3arabi mkassar
This entry is relevant, albeit not identical, to previous posts titled “Bil 3arabi”, and “Bil 3arabi:Kaman marra”. Like those two just cited, its aim is to examine the state of the Arabic language in specific circles of society, and, although this sounds too bright a venture, poses questions in relation to that stance. At one stage, it will employ the transliteration of the Arabic language into Roman characters, reflecting the Amman-Jordanian dialect, to accent the edges of the paradox.
This matter of the Arabic language has been one not easily dismissed from my thoughts, I love my language and I cherish it deeply. I am most positive many others share the same affection for the antique, fabulously artistic tongue. I am equally certain many feel an ambiguous sense of guilt for not being able to utilize the language that is their birthright and a duty often unfulfilled, in their daily lives.
Feeling incapable of self-expression in one’s alleged mother tongue is, at the very least, tragic. I remember smiling when I bump into fresh learners of Arabic who strive to utter every word the correct way, and to compose the riddles of complex sentences in line with the formulas of Arabic, and not their own languages. It is this battle that astonishes me, as opposed to the often all too defeatist abandonment of language by “native speakers”. Those learners speak standard Arabic, and they take pride in showing it, unlike many, many Arabs who take every possible measure not to speak in Arabic and to abolish any ties with the culture it carries.
That broken form of pure Arabic, employed in earnest attempts at grasping the methods of the rich linguistic system, is what came to be called “3arabi mkassar”. Yet it is fully justifiable for foreigners to miss a proper tense here or there, or to use the wrong pronoun, or even to pluralize the should-be-singular in their course of learning. But is it justifiable for an Arab to use 3arabi mkassar as well? Ino, iza ba7ki 3arabi mkassar, badalni 3arabeyyeh, wella sho bakoon?
I am eager to expand this debate further, Arab talk show style: Perhaps there is an inferiority complex within the collective frame of Arabs, or, here’s another hypothesis for you, perhaps they are easily influenced by exterior trends, easily impressed, that is.
Quite honestly, I find it enormously odd that Arabs seem to hop on any chance that would feature them as being “westernized”, rather than adherent to their heritage. Since that first image offers glittering opportunities of being glued to open-mindedness, education, and the rest of your choice of terms as opposed to that “uncivilized” Arab civilization (and I use the term “westernized” loosely). Could this linguistic hiccup, much celebrated by the elite, usher self-annihilation? What is the point of being identical with another culture via language? Does that not abort any identity, or whatever is left of it, and does it not leave one a miserable incomplete replica of a glory that never was?
To bring this to an end, it is not accurate to propose that people who do not wish to employ foreign languages needlessly in their speech are trying to shrink themselves to fit unopened cocoons, nor it is fair to judge the competence of an individual as based on usage of fancy words belonging to any language other than Arabic, or even to infer that this self same individual is incapable of going with the flow of modernization by fault of his/her usage of his/her mother tongue. Even modernization preaches logic sometimes, let us not forget that.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
February 19th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Tololy,
Well written. But I wonder, is language sufficient to preserve an identity? Isn’t everything “Arabizable”, meaning that language is like a pot that you can put anything into? That it has a form, but no content?
Can language mutate without altering an identity, or is a language’s alteration a reflection of an idetity altered?
I say this because I have seen Arabs/Muslims in North America and Europe who are very aware of their identities without knowing a word of Arabic. On the other hand, I’ve seen Arabs with immaculate Arabic who are alienated from their culture and collective self, that they consider themselves French, or English. Didn’t the Anglo-Indians speak Hindi, and were not at all Indian?
I tend to think of the “3arab mkassar” as a certainly an alienation from the Arab identity the speaker was forced to carry. I also see it as a shortcoming of expressive ability, meaning that sentences are terse, incoherent, use inexpressive words.
Speaking of inexpressive words, can anyone explain to me why people in Amman are classified as “mrattab” and “7afartali”? What is it supposed to signify apart from attire? And is attire sufficient to deduce the whole spectrum of characteristics of person one is dealing with? Isn’t this a shortcoming of the mind to classify people into two classes and infer everything about the person henceforth?
February 19th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Excellent piece Tololy
The above dissolution of this abject was outstanding and only aggregate the urgency to take serious steps in reclaiming the use of our language.
One issue that you haven’t covered here but I believe a fellow blogger discussed a week ago; is the fact that English became -for some- the language of thinking (or thought) and not only the language of expression!
I like to think that I haven’t reached such deceitful state, yet I can foresee my Arabic capability fading due to the lack of its use while expressing my thoughts!
One exercise I found myself intrigued to develop yet proved very beneficial was to suppress the use of the odd English “term” that pops during a dialogue in Arabic and try to find the Arabic equivalent instead, you risk developing an artificial spasmodic stutter or coming up with funny Arabic terms covered with dust, yet the resulting flawless uninterrupted use of Arabic is sensational.
February 19th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“That broken form of pure Arabic…”
We speak of a person being “pure” or “impure; corrupt”, of water being “pure” or “soiled; tainted”. The question I would like to pose to linguists is “How does one define language, and a particular language, as ‘pure’ or ‘impure’?” Language which is a beautiful gift and medium of human expression, unique to humans; which shapes culture and worldviews and is in turn shaped by culture.
