| |
Phoenicia.org Author's Note:
Below is a very eloquent post by a person with nickname Shreek. I am reproducing the posts here without permission from the Lebanese ForcesForum. It makes an excellent argument in support of the Lebanese Language. Further, please see the blog of the philologist scholar about the same on Ecce Libano.
So is spoken Syrian not Arabic, like spoken Egyptian isn’t Arabic, like
spoken Khaliji isn't Arabic? Please enlighten me. We should invent a new
language called Lebanese to satisfy people like you?
What you said is true. Lebanese isn't Arabic. Let me enlighten you. I will
take this argument one step further and submit to you that not only are
historical and social affinities the cardinal points in the development of
the Lebanese identity, but that, in our case, the Lebanese language (a
spontaneous, self-contained and indigenous Lebanese generation, and NOT an
Arabic lahja) is today our only national nimbus.
Lebanon, is the principal Middle Eastern country to witness (since its
inception) a systematized blossoming of its local dialectal variant; call it
Lahja if it's soothes your Arab sensibilities, but please note that Sati'
al-Husri, the father of the linguistically based "Arab nationalism" conceded
in his 1979 introduction to Anis Freyha's "al-Lugha l-3arabiyya was usluubu
diraasatiha" that "we are no longer allowed to refer to the various Arabic
Lahjas as dialectal or vulgar variants of the classical language." In
Husri's estimation, Lebanese had already become an autonomous linguistic
competency, and any attempts to bring back formal "Arabic" from the burial
vaults of time were mere exercises in futility, analogous to re-instituting
Latin as the spoken language of France, Romania, Italy, Spain, Portugal,
etc...
The spoken language of Lebanon has grace, malleability and an amazing
capacity for neologisms and other evolutionary trends that formal Arabic
(for liturgical and dogmatic reasons) is no longer able to attain.
Lebanese, NOT Arabic, is my native language. Nevertheless, I consider myself
fairly proficient in English, Arabic and Syriac. However, Arabic is the only
language that requires me to think in an alternative language (usually my
maternal tongue, Lebanese) before I am able to utter one word of Arabic or
write one meaningful Arabic sentence.
This is not a natural process! it is most artificial, and it is called
diglossia in the discourse of linguists. It is a dualism that most
bilinguals suffer from.
I hope that one day you will gather up the courage and integrity that goaded
Sati' al-Husri to admit this self-evident truth, and reach the same
conclusion yourself.
Regardless of the ideological and religious motives that force you to think
otherwise, Lebanese, NOT Arabic, is also YOUR native language, and it is the
ONLY element of unity that you and I have in common. So why not capitalize
on our linguistic Lebanonism and use it as the corner stone of our
"Lebanese" identity. It should be very clear by now (as evidenced by 14
centuries of struggles) that political Islam will never be able to mold me
into its image, just as political Maronitism was unable to mold you into its
image. We each have our own sources that feed our self-image and national
vigor, and we may never reconcile our differences without a clear and
resolute physical separation if we persist in denying each other's
specificity.
The language BOTH our mothers spoke MUST be an element of national pride and
MUST become the cement of our heteroclite national identity.
Here's the bombshell:
The two people that first pointed out Lebanon's linguistic specificity, and
consequently instigated our linguistic Lebanonism in the late 1940's were
MUSLIMS not Christians; Nagib Jamaaleddine, a Shiite, and Kamaal Charaabi, a
Sunni. Jamaaleddine was a brilliant lawyer who will forever remain in the
annals of modern Lebanese history as the author of the first "Lebanese"
counsel's address to be delivered extemporaneously (i.e.: NOT from a
prepared text) at a Lebanese tribunal. Jamaaleddine was also the translator
of Imam Ali's Nahju l-balaaghati into Lebanese (titled "Che2af mne n-nahj).
Charaabi and Jamaaleddine became two of the principal and closest advisors
of Said Akl in the 1950s.., and who knows, perhaps even influenced his
thought.
This, then, is the most coherent early illustration of the blossoming of
the Lebanese language and its movement from its traditional
popular-social-cultural position to reach a literary-intellectual status.
Thanks to Charaabi and Jamaaleddine, our Lebanese language is making great
impression today on all aspects of artistic expression that are bound up
with popular life (radio, movies, TV, newscasts, theatre) and on all aspects
of religious, intellectual and political expression that are bound up in
"official" life (parliament, newsprint and other media...)
