Live data from Hacker News

Unified Arabic

worksthatwork.com

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Unified Arabic

#41

I once was curious about possibly learning Arabic. I left more confused after my initial research than I went in. What's a good Arabic dialect to learn such that you're as intelligible as possible?

Fus-ha Arabic (High Arabic) is intelligible as it is used in official communication, academia, news papers, documentaries, etc. But obviously it is not spoken day to day.

But it's mostly like all the dialects, with some extra stuff on top that the dialects tend to drop.

I'd say if you just want to quickly be able to speak with people around you, learn the local dialect, but if you want to really learn Arabic long-term, learn fusha, and you'll have easier time understanding most dialects later.

Re: Unified Arabic

#42

For all the boneheaded/bad decisions that Mao Zedong made, simplifying the Chinese script turned out to be an excellent one, greatly increasing literacy and having a good side effect of making Chinese writing much accessible and legible at smaller sizes (found in modern print and on screen). When it comes to typing on computer/phones, nowadays Chinese type Latin letters (pinyin) that approximate a Chinese sound, whic…

Arabic doesn't need it because it's based on a finite number of letters and each letter is a sound, pretty much like latin. It does also contain a 4x2 nunation[1] system that acts as short vowels and/or stress but it's apart from the stress, it's optional and can be mostly* derived from context.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunation

Re: Unified Arabic

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still maintain to this day that the original usable numbers were 2, 3, and 7. All that 5 and 6 and 9 crap is useless and those letter were and could be done with normal latin letters: 5 already has kh, 6 already has t, 9 already has d, don't know what people used for غ but you can write it with gh

Crazy to say that 9 is a d when it's clearly a قـ not a د Could be a regional thing because in north africa it's not a d

They’re saying it is ض, which is a letter us North Africans generally struggle to differentiate from ظ :)

Also, afaik 9 is a ص in many countries, while 8 is a ق. But it is definitely my first time hearing of a 9 used as ض.

Re: Unified Arabic

#44
post #37

You’re up against a tall order trying to modernize Arabic. Arabic is half a language and half a religious practice in itself. Arabic speakers, who are absolute majority Muslims, have explicit statement from God that Arabic is a holy language sent by God as the most perfect language PERIOD. It’s why he chose it for the Quran, and why it should remain unchanged. All attempts to “improve” it would be an admission of som…

This seems wrong. There's a lot of diversity in Arabic, there has been modernization in Arabic, and the Quran does not declare Arabic a perfected language. Arabic has changed already. I'm not saying this project will be successful and I'm sure the cultural importance of Classical Arabic is one of its obstacles but I don't believe this is a language group that is religiously forbidden to modernize its typography.

Maybe I was wrong in saying it “declares it perfect”, but the Quran declares itself as “sent in Arabic, clear and free from crookedness” or in “a clear Arabic tongue”. Scholars (from Ahl Al Salaf, so they have more authority) often interpreted that as God deliberately choosing Arabic to communicate his message as Arabic was the best language that God chose to communicate his final message in its clearest form to humans. There are further sayings by the prophet that reciting the Quran and prayers in full proper Arabic has a special place to God.

There were modest attempts at reform and improvements, but they were never titled as “improvements” or “modernization” especially that the latter is a word with negative connotations in Islam, but rather as something more pragmatic or logistical like the adoption of new words, or dropping some complex rule or style.

There is indeed a great diversity in Arabic, but there is 1 “correct” Arabic which is the Quranic/Classical Arabic. Egyptian, Levantine, Hejazi, and Maghrabie are only some of the main variations on Arabic, but all those speakers would agree that it’s not the “correct” Arabic. Reciting the Quran or quoting the prophet in such dialect would be extremely disrespectful. Most religious authorities might speak in that dialect to help with communication, then revert to Classical Arabic when quoting either of those.

