[Foundation-l] On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The following is my belated, rather long, 2 cents regarding the creation of
> wikipedias for languages/dialects/whatever-you-want-to-call-them that stem
> from Arabic, this is mainly relevant to the creation of the Masry (Egyptian)
> Wikipedia, the Masry Wikitionary proposals (by virtue of the fact that I am
> Egyptian, and thus I can relate to those two projects with a better degree
> of confidence), but probably is still relevant for the proposals that
> subsequently stemmed for Morrocan, Lebanese, Sudanese and more will come I
> am sure.

Thanks for you email, it is a great one! Its content may be used as an
example on universities: what do one educated non-linguist thinks
about the situation when new standard languages are in the process of
creation. I'll write a short paper/essay around your email. (Not here,
even my email is long :) )

I see the situation in relation between classic Arabic and regional
languages very similar to the situation when Romance standard
languages were born. Few steps behind that is the situation with
English languages (yes, plural); however, morphological orthography
very close to the logogramic type (like Chinese; but, instead of
lines, letters are used) prevents up to some extent orthographic
diversification. But, such situation can't last for a long time.
Actually, Scots is already treated as a separate language.

First, I may suppose that, for example, even Libyan and Egyptian
spoken Arabic are not mutually understandable. But, if one Libyan may
understand one Egyptian, it may be be comparable with the situation
where one Portuguese may understand one Spanish up to some level.

I would say that the processes which are ongoing in Arab countries --
are natural. Learning a foreign language to be basically educated is
not an advantage. It is an advantage at some higher level, but such
situation leaves many people without the basic education (because they
are not able or not willing to learn a foreign language). It is much
easier to learn to write a native language.

Linguistic standardization is very strongly connected with politics.
Mostly, it is connected because contemporary linguistics is a 19th
century invent from Europe; and this was a time of romanticism, when
the ideology based on premises "one language, one folk, one state[,
one leader]" was dominant.

While it is possible to find different examples (Irish nation which
uses English; Swiss nation which uses four languages), it is true that
wherever European civilization came -- states are trying to make their
own ethnicity and their own language.

At the other side, at the time when language standardization was not
forced, "natural" processes of language separation were dominant.
Separated by natural barriers or feudal states barriers, people
developed separate languages.

In Europe, especially in Germany and Italy, where small feudal
countries existed for a long time, a lot of separate language
varieties exist at the areas of former feuds. For example, I think
that areas Nuremberg and Hamburg have distinctively separate varieties
than areas around those cities, without dialect continuum [1].

So, there are two separate social (and just because this, linguistic,
too) processes: when not well connected, wider areas with one culture
(like the case was with Roman and it is with Arabic), it tends to
separate to different societies, states, cultures and languages. If a
lot of different societies and cultures exist on smaller and well
connected area, they tend to be merged. Of course, opposite historical
examples may be found: Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco, San Marino etc.
are still separate states, while China is still one.

> Let me state first though, that even though it will be obvious from my
> concerns below that I am against such a division (slightly oppose, to be
> precise), I have no opinion as to whether those languages or dialects (as
> proponents and opponents would call them) are really separate languages or
> not. I have some issues and worries, which is what I will expand on below,
> but ultimately, I don't know if what I speak is actually classified as a
> separate language or a dialect (yeah I am that ignorant :P ) so from the
> specific rules-based linguistic-jargon point of view, I am sadly out of my
> league.

It is hard to give a clear linguistic answer what one language is;
even if we remove all political reasons. There are some obvious cases,
like distinction between Arabic and English is. However, there are a
lot of cases when it is not possible to give a clear answer.

A classic example for comparison of this kind is that spoken languages
in Germany are (or, at least, they were in 19th century) more
different than all Slavic languages between themselves. But, if we
remove political reasons (one German state; a number of Slavic states)
and try to give "a linguistic answer" what are the languages, we
couldn't do that.