Sometimes I wonder if we’ve allowed even political ideology to repress the creative process in which a language organically changes over time. Ancient Greek is now a “dead” language, but there are pockets of scholars and individuals who freely pursue the study of Greek myths and plays in its original language, untranslated. In that sense, ancient Greek is more appreciated and its culture more revered than it ever was during contemporary Greek civilization.
Every time I walk in the streets of Amman and hear the “slang” Arabic on the streets, or “3arabi mkassar”–especially when I see these bookstores filled with jewels from the tradition of English literature as well as modern fiction, but with few or no books from Arab authors–I wonder about the loss that we all suffer from the exultation of an Arabic employed thousands of years ago and the looking-down on an Arabic that is spoken, heard, argued with, played with, dynamic and organic as a living language! And to accept this result of human creativity and change in no way detracts from the beauty of that thousand-year old Arabic which gave birth to the rich culture and language we partake in today–not quite the same as that of its forefathers, but do children ever look and act exactly like their parents? If they did, I wouldn’t be able to hope in a better future, a more just, humble, and compassionate world.
February 19th, 2006 at 10:10 am
(Same anonymous person) By the way, thanks for the provocative and insightful series of entries on Arabic. Languages are so intriguing! –from a temporary 3ammani who has grown a lasting affection for 3amman
February 19th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
“Could this linguistic hiccup, much celebrated by the elite, usher self-annihilation? ”
I doubt it. I think your observations may not apply to other countries. Having lived in Syria for 12 years, I never noticed any of my family or friends using english in their conversation. But things could have changed in the past 5 years.
Having said that, I agree with you that we tend to link westernization with being civil, cool, and open-minded.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:42 am
True that, but 3arabi mkassar is much easier to communicate and seems more cool to me.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:54 am
I have a sudden dejavu with a hindu saying..
“sometimes you cant see the wood for the trees”
i guess i potentially agree with what you say.. only i think you mightve amplified it more than i would in a place or too.. maybe more
peace
February 20th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I hope I will be fair in my responses, but seeing as I will only comment on certain points, due to shortage of time, I already see some complaints.
Rami,
” Is language sufficient to preserve an identity?”. Among other things, I believe it is. Language, in my humble opinion, is closely attached to identity, yet it is not the sole representative of it.
“Is attire sufficient to deduce the whole spectrum of characteristics of person one is dealing with?”. Of course not. It is a sad state of affairs that the majority of people cannot go beyond the two layers of textile one has on, and think themselves fit to issue verdicts. I prefer the no labels policy myself.
Basem,
I agree with you that is is tragic that some think in English, and I am perhaps one of said people, and this pains me greatly.
Anonymous person,
To remark on your sharp view: “The question I would like to pose to linguists is “How does one define language, and a particular language, as ‘pure’ or ‘impure’?” Language which is a beautiful gift and medium of human expression, unique to humans; which shapes culture and worldviews and is in turn shaped by culture.”, I find myself obliged to offer additional explanations.
The liberty I took to use the word “pure”, is matched with a contrast in the same phrase: “That broken form of pure Arabic”. What I meant by pure Arabic is proper language with strict adherence to grammar, also called “Standard Arabic”, or ??????? ??????
You would have doubtlessly noticed this should you have had a conversation, in Arabic -mind you, with a fresh learner of the language. Such a novice would “miss a proper tense here or there,” or “use the wrong pronoun”, to quote my entry. A normal occurance through the course of learning any new tongue.
You presented some very interesting opinions in your last passage, I must say I enjoyed your comment tremendously. Thank you.
Omar,
I have vistied Syria a couple of times, and I say that I have not touched the same influence of English on Arabic in the daily speech of the people I met. but then again, I did not meet many people, and the people I met were mostly merchants or employees at restaurants. I would not know about other layers of society.
And speaking of this situation, perhaps in other countries of the Arab world other languages intrude, or to use a more gentle term, mingle with Arabic. It is not strictly English in all cases, but English/Arabic are the languages I am concerned of since they are dominant in my community.
Tunisiano,
Yes, so it seems to many, many people.
Anonymous Coward,
Ah. Possibly the feeling of inflating the concept struck you due to the fancy words I sometimes use, all too poetic for your taste perhaps, also for mine at times. I am glad you could join this discussion, and I value your opinion.
February 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I find it very annoying when I speak to someone in Arabic and they do not respond to me in Arabic.
I know I am not a native speaker, my my Arabic isnt that bad, and I know they understand me because they respond to my Arabic in English.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:17 am
I can relate to that, Abu Sinan. I think it is terrible, but perhaps those people really cannot “use” Arabic that well. If the case is so, it is very sad.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Abu Sinan, I always then ask them, since their English is far superior to my Arabic, for the chance to practice on them. Their egos are assuaged, they find out I speak passable Arabic, an dI get more practice.
Sure love that Arabic
February 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Arabic is beatiful. Amiya is not. Jordanian, Egyptian, etc… If you’re speaking of the beauty of the language lets stick to the fusha and not the ‘amiyya or MSA.
Moreover, why is that no one can transliterate Arabic properly? Why must numbers be used?
Sinan, the reason why they aren’t responding to you in Arabic is b/c they want to practice their English with you. Not b/c your Arabic isn’t up to par.
-Talib