Duvduv

Can anyone explain to me why the early version of the Quran studied by Prof. Gerd Puin did not use the diacritical marks to distinguish basic letters which were and are essential to those letters, such as y, t, n, b, th? If these letters do not have their dots, isn't it more than likely that the average person and even educated one could not distinguish what words there were?

Why would anyone write a text without those dots?!

C_Mucius_Scaevola

At the time the koran was compiled, the system of diacritical marks hadn't yet been developed. The earliest copies didn't - couldn't - use them.

C_M_S

Tom Sawyer

Why would a divinely inspired document need to worry about something like that? Omniscience means that you're able to make better grammar choices than one's contemporaries can.

C_Mucius_Scaevola

Seems to be God/Allah/Jehovah's normal modus operandi; the Hebrew scriptures were originally written without vowels. Mysterious ways? :constern01:

C_M_S

Sarai

From Design of Arabic Diacritical Marks by Mohamed Hssini and Azzeddine Lazrek:

Regards,
Sarai

Bloodnf

Many times when I read the Quran with meaning, I feel that there are alternative meanings from the reading than what the translator has written. Also because different meanings can be derived from the same root word using different pronunciations I find alternative meanings can be understood from the same sentence.

Duvduv

Before I get myself and everyone else confused, can we distinguish between VOWEL MARKS which do not exist in Hebrew in the Torah either, AND diacritical marks that distinguish between letters, and without which the letter is utterly unknowable, never mind not able to be pronounced correctly with vowels. If you don't know whether a letter is a ra or a za, or a ya or a ba, you don't even get to the point of worrying about vowels.

If you don't know whether a word is j-z-f or kh-r-n you can't even get to first base. Sarai, I read that article but it doesn't seem to address the question of distinguishing letters.

Sarai

Well, duvduv, I'm sorry it wasn't of more help. I'm completely unlettered when it comes to Arabic, but I did happen onto an article that might be of help to you:

The Trans-Saharan Book Trade: Manuscript Culture, Arabic Literacy and Intellectual
History in Muslim Africa by Graziano Krätli and Ghislaine Lydon.

It's way over my head, but it might help you! Be forewarned though, it takes a while to load: it's a 52pg pdf from Brill.

Regards,
Sarai

Sarai

Another one that might be useful:

THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'ANIC TEXT by Muhammad Mustafa Al-A'Zami.

This one's a 393 page book, so it might take some rooting around in.

Regards,
Sarai

Edited to add: Just as a side note: googling "introduction of diacritical marks" and "arabic" brings back repeated mention of one scholar in particular, by the name of G.C. Miles. I didn't search on his name, but you might want to. It seems he might be the "diacritical" expert.

Duvduv

Thank you for the reference to the book with its Table of Contents. I found that on page 148 of the text in the Conclusion he argues that the lack of dots was intentional, i.e. that dots WERE used in Arabic writing even before the Quran, but the Quran was first written intentionally without dots to prevent independent study or use of it without reliance on an oral tradition.

However, not all the letters using dots had them prior to that time. It would seem that Arabic as it is recognized today is fairly new and doesn't go back before the Common Era.

Yet, I would ask what would have prevented someone knowing the correct pronunciation from thereafter using the dots and circumventing this desire to protect the Quran from independent users?!