Talk:Lebanese Arabic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The people who are stating that Lebanese is not Arabic are very wrong. They make this claim not for solid linguistic reasons but for political ones. I can easily profile the type of person who writes that Lebanese is not Arabic without ever having met him or her. They are almost always Lebanese Christians [rarely ever Muslims] who have only lived in the U.S. for several years or less. They normally dislike Muslims and Arabs even though they were both at one time in history. These type of writers caused political problems in Lebanon and now want to disassociate themselves from the Araic language and are trying so hard to blend that denying their language, they believe helps this. - - Syrian Arabic is almost identical to Lebanese Arabic and no one in Syria says it's not Arabic. The term is diglossia wherein, like other languages, the written is different from the spoken. I could go on and on but Lebanese is Arabic and such unscientific notions should not be part of documented, scholarly sources

<I am sorry but it seems to me that most people who answered on the talk page have barely any or no knowledge at all in Linguistics. To truely understand where a language comes from, a person must read a lot of history , cultural history as well as the history of evolution of the culture/language. One cannot ascertain,based on confusing facts (for those who dont know),what a language is and what a language is not. Aramaic is a language that exists no more in its initial form known at the time of christ. Aramaic branched into seperate semitic languages that evolved and mutated over time. To explain it better for those who cant easily imagine or understand, look at Latin. French for example is a separate language from latin, even though it comes from latin. French is simply a language that came from Latin, evolved with time grammatically and vocabulary wise (Latin words changed form and became what they are now in french language, and this is a very important component of evolution in a language).. But French is not latin.. Learning latin does not mean you can speak or understand French.. And learning French does not mean you can read, write or understand Latin... Same relation between languages that have similar vocabulary , Grammar but are not the same, namely French, Italian , sPanish.... The relation between ARabic and Lebanese is the same in this propsect.. Just because a lot of vocabulary comes from Arabic (same way a lot of french, spanish, italian vocabulary comes from latin) does not make lebanese = arabic or lebanese = arabic dialect (the same way French, spanish, italian are not the same as latin and certainly are not merely dialects of latin).. Its a totally independent language that has had its own independent evolution(and here comes the history factor) and became what it is today...... Lebanese started with the mixing of Syriac (aramaic dialect spoken in Mount Lebanon and syria at the time) and the arabic dialect spoken in the coastal areas, and evolved from then on to be where it is today with words changing form and actually mixing with several other languages along the way (Turkish 17th century.. french 20th century)... It seems to me actually that the people who responded on this page do not want to acknowledge what the facts really are just because they cant accept (most of the muslims are such) that they are muslims and do not speak arabic the language of the Coran... PLease remember language is one thing, religion and so on is another thing.. but the problem is , as maybe not all people know "One of the main tenets of Arab Nationalism is belief in the linguistic unity of the Arab people".. Thats why they refuse , evidence or not to say that they dont speak arabic... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.83.244.129 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 July 2006.

What you write is a common misconception popular among some Lebanese. Aramaic and Syriac influence on Lebanese Arabic is minimal, and it clearly belongs to a continuum of colloquial Levantine varieties of Arabic. — Gareth Hughes 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously' Garzo or Gareth Hughes relies on the common mistake which does not take the philology and lexicography of Lebanese language into consideration. Anyone who knows the first thing about Lebanese and ignores the fact that too many Lebanese words have no basis in Arabic but are continued usage of Aramaic or Syriac. Examples of such words are: shala7 (undress), jowwa (inside), barra (outside), ru7t (went). Words which are often misinterpreted as far as origin are those that seem to come from Arabic but they pre-date Arabic by thousands of years. Words such as Mot (death) or Bet (house), for example are assumed to come from Arabic while they pre-date Arabic by thousands of years, yet almost everyone believes they were taken from Arabic.

