضع ÙÙا٠ÙÙ Ùرب٠.Ùا٠:ÙرÙدÙÙ :Ùربج .Ùا٠ساÙ٠ب٠ÙØÙا٠ÙÙ Ùرب٠:â¬â
â® Ù ÙÙÙ Ø´ÙرÙبÙÙة٠غÙÙÙر٠اÙÙÙجÙاء٠اÙØ£ÙدÙÙÙÙÙÙ â¬ââ® Ù Ùا Ø´ÙرÙبÙÙت٠بÙعÙد٠طÙÙÙÙÙÙ٠اÙÙÙرÙبÙÙÙÙ â¬â
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 101: âAs for the patterns of the Arabs, the most beautiful are those built from letters that have points of articulation that are far apart.ââ®
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 101:
â®
Ùإذا جاء٠٠ثا٠خ٠اس٠أ٠رباع٠بغÙر Øر٠أ٠ØرÙÙÙ Ù Ù ØرÙ٠اÙØ°ÙاÙØ© ÙاعÙ٠أÙÙ ÙÙس Ù Ù ÙÙا٠Ù٠٠ث٠عÙجش ÙØظائج ÙÙØÙ Ø°ÙÙ .â¬â
Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 100:
â®
ÙÙÙ ÙØ٠أØد ٠٠اÙØ«Ùات ÙÙÙ Ø© عربÙØ© ٠بÙÙØ© ٠٠باء ÙسÙÙ Ùتاء .Ùإذا جاء Ø°ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ø© ÙÙ٠دخÙÙ .â¬â
According to the editor F. Ê¿Abd al-Raḥīm; see al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 7.
Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, al-Muzhir fÄ« Ê¿ulÅ«m al-lugha wa-anwÄÊ¿ihÄ, 1:270:
â®
Ùص٠:Ùا٠أئ٠ة اÙعربÙØ© :تعر٠عج٠ة اÙاس٠بÙجÙÙ .Ø£ØدÙا اÙÙÙ٠بأ٠ÙÙÙÙ Ø°Ù٠أØد أئ٠ة اÙعربÙØ© .â¬â
Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, al-Muzhir fÄ« Ê¿ulÅ«m al-lugha wa-anwÄÊ¿ihÄ, 1:270.
In fact, the exact number of loanwords in the QurʾÄn is still a matter of debate for which the Arabic sources and methods of modern linguistics are adduced. See Catherine Pennacchio, âLexical Borrowing in the QurâÄn: The Problematic Aspects of Arthur Jefferyâs List,â trans. Judith Grumbach, Bulletin Du Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem, no. 22 (2011),
There is, however, also a reference not going back further than al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs MuÊ¿arrab. See JalÄl al-DÄ«n AbÅ« al-Faá¸l Ê¿Abd al-RaḥmÄn ibn AbÄ« Bakr al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, al-MutawakkilÄ« fÄ«mÄ warada fÄ« al-QurʾÄn bi-l-lughÄt al-Ḥabashiyya wa-l-FÄrisiyya wa-l-RÅ«miyya wa-l-Hindiyya wa-l-SiryÄniyya wa-l-Ê¿IbrÄniyya wa-l-Nabaá¹iyya wa-l-Qibá¹iyya wa-l-Turkiyya wa-l-Zanjiyya wa-l-Barbariyya, ed. Ê¿Abd al-KarÄ«m al-ZubaydÄ« (Beirut: DÄr al-balÄgha, 1988), 7, 9.
JalÄl al-DÄ«n AbÅ« al-Faá¸l Ê¿Abd al-RaḥmÄn ibn AbÄ« Bakr al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, âal-Muhadhdhab fÄ«mÄ waqaÊ¿a fÄ« al-QurʾÄn min al-muÊ¿arrab,â in RasÄʾil fÄ« al-fiqh wa-l-lugha, ed. Ê¿Abd AllÄh al-JabÅ«rÄ« (Beirut: DÄr al-gharb al-islÄmÄ«, 1982), 191â¯ff.
Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, âal-Muhadhdhab fÄ«mÄ waqaÊ¿a fÄ« al-QurʾÄn min al-muÊ¿arrab,â 194.
In a quotation from Ibn FÄrisâ al-á¹¢ÄḥibÄ« fÄ« fiqh al-lugha; see al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, âal-Muhadhdhab fÄ«mÄ waqaÊ¿a fÄ« al-QurʾÄn min al-muÊ¿arrab,â 195.
