Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you consider a "beginner in islamic studies" to be the least bit scientific ? The whole study field is, by definition, prejudiced. > That being said, it is impossible to have a letter-by-letter re-write from Arabic to Aramaic by definition. It's illogical and impossible. Of course it's not. And the argument you're bringing up is laughably weak. Greek does not have the same letters as our latin script, yet trans…
> Would you consider a "beginner in islamic studies" to be the least bit scientific ? The whole study field is, by definition, prejudiced. That was a figure of speech/hyperbole. If by the "whole study field" you mean religion in general, then I would agree to some extent. > Hell, ever read, shall we say "teenage" arabic/sms arabic as I've seen it referred to ? Yes, I chat with my friends in "sms" style Arabic on IM s…
No I'm saying that sms arabic is a transliteration or arabic into latin script, despite very different alphabets. Obviously it's possible. I find it fascinating, because there's actually multiple styles of doing this. But I like the version where they use numbers to complete the set of letters. Reminds me of old French texts that also have a "3"-shaped letter lost in the middle of words instead of the modern letter, and those were some of the first non-mother-tongue texts I read. Fairy tales. I think I'm getting old.
> Wrong again. Vowels ARE part of both languages.
In modern arabic, sort-of (spoken, yes, written, not really, same as in hebrew really, which is to say, not at all (say different vowels and people will still understand you), but yes you can put little marks on the letters now indicating which vowel to use in "most" cases. I was told this is mainly done for children's first reads though, and not done in normal handwritten texts). In ancient (written) arabic, it is never done.
Obviously the arabs living in the 8th century still used vowels, just not in writing.
As for Luxenberg's thesis, buy his book and read it. It has chapters full of those verses.
> The language of the Quran did play a role in converting people back when it was revealed, because it was unique -- yet still understandable.
Doesn't that just further confirm this situation though ? It's "unique", is that perhaps a polite way of saying that it's very different from anything else you've ever read, with "weird" verb forms, words with wrong roots and the like ?
I guess I don't fully understand what you're saying. Either it's "unique" arabic, or it's not, right. I'm thinking that what you're calling unique arabic would be more accurately identified as "not quite" arabic.