Talk:Nabataean Aramaic

Nabataeans

This article, like the Nabataeans article, appears to be intended to cover the ancient Nabataeans of the southern Levant (Petra, Bosra, etc.). If this is the case, it needs to be explained clearly in both articles that a). the Arabs applied the name Nabat (Nabataeans) variously to different Aramaean groups of the Fertile Crescent, and that b). the article is only intended to cover the Nabataeans of Nabataea. Otherwise the people writing, reading, or linking to these articles are liable to conflate the Nabataeans of Nabataea with other Aramaeans of the Fertile Crescent (mainly Babylonian Aramaeans) whom the Arabs also referred to as Nabat (Nabataeans). A disambiguation page for Nabataeans seems necessary or a hatnote. The situation is explained in much detail in this book. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a disambiguation tag pointing to Nabataeans of Iraq to address this. Benji man (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Arab-Phobia

I just want to know why some people are offended when they see the words "Arab" or "Arabic" in an article related to the historical records of the Middle East, and especially Palestine ?? is this Wikipedia or "Arab-Israeli conflict"-pedia ??

I didn't make up anything, I have supported my info with scholarly sources, but they were simply deleted, and the article was reverted to an older version that doesn't contain even one single reference !!!! just flying claims with no evidence supporting them, but still, they are allowed to be an "Article" on Wikipedia !!!! Omar amross (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are basically trying to pass Nabataean as an Arabic language, and curiously, you cite Britannica to support this claim even though they clearly state that Nabataean was a western Aramaic variety.--Kathovo talk 15:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh, so this where the misunderstanding towards my article came from

I have cited Encyclopedia Britannica to the first claim of ::"Nabataeans lived in Jordan, Negev & Palestine", and Not for their language, I didn't say that Encyclopedia Britannica ::claimed Arabic as the language of Nabataeans. Nabataean (people)

besides, don't forget that 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states that Nabataeans were/are true Arabs

my claim of Arabic language was taken from other sources, you can go and check through Google books for yourself if you don't don't believe me Omar amross (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Still the Nabataean language is usually classified as Aramaic, and the Nabataeans might have spoken another native Arabic variety beside this language. I think this is very obvious but if in doubt check Beyer's [1]. The ethnicity of the Nabataeans is another more complicated issue, calling them "pure Arabs" as the 1913 edition of Britannica does is certainly very problematic as stated here, in fact early Muslim Arabs used to call all speakers of Aramaic in Syria and Iraq "Nabataeans", Check the EoI's entry Nabaṭ for more.--Kathovo talk 12:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

But I have sources that say they have spoken Arabic influenced by Aramaic according to Namara inscription

concerning the Aramaic speakers of Iraq & Syria, they aren't the same group of Nabataeans of Petra, Classical Arab sources :::: hold them to be the descendants of "Nabit" the the son of "Basur" the son of Shem the son of Noah ((check: Kitrab At-Tanbif Wa Al-Israf by Al-Mas'udi, Pages: 78-79) , while it hold the :::: Nabataeans of Petra to be the descendants of Ishmael the son of Abraham

besides, they are considered two distinct groups, they are being referred to as "Nabat Al-Iraq" in Classical Arabic :::: sources as a hint to the case of them being not the same group of the Nabataeans of Petra

as for the Nabataeans speaking Arabic, check the following sources:

Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads, professor: Jan Retso, Page: 109

The Development Of The Arabic Scripts: From The Nabatean Era To The First Islamic Century According To The Dated Texts :::: (1993), B. Gruendler, Harvard Semitic Series No. 43, Scholars Press: Atlanta (GA), Pages: 11-12

The New Reading Of The Namarah Inscription", Journal Of The American Oriental Society (1985), J. A. Bellamy, Volume: 105, :::: Pages: 31-48

another thing, their names are Arabic names, I think what makes you think they weren't Arabs is because of the Latinized pronunciation of their names, such as "Harith" pronounced "Aretas", and "Obada" pronounced "Obodos" Omar amross (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

