Jean Druel, “The Kitāb Sībawayh of ʾAbū al-Ḥasan ʾAḥmad b. Naṣr: A non-Sīrāfian recension of the Kitāb”, in Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 71 (2020), pages 29‒56.
The Milan-Kazan codex of SĪBAWAYH’s (d. ca 180/796) Kitāb is a 5ᵗʰ/11ᵗʰ century North-African parchment today split between three collections: 1) Milan, Ambrosiana, X 56 sup. (115 folios), 2) Kazan, National Archives of the Republic of Tatarstan 10/5/822 (48 folios), and 3) London, Bernard Quaritch Ltd catalogue 2018/3, item number 11 (6 folios). When put together, these three manuscripts contain only one fourth of the whole text of the Kitāb. This codex sheds a new light on the gradual stabilisation of SĪBAWAYH’s text. Its recension is linked to a certain ʾABŪ AL-ḤASAN ʾAḤMAD B. NAṢR, mentioned on the first folio of the Milan fragments.
Focusing on one specific issue, namely the possibility to form the diminutive of the names of the days of the week, this paper compares SĪBAWAYH’s teaching according to the text as accepted by scholars to date (as in DERENBOURG 1881‒1889), along with the early commentaries and the recension of the Milan-Kazan codex according to its four successive hands.
At this point, it is impossible to say that this recension is pre-Mubarradian, that is to say one that escaped the “authoritarian stranglehold” on the text by AL-MUBARRAD (HUMBERT 1995:92). However, the Milan-Kazan codex surely contains a non-Sīrāfian recension of SĪBAWAYH’s Kitāb, that is a recension which, unlike the “received” text of the Kitāb, was not influenced by AL-SĪRĀFĪ’s commentary.
Jean Druel, “A sparkle in the debate about the word ʾāmīn used in supplication and its rules in Arabic, by ʾAbū Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḫaššāb (d. 567/1172), an annotated translation”, in Beata Sheyhatovitch & Almog Kasher (editors), From Sībawayhi to ʾAḥmad Ḥasan al-Zayyāt: New angles on the Arabic linguistic tradition, Leiden & Boston: Brill, pages 123‒140.
Dr. Abd al-Hakim Radi, Professor of Arabic Literature, Literary Criticism, and Rhetoric in the Department of Arts at Cairo University and member of the Arabic Language Academy in Cairo
Jean Druel, O.P., Director of IDEO and scholar in the history of Arabic grammar
icon-calendar Tuesday September 10ᵗʰ, 2019
At a lecture he gave last November, Jean Druel, O.P. outlined a history of the Arabic language in connection with other Semitic languages. He discussed the question of the status of the language of the Qurʾān and its link with the historical phases of Arabic, highlighting some specific features of each phase which now coexist in use.
At this seminar, Dr. Abd al-Hakim Radi wished to respond to Jean Druel’s lecture, focusing in particular on the status of the Qurʾānic language and its specific eloquence, which culminates in the question of the linguistic miracle of the Qurʾān. He also discussed the question of the normative grammar of the Arabic language and its authority to judge the Qurʾānic language. He explained that instances in the Qurʾān that may violate rules of the Arabic language could be authentically justified in the itself, without any contradiction, due to the flexibility of the Arabic language and the diversity of its ancient dialects, which are all authentically Arabic and eloquent. He also explained that Muslim scientists have extensively dealt with these issues in the past.
In the end, the difference between the two researchers is that Jean Druel, O.P. discusses these different states of the Arabic language from the point of view of their historic succession, while Dr. Abd al-Hakim Radi considers this linguistic diversity within a single language without history and without development.
Jean Druel and Almog Kasher, “‘Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t’: The mamnūʿ min al-ṣarf (diptotes) in Arabic grammatical tradition” in Arabica 66 (2019), pages 98‒136.
Jean Druel, “Can Ambrosiana X 56 Sup. improve our understanding of Sībawayhi’s grammar?” in Manuela E. B. Giolfo and Kees Versteegh (editors), The Foundations of Arabic Linguistics IV, Brill: Leiden, Boston, 2019, pages 133‒156.
