Jump to content

Talk:Arabic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.32.132.6 (talk) at 23:17, 3 November 2011 (→The article is full of nonsense; "Arabic, Classical Arabic, Modern Standard"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

greek cypriot? what the hell.

arabic has no influence on greek cypriot what so ever. greek cypriot is a kinde of greek slang. if ever turkish cypriot has influences of arabic. get it right.

Zwierzanski?

The two books by Michael Zwierzanski mentioned in the "Studying Arabic" section, Arabic: A Nebulous Nature and A Quintessential Handbook in the Study of Arabic Whimsy, don't appear to exist -- not on Amazon, not on ABE, and googling either title just brings up copies of the paragraph here. There does appear to be someone named Michael Zwierzanski who is involved in Arabic studies, but he doesn't appear to be at Brown and he doesn't appear to have written any books. Anyone have any insight into this? I never edit Wikipedia, just happened to notice and thought I'd say something. 09:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.189.139 (talk)

Went ahead and deleted this material. 05:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.189.139 (talk)
Nice job. This looks like the work of a long time persistent vandal. Looking through Richardbooth's other edits revealed more vandalism like this. SQGibbon (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified claim. 1. he have never been warned for vandalizing anything, 2. it seems he is a pretty passive editor, doing a little valid cleaning and linking here and there, sometimes doing a few stupid edits. Not a vandal. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with an Arabic reference

To anyone reading this who can read Arabic: I have a source I think might tell me a little history about the establishment of the Royal Hospital in Baghdad, for an article about the Garden of Ridván, Baghdad, which has been nominated for DYK. I've tried Google Translate and the PDF copies over all wrong (boxes, etc), so that won't work. Can anyone who can read the PDF tell me if it mentions dates or other major details for the establishment of the Royal Hospital and further hospitals on the site, and, if so, what are they? Many thanks. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the content is still needed, but are you referring to a hospital within the mid-1800s. I've seen some names, but it's hard to make an exact match. Let me know what you know about it, to dig-in more details. Thanks. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the Arabic language has so many mistakes it should not be on wiki? one example, 50 million people speak Egyptian Arabic? 80 million people live in Egypt, what do the remainder speak,what about sudan? 250 million people speak Arabic, 300 million people live in the Arab world with minorities speaking several other languages along with Arabic. Someone should fix this. It is really awful to have such incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.88.184.226 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 50,000,000 is quoted from Ethnologue, and is for first-language speakers. The figure may be too low due to population growth; but keep in mind many Egyptians speak Sa'idi Arabic, and some do not speak Arabic as a first language. Information in this article follows what the sources say. It is a fact that many Arabic (colloquial) varieties are mutually unintelligible, and this is again what the sources say. Arabs like to claim the opposite, but there are political concerns that are getting in the way here, and/or confusion between native (colloquial) varieties and Fusḥa. Your statement about "5th grade education" seems to indicate that you are thinking of Fusḥa. Mutual intelligibility of native languages has nothing to do with education; the fact that educated Arabic speakers from different regions can converse with each other does not mean that their native languages are mutually intelligible, but simply that both of them can speak a lingua franca -- i.e. some sort of Modern Standard Arabic. Similarly, educated Chinese people from Shanghai and Guangzhou can communicate with each other when they meet, because they have both been taught Standard Chinese in school -- but that hardly means that they could understand each other if each spoke their own pure native tongue (Shanghainese and Cantonese). Benwing (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official status