These sources mention that oldest Arabic inscriptions were written in the Nabataean script, clearly not implying that Nabataean was Arabic. Namarah inscriptions, widely attested as the precursor of the Quran Arabic date to several centuries after Nabataean went extinct. If you still disagree I suggest you check the intro of the leading journal of Aramaic Studies that includes Nabataean in their list of Aramaic dialects.--Kathovo talk 15:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

you see, I have expected this, the problem here is that we didn't understand each other's argument, my argument is that Nabataeans SPOKE Arabic but WROTE in Aramaic, I can write an Arabic text with English Alphabet, does that make it an English text ?? look at Iran for example, they speak Farsi, but they use Arabic script, does that mean their language is Arabic and not Farsi ??

if you check the Namarah Inscription then you will find out that the text is Arabic but it's written in Aramaic Alphabet, that's what I was trying to demonstrate

check this one: (( Nabataean Language, Script and Graffiti: Speaking Arabic, Writing Aramaic and carving Inscription)), Petra: And the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans, Prof. Jane Taylor, Page: 5

in another statement, she continued: (( After at least 700 hundred years of speaking Arabic and writing in Aramaic, the strain between the two languages was clearly beginning to tell. As early as around 100 AD, the Oboda inscription appears to contain Arabic poetry in the Nabataean script, "Beer" had noticed Arabisms in the Sinai inscriptions of the second and third centuries AD, and the "Raqush" Tomb inscription (267/8) AD from "Hegra" has been shown to be more Arabic than Aramaic in its language, though still written in the Nabataean script)) Ibid, Page: 170

if your argument is about the script, then such argument should be moved to the "Nabataean Alphabet" Talk page, not the Nabataean Language. --Omar amross (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nabatean and Arabic

The majority of the Nabatean inscriptions seem to have been written by people who were trying to write Aramaic, but were not really native speakers of Aramaic (certainly not of formal literary Aramaic), and did not always fully succeed. And in some of the later inscriptions, the Aramaic façade becomes exceedingly superficial, and the underlying Arabic breaks through to some degree. Therefore the "Nabatean language" as commonly defined is an Aramaic dialect, but the majority of Nabateans of the Nabatean kingdom (Petra etc.) probably actually had a form of Arabic as their primary spoken language, which exerted an influence on the Nabatean inscriptions. I haven't been following the editing on this article, but I'm not sure why these facts can't be incorporated into the article... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input....

as a matter of fact, the historical evidence has shown that the original homeland of the Nabataeans was to the south of Al Jawf Province, which means they came from the desert of Arabia

besides, theie names were Arabic names, they worshiped Arab Gods such as "Allat", and their exclusive god was named "Dushara" which it's a 100% Arabic name

the problem with their language, is that it was affected by language of the surrounding nations such as Arameans & Assyrians, that's the reason why you will see that they were speaking Arabic with an Aramaic accent

In addition, the Qedarites who were Arabs, has used some Aramaic elements in their Arabic language, such as using the term "hn" instead if "al" which means "the", for example, after they mixed with Arameans, they referred to the famous Arab Goddess "Allat" as "Hn-Lat" instead of "Al-Lat", which shows that they were speaking ARabic but their lanuage was affected because of the supremacy of the Aramaic culture during that era --Omar amross (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever their spoken language, they were trying to write Aramaic when they made inscriptions (at least at first). And "hn" is not the definite article in Aramaic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither is HN the definite article in Arabic... I have been reading Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, the book makes distinction between north Arabian "languages" and the languages of the Quran to which what we now call Arabic belong. A quote from p.3 reads: "The Safaitic and the so-called Thamudic inscriptions are clearly not "Arabic", any more than Anglo-Saxon could be called English; for one thing, their definite article is ha(n)-". Despite that, Nabataean was in its literary form an Aramaic language descendant from Imperial Aramaic.--Kathovo talk 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

