É. Apor , I. Ormos (ed.): Goldziher Memorial Conference, June 21–22, 2000, Budapest.
HOPKINS, Simon: The Language Studies of Ignaz Goldziher
SIMON HOPKINS The first section on the (ancient) "dialects" begins with the central role of the language of Quraysh, goes on to mention the speech of other groups, has a small discussion of urban dialects and ends with an account of linguistic differences between the various tribes of Arabia. Much of the information on the ancient dialects was provided by Suyüti's Muzhir, one of Goldziher's favourite books, "whose importance for [the] Arab literary history cannot be stressed enough" (p. 15). There then follows the section on (modern) "vernacular" Arabic, containing discussions of the dichotomy between literary : colloquial, the attitude of the Arab philologists to the spoken language and finally the lahn al-ämma literature. 22 5 It is only to be expected that Goldziher's interests in the "dialects" and the "vernacular" should be drawn towards the historical and cultural. On the historical plane, we may ask what is the chronological relationship between the two? And what is the relationship of the "dialects" and the "vernacular" to the classical language? And on the cultural plane, what is the functional difference between vernacular and classical today in the Arabic-speaking world? It is of great interest to see how Goldziher stood on some of these great issues of Arabic philology, aspects of which, well over a century later, are still very much open. He perceived very clearly that the distinction between what he calls "dialect" ( dialektus ) and "vernacular" ( népnyelv) does not consist merely in chronological considerations, i.e. that the former is ancient colloquial Arabic and the latter modem colloquial Arabic. He devotes a considerable effort to showing that characteristically "vernacular" features, and with them the diglossic "two levels" (két fok) of Arabic (p. 24), are in fact very old indeed. We have already mentioned demonstrative di(h) and the diminutive möye. Goldziher further noted (p. 13) that the typically colloquial pronunciation kilme for classical kalima "word" is already found in the ancient dialect of Tamim, that there is evidence for the vernacular : classical cleavage as early as the Umayyad period (p. 24) and that the caliph al-Walld b. 'Abd al-Malik (regn. 86-96 A.H.) was notorious for his bad Arabic and lapses into the spoken register (pp. 29-30). Such facts plainly show that the roots of today's colloquials run very deep, that in Umayyad times NeoArabic was used even in the highest strata of the Arab nobility, and that "vernacular" Arabic, far from being a merely modem phenomenon, was already spoken at the time of Muhammad (pp. 22, 24). From this, one supposes that in the debate over the pre-Islamic or post-Islamic origin of the Arabic diglossia Goldziher would have subscribed to the view that Neo-Arabic, i.e. the uninflected, analytical type to which the modem colloquial dialects belong, already existed before Islam."'' 22 5 Goldziher returned to lahn al-'ämma in ZDMG 35 (1881), 147-152 = GS 11 102, but again he is interested in this material more as a literary genre than as a source of linguistic facts. 22 6 [In an unpublished letter dated 11.11.1897 Goldziher writes to Nöldeke as follows: "Durch Unwohlsein (nervöses Kopfweh [sic; ?]) war ich verhindert den Empfang der wichtigen Abhandl., Bemerkungen über die Sprache der alten Ar. allsogleich anzuzeigen und für die gründliche Belehrung über die dort behandelte Hauptfrage aller arab. Philologie herzlich zu danken. Glauben Sie, dass der Beginn des 132