I know Aramaic, and Lebanese is not Aramaic. I do know that some Lebanese put about the idea that their language is not Arabic, but no respected linguistics publication has ever supported it. A few words that cannot be found in Fusha does not make Lebanese not Arabic: exactly the same claim could be made for Moroccan if it did. — Gareth Hughes 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gareth (and his opponents:})I dont know any Aramaic so dont know how much of an influence it plays on modern Lebanese Arabic/lebanese language, but dont you think that the word "Arabic" covers a wider divergence in linguistic variety than most European language titles do? I mean to say that it is possible to argue the case for more than one language to have descended from Al Fusha Arabic, just as the "City of Westminster" is contained within the "city" of Greater London. Also I would point out that there is an equal pressure to define everything as a unified linguistic variety from the opposite side of the political argument. I remember trying to learn Arabic from an Egyptian flatmate who kept telling me how only Egyptians can speak perfect Arabic. I think that even if an alien landed and defined what language was what, there would still be a bias involved in their demarcation. I would define Lebanese Arabic, as an Arabic language, just like Egyptian Arabic could be seen. In other words, a language seperate from Al Fusha, which although largely descended from classical Arabic, can be legitemately defined as a seperate living language.80.192.59.202 07:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"One should not think that a dialect is a "badly spoken" language: it is indeed a full-fledged language, with a specific grammar and lexicon. If however it is said today that Italian, Spanish or French are languages, it is not because they are richer, handsomer or better structured than Leonese, Napolitan or Picard, but because they have acquired more prestige by becoming literary and official languages for constituted States. The idioms that were the starting points of these three languages, respectively the Tuscan dialect of Florence, the Castillan dialect and the dialect of the Ile-de-France, were themselves, originally, but dialects spoken on a reduced geographical area."

Henriette Walter Just a little bit of education for you :) Zerolando 09:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although it is a highly contencious topic, this is (I would dare to suggest) an example of how the words "dialect" and "language" are actually interchangeable, depending on ones' viewpoint. modern Norwegian as far as i can ascertain, was developped out of the dialects of danish that were the furthest from the way Danish was spoken in denmark (as a deliberate nationalist/romantic project) in the 19th century, yet this doesnt stop it being a new language from some linguist's point of view. However it is noteable, that the further away from Europe one travels, the greater the language change has to be before it is considered a seperate language from the standard written variety (Chinese "dialects" are as different as German and English!) Im not saying Lebanese is a language, but it could be described as such. Just as a "large town" or "small city" could both be defined as "thriving villages". "languages" seem to be the dominant dialects in any dialect continuum, and it is understandable that Muslims would take more pride in al fusha as their "language", even if they speak the same "dialect" as the Christians.80.192.59.202 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the publications of the accomplished linguist, scholar and historian Dr. Anise Frayha? Don't make claims if you cannot support them. The proof that classical Arabic and Lebanese are not the same is very simple. The fact that children of Lebanese immigrants who never learned classical Arabic but know Lebanese, do not understand classical Arabic AT ALL. I know it from my own family. As to Moroccan, Algerian for example, these languages are not pure Arabic either. They contain much of the same mixture of languages. Though I had studied Arabic from kindergarten to the university level, I am obliged to speak French with a Moroccan or Algerian because their languages are beyond me, unless they speak classical Arabic. It seems to me, Rev. Gareth, your argument is political swayed by anti-Lebanese sentiments. If you want to get a clear picture of the real unadulterated Lebanese, you need to go to the mountains, especially the North, and study what the people speak there. I am certain you would change your mind and get to know a different authentic Lebanese. It was not a long time ago when Christian communities of the Middle East gave up their original languages and adopted Arabic. Shankarees

Nobody's claiming that Lebanese Arabic is the same as Classsical Arabic. The fact stands, though, that Lebanese Arabic is manifestly descended from CA. That doesn't mean it's CA, or that it's mutually intelligible with CA, any more than the fact that French is descended from Latin means that it's the same thing as Latin or mutually intelligible with Latin. The presence of Syraic or Aramaic loanwords in LA doesn't prove descent, any more than the presence of French words in English proves that English is descended from Latin.

In other words, you're arguing here against a straw man; the overwhelming linguistic consensus is that LA is descended from CA, and not Aramaic or Syriac, so all your arguments that LA is not the same as CA are moot. YBeayf 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I love the way you put it.. Overwhelming linguistic consensus.. which I am sure you mean encyclopedia and informative books you read which have nothing to do at all with expert linguistic opinion.. Because there is no such consensus :) Zerolando 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the other way round. The Lebanese language was influenced by Arabic but its roots are not in Arabic. The overwhelming linguistic consensus is wrong, just as the overwhelming ethnic consensus that Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinian are of Arabic blood is wrong. The National Geographic Y-chromosome study proved that and rubbed the consensus in the faces who said otherwise. This is the same.

You mention the overwhelming linguistic consensus: well, that is what Wikipedia is here to represent, rather than personal opinions. Minority views get a mention as such, and I think the article represents that. Please do not re-insert the comment about linguists: it is false. I am one such linguist, and have never come across a linguist arguing for Lebanese being descended from Aramaic.