Simply, the question "is this a separate language?" is a question of
the type "is the color [in RGB notation] #00xxxx blue or green?". We
are sure that #00FF00 is green and that #0000FF is blue and that they
are separate colors. We may be sure that even #00FF22 is green, while
#0022FF is blue. However, we can't be so sure when we move numbers
closer. Giving a discrete answer to a question which is a product of
our [whichever] bias is sometimes impossible.

> I have read most of the (rather heated) arguments for and against the
> proposals, here is what I understand (from a layman point of view) about my
> language: I speak Egyptian, which is a form of Arabic, it is not the same as
> 'formal' Arabic, however, it is only spoken in most of the cases. I think
> the majority of the body of literature written by Egyptians is written in
> formal Arabic. I simply come to this conclusion because as an avid reader I
> must have come across only one or two literary pieces written in Egyptian
> Arabic as  'pioneering experimental' works (as one author called his stuff).
> Also the way of writing is not agreed upon by egyptians themselves, for
> example: words that contains the letter Kaaf (ق),  I saw some of the authors
> who tried writing a word containing it in 'Masry' would keep it as is and
> other people would convert it to 'Hamza' as it is actually pronounced but is
> rather foreign to read. I can safely assume that almost all literate
> Egyptians who read and write in formal Arabic (actually that *is* the
> definition of being literate in Egypt) will find reading their own every day
> talking language rather alien (kind of ridiculous, but is the case IMHO).
> The point I am trying to make here is : For a language/dialect that has only
> been spoken till now for the most part, Wikipedia turning it into a written
> language would be 'original research' and this is what I actually observed
> in Wikipedia Masry, people write as they please, and the result is sometimes
> palatable and some times very foreign and alienating (as a method of
> delivering information). I suspect the same would be the case for at least
> the Lebanese and Sudanese proposals for example, ditto if there will ever be
> a proposal for the gulf dialects (Saudi, Yemeni, etc.), the Egyptsystemian Sai'di
> (upper Egypt dialect), etc...

My father is from the area of Serbia where a distinctive language is
spoken, Torlak or Shop [2]. Unlike in the case of other geographical
varieties in the South Slavic area, Torlak is not moribund, it is
really alive language and speakers of it are actively adopting Serbian
and Bulgarian words at the substratum of highly Balkanized (see Balkan
sprachbund [3]; it's a separate, actually, opposite term from the
political Balkanizaiton) mixture of Vulgar Latin [4], Thracian and
dominantly Slavic languages (of course, Serbian, Bulgarian and
Macedonian are Slavic languages, but, from the present situation,
substratum is not based on Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian
standards). It has no written literature (there are some "examples",
but they are examples for usage of that language for dialogs inside of
dramas written in standard Serbian); the situation is analogue as in
Egypt. A literate inhabitant of Southern and Eastern Serbia has to
know Serbian standard, a literate inhabitant of Western Bulgaria has
to know Bulgarian standard; while a literate inhabitant of Northern
Macedonia has to know Macedonian standard.

When I was talking with one of the rare people who works on language
there (a local one), we came to the question why inhabitants (even
very educated; even professors of Serbian language) are using a
dialect in all kinds of their communications in school except the most
formal ones (lectures to high school students). The answer was:
"Because it is easier to us, we don't need to care about rules."

This is interesting because of two reasons. First, they care about
rules, even they don't think so. It is the basic characteristic of all
communication systems: participants have to follow some rules to be
able to send an information and understand each other. The second
issue shows how hard is one language system to speakers of a different
one.

But, the main difference between the situation in Egypt and in
Southern and Eastern Serbia is the number of inhabitants. There is
something between 200.000 and 500.000 people who are speaking Torlak
(comparing with 76+ millions of Egyptians) inside of three very strong
educational systems (95%+ comparing with 70%+ in Egypt). Speakers of
Torlak are surrounded by speakers of standard Serbian, Bulgarian and
Macedonian; while, AFAIK, there is no such place where standard Arabic
is a common spoken language.