Aḥmad ibn SulaymÄn Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RasÄʾil Ä°bn-i KemÄl, ed. Ahmet Cevdet, vol. 2 (Istanbul: Maá¹baÊ¿at iqdÄm bi-dÄr al-khilÄfa al-Ê¿uliya, 1316 [1898]), 240â249. The term is also discussed by al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 165â166.
Muḥammad SawÄÊ¿Ä« mentions two other titles referring to loanwords: RisÄla fÄ« al-kalimÄt al-muÊ¿arraba and RisÄla fÄ« jawÄz al-tawassuÊ¿ fÄ« kalÄm al-Ê¿arab. See Aḥmad ibn SulaymÄn Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, ed. Muḥammad SawÄÊ¿Ä« (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1991), 13â14. The first treatise may be an alternative title for the RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya discussed hereâcf. the different titles Wilhelm Ahlwardt mentions for what is in large parts the same treatise: al-RisÄla al-taÊ¿rÄ«biyya and RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q aá¹£l al-taÊ¿rÄ«b wa-tafṣīl baʿḠal-muÊ¿arrabÄt (see Ahlwardt, Verzeichniss der arabischen Handschriften, 6:319â320). The second work mentioned by SawÄÊ¿Ä« is also known under the title RisÄla fÄ« anna al-tawassuÊ¿ shÄʾiÊ¿ fÄ« lughat al-Ê¿arab: the short technical treatise (two and a half folios) discusses examples of nouns (ism) functioning as adjectives (á¹£ifa).
Ahmed, What Is Islam?, 339.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 46â47:
â®
ÙÙذ٠اÙرساÙØ© ٠رتبة Ù٠تØÙÙ٠تعرÙب اÙÙÙÙ Ø© اÙأعج٠ÙØ© ÙتÙصÙ٠أÙسا٠٠Ùت٠ÙÙز٠ع٠ا ÙشاÙب٠ÙÙÙس Ù ÙÙ ÙØ¥Ù٠دÙÙ٠جدا٠ÙØ°ÙÙ Ùأ٠اÙعرب Ù٠ا تستع٠٠اÙÙÙÙ Ø© اÙأعج٠ÙØ© ÙتجعÙÙا جزءا٠٠٠اÙÙÙا٠بعد اÙتعرÙب ÙØ°Ù٠تستع٠ÙÙا ÙتجعÙÙا جزءا٠[Ù ÙÙ ]Ù Ù ÙبÙÙ .â¬â
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya. Cf. AbÅ« al-QÄsim JÄr AllÄh MaḥmÅ«d ibn Ê¿Umar al-ZamakhsharÄ«, al-KashshÄf Ê¿an ḥaqÄʾiq al-tanzÄ«l wa-Ê¿uyÅ«n al-aqÄwil fÄ« wujÅ«h al-taʾwÄ«l (Cairo: MustafÄ al-BÄbÄ« al-Halabi, 1385/1966), 3:507:
â®
٠عÙ٠اÙتعرÙب Ø£Ù ÙÙجع٠عربÙا٠باÙتصر٠ÙÙÙØ ÙتغÙÙر٠ع٠٠ÙÙاجÙØ Ùإجرائ٠عÙ٠أÙج٠اÙإعراب .â¬â
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 47â48; cf. SÄ«bawayhi, al-KitÄb, 4:303â307. Cf. Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 292.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 53; al-JawharÄ«, TÄj al-lugha wa-á¹£iḥÄḥ al-Ê¿arabiyya, 1:179:
â®
تعرÙب اÙاس٠اÙأعج٠٠أ٠[تتÙÙÙ ]ب٠اÙعرب عÙÙ Ù ÙÙاجÙا .â¬â
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 56.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 58.
Cf. the discussion of Greek and Turkish proper names and toponyms by Ibn BÄlÄ«, see Chapter 2, section 3.3.
Al-ḤarÄ«rÄ«, Durrat al-ghawwÄs, 80:
â®
ÙÙد ÙجÙز Ù٠اÙشطرÙج Ø£Ù ÙÙا٠باÙØ´Ù٠اÙ٠عج٠ة ÙجÙاز اشتÙاÙ٠٠٠اÙ٠شاطرة ÙØ¥Ù ÙÙا٠باÙسÙ٠اÙÙ ÙÙ ÙØ© ÙجÙاز Ø£Ù ÙÙÙ٠اشت٠٠٠اÙتسطÙر عÙد اÙتعبÙØ© .â¬â
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 60.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 63â¯ff.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 52.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 68.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 125â¯ff.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 142.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 96 citing Ibn KhallikÄn.