This particular reflection of national self-consciousness (expressed in the
Lebanese linguistic nimbus) might still throw religious and conservative
diehards, like yourself (protective of the classical language of Islam) into
a bloc opposed to the efflorescence of the Lebanese language. But I am not
holding my breath. It is society that decides the evolutionary course of its
language, not individuals, and certainly not religious zealots stuck in time
lag.
Dante did not kill Latin by writing the Divine Comedy in his native Tuscan
(which later became Italian), he merely delivered the coup de grace that
weakened the hold of the Catholic Church and the Latin language on the
Academy, and gave birth to the Italian nation by giving social status to a
popular language (Tuscan). Who knows? Perhaps our Dante will turn out to be
the Shiite Nagib Jamaaleddine?
The word "Arab" is ambiguous and amorphous, mainly because Islam does not
recognize national/ethnic distinctions. For Islam, the locus of group
loyalty is religiously based. Consequently, it has not been possible, for
the past 14 centuries, to speak of an Arab community based on ethnic or
cultural congruity.
In fact, one of the principal accomplishments of Islam over the centuries
has been to convert the ethnically diverse "Arabic-speaking" world into an
imaginary melting pot where all origins were forgotten (or rather granted a
fictitious "Arab" character.)
As a result of the spread of Islam (which incidentally did NOT occur in a
vacuum) more that 4.5 million square miles of Africa and Asia became
"Arabic-speaking". However, the equivocal character of the expression
"Arabic-speaking" itself, adds further ambiguity to the word "Arab" today,
which refers merely to the fabricated community of a FORMAL language.
Consequently, if the word "Arab" is used as a criterion of unity (based on
this imagined community of language), then the expression itself carries
perforce the seed of its own destruction since "Arabic" has been suffering
from aphasia for over a 1000 years and has seized being a spoken language
since the end of the Abbasid era. This begs a simple illustration:
"Haana lana ann na'kula" is an octo-syllabic Arabic sentence; it is shackled
by declensions; it requires 6 grammatical rules (or sarf wa naHw) to conform
it to the purists' (i.e.: Qoranic) conception of what constitutes proper
Arabic; it is consequently (according to linguists)a DEAD Language for all
intents and purposes.
Conversely, "Hallna n.e.kol" is Lebanese; it is formed by 4 syllables
(brevity is a form of eloquence), it does NOT contain declensions, and it
requires ONLY one grammatical rule to be produced correctly! Lebanese is
therefore a vibrant and dynamic language of life.
The difference between the 2 locutions above, is a difference of nature not
degree. It is hypocritical and mendacious to pretend that the first sentence
is Arabic, and the second one is an Arabic "lahja" (accent.) This would be
analogous to saying that Latin is a "language" and French is a Latin "lahja"
(accent.) The difference between the two is, again, one of nature NOT
degree.
"Wa inni wa in kuntu jamiilu zamaanihi" IS one Arabic lahja (accent), and
"wa innii wa in kuntchuu djamiiluu zamaanihii" is ANOTHER Arabic lahja.
THIS, is a difference of degree not nature. The lahja pertains to timber and
inflections, it has NOTHING to do with structure and syntax.
For instance, the negating particles in Lebanese (like in French) flank the
verb (ma ba3refch, or aba3rebch.. again, 3 syllables, and, declensions, and
a remnant of Syriac) whereas in Arabic, the negating particle can ONLY
precede the verb (laa a3rifu.. 4 syllables, and four different declensions
within ONE verb.)
The average Lebanese "jerdeh" can extemporaneously describe what's under the
hood of his car IN Lebanese without missing a single beat. Conversely, Taha
Hussein, one of our times' most distinguished princes of the Arabic
language, admits with much frustration that he would sit in his Sorbonne
flat, grope for words, and fail to describe his own furniture in Arabic.
Therefore, the Lebanese "jerdeh" speaks a vibrant language of life, while
Taha Hussein spoke a dead language (out of a prepared text, never
impulsively!!!) (And YES, achikmeen, duburyaage, direction and sobbaab ARE
Lebanese words.)
Thus, to say that the Lebanese speak Arabic is analogous to saying that the
Haitians speak French (an unscrupulous and simplistic statement from a
linguistic point of view, and an ideologically loaded one, from a political
point of view.) The Haitians speak Haitian (Creole) which might have some
genetic similarities to French, but which nevertheless remains an
autochthonous and autonomous Haitian linguistic competence specific to Haiti
(despite the Jeremiads of archeologists!!) Similarly, the Lebanese language
is a spontaneous Lebanese creation and a Lebanese impulse sui generis. It is
society that instigates and propels the evolution of language, NOT
lamentations, wishful thinking, linguistic policies, or demagogic agendas.
