Twitter | Search | |
Eléonore Cellard
Thread : Diacritics in early Qur’ān manuscripts. 1/6. I recently read : « The Hijazi script has no diacritical signs » (Mraizika, "Le Coran décrée"). I intend to show evidences against this theory and give a brief overview of practices of putting diacritics in early Qur’ān mss
Reply Retweet Like More
Eléonore Cellard 12 Mar 19
Replying to @CellardEleonore
2/6. Generally, diacritics are added in the same ink as the rasm, by the copyist. In Hijazi mss, they are sparsely added and seem to be a matter of copyists. In the Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus, each copyist (event E, the less skilled of the group) add more or less diacritics.
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard 12 Mar 19
Replying to @CellardEleonore
3/6.Their use increases quickly during the 2nd century H. But we still find more diacritics in small copies, as Codex Amrensis 1, than in large mss. Is it related to the function of the mss? Surprisingly, around the end of 2nd cent. H., diacritics almost disappear as in C.III mss
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard 12 Mar 19
Replying to @CellardEleonore
4/6 The rules of positioning diacritics are already fixed in the 1st cent. H., except for fā’ and qāf. Here, we find 2 ways of dotting, used at least since the 2nd H. Note that the 2 ways are related to scripts styles, as only A script uses the 2nd one. Perhaps a regional marker?
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard 12 Mar 19
Replying to @CellardEleonore
5/6. The A script shows in early stages a lot of irregularities in the system. Some are perhaps without consequences, as šin with 4 dots or other strange practices. Other could be significant, as the 2 diacritics associated with lam-alif, which I still question its exact function
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard 12 Mar 19
Replying to @CellardEleonore
6/6. A special attention should be paid to the diacritics used for prefixes in verbs conjugation in imperfect. They are often missing in Hijazi mss, but more frequent in early hybrid hijazi/kufic mss, with a general tendency to diacritize the prefixe as a ta, whatever the context
Reply Retweet Like
orbi 12 Mar 19
Replying to @CellardEleonore
Are there sufficient diacritics in the early manuscripts to take away the ambiguity of the rasm?
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard 12 Mar 19
Replying to @kwo_vadis
For the hijazi mss, of course not. For the later stages, it is more explicit but there are still ambiguity
Reply Retweet Like
Abd Al Fadi Oct 9
Replying to @CellardEleonore
Thank you. Great work. Any suggested articles or recent work on this topic?
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard Oct 9
Replying to @AlFadi50923704
You’re welcome. I don’t think there is any new article about diacritics.
Reply Retweet Like
Burak Sari Jul 12
Replying to @CellardEleonore
Interesting, nice work. So how come that there are manuscripts not containing any diacritics? Have they been erased and wiped out over time perhaps?
Reply Retweet Like
Eléonore Cellard Jul 13
Replying to @I3uI2aKSaI2i
No, the scribes simply did not put the diacritics.
Reply Retweet Like