Ibn KamÄl PaÅa, RisÄla fÄ« taḥqÄ«q taÊ¿rÄ«b al-kalima al-aÊ¿jamiyya, 99â100. As a source for this story, KemalpaÅazÄde gives JamÄl al-DÄ«n YÅ«suf Ibn TaghrÄ«birdÄ«âs (d. 874/1470) history work al-NujÅ«m al-zÄhira fÄ« mulÅ«k Miá¹£r wa-l-QÄhira, which he himself had translated into Turkish.
Walid Saleh, âThe Qurâan Commentary of al-Bayá¸ÄwÄ«: A History of AnwÄr al-TanzÄ«l,â Journal of Qurâanic Studies 25, no. 1 (2021): 89.
See Muḥammad al-AmÄ«n ibn Fadl Allah al-MuḥibbÄ«, KhulÄá¹£at al-athar fÄ« aÊ¿yÄn al-qarn al-ḥÄdÄ« Ê¿ashar, vol. 3 (Beirut: DÄr á¹£Ädir, 1446/1986), 400â401.
Brockelmann, History of the Arabic Written Tradition, 2:514 and Suppl. 2, 677.
Al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 131.
Al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 135.
Al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 138.
Such as al-bÄdhiq, see al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 140; al-sabÄá¹: 162.
Al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 165.
Al-MunshÄ« differentiates between muÊ¿arrab and muwallad only in one entry (á¹Äjan or á¹ayjan, âfrying panâ), calling it muwallad on account of the fact that jÄ«m and á¹Äʾ do not occur together in Arabic words: al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 175. Al-MunshÄ« also uses the term dakhÄ«l, for instance in the entry al-qÄnÅ«n (185). It is most likely synonymous to muÊ¿arrab.
Al-Ê¿Äyid, RisÄlatÄn fÄ« al-muÊ¿arrab li-Bn KamÄl wa-l-MunshÄ«, 184:
â®
اÙÙÙÙسÙÙ :Ù Øب اÙØÙÙ Ø©Ø Ù Ø¹Ø±Ø¨ اصÙÙ ÙÙÙاسÙÙا ÙÙÙÙا Ù٠اÙÙ Øب ÙسÙÙا Ù٠اÙØÙÙ Ø©Ø ÙÙ Ù٠اشتÙت اÙÙÙسÙØ© Ù٠ا اشتÙت اÙسÙسطة ٠٠سÙÙسطا ٠عÙا٠اÙØÙÙ Ø© اÙ٠زخرÙØ© Ù Ù٠اسطا باÙترÙÙ .â¬â
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 251:
â®
ÙÙصÙØ·ÙÙ :Ù ÙÙد عرب٠اÙ٠تأخرÙÙØ ÙÙ٠٠عرب ÙستاÙÙ ÙÙ٠شا٠بÙÙØ· .Ùتس٠Ù٠أÙ٠٠صر أب٠ÙرÙØ© Ùا٠[٠٠اÙÙ ÙØ³Ø±Ø ]:â¬â
â® ÙÙØ´ÙÙر٠بÙعÙÙÙÙد٠اÙجÙÙÙاÙÙ ÙÙ٠اÙØ´ÙجÙÙر٠â¬ââ® ÙÙÙا ØÙبÙÙÙذا اÙÙÙصÙØ·ÙÙÙ٠اÙÙ ÙجÙÙرÙÙد٠٠ÙÙÙ â¬ââ® ÙÙض٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙا تÙÙÙرÙÙ ÙÙش٠اÙÙÙبÙÙر٠â¬ââ® ÙÙØ£ÙÙÙÙÙÙ٠أÙÙÙجÙÙÙ٠اÙصÙÙÙÙاÙÙبÙÙة٠اÙبÙÙ â¬â
The poet is not mentioned. A variant of the verse is found in ShihÄb al-DÄ«n Aḥmad ibn Ê¿Abd al-WahhÄb al-NuwayrÄ«âs (d. 733/1333) encyclopaedia NihÄyat al-arab fÄ« funÅ«n al-adab, see NihÄyat al-arab fÄ« funÅ«n al-adab, ed. YaḥyÄ al-ShÄmÄ«, vol. 11 (Beirut: DÄr al-kutub al-Ê¿ilmiyya, 1424/2004), 64.