Rome with all its might, vigor, and intellectual pedigree was unable to
prevent the bursting-out, dispersal and ultimate DEATH of its language. I
wonder how the so-called Arabs intend to resuscitate THEIR dead and buried
"language".
ADDENDUM
Re: The Necessity of Distinguishing Lebanese Language from Arabic Language, posted September 17, 2008
From a linguistic point of view the expression "Arabic dialect" in reference to the Lebanese language is unscrupulous; from a political point of view it is both hypocritical and mendacious.
Many Lebanese, in spite of the irrefutable linguistic and historical evidence attesting to the Syriac origins of our Lebanese language, persist in exhibiting an "arabising" complex by wrongly referring to our maternal language as an "Arabic" dialect.
The pronounced influence of Syriac on our modern Lebanese language is not only apparent in the heavy reliance on Arabic vocabulary in the language of daily parlance; it is also apparent in the Lebanese vocalization of certain vowels which do not exist in Arabic, as well as in the timber and inflection of various consonants common to both Arabic and Syriac. This influence is also obvious in the sentence structure (syntax) of modern Lebanese, as well as in its grammatical rules.
For instance, the ommission of the letter Zhaal (the ninth symbol of the Arabic Alphabet) and its replacement by Daal or Zayn, is characteristic of Aramaic/Syriac which does not recognize the sound Zhall... So we say in Lebanese "Abaana l lazi fis samawaat" etc..
Lebanese also uses "sukuun" in its personal pronouns, and so, we say Huu and Hii (for He and She), whereas Egyptians and others say Huwwa and Hiyya, just as we say Aana for Ana (in accordance with what is customary in Syriac.)
Defective (three stemmed) hollow verbs kept their defective Waaw and Yaa' in the conjugation of its 1st person masculine imperative (in accordance with Syriac/Aramaic usage.) For instance a Lebanese would say 'Uuum and Bii3 (for get-up and sell) instead of the Arabic Qumm wa Bi33.
The silent first radical of a given root is a characteristic of Lebano-Syriac and completely foreign (and therefore unacceptable) to Arabic. In Lebanese we say Hmaar, Kteeb, T'uum, Kbaar, Zghaar, Jnuub (indifferently for verbs or nouns), whereas in Arabic, the first consonant of a word can NEVER be silent, and therefore to say Junuub, Habiib, Kibaar etc.. is a must. Similarly, the meeting of two silent consonants is common in Lebanese; for example Maktbo, Darjtak, Makhznak, instead of the Arabic Maktabuhu, Darjatuka, Makhzanuka etc...
Similarly the Arabic plural pronominal suffix m (as in Akhuukum, 3indahum, Akalahum) becomes n in modern Lebanese (Khayykun, 3indun, Akalun) exactly in accordance with Syriac.
Also a Lebanese would say "Chaafuune Ikhwtak", instead of the Arabic "Chaahadani Ikhwatuka".. ie: in this verbal sentence structure, the Lebanese verb benefits from 2 subjects, on suffixed to the verb and a second following it, exactly in accordance with Syriac usage, a structure that is anathema to Arabic. Also, the hamza of the imperative is ommitted in modern Lebanese, and so we say, Chraab, Ktoob, instead of the Arabic Ichrab, Uktub.
We can oversimplify matters and call Lebanese an Arabic dialect, although from the point of view of linguists, this is no longer acceptable. Arabic can evolve ONLY in Arabia (its original home), outside of its home, it can no longer maintain its purity and will have to intermarry with the intellectual tyranny of other verbal competencies.
Correct Arabic for instance does not accept the starting of a word with a silent consonant (ie: we MUST say "Himaar" in Arabic, and NEVER "Hmaar".. "Kitaab" and NEVER "Kteeb", a trivial point from our perspective, but a very significant point from the perspective of the scrupulous linguist.)
For instance, the French "pays" and the Spanish "Pais" are undeniably related, but it is unacceptable to say that "pais" for instance is a French dialectal form, or that "pays" is a Spanish patois to mean "country". This is when we know that a language is undergoing structural change. "Kteeb" and "Kitaaab", and "Trablos" and "Taraabulus", ARE NOT accents, but significant structural differences between Arabic and Lebanese!