They were old North Arabian, not exactly the same as Qur'anic Arabic, but more closely aligned with Arabic than any of the other major Semitic subgroupings (Canaanite, Aramaic, Akkadian, South Arabian, Ethiopic, etc.). The early Nabatean inscriptions were intended to be written in Aramaic, but not always fully successfully, and in some of the later inscriptions, the Aramaic façade became rather flimsy... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for that, i thought Qedarites used the term HN because they were mixed with northern nations, I seem to be misinterpreting what "Israel Eph'al" has mentioned about the northern spelling of the arabian goddess "Allat"

but anyway, the problem with Northern Arabian "languages" is that they were dialects, not independent languages, read this piece

these dialects were an ancient form of Arabic, so they are being classified as "Pre-Classical" Arabic, while they were the primitive form of the modern Arabic language, or may I say "Proto-Arabic"

for more information, check this book about the detailed history of Arabic language --Omar amross (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think North Arabian languages and Classical Arabic can be considered the same language, and South Arabian belong to a completely different language family. Back to the main topic, to justify the revert once more, Nabataean cannot be called an Arabic dialect under any circumstances.--Kathovo talk 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

you said it, YOU don't think so, but experts do....the book I gave you, studies in depth the history of ARabic language, and says that ONA is just the Ancient/Primitive form of Classical Arabic

I wasn't talking about Classical Arabic, I was talking about Arabic in general, whether Classical or primitive

if you take a look at what early Arabs thought of the South Arabian "Language", then you would have found out that they considered it as a dialect, not an independent language, and I don't think that anybody knows Arabic more than early Arabs themselves

also, the references I gave you clearly calls it Southern "Arabic", and clearly stated that they were Proto-Arabic, not Classical

concerning your refusal to revert of the articel, that's fine with me, but why didn't you just say so from the beginning ? we could have saved this wasted time and used it in something useful instead of debating something very clearly stated by scholars and specialists --Omar amross (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Old and modern South Arabian are more related to Ethiopic than to Arabic. Relation between North Arabian and what we now call "Arabic" was similar that of Latin and French, since Arabic was one of many related plethora of languages scattered in northern Arabia. I trust AnonMoos agrees with me at least on this pint.--Kathovo talk 12:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please concentrate with me....I didn't say that South Arabia was derived from Arabic, but the reverse is true, the sources I gave you says that South Arabian was the Ancient PRIMITIVE form of Arabic

if it wasn't like that, then Experts wouldn't have called it South "Arabic"

just read what early Arabs thought of the Himyarite language and you'll know what I mean --Omar amross (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Names don't hold any weight here. It has been long established that South Arabian is not the predecessor of Arabic, more confusingly neither is Modern South Arabian descendant of Old South Arabian. The reason behind this is that those names where applied long before Semitic studies really took off.--Kathovo talk 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

but the source I gave you is from the year 2001, from the 21th century, that's not so far from now you know

and if you take a look at the elements of Arabic and South Arabic, you'll find a huge similarity between both, even in linguistic & grammatical elements --Omar amross (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you gave clearly distinguishes between Arabic and South Arabian, you should have actually read the book before. Pages 12 and 14 contain clear figures incase you don't want to bother with reading.

This discussion has taken too long and it's obviously leading nowhere. You can add whatever you want to the article but make sure you find a good reference and READ IT before drawing conclusions.--Kathovo talk 17:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

the pages you gave me are standing against your point of "South Arabian" being more related to Ethiopic than Arabic, but it says exactly in the pages you gave me that they came from the same exact origin

another thing, you accuse me of "not reading sources before drawing conclusions", but if that was the case then I wouldn't have built conclusions on something I never read, how is that possible ??