For instance, Eduard Sachau reached the erroneous conclusion that ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l is a âmeagre excerptâ from al-MuÊ¿arrab. See Sachau, Ç´awâlîḳîâs AlmuÊ¿arrab nach der Leydener Handschrift mit Erläuterungen herausgegeben, vi.
The title element Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l is a reference to Q 16:9, apparently used frequently in eleventh/seventeenth-century scholarship, for example by al-MuḥibbÄ«âs contemporary IbrÄhÄ«m al-KÅ«rÄnÄ« (d. 1101/1689). ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l was also regularly used in titles, mainly of religious works.
Versteegh, âWhatâs It like to Be a Persian? SÄ«bawayhiâs Treatment of Loanwords,â 211: âThe general impression one gains from the KitÄb al-Ê¿ayn is that such words, deriving from foreign languages, are not part of the Arabic language, even though Arabs sometimes use them.â
See Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 165â166. Al-BishbÄ«shÄ« also wrote a work titled JÄmiÊ¿ al-taÊ¿rÄ«b bi-l-á¹arÄ«q al-qarÄ«b (âGathering TaÊ¿rÄ«b along the Short Routeâ). However, a well-sounding rhyming title may have played a role in the choice for the term dakhÄ«l, too.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 32:
â®â¦
ÙÙتاب أب٠٠ÙصÙر رÙØ Ø§ÙÙ٠رÙØÙ Ùأجز٠ÙÙ Ù Ùاز٠اÙسعادة ÙتÙØ٠أج٠٠ا صÙÙ ÙÙ Ùذا اÙباب Ø¥Ùا Ø£ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ùز ÙÙ٠اÙÙشر ÙاÙÙباب  â¦â¬â
Al-KhafÄjÄ« only mentions al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«âs name in the introduction to al-ShifÄʾ, not in the lemmata.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 32:
â®
Ùض٠٠ت Ø¥ÙÙÙ Ùس٠اÙÙ ÙÙد ÙÙ٠إÙ٠اÙØ¢Ù ÙÙ ÙدÙÙ ÙÙ ÙØªØ§Ø¨Ø ÙÙÙ ÙرÙع ع٠ÙجÙ٠٠خدرات٠اÙÙÙØ§Ø¨Ø ÙÙد Ø£Ùردت Ù Ù٠٠ا Ùسر اÙÙØ§Ø¸Ù Ø ÙÙØ´Ø±Ø Ø§ÙØ®Ø§Ø·Ø±Ø Ù Ø¹ Ø´ÙØ¡ ٠٠اÙÙÙد ÙاÙØ±Ø¯Ø ÙÙطائ٠أدبÙØ© تذÙر عÙÙد تÙا٠ة ÙÙجد  â¦â¬â
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 33:
â®
Ù٠ا عرب٠اÙ٠تأخرÙÙ Ùعد Ù ÙÙدا٠ÙÙØ«Ùرا٠٠ا ÙÙع Ù Ø«ÙÙ ÙÙ Ùتب اÙØÙÙ Ø© ÙاÙطب ÙصاØب اÙÙا٠Ùس ÙتبعÙ٠٠٠غÙر تÙبÙ٠عÙÙ Ùذا .â¬â
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 45â46:
â®
اعÙ٠أÙ٠أذÙر ÙÙ Ùتاب٠Ùذا تت٠Ù٠ا٠ÙÙÙائدة ٠ا Ùد ÙØ°Ùر٠بعض Ø£Ù٠اÙÙغة إ٠ا ÙترÙÙ٠اÙتÙبÙ٠عÙ٠أÙÙ Ù ÙÙد âÙصاØب اÙÙا٠Ùس ÙÙعÙÙ ÙØ«Ùرا٠Øت٠ترا٠Ùعت٠د Ù٠بعض اÙÙغات عÙÙ Ùتب اÙطب ÙÙ٠٠٠سÙطات٠اÙÙاضØØ© âÙإ٠ا ÙØ£ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙØÙÙÙا ٠عÙا٠Ùأ٠ا ÙÙÙÙ٠غرÙبا٠Ùادر اÙاستع٠ا٠.â¬âSee also Chapter 2, section 1.4.