I've put back the official status in the infobox. While it is a very good idea to add this information on the Modern Standard Arabic article, it is also crucial that it stays on this article. Arabic, in one of its many forms, is the official language of several countries and readers will expect to see its official status on this article. The fact that the vernaculars don't have an official status doesn't undermine the fact that Arabic has some official status in many countries. It is somewhat similar to French in that it is regulated by different organizations, and that the vernacular versions (which can vary greatly across the world to the point of unintelligibility) have no official status. However, the French language as a whole, retains nonetheless an official status in many countries. — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 00:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also put back the regulating organizations because, by definition, vernaculars are not regulated. Therefore it must be implied that what is regulated is the standard form of Arabic. — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a good point, but only to a spoken language in real world. Standard French, at least, is a truly spoken language somewhere on earth (to an extremely great extent). The standardized form for Arabic is Literary Arabic which is also named Modern Standard Arabic. No one was born speaking Literary Arabic. Everyone in the so called Arab world must learn Literary Arabic in order to understand it, making it functioning as a second language. All the spoken dialects are the real spoken languages. No people on earth natively speak Literary Arabic which is the only official language. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mahmudmasri. --Taivo (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point entirely. However, I insist Arabic in one form or another still has an official status and it is misleading not to mention it in the article. — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still have my opinion, although I may suggest a compromise. Let's at least not add the map or the regulators on Arabic language article, because the Academies of Arabic language don't regulate Arabic vernaculars, they only regular the use of Literary Arabic. We can, instead, add the following map, which demonstrates modern Arabic languages distribution: w:File:Arab World-Large.PNG (this map anyway is misleading because it ignores the fact that parts of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt don't at least natively speak any form of Arabic). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a MUCH better map. --Taivo (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a very good suggestion and I agree entirely on using it! It pictures a lot better the reality of Arabic as it is spoken. Although, if someone has the geographical information, we could perhaps add a note mentioning other countries where Arabic is spoken by a minority, such as Chad. However, the regulators still have their place in this article. As I said previously, it is obvious the standard form of Arabic is the one that is being regulated. This is the case for pretty much all other languages that have official regulations. — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 18:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the map should be changed. But I agree with Mahmudmasri that the regulators are inappropriate here. "Arabic language" is not a monolithic language, it is a language cluster, so to say that there is a "standard form" of a cluster is linguistically false. There is an artificial form that is based on the Classical language--THAT is the regulated form. In other words, all the regulatory agencies only affect Modern Standard Arabic and have nothing whatsoever to do with the vernaculars. In other countries with a standard form, we're dealing with a dialect cluster, and not anywhere from 5 to 20 languages. So the regulatory agencies belong at Modern Standard Arabic, since that's what they're regulating. --Taivo (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The numeral system in CA is extremely complex (rivaling that of the Russian language)..."

I have edited that statement. The words "extremely" and "rivaling" seem non-NPOV to me. Also, as a native speaker of Russian, I have no idea what the author of the line meant by the complexity of the Russian numeral system. If it has to do with being "heavily tied in with the case system", then I believe it is about as complex as one would expect from a language as fusional as Russian. VonPeterhof (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of nonsense; "Arabic, Classical Arabic, Modern Standard"

I believe the title of article says it all. The nonsense is right from the first sentence! "Arabic (العربية al-ʿarabiyyah[note A] or عربي/عربى ʿarabī [note B]) is a name applied to the descendants of the Classical Arabic language of the 6th century AD, used most prominently in the Quran, the Islamic Holy Book".

I have seen many attempts in the archives of people trying to correct these errors, but no avail. What is Arabic now, is what is Arabic at the time of the Quran. There is no such thing as Modern Standard Arabic in the Arab world. There is Arabic properly written and spoken (Classical Arabic), which is used in writing, kid shows, tv programs, and the like, and there is what people speak during their everyday lives which is known as "Al Am'mee'ya" (the Colloquial) or "Colloquial Arabic" as it is known here. As for the so called "Modern Standard Arabic", there is no such thing in the Arabic World.

I am not sure why this nonsense is being perpetuated on Wikipedia, by I am past the point of assuming an innocent ignorance.

The article labelled Arabic, should talk at what is called here as "Classical Arabic". This is the language of structure, grammar, and coherency. This is what Arabs refer to in most contexts when they say "Arabic". As for an article referring to the everyday spoken dialects of the Arabs should be called "Colloquial Arabic", or anything along those lines, but certainly not "Arabic"!

Indeed, it is a day when foreigners presume to teach us our tongue! --173.32.132.6 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a course in Arabic Linguistics in any Arab university. I'm sure you'll see a lot of discussion on the difference between فصحى التراث (Classical/Qur'anic Arabic) and فصحى العصر (Modern Standard Arabic), their difference, most of which aren't grammatical (نحو) but in rhetorics (بلاغة). Although you do get constructions in MSA along the lines of تم قراءة التقرير, which doesn't exist in CA, which prefers قُرِء التقرير. Second, it's usually Arabs doing most of the research (which you call "nonsense") on the differences between MSA and CA, and not "foreigners". --Agari (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not to speak with ignorance, nor was I to lie. "Modern Standard Arabic" is a Western concept. If one is ignorant, it is fine, but to mislead with that ignorance is immoral. Here is a simple Arabic sentence without vowels, give me at least nine different meanings it can take أكل الولد الطعام. Stick to the topics you are knowledgeable in, it is basic honesty. --173.32.132.6 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabic&oldid=458888995"