try reading this analyzes for these Thamudic Inscriptions just to see how Arabic-rooted they are: Some Thamudic Inscriptions from the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan --Omar amross (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Old South Arabian is called this because it was spoken in South Arabia, i. e., the south of the Arabian peninsula, and Ancient North Arabian is a catch-all term for a number of varieties spoken in the north of the Arabian peninsula. It is crucial to distinguish Arabian and Arabic. Arabia is a far larger region than the region (in the Hijaz around Mecca) in which Arabic, the language characterised by the definite article al-, was originally spoken in antiquity. Old South Arabian was not even particularly closely related to Arabic; a less confusing alternative name for Old South Arabian is Sayhadic. In antiquity, many Semitic languages besides the predecessor of Classical Quranic Arabic were spoken in the Arabian peninsula: Ancient North Arabian, Sayhadic, ancient precursors of Modern South Arabian, Himyaritic ... it would be better if Semitists could agree on renaming ANA and MSA besides Sayhadic/OSA, in order to reduce confusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nabataen langauge

http://nabataea.net/write.html This source say it is related to many language.--Gho2t993 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)gho2t993

The SCRIPT is related to other languages, because the SCRIPT descended from a common ancestor. On the other hand, the LANGUAGE is closely related to Arabic. The Aramaic elements in Nabatean is a veneer reflecting the common use of Aramaic in the region as a lingua franca. The Persians used Aramaic in official matters, but they themselves are not Arameans. Similarly, the Nabateans were Arabs who adopted Aramaic for official uses, but they were not Arameans. The earliest Nabatean inscriptions showed that they were not native Aramaic speakers, and as the influence of Aramaic waned, their true Arab identity emerged in their later insciptions.210.19.13.194 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Seven days have now passed since I put the article on hold. While my concerns under referencing remain, I think that the article is nevertheless above the standard required to clear the GAR bar (mindful of WP:GANOT). I am therefore passing it.

For reasons I don't understand, this doesn't seem to be showing my comments: see Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1 UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few minor copyedits made. One {{why}} tag left; a minor correction which is beyond the scope of GAN, and so will not affect the passage of this article. No remaining issues here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issue here
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I have placed a CN tag on an unsourced 'it has been suggested' statement: this needs to be ascribed to a particular source to avoid WP:OR. I've put another on a reference to Joseph Naveh, which is in an uncited sentence followed by one cited to someone else: it might be that they cite Naveh, which could be made clear by either doubling the citation or writing something like 'some scholars, such as Richard, have argued with Naveh's idea that...' The issues above are now fixed, but I have added two tags (a {{by whom}} and {{citation needed}}) where the same has happened: a point of view is ascribed either to a scholar or to the scholarly consensus, both of which should be cited. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC) The one-week hold has expired and these issues remain: I don't think they are serious enough to disqualify the article as a GA (see introductory comments). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC) While this is technically outside the criteria for GAN, I would strongly recommend a move to {{sfn}} or similar templates, with a bibliography: with frequent references to the same source, this would help greatly with coherency. I would also recommend preventing WP:LINKROT by using archive-urls and, more generally, formatting citations (esp. 1, which is a WP:BAREURL) Again, this is outside the GAN criteria, and so will not delay the passing of the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issue here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issue here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio tool: no issue.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issue here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issue here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issue here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issue here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All correct.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issue here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Mostly there - just a few adjustments under 2a needed. Passed after hold period: see comment above UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the very earliest Nabataean Aramaic inscriptions already contain Arabic names and loanwords? Source: From the period of its earliest attestation, Nabataean Aramaic is notable for the use of Arabic or Ancient North Arabian loanwords and grammar, reflecting strong contact with these languages. [2]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The article refers to "Arabic or Ancient North Arabian", which is a matter of definition.

Improved to Good Article status by Benji man (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nabataean Aramaic; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Would like different wording

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Benji man: Good article. But the hook is confusingly worded in my opinion. Could you write it differently? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Onegreatjoke! How's this? Benji man (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)