Cf. Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 162:
The term muwallad, however, is usually reserved for post-classical neologisms. [â¦] It is therefore not surprising that muwallad material only modestly features in muÊ¿arrab works (apart perhaps from the books of ḪafÄǧī and MuḥibbÄ« [â¦]), and is normally quoted in books on solecism (laḥn al-Ê¿Ämma).
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 35â36.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 39:
â®
ÙÙÙ ÙÙعبÙ٠ب٠ÙØ«Ùرا٠Ùرب٠ا استع٠ÙÙ٠عÙ٠سبÙ٠اÙتÙØ·Ù Ù٠ا Ùا٠عÙÙ٠اÙسÙا٠اشÙÙب درد .رÙا٠٠سÙÙ .â¬â
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 38. Al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« did not mention this example in the introduction to his dictionary, whereas he did list juwÄliq as a muÊ¿arrab. See al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ«, al-MuÊ¿arrab, 251. Al-KhafÄjÄ« probably took this example from al-Muzhir: see al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, al-Muzhir fÄ« Ê¿ulÅ«m al-lugha wa-anwÄÊ¿ihÄ, 1:271.
Al-MuḥibbÄ« mentions him as a scholar and an eloquent poet, who studied in Mecca, Damacus, Aleppo, and Istanbul. See al-MuḥibbÄ«, KhulÄá¹£at al-athar fÄ« aÊ¿yÄn al-qarn al-ḥÄdÄ« Ê¿ashar, 2:291â298.
According to the editor of ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, KashshÄsh, the words are arranged âaccording to their pronunciation,â but if so, this is not done consistently. See al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 27.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 316:
â®
Ùا أرÙب اÙبØر :ÙÙ Ù Ùعد٠ع٠اÙÙساء .Ùا٠:â¬â
⮠أÙØ·ÙÙÙÙب٠رÙزÙÙ٠اÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ٠اÙساØÙÙÙÙ â¬ââ® Ùا Ø£ÙرÙÙÙÙب٠اÙبÙØÙÙر٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ â¬â
I do not sail the sea: [said] about one who abstains from women. He said:
I do not sail the sea, I rather strive to attain Godâs blessing on the shore
KashshÄsh notes that the author âin the conception of dakhÄ«l expands the single keyword to expressions and sayings that were current in his time.â See al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 28.
The titleâs translation is taken from Elias Muhannaâs edition of the work: Shihab al-Din al-Nuwayri, The Ultimate Ambition in the Arts of Erudition: A Compendium of Knowledge from the Classical Islamic World, ed., trans., and intr. Elias Muhanna (New York: Penguin Books, 2016).
S.v. aqsimÄ (âraisin juiceâ), see al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 57.
A variant reading of QÂ 12:19.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 317:
â®
اÙÙ ÙÙدÙÙ ÙزÙدÙÙ Ùاء Ù٠خطاب اÙ٠ؤÙثة ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ùضع ضربت٠ضربتÙÙ .ÙÙت ÙÙ Ùغة ÙربÙعة ÙÙÙÙا ردÙØ© .ÙÙذا ÙصÙÙÙ ÙتØØ© اÙض٠Ùر ÙÙاÙ٠أÙÙا٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù٠تا ÙØ¥ÙÙا Ùا٠اÙشاعر : [٠٠اÙÙزج ]â¬â
â® ÙÙÙ Ùا Ø£ÙØ®ÙØ·ÙØ£Ùت٠اÙرÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ â¬â⮠رÙÙ ÙÙÙتÙÙÙÙ ÙÙØ£ÙÙÙصÙدÙت٠â¬ââ®
ÙÙ٠أشباع Ùذا ÙÙ Ø´Ø±Ø Ø§ÙتسÙÙÙ .ÙÙÙÙبÙ٠اÙØ£ÙÙ Ùب٠Ùاء اÙ٠تÙÙÙ Ùاء ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙا٠٠ÙÙÙ .ÙÙت ÙÙ Ùغة ØÙ Ùر ÙÙرأ اÙØس٠Ùا بشر٠.Ùا٠اÙز٠خشر٠:س٠عت Ø£Ù٠اÙسرÙات ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ùا سÙد٠ÙÙا Ù ÙÙ٠اÙÙ .â¬â
Cf., for instance, Jérôme Lentin, âNormes orthographiques en moyen arabe: Sur la notation du vocalisme bref,â in Mixed Arabic and Middle Arabic: Diachrony and Synchrony, ed. Liesbeth Zack and Arie Schippers (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 215.
