Twitter | Search | |
Marijn "i before j" van Putten
An interesting rasm mistake in the modern print editions of the Quran. Q20:94 yā-bna-ʾumma/i "O son of my mother" is spelled without the initial ʾalif of ibn in print editions. This spelling is unusual, because usually alif al-waṣl is retained when precedes by prefixes.
Reply Retweet Like More
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
If we turn to the manuscripts, we learn that this unusual exception to the orthography rules is, in fact, an illusion. Manuscripts without fail write it with the ʾalif in place. Even in later manuscript (from which the Cairo Edition mostly gets its spellings).
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
While the beginning of the word just has the expected spelling, the final part is still striking: This phrase is in fact two words: yā-bna ʾummi, which would be expected to be spelled يابن ام, but the hamzah has been elided, and a glide inserted across word boundaries.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
Thus we go from: yā-bna ʾummi to yā-bnawummi (or perhaps with a hiatus yā-bna.ummi). This is somewhat reminiscent of this inscription from near Karbala, which spelled ʾaḷḷāhu ʾakbar as الله وكبر pointing to aḷḷāhuwakbar.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
Despite that being the evident interpretation of the rasm, none of the canonical readers read this form without hamza. Q7:150 attests this same phrase, without the initial yā-. In print Qurans and manuscripts alike it is usually spelled without the wāw there: ابن ام.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
I've found a couple of rare exceptions to Q7:150. Wetzstein II 1913 and Arabe 6140a had it with wāw but were corrected. Arabe 330g and DAM 01-29.1 just keep the spelling. It is difficult to decide which may have been original in this location in the Uthmanic archetype.
Reply Retweet Like
Mehmet Bilâl Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX @shahanSean
A copy published at the reign of Abdulhamid II. The letter 'Elif' was preserved.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Very nice, thanks! But that is because it just has classical orthography. The Cairo Edition is unique for its time because print and manuscript qurans at the time had lost the Uthmanic rasm, and fully classicized the spelling. The Cairo Edition tried to get back to its origins.
Reply Retweet Like
باسطا - المغرب Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
Mistake is a strong word. It is dismissive twrds 1000s of scholars of Islam that preceded u and frankly it is very unlikely to be a mistake. One of the most important attributes of scholars according the Islamic tradition is humility, it seems your نفس got the better of you here.
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @Basta
Mistake is the right word. Unless you can explain to me how the Cairo edition writes it without an ʾalif while attempting to imitate the Uthmanic codex while every single manuscript out there has the alif. Just check corpus coranicum: 21 mss with alif.
Reply Retweet Like
Feriştah Dec 10
Replying to @PhDniX
mistake is not really the right term tbh
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Dec 10
Replying to @TurkicBeg
What would you call it? The Cairo Edition clearly attempted to get to the original rasm, and was succesful to a remarkable extent, but occasionally failed to get it right, as is clear from manuscript evidence.
Reply Retweet Like