The most “moderination” Classical Arabic got was Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) which was really about accepting some simplified grammar and prose in professional writing rather than introducing anything completely novel or new. It made it acceptable to write books or articles in simpler prose rather than requiring or expecting the extremely elaborate writing style of true Classical Arabic. Most importantly, it didn’t forbid or declare anything from Classical Arabic “outdated” or “wrong” but rather just saying “it’s a bit too much, maybe”

The resistance to modify the typography is definitely there, but I wasn’t saying that it will necessarily succeed in preventing the modification. The Quran in its 7th century form will have to remain the authority on Arabic, followed by all the writings and literature of the following centuries. However you can find the Quran written phonetically in “Academic Romanization” format as Muslim view it more of a translation of sorts, rather than an actual reproduction of the Quran. I don’t know of any “Arabiz” versions of the Quran, and I suspect it would be viewed as disrespectful by many, but I won’t be surprised if some were on the internet or would appear in print at some point.

FWIW, I don’t think many (of the reasonable people) would oppose the changes proposed by this typography changes, but I suspect that most would either view it as strange or unnecessary because at the end of the day it just looks like a broken font more than anything.

Edit: Theology gets complicated but The Mu'tazilite split in the 9-10th century was mainly about the true nature of the Quran. They argued that it was a created vs being an eternal attribute of God. They lost the debate in the Muslim world and the opinion that won was that the Quran was the literate word of God that is eternal and wasn't created but always existed. The debate wasn't about language, but language (being the medium of the Quran) was part of it where Mu'tazilite had to try to define the difference between expression, and linguistic limitations in communication. They lost the debate and their influence weaned in general though left remnants in post-prophet history of Islam.

Re: Unified Arabic

#45

For all the boneheaded/bad decisions that Mao Zedong made, simplifying the Chinese script turned out to be an excellent one, greatly increasing literacy and having a good side effect of making Chinese writing much accessible and legible at smaller sizes (found in modern print and on screen). When it comes to typing on computer/phones, nowadays Chinese type Latin letters (pinyin) that approximate a Chinese sound, whic…

Simplified Chinese don't make much sense. The idea is that humans write everything manually forever, so simplifying saves time. But that's moot with computers that system coupled with high resolution monitors, and IMO it just leaves less clues for learners and less literate to infer meanings. They're also less visually balanced than the traditional.

Re: Unified Arabic

#46
I don't think Arabic script is that hard. It's nearly phonetic, unlike English. It's not super broad and hard to memorized like kanji. I don't know, maybe I'm just removed from the struggles of people learning it for the first time.

Re: Unified Arabic

#47
Reminds me of another story about older scripts being hard to read:

I found a paperback with Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England[1]. In the intro, it explains how they made the deliberate decision to render them as pixel-for-pixel copies of the original texts, so you could get the most pure, unadulterated form.

I'm like lol whatever, you act like you're doing the world a huge favor by not transcribing it into something legible for modern readers, forcing them to navigate around stuff like the s's looking like f's. No, dude, anyone who actually needs that level of authenticity is a scholar who already knows how to find the originals. You don't want that in a publication for a mass audience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_En...

Re: Unified Arabic

#48

For all the boneheaded/bad decisions that Mao Zedong made, simplifying the Chinese script turned out to be an excellent one, greatly increasing literacy and having a good side effect of making Chinese writing much accessible and legible at smaller sizes (found in modern print and on screen). When it comes to typing on computer/phones, nowadays Chinese type Latin letters (pinyin) that approximate a Chinese sound, whic…

> it's much faster than using root strokes to "build" the character.

In fact, input methods like this not only exist—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cangjie_input_method—but are in more common use than you might expect! I've met more than one (regular-person, non-technical) office worker who could barely hunt & peck on a coworker's Chewing but could fly with Cangjie. e.g., https://youtu.be/sVAQSBU5OOo?t=98

Coïncidentally (or not,) they also had very high written character recall and speed… (a skill that is notably very weak among syllabic-IME users…)

Re: Unified Arabic

#49

You’re up against a tall order trying to modernize Arabic. Arabic is half a language and half a religious practice in itself. Arabic speakers, who are absolute majority Muslims, have explicit statement from God that Arabic is a holy language sent by God as the most perfect language PERIOD. It’s why he chose it for the Quran, and why it should remain unchanged. All attempts to “improve” it would be an admission of som…

>Arabic speakers [...] have explicit statement from God that Arabic is a holy language sent by God as the most perfect language PERIOD

This is wrong and I couldn't find a serious source stating anything like it. There's nothing in the Muslim faith that suggests the Arabic language itself is holy or sent by God.

The whole post reads a bit like a rant against Arabs suggesting their background precludes adaptation or something of the sorts.

Post reply on HN