In other words, Masri came into the position when it is not in the
position of "a dialect of a language". It is now a spoken language
with all cultural attributes of one language except the normalized
standard (AFAIK, some kind of standard exists, but it is not finished
yet).

The situation where people are able to choose how do they want to
write is not a stable one. Sooner or later some [more precise]
standard will start to be followed.

> My second concern is, I am worried about duplicating the efforts in the name
> of language separation, granted, I speak something that is not similar to
> formal Arabic etymology-wise maybe. However, there is not one literate
> Arabic-speaking person who can claim he understands written
> Egyptian/Lebanese/etc. and not understand formal Arabic (by virtue of the
> the above argument that my language is mostly spoken, and what is taught in
> schools, and used in everyday written communication is formal Arabic). I
> dont know if it is good, given the already low participation level in my
> area of the world, to let people have Egyptian/Lebanese/Saudi/Yemeni
> mini-wiki projects, keeping in mind that all users of those will be
> perfectly comfortable reading the information in the Arabic corresponding
> project.

How distant are standard Arabic and Masri? Is it possible to make a
conversion engine between those two languages? If you don't think so,
what are the reasons?

I believe (I say that I believe because I didn't prove it :) ) that it
is possible to make very good conversion engines between similar
languages (conversion engine between Bokmal and Nynorsk exists, but I
don't know how good it is). And it is worth of effort. In the case of
"Arabance" languages and Arabic such efforts may be very well funded.

If it is not possible, note that Arabic language has the base in more
than 1 billion of people (including all other Muslim countries); as
well as Masri has the base in 76+ millions of people. Masri has better
position than, let's say, Italian. So, the right way for thinking
about this issue is to concentrate on efforts for spreading education
and Internet in Egypt and other Arab countries.

> Finally, I think the division is not purely language related, there is a lot
> of socio-political issues at work, taking the Egyptian wikipedia again as an
> example, there has been a considerable debate in Egypt about getting the
> Egyptian language to be adopted writing-wise (and to make the grammar more
> solid so as it would overcome the current problems in writing) to bolster
> the national identity of Egypt, while this proposal is currently going
> nowhere, it wont be hard to imagine groups interested in promoting this
> canvassing just to prove their point, do we want to get involved in such an
> argument? is it wikipedia's place to? isnt such a statement already made by
> Wikimedia creating one of the first bodies of written text in the language?

:) As I explained before, every language (in the common sense of the
meaning of the word "language") is a matter of politics, not
linguistics. Even when you don't realize that as an obvious fact.
Arabic is a matter of politics, English is a matter of politics,
German is a matter of politics, French is a matter of politics,
Russian, Italian, Serbian, Croatian, Japanese, Yoruba, Zulu, Mayan...

Linguists are a small minority of inhabitants of some country. They
are not politically relevant to demand new language for new nation.
Also, they are not politically relevant to demand preservation of old
language. If one linguist says one of those things, he is not lead by
linguistics, but by political motives (no matter how positive or
negative those motives may be).  While language standardization is a
matter of sociolinguistics, again, it is more about description than
about active involvement in political processes.

> I understand that it may be too late for Egyptian Wikipedia, the decision is
> apparently already in, but I am currently seeing a slew of similar
> proposals,so I thought there should be some kind of discussion regarding the
> broader topic and not restricted to the proposal pages. I hope I haven't
> spammed this list with this email  :).

On our eyes Arabic language is developing into "Arabence" languages,
like Latin did it between the first centuries of the first millennium
and 19th century; and Slavic during the first centuries of the second
millennium. The conditions are now very different. There are Internet,
railroads, highways... You have a lot of possibilities to keep good
things from the fact that the most of educated people from Muslim
world know standard Arabic fluently and you should build your new
local languages to make education more achievable to more people.

And, to say again, your email is a great one. You described very well
the situation in which your society is now because of the birth of new
language.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect_continuum
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torlak_dialect
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin