Grammars of Classical Arabic in Judaeo-Arabic An Overview

This article presents an overview of medieval Classical Arabic grammars written in Judaeo-Arabic that are preserved in the Cairo Genizah and the Firkovich Collections. Unlike Jewish grammarians’ application of the Arabic theoretical model to describing Biblical Hebrew, Arabic grammars transliterated into Hebrew characters bear clear evidence of Jewish engagement with the Arabic grammatical tradition for its own sake. In addition, suchmanuscripts furnish new materialon the historyof the Arabicgrammat-ical tradition by preserving otherwise unknown texts. The article discusses individual grammars of Classical Arabic in Judaeo-Arabic and tries to answer more general questions on this little known area of Jewish intellectual activity. An analysis of the corpus suggests that Jews who copied and used these texts were less interested in the intricacies of abstract theory than in attaining a solid knowledge of Classical Arabic. Court scribes appear to have been among those interested in the study of Classical Arabic grammar.


Introduction
Medieval Jewish grammatical interests centered around the study of the language of Jewish Scripture-Biblical Hebrew.Although recent research1 sug-
The consistent vocalisation in T-S NS 301.25r is significant for determining the fragment's function.Al-Zaǧǧāǧī's Kitāb al-Ǧumal was traditionally used in the classroom to teach students the basics of the Classical Arabic language and grammar.12It is clearly with the same purpose that this work was transliterated into Hebrew characters.That the single currently identified part of Kitāb al-Ǧumal in Hebrew characters is the chapter on inflection, and the following chapter on verbs was not copied even though enough space remained on the page to do so, may indicate that only a portion of the book was transcribed and vocalised, possibly as a vocalisation exercise.It seems fitting that a basic text on grammatical cases, which mainly deals with vowels and ends with a summary of all case markers, should be used as a sample text to practice one's vocalising skills.The imperfect vocalisation of the fragment may indicate that this is not a teacher's work to be copied by future students but the product of a learner who has not yet attained full mastery of this subject.

3)
RNL Evr Arab II 185 (25 Fols.185 5v,5r,2r,2v,4r,4v,3v,3r,1v,1r;RNL Evr Arab II 253r,RNL Evr Arab II 253v;RNL Evr Arab II 185 6v,6r,7r,7v,15v,15r,8r,8v,16r,16v,10r,10v,12r,12v,11v,11r,13v,13r,18r,18v,20r,20v,19r,19r,17v,17r,14r,14v,21r,21v,9r,9v,22v,22r,25r,25v,24v,24r,23r,23v Copied in the 12th century, the Judaeo-Arabic text is an early witness of Šarḥ Mulḥat al-iʿrāb.The following chapters fully or partially survive: on the noun, on the verb, on the particle, on the indefinite and the definite, on the division of verbs, on the inflection, on the inflection of triptote nouns, on the initial item and the predicate, on the agent, on the patient, on the sisters of ẓanantu, on the exclamatory construction, on the construction of instigation, on the construction of warning, on the sisters of inna, on the sisters of kāna, on mā of negation, on the vocative, on the apocopation (of the vocative), on the diminutive, on the appositives, on diptotes, on poetic license, on numerals.17 A comparison of the manuscripts with a printed Arabic script edition indicates that the Judaeo-Arabic version is a straightforward copy without significant changes.The only deviations are occasional omissions of short bits of text, such as examples and Islamic honorifics.The text carries relatively many transliteration mistakes conditioned by the shapes of letters and letter combinations in Arabic script.The mistakes in transliteration are particularly common in chapters dealing with finer details of Classical Arabic, which the copyist may have been less familiar with, e.g., the case endings in different vocative construction.
Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 284-305 five nouns ab, aḫ, fū, ḥam and ḏū, dual and sound masculine plural forms.It then goes on to discuss each case and mood separately, but breaks off in the middle of a discussion of the nominative.