Otherwise, we'll have to accept that "Pays" and "Pais", or that "Bonjour" and "Buongiorno" are variants of the same language. This, of course, would be a travesty from the point of view of the French, the Spaniards, or the Italians.
In addition, Arabic may be a revered language; a sacred language of Muslim liturgy, but today Arabic is no longer a living tongue.
The only recent example of a successful revival (of a dead language) that comes to mind is that of Hebrew (also a beautiful language.) But the Jews benefit from coherent cultural/national coordination, cooperation, esprit de corps, natural cohesiveness, ideals, morale, and most importantly scientific efficiency and technical skills - things that the Arabs never had and never will. And to add incoherence to an already messy corporate-consciousness, Islam wants to forcibly Arabize the Lebanese. If the Lebanese wanted to be arabized, they would have done it under the Umayyads, when Islam was at its apogee.
Lebanon has a self-contained, indigenous national identity, and in spite of what the 300 corrupt politicians might say about Lebanon's "official language", Lebanon remains non-Arab. Lebanon, again, is Lebanese sui generis; it does not require a label to define it. My mother never told me "kayfa Haaluka l-yawmaa ya bunayya", but "kifak l-yom ya mama".
I will take this argument one step further and submit to you that not only are historical and social affinities the cardinal points in the development of the Lebanese identity, but that, in our case, the Lebanese language (a spontaneous, self-contained and indigenous Lebanese generation, and NOT an Arabic lahja) is today our only national nimbus.
Lebanon is the principal Middle Eastern country to witness (since its inception) a systematized blossoming of its local dialectal variant; call it Lahja if it's soothes arab sensibilities, but one must note that Sati' al-Husri, the father of the linguistically based "Arab nationalism" conceded in his 1979 introduction to Anis Freyha's al-Lugha el-3arabiyya wa usluubu diraasatiha that "we are no longer allowed to refer to the various Arabic Lahjas as dialectal or vulgar variants of the classical language." In Husri's estimation, Lebanese had already become an autonomous linguistic competency, and any attempts to bring back formal "Arabic" from the burial vaults of time were mere exercises in futility, analogous to re-instituting Latin as the spoken language of France, Romania, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc...
The spoken language of Lebanon has grace, malleability and an amazing capacity for neologisms and other evolutionary trends that formal Arabic (for liturgical and dogmatic reasons) is no longer able to attain.
Lebanese, NOT Arabic, is the native language if Lebanon. Nevertheless, the Lebanese consider themselves fairly proficient in English, French, and Arabic. However, Arabic is the only language that requires one to think in an alternative language (usually our maternal tongue, Lebanese) before one is able to utter one word of Arabic or write one meaningful Arabic sentence.
This is not a natural process! it is most artificial, and it is called diglossia in the discourse of linguists. It is a dualism that most bilinguals suffer from. Consequently, I submit that our natural, maternal and native language IS Lebanese, and I hope that one day the rest of our Lebanese brethren will gather up the courage and integrity that goaded Sati' al-Husri to admit this self-evident truth, and reach the same conclusion themselves.
Lebanese, NOT Arabic, is also OUR native language, and it is the ONLY element of unity that Lebanese have in common. So why not capitalize on our linguistic Lebanonism and use it as the corner-stone of our "Lebanese" identity. It should be very clear by now (as evidenced by 14 centuries of struggles) that political Islam will never be able to mould us Christians into its image, just as political maronitism was unable to mould Muslims into its image. We each have our own sources that feed our self-image and national vigour, and we may never reconcile our differences without a clear and resolute physical separation if we persist in denying each other's specificity.
The two people that first pointed out Lebanon's linguistic specificity, and consequently instigated our linguistic Lebanonism in the late 1940's were MUSLIMS not Christians; Nagib Jamaaleddine, a Shi’ite, and Kamaal Charaabi, a Sunni. Jamaaleddine was a brilliant lawyer who will forever remain in the annals of modern Lebanese history as the author of the first "Lebanese" counsel's address to be delivered extemporaneously at a Lebanese tribunal. Jamaaleddine was also the translator of Imam Ali's Nahju l-balaaghati into Lebanese (titled "Che'af mne n-nahj). Charaabi and Jamaaleddine became two of the principal and closest advisors of Said Akl in the 1950s.., and who knows, perhaps even influenced his thought.