Jean Druel, Cercare di capirsi: Avvio al dialogo interreligioso, Brescia: Queriniana, 2018, 88 pages.
«Lo scopo di questo libriccino è aiutare persone che vorrebbero imbastire un dialogo con altri credenti (o con non credenti), ma non sanno bene come e da dove cominciare. Vorrei cercare di aiutare tutte queste persone a entrare progressivamente in una maggiore complessità, verità e bellezza».
La nostra epoca ha creduto di ottenere la pace mettendo a tacere le religioni e i credenti. Ha pensato che lo studio storico-critico dei dogmi e delle pratiche religiose avrebbe neutralizzato il potenziale di violenza delle fedi. Invece è accaduto il contrario. Sicché abbiamo bisogno più che mai di dialogare, di confrontarci con le nostre credenze e con i nostri racconti. Di divenire adulti nella fede, liberi e felici di essere diversi.
Se rispettiamo alcune regole semplici, come quella di prendere sul serio l’interlocutore, di ascoltarlo fino in fondo senza innervosirci, di dire davvero ciò che pensiamo, di distinguere i diversi livelli di discorso, possiamo superare le nostre paure reciproche e vivere meglio insieme.
La scommessa dell’autore è che il libro riesca a far imboccare davvero questa via a chiunque lo legga.
Un libro agile e pratico, non privo di humour, nato dall’esperienza vissuta, sul confronto con i non credenti (e i credenti di fedi diverse dalla nostra).
Jean Druel, “The Kazan parchment fragments of Sībawayh’s Kitāb” in Гасырлар авазы (Эхо веков) 90/1 (2018), pages 14‒26.
Director of IDEO
icon-calendar Tuesday November 7ᵗʰ, 2017
In his short treatise entitled A glitter in the debate about the word āmīn used in supplication and its rules in Arabic, Ibn al-Ḫaššāb al-Baġdādī (d. 567/1172) presents the state of the art of the grammatical knowledge on the word āmīn in his time. All grammarians agree that āmīn is not an Arabic word, but a Hebrew one (or Persian, or Syriac), which is however well attested in the Ḥadīṯ: the Prophet and his companions would conclude the recitation of the first sūra, al-Fātiḥa, by saying āmīn. This situation has triggered the curiosity of both Qurʾānic commentators and grammarians, who have studied the following issues: the validity of both forms, long āmīn and short amīn; the part-of-speech āmīn belongs to; its meaning; and the possibility that āmīn be a name of God.
Grammarians agreed on the analysis of āmīn as an ism fiʿl ‘verb name’ (a category refering to the verbs’ proper names, see Levin 1991), based on a commentary by Muǧāhid (d. 104/722) and ʿIkrima (d. 105/723) that the dual in Qad uǧībat daʿwatukumā (Q10, Yūnus, 89) refers to the invocation of Moses and Aaron, and that Aaron’s invocation consisted in saying āmīn. In order for āmīn to be an invocation, it has to be a full sentence. This means that āmīn is comparable to ṣah ‘sh!’, which is a ‘verb name’ whose meaning is the imperative ‘hush!’. Grammarians have thus interpreted āmīn as being a ‘verb name’, and its meaning is Allāhumma staǧib ‘Lord, answer!’
Lastly, although four ḥadīṯs transmitted by Hilāl b. Yasāf (or Yisāf), Muǧāhid and Ḥakīm b. Ǧābir mention that āmīn is a name of God, both Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī (d. 377/987) and Ibn al-Ḫaššāb (d. 567/1172) agree that it cannot be so, although for different reasons. The former argues that an invariable noun cannot be a name of God, whereas the latter argues that it is because āmīn is a complete sentence that it cannot be one of God’s names.
Jean Druel, What happened to the grammar of numerals after Sībawayhi? Amal E. Marogy and Kees Versteegh (Editors). The Foundations of Arabic Linguistics II. Brill: Leiden, Boston, 2015. 81‒99.