É. Apor , I. Ormos (ed.): Goldziher Memorial Conference, June 21–22, 2000, Budapest.
HOPKINS, Simon: The Language Studies of Ignaz Goldziher
THE LANGUAGE STUDIES OF IGNAZ GOLDZIHER subscribes (p. 20) 22 2 to a very important principle of comparative Semitic linguistics, viz. that typologically Biblical Hebrew and the modern Arabic dialects, having passed through a number of similar processes, arc at a comparable (analytic) stage of development, both of them opposed to classical Arabic, which displays a more archaic (synthetic) character. He draws an evolutionary parallel between Semitic and Romance. By way of concrete illustration of this principle (which Goldziher was not, incidentally, the first to propound) he classed together (p. 13) the Biblical Hebrew and colloquial Arabic prefixes of the imperfect (ni-qtol etc.), contrasting them with those of classical Arabic (na-qtul etc.). He very rightly observed that "this phenomenon is important and interesting from the point of view of both the historical and the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages". The phenomenon in question is that which is called in traditional Arabic grammar taltala, came later to be known in Semitic philology as "Barth's law", and was subsequently validated on the basis of Ugaritic by H. L. Ginsberg. In further illustration Goldziher mentioned (p. 17 n. 2) the similarity between the Quran reading ya'murokurn (by ixtiläs < classical Arabic ya'murukum) and the corresponding vowelless forms of Biblical Hebrew and colloquial Arabic. He also drew attention to similarities in the development of the feminine ending tä' marbüta (pp. 17 n. 3, 23) and the suffixes üna ~ -it of the imperfect (pp. 21-22). Following an important terminological distinction rendered in the English translation as "dialect" ( dialektus ) vs. "vernacular" (népnyelv), the chapter is divided into two sections. The first deals with "dialects", by which Goldziher means what in Arabic are called lahajät al-fuslui, i.e. the tribal dialects of the pre-Islamic and early Islamic periods which were regarded by the Arabic philologists as a legitimate part of the 'arabiyya and hence worthy of study. These "dialects" are opposed to the "vernaculars" which form the subject of the second section. By "vernacular" Goldziher means the modern Neo-Arabic colloquials of today, which are not considered by traditional Islam as part of the 'arabiyya, play no part whatever in Muslim education and enjoy no prestige in Islamic society. The frequent use in scholarly literature of such ambiguous terms as "Arabic dialects" coupled with a certain confusion in the internal division of Arabic into periods and types""' make Goldziher's terminological distinction very useful indeed. 22 4 """ Ballagi & Goldziher (see above n. 71) 122, 143, referred to here, deal with vestigial case endings in Hebrew, but no historical or comparative discussion is given there. 22 1 For example, in the entry "Arabiyya' in EE I 561 (C. Rabin) the "dialects" are part of the "vernaculars and both are modern, whereas Goldziher's "dialects" correspond to what is there labelled "early Arabic" within the "pre-classical division. 22 4 Note, however, that Goldziher uses other terms also in order to speak about "dialects", e.g. köznyelv and nyelvjárás, which are not reflected by different equivalents in the translation. 131
