Twitter | Search | |
This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on 15 December 2020. Please switch to a supported browser or device. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.
Marijn "i before j" van Putten
Historical Linguist; Working on Quranic Arabic and the linguistic history of Arabic and Berber. Game designer
23,269
Tweets
594
Following
13,186
Followers
Tweets
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 38m
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Quran Manuscripts in the Ottoman period do not follow the Uthmanic rasm, but rather follow standard Classical Arabic spelling. The committee wanted to return to the "original" spelling, and used classical descriptions to get there. This was fairly successful.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 39m
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Right, so Al Fadi is not wrong that the Cairo 1924 manuscript is NOT based on manuscripts. It isn't, it's based on works that describe the rasm of early manuscripts. Had it been based on contemporary manuscripts, the consonantal skeleton would have been totally different.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 1h
Another one I like is when people pronouns English <ch> as english <g>, since the two are homophonous in Dutch, the follow the same replacement rule. So dutch <chaos> is [xaos], so english must be [geios]
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 1h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
I think that that is the incorrect conclusion. The very fact that these texts get corrected in places towards the standard text, frequently even by the same hand as the writer of the rest of the text, suggests the scribes already followed a fairly strict standard.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 1h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Which theory exactly? Either way, Brubaker does not really express very explicit theories about these things in his publications. He sees a movement of corrections towards the standard text (which makes sense). He suggests this means more fluidity of the text in earlier times.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 1h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Of course Cairo 1924 is utterly transparent about what it was copied from. It's based on 5th century AH Andalusian rasm works, that describe the Uthmanic rasm, and not actually on manuscripts. Since those rasm works are quite accurate, the text gets a lot of things right.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Of course, Jay can't read Arabic either. So that's two layers of people not being able to read Arabic talking about what a manuscript supposedly says, while having zero regard for actually being accurate about the facts. :-)
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Jay has no idea what's going on. Don't waste your time on him :-)
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @AbuSafiyah1 @Burairss
I think so too, none of these make much sense with the dotting they have currently. With the āyātinā, I think the dots are just slightly misplaced towards the right.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
I wrote a short thread on this same topic a while ago: Either way, the person you're replying to is evidently very confused and seems to mostly be repeating the lies of polemicists. 🤷‍♂️
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
I would say the text is most likely from some time after the codification. More around 70-80 AH, maybe as late as 100 AH. But this is fairly impressionistic. Ideally we would want to Carbondate the text again.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
By the way, we *know* the Birmingham fragment is part of a larger codex. There's more folios found in Paris (Arabe 328c)
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Compared to the reports of Ibn Mas`ūd's and Ubayy's codices which deviate quite a bit, it would be surprising to see an almost identical Quranic manuscript show up pre-Uthmanically, even if it fed into the exemplars of the Uthmanic text.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
There are a couple of reasons why that's not attractive: 1. Palaeographically the Birmingham fragment looks a little later than some of the earlier ones (despite the early C14 dating, needs to be tested again) 2. It would be quite surprising to see a text this close pre-Uthmanic.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
This is a detailed topic that I will discuss in my forthcoming book. But this thread illustrates the main point already:
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
100% western descriptions of classical Arabic are waaaaaaay more prescriptivist. People who make claims about the Arab grammarians seem to simply not read them at all. They are still prescriptivist, but mostly by omission. They don't mention what is not acceptable.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
Rather than that it is actually an attempt to represent the shādhdh reading Tāwī. Consonantal dotting can contain non-canonical variants, but non-canonical does not necessarily mean non-Uthmanic. A text can agree with the uthmanic rasm and still have variants outside the 10.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 2h
Replying to @Burairss @AbuSafiyah1
The text is completely Uthmanic. There is one famous variant where Tuwan is spelled طاوي, but that's the regular spelling for all early manuscripts. My theory is that طاوي for some reason is a spelling for Tuwan that we don't understand anymore (works better in the rhyme)
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten retweeted
A.Z. Foreman 20h
You know, the right side of this hotel floor does not sound like a very peaceful place to stay.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten 14h
Replying to @azforeman
That's wild! And it makes me happy haha.
Reply Retweet Like