See Chapter 2 on laḥn, specifically Ibn al-ḤanbalÄ«âs treatise Baḥr al-Ê¿awwÄm fÄ«mÄ aá¹£Äba fÄ«hi l-Ê¿awÄmm.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 99.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 94.
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 265.
Csirkés, âTurkish/Turkic Books of Poetry, Turkish and Persian Lexicography,â 696.
Carl Brockelmann, âal-MuḥibbÄ«,â in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second Edition, ed. C.E. Bosworth et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 7:469â470; Ferdinand Wüstenfeldt, Die Gelehrten-Familie Muḥibbà in Damascus und ihre Zeitgenossen im XI. (XVII.) Jahrhundert, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 31 (Göttingen: Dieterichsche Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1884).
Al-MuḥibbÄ«âs supplement to al-KhafÄjÄ«âs literary anthology is titled Nafḥat al-RayḥÄna wa-rashḥat á¹ilÄʾ al-ḥÄna (âThe Fragrance of Basil/al-RayḥÄna and the Trickling Wine of the Tavernâ).
Al-Muḥibbī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, 1:103.
The Istanbul qÄá¸Ä« Muá¹£á¹afÄ ibn al-ḤÄjj al-Aná¹ÄkÄ«, also known as RamzÄ«, is mentioned by al-MuḥibbÄ« as one of his predecessors who âmissed the mark in writing on muÊ¿arrab.â The editor of Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l, al-ṢīnÄ«, could not establish any resemblances between al-Aná¹ÄkÄ«âs Naqd al-lisÄn wa-Ê¿aqd al-ḥisÄn fÄ« asmÄʾ al-muÊ¿arrabÄt and Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l. See al-MuḥibbÄ«, Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l, 1:96.
Al-Muḥibbī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, 1:104.
Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 169: âEven a word such as ǦÄhiliyya or an expression such as al-á¹£aḥīḥ min al-Ḥadīṯ (correct or reliable prophetic traditions) are listed as entries, in a clear attempt at inflating the bookâs content.â
According to the editor of Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l, al-MuḥibbÄ« incorporated all loanwords mentioned in al-Muhadhdhab fÄ«mÄ waqaÊ¿a fÄ« al-QurʾÄn min al-muÊ¿arrab into his dictionary. Al-MuḥibbÄ«, Qaá¹£d al-sabÄ«l, 1:97. Neither al-JawÄlÄ«qÄ« nor al-KhafÄjÄ« systematically took into account Qurʾanic loanwords.
Al-Muḥibbī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, 1:367:
â®
اÙجاÙÙÙØ© :ÙÙ Ùتاب ÙÙس Ùاب٠خاÙÙÙÙ :ÙÙظ Øدث Ù٠اÙإسÙا٠ÙÙز٠٠اÙØ°Ù Ùا٠Ùب٠اÙبعثة .â¬â
Al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad Ibn KhÄlawayhi, Laysa fÄ« kalÄm al-Ê¿arab, ed. Aḥmad Ê¿Abd al-GhafÅ«r Ê¿Aá¹á¹Är, 2nd ed. (Mecca, 1399/1979).
Al-SuyÅ«á¹Ä«, al-Muzhir fÄ« Ê¿ulÅ«m al-lugha wa-anwÄÊ¿ihÄ, 1:294â303. SuyÅ«á¹Ä« (301) mentions al-jÄhiliyya citing the exact same passage from Ibn KhÄlawayhi.
Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-KhwÄrizmÄ«, MafÄtīḥ al-Ê¿ulÅ«m (Cairo: IdÄrat al-á¹ibÄÊ¿a al-muniriyya, 1342), 2:
[this book] contains the concepts and terms circulating in every generation of scholars, which are lacking in most of the books that are devoted to the discipline of lugha, so that the distinguished language scholar, when studying one of the books that have been written on topics of the sciences or philosophy of which he knows nothing, does not understand a word of it, as if he were a barbarous illiterate at the sight of it.