I am sorry but you are not a linguist :)Zerolando 09:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lebanese is vastly different from CA. As are 'Palestinian', 'Syrian' and 'Moroccan' etc. But the modern varieties of Arabic are in a dialect continuum, so on a linguistic basis it is not possible to say Lebanese is a different language from Syrian or Palestinian. The ethnologue treats it as a variety of the macrolanguage Arabic, and while that's a little messy, so is the reality.--Drmaik 06:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying Lebanese language is different from Syrian or Palestinian. In fact, what is referred to as Lebanese is actually eastern Mediterranean, and yes it is a different *language* from Moroccan. You do not monopolize philology and linguistics. As to Wikipedia, it is a major cluster of rubbish and intellectual spam and not a serious reference. It is mainly controlled by a bunch of stiff-necks who keep on changing information to suite them and their dictatorial way of thinking.

this is a great article.

This article desperately needs a rewrite -- the entire thing is premised on the assumption that Lebanese and Arabic are two separate languages, when this is by no means an accepted fact. I can see this turning into a useful article if the differences between Lebanese Arabic and standard Arabic are explained, and the cases presented on both sides for it being an Arabic dialect and it being an Aramaic-descended language in its own right, but as of now this article is just shilling for one particular political-linguistic position. YBeayf 03:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I am not a linguist but this is not an article, it's an argumentation. --equitor 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this article from a discussion on the Aramaic talk page. I am clear that Lebanese Arabic isn't Aramaic, and that is divergence from classical and standard Arabic is of the same magnitude as that of other colloquial dialects of Arabic. I'm sure we are all aware that there are political reasons why it might be suggested that Lebanese is not a colloquial Arabic language, but the linguistic arguments for this are not convincing. Gareth Hughes 18:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

seems that someone wrote this who dont like to be lebanon arabic...

This last response represents the typical mentality of those who refuse to discuss anything other than on a political level.

There is no linguistic argument for Lebanese being a descendant of Aramaic. This is a matter for academic linguists, not politicians. - Mustafaa 12:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian are overwhelmed with Aramaic and Syriac, yet none of you are willing to acknowledge it for political reasons. You are the ones who are thinking politically not academically. The whole population of the area were speaking Aramaic up till very recently when economics forced their hand to adopt Arabic. The few who did not are still living in Maalula. The Maronites were forced to adopt Arabic by decree from their Patriarch over 200 years ago. In fact, the first Arabic books published in Arabic were done using the Syriac script at the Monastery of Quzhiya. Further, the first Arabic printing press was made by a Melkite Byzantine monk called Zakher who made the press himself. Finally, the Qur'an itself is full of Syriac and you all deny it.

It looks better now, thanks mustafa.

About the statement "Normally, Arabic letters are used to write Lebanese." Well normally it's not written, it's a spoken language... The only exception I am aware of is the Internet, but I think that most people use latin characters in this case, for practical reasons: keyboards are generally in English and a lot of software do not support Arabic very well.--equitor 02:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa has covered this in his edits, but a lot of the time ordinary people use Arabic letters as well - look at any Arabic satellite TV channel that accepts text-ins and you'll see a lunatic mix. I suspect Roman letters are more common among the Lebanese, relatively speaking, but has any research been done on this? Most keyboards in Lebanon are in both scripts, in fact I can't recall seeing one that wasn't. Also, when Lebanese and other Arabs use Roman letters, they tend to use numbers to represent missing Arabic letters, e.g. 7 for haa', 3 for `ain.

Should we not mention that it is a form of Levantine Arabic? Palmiro | Talk 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The title of the form should be more inclusive. It should be renamed "Languages of the Eastern Mediterranean"

[edit] To sum up

Can we perhaps agree on the following?
1. Lebanese is not a language out on its own, but part of the Syrian/Lebanese/Palestinian continuum.
2. This language, in all its forms, is strongly Arabic in grammar and vocabulary, but is formed round an Aramaic substrate; just as French is largely Latin in grammar and vocabulary, but was formed round a Celtic substrate. This is common to the whole group and is not something peculiar to Lebanon.
3. Particular dialects may also reflect traces of other ancient languages: Hebrew in Palestine and Phoenician in Lebanon.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French

I think that there should be something in this article about the many French words that are substituted for Arabic words by the Lebanese. e.g. nobody says toilet in Arabic, they say 'toilette', and they say 'merci' instead of thank you in Arabic. 211.30.104.199 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Few minor edits: explanations

I have made a few minor edits to explain a bit of the controversy between Lebanese as a distinct language, vs. as a dialect of Arabic. I don't want to promote or dispute either side, because I know that such controversy will not convince either side, either way. However, for the sake of the article, I feel that we should explain the controversy in unbiased terms so outsiders who are unfamiliar with Lebanon and/or the Arab world can understand it. Nimur 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)