This then is the most coherent early illustration of the blossoming of the Lebanese language and its movement from its traditional popular-social-cultural position to reach a literary-intellectual status. Thanks to Charaabi and Jamaaleddine, our Lebanese language is making great impression today on all aspects of artistic expression that are bound up with popular life (radio, movies, TV, newscasts, theatre) and on all aspects of religious, intellectual and political expression that are bound up in "official" life (parliament, newsprint and other media...)
This particular reflection of national self-consciousness (expressed in the Lebanese linguistic nimbus) might still throw religious and conservative diehards, (protective of the classical language of Islam) into a bloc opposed to the efflorescence of the Lebanese language. But I am not holding my breath. It is society that decides the evolutionary course of its language, not individuals, and certainly not religious zealots stuck in a time-lag.
"Haana lana ann na'kula" is an octo-syllabic Arabic sentence; it is shackled by declensions; it requires 6 grammatical rules (or sarf wa naHw) to conform it to the purists' (ie: Qoranic) conception of what constitutes propper Arabic; it is consequently (according to linguists) a DEAD Language for all intents and purposes.
Conversely, "Hallna n.e.kol" is Lebanese; it is formed by 4 syllables (brevity is a form of eloquence), it does NOT contain declensions, and it requires ONLY one grammatical rule to be produced correctly! Lebanese is therefore a vibrant and dynamic language of life.
The difference between the 2 locutions above, is a difference of nature not degree. It is hypocritical and mendacious to pretend that the first sentence is Arabic, and the second one is an Arabic "lahja" (accent.) This would be analogous to saying that Latin is a "language" and French is a Latin "lahja" (accent.) The difference between the two is, again, one of nature NOT degree.
"Wa inni wa in kuntu jamiilu zamaanihi" IS one Arabic lahja (accent), and "wa innii wa in kuntchuu djamiiluu zamaanihii" is ANOTHER Arabic lahja. THIS, is a difference of degree not nature. The lahja pertains to timber and inflections, it has NOTHING to do with structure and syntax.
For instance, the negating particles in Lebanese (like in French) flank the verb (ma ba3refch, or aba3refch., again, 3 syllables, and, declensions, and a remnant of Aramaic) whereas in Arabic, the negating particle can ONLY precede the verb (laa a3rifu.. 4 syllables, and four different declensions within ONE verb.)
The average Lebanese "jerdeh" can extemporaneously describe what's under the hood of his car IN Lebanese without missing a single beat. Conversely, Taha Hussein, one of our times' most distinguished princes of the Arabic language, admits with much frustration that he would sit in his Sorbonne flat, grope for words, and fail to describe his own furniture in Arabic. Therefore, the Lebanese "jerdeh" speaks a vibrant language of life, while Taha Hussein spoke a dead language (out of a prepared text, never impulsively!!!) (And YES, achikmonn, duburyaage, direction and sobbaab ARE Lebanese words in spite of what Arabs might think)
Thus, to say that the Lebanese speak Arabic is analogous to saying that the Haitians speak French (an unscrupulous and simplistic statement from a linguistic point of view, and an ideologically loaded one, from a political point of view.) The Haitians speak Haitian (creole) which might have some genetic similarities to French, but which nevertheless remains an autochtonous and autonomous Haitian linguistic competence specific to Haiti (despite the Jeremiads of archeologists!!)
Similarly, the Lebanese language is a spontaneous Lebanese creation and a Lebanese impulse sui generis. It is society that instigates and propels the evolution of language, NOT lamentations, wishful thinking, linguistic policies, or demagogic agendas. Rome with all its might, vigor, and intellectual pedigree was unable to prevent the bursting-out, dispersal and ultimate DEATH of its language. I wonder how the so-called Arabs intend to resuscitate THEIR dead and buried "language".
Thus, if the best criterion for Lebanon's "Arabness" is language, the preceding should set the record straight and sap the already atrophied theory that considers "Arabic" a language. In the words of the father of the spirit of our Lebanese nation, "language is what comes out of the mouth, NOT what is ossified in books."
Nevertheless, there are other more meaningful criteria for corporate identity and group loyalty, and they are legion; and NOWHERE does language figure in them (that's the answer one persists in the puerile obduracy of considering Arabic a language). Go tell an Irishman that he's a Briton simply because he speaks the language of his conqueror and oppressor. I'll be standing here, hopping on one leg, anxiously awaiting the answer!! If the Irishman accepts your twisted logic, then consider me the newest convert to Arabism. And I'll do it with the zeal, conviction and verve of a neophyte. |