â®Â â¦
٠تض٠Ùا٠٠ا بÙÙ Ù٠طبÙØ© ٠٠اÙعÙ٠اء ٠٠اÙÙ Ùاضعات ÙاÙاصطÙاØØ§ØªØ Ø§Ùت٠خÙت Ù ÙÙا أ٠٠٠جÙÙا اÙÙتب اÙØاصرة ÙعÙ٠اÙÙØºØ©Ø Øت٠أ٠اÙÙغÙ٠اÙ٠برز Ù٠اÙأدب إذا تأ٠٠Ùتابا٠٠٠اÙÙتب اÙت٠صÙÙت Ù٠أبÙاب اÙعÙÙÙ ÙاÙØÙÙ Ø© ÙÙÙ ÙÙ٠شدا صدرا٠٠٠تÙ٠اÙصÙاعة ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ø´Ùئا٠٠ÙÙ ÙÙا٠ÙاÙأ٠٠اÙأغت٠عÙد Ùظر٠ÙÙÙ .â¬â
Al-KhafÄjÄ«, ShifÄʾ al-ghalÄ«l, 221â222:
â®
غراب :ÙÙÙع ٠٠اÙسÙÙ Ù Ø´ÙÙر Ù٠أشعار اÙÙ ØدثÙÙ Ùا سÙ٠ا اÙ٠غاربة .ÙÙا أدر٠ÙÙ Ù٠عÙ٠اÙتشبÙ٠أ٠غÙØ· Ù٠اÙترج٠ة .Ùا٠اب٠اÙساعات٠[٠٠اÙÙا٠٠]:â¬â
â® ÙÙاÙÙ ÙÙÙÙج٠تÙØÙسÙبÙÙÙ٠جÙÙÙÙادا٠تÙرÙÙÙÙض٠â¬ââ® ÙÙرÙÙÙبÙÙت٠بÙØÙÙر٠اÙÙرÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙØÙÙÙبÙÙØ©Ù â¬ââ® ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙØ·ÙÙÙر٠بÙÙÙ٠جÙÙÙÙاØ٠أÙبÙÙÙض٠â¬ââ® ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ٠غÙÙرÙاب٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙØ·ÙÙعÙÙة٠أÙسÙÙÙÙد٠â¬ââ®
ÙÙا٠اب٠أب٠ØجÙØ© [٠٠اÙÙا٠٠]:â¬â
â® ÙÙصÙÙÙÙرÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ٠اÙعÙÙدÙÙÙ٠اÙØ£ÙزÙرÙÙÙ â¬â⮠غÙرÙبÙاÙÙÙÙÙا سÙÙÙد٠ÙÙبÙÙÙض٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙعÙÙا â¬ââ®
ÙÙÙت [Ù Ù Ù Ø®Ùع اÙبسÙØ· ]:â¬â
â® ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ٠بÙاÙبÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙاÙغÙÙرÙاب٠â¬ââ® ÙÙÙÙÙاÙÙ ÙÙÙ٠اÙبÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙا ÙÙÙÙاÙÙÙÙ â¬ââ®
Ùأ٠ا غراب ÙÙ ÙÙ٠اÙأعش٠[٠٠اÙبسÙØ· ]:â¬â
⮠إÙÙÙ ÙÙÙاÙ٠عÙÙÙÙÙ٠غÙÙرÙاب٠اÙجÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙد٠ÙÙÙÙعÙÙا â¬ââ® ÙÙÙ ÙÙا Ø·ÙÙÙابÙÙÙÙ Ø´ÙÙÙئÙا٠ÙÙسÙÙت٠تÙدÙرÙÙÙÙÙÙ â¬ââ®
Ùا٠شراØÙ :غراب اÙجÙ٠جÙÙÙ Ù٠ا ÙÙا٠طائر اÙجÙÙ .ÙÙÙÙ :غراب اÙجÙ٠اÙشعر اÙأسÙد .اÙتÙÙ .ÙاÙÙ ÙÙدÙÙ Ùس٠Ù٠اÙ٠أبÙ٠غرابا٠أ٠ÙÙار٠سÙأة أخÙÙ ÙÙ٠٠٠اÙÙÙاÙØ© .â¬â
The notion of knowledge as social capital in scholarly gatherings is elaborated in Pfeifer, Empire of Salons and Blecher, Said the Prophet of God.
Al-Muḥibbī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, 2:313.
Ê¿AlÄ« ibn Muḥammad al-JurjÄnÄ«, KitÄb al-taÊ¿rÄ«fÄt maÊ¿a fihrist; taÊ¿rÄ«fÄt wa-muá¹£á¹alaḥÄt lughawiyya wa-fiqhiyya wa-falsafiyya jumiÊ¿at min ummahÄt al-kutub al-falsafiyya wa-l-fiqhiyya wa-l-lughawiyya wa-ruttibat Ê¿alÄ á¸¥urÅ«f al-hijÄʾ min al-alif ilÄ al-yÄʾ (Beirut: Maktabat LubnÄn, 1978).
Al-MuḥibbÄ«, KhulÄá¹£at al-athar fÄ« aÊ¿yÄn al-qarn al-ḥÄdÄ« Ê¿ashar, 2:272:
â®
ÙرÙبت ٠ع٠اÙبØر ÙÙ٠ا٠Ù٠زÙر٠ÙتÙجÙÙا Ø¥Ù٠اÙÙ Ùا٠اÙ٠عرÙ٠ببشÙطاش ÙØ£Ùشدت٠باÙÙ Ùاسبة ÙÙ٠اب٠٠ÙØ·ÙØ© :â¬â
â® ÙÙÙÙÙد٠تÙÙ ÙØ·ÙÙ٠ظÙÙÙÙر٠دÙØ£Ù ÙÙاÙØ¡ â¬ââ® ÙÙزÙÙÙرÙÙ٠أÙبÙصÙرÙتÙÙÙ٠عÙائÙÙ ÙÙا â¬ââ® Ù ÙÙدÙ٠جÙÙÙاØÙÙÙÙÙ٠عÙÙÙÙ٠اÙÙ ÙÙاء â¬ââ® ÙÙØ£ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ø´ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ø·ÙائÙÙر٠â¬ââ®
ث٠اÙجرت اÙ٠صاØبة Ø¥Ù٠تعداد Ø£ÙÙاع اÙسÙÙ Ùأس٠ائÙا Øت٠ذÙر اÙغراب ÙÙ٠اÙ٠رÙب اÙØ·ÙÙ٠اÙØ°Ù ÙسÙر باÙ٠جادÙÙ ÙØ£Ùشد ÙÙÙ ÙÙ٠اب٠اÙساعات٠:â¬â
â® ÙÙاÙÙ ÙÙÙÙج٠تÙØÙسÙبÙÙÙ٠جÙÙÙادا٠تÙرÙÙÙÙض٠â¬ââ® ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙد٠رÙÙÙبÙÙت٠اÙبÙØÙÙر٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙØÙÙÙبÙÙØ©Ù â¬ââ® ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙØ·ÙÙÙر٠بÙÙÙ٠جÙÙÙÙاØ٠أÙبÙÙÙض٠â¬ââ® ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ٠غÙÙرÙاب٠ÙÙÙÙÙÙØ·ÙÙعÙÙة٠أÙسÙÙÙÙد٠â¬ââ®
Ø«Ù Ø°Ùر Ù٠أ٠بعض اÙÙاس تÙÙ٠أ٠تس٠ÙØ© Ùذا اÙÙÙع ٠٠اÙسÙ٠باÙغراب ٠ترج٠ع٠اس٠٠باÙترÙÙØ© Ùأ٠اس٠Ùا عÙدÙÙ Ùادرغة ÙÙ٠باÙترÙÙØ© اÙغراب .Ùا٠ÙØ£Ùا٠اÙ٠تÙÙ٠اÙÙÙÙر عÙ٠اÙ٠ترج٠٠٠ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙتÙارب اÙØ£ÙÙاظ اتÙاÙا ÙÙÙ Ùدر أ٠٠ا ÙاÙÙ Ù٠اÙÙÙ٠ب٠Ùج٠اÙÙ Ùاسبة Ù٠اÙتس٠ÙØ© Ø£ÙÙا شبÙت باÙغراب ÙسÙادÙا Ùشب٠اÙ٠جادÙ٠باÙأجÙØØ© ÙÙÙ Øس٠ث٠رأÙت Ùذا اÙÙÙا٠ÙÙØ´Ùاب اÙØ®Ùاج٠ÙÙ Ùتاب٠طراز اÙ٠جاÙس Ùراجع٠إ٠شئت .â¬â