5)
T-S Ar.31.254 (1 Folio), T-S 24.31 (1 Folio) and T-S AS 155.132 (1 Folio),19 Late 11th-Century Handwriting The fragments are part of a rotulus that originally held a petition to a dignitary penned in large Arabic characters.20Such state documents were written on only one side of the paper and laid out with wide spaces between the lines, which made them very attractive for recycling as writing paper for other texts.21In the rotulus, a Judaeo-Arabic grammar of Classical Arabic has been copied on the blank side and between the lines, penned upside down compared to the original text.It is most likely that the Judaeo-Arabic text is in the hand of the prolific court scribe Hillel b. ʿEli, who wrote numerous Genizah documents between 1066-1107.22 The grammar is divided into short chapters dealing primarily with the correct cases and moods in different syntactic constructions, such as the predicative construction, annexation, circumstantial clauses, the passive, etc., lists of operators that require certain cases and moods, the formation of nisba adjectives, and the spelling of final weak verbs.Each chapter summarises the subject matter in one or two sentences and provides a large number of examples.
An analysis of the fragments shows that this grammar does not belong to the mainstream of the Arabic grammatical tradition.The text can be identified as a pedagogical grammar representing the so-called Kūfan school of grammar.In the Arabic grammatical tradition two schools are distinguished, the Kūfan and the Baṣran.Although the authenticity of the schools is debated,23 distinctive terminology and grammatical theories are consistently ascribed to them in medieval Arabic sources.24The terminology, notions and theories embraced in T-S Ar.31 presented in the sources as Kūfan.25The shibboleth Kūfan terms used in the fragments are qaṭʿ for circumstantial qualifier and ṣifa for locative qualifier, for which the corresponding Baṣran terms are ḥāl and ẓarf respectively.26In the chapter on qaṭʿ, the author explicitly dissociates himself from the Baṣrans: while consistently using qaṭʿ to denote circumstantial qualifier, the author remarks that the Baṣrans' term for qaṭʿ is ḥāl.27 It is unfortunate that several words are missing in the manuscript where the author most probably alludes directly to the group that uses the term qaṭʿ, viz.his in-group.A famous Kūfan theory embraced in the grammar is that infinitives are derived from finite verbs, i.e. ḫurūǧ is derived from ḫaraǧa.In contrast, Baṣran grammarians maintained that verbal derivation occurs in the opposite direction, from infinitives to finite verbs.28A conspicuous feature of the Judaeo-Arabic version of this grammar is the occurrence of numerous mistakes in transliteration.These mistakes demonstrate that the grammar was copied into Hebrew characters from an Arabic script Vorlage rather than composed directly in Judaeo-Arabic.The mistakes in transliteration reveal that the scribe, in all probability Hillel b. ʿEli, was not a proficient reader of cursive Arabic texts.Moreover, at the time of copying he was not educated in Classical Arabic grammar, for he clearly did not understand the grammatical analysis.One of the most conspicuous demonstrations of this is found in the chapter on the past form of final weak verbs, where the unpointed tooth element in ‫ى‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ء‬ is consistently interpreted as b instead of y, which results in the chapter discussing final waw and final bāʾ verbs.The text preserved in the fragments is not a coherent treatise but an eclectic compilation of grammatical materials put together by association, with additions from other disciplines, such as orthography, philosophy, and biographical literature.The compilation is not well structured: sometimes a chapter is started, left unfinished as the compiler diverges into another subject and then resumed or even started again.The text stops abruptly in the middle of a sentence leaving most of the final page empty.32It is most likely that this is a private compilation prepared in the process of studying Classical Arabic grammatical theories.It is possible that this compilation was put together by Nathan b.Samuel Nezer ha-Ḥaverim.
The discussed topics are: types of predicates, parts of speech, principles of inflection, the actualisation of moods and cases in words of different patterns including diptosis, and negation particles.The level of text oscillates between a basic statement of linguistic facts and a more abstract discussion of theoretical issues.Parts of The Chapter on Parts of Speech and of The Chapter on Inflection are identical with corresponding sections of a short grammar Al-Tuffāḥa fī l-naḥw "The Apple of Grammar" by Abū Ǧaʿfar al-Naḥḥās (d.338/949).33In the more theoretical sections, the fragment deals with such issues as why verbs are secondary to nouns, why nouns cannot have the apocopate form (ǧazm), why certain factors cause diptosis, etc.A section on graphic signs (šadda, waṣla, tanwīn, etc) is also included, which is common in treatises on Arabic orthography but not in Muslim grammars.
The most noteworthy feature of this text are the cited authorities.The fragments give four definitions of parts of speech: by Sībawayhi (d.c. 180/796), by ʿAlī b.Abī Ṭālib (c.600-40/661), by Aristotle and by al-Dumayk (c.457/1060-510/1117).1) Sībawayhi's definition of the noun: Babylonian academies by Nathan ha-Bavli (for an identification of the hand see Gil,In the Kingdom of Ishmael,vol. 2,  … Aristotle: the definition of a noun is exactly the same (i.e.ism), and the verb is "word" (kalima) and the particle is "instrument" (adāt).This definition establishes correspondences between Arabic grammatical terms for parts of speech (ism, fiʿl and ḥarf ) and Arabic translations of Aristotelian terms (ism, kalima and adāt).As is well known, Aristotle divided speech into nouns, verbs and particles, calling them in Greek onoma (lit."name"), rhema (lit."word, utterance, thing said") and sundesmos (lit."some- Īḍāḥ fī ʿIlal al-naḥw "The Explanation of Linguistic Causes" as definitions which are "taken from the technical language of the logicians" and "do not meet linguistic requirements".46 The mention of al-Dumayk merits special attention.Manṣūr b. al-Muslim b. ʿAlī b.Muḥammad b.Aḥmad b.Abī al-Ḫaraǧayn, known as al-Dumayk (c.457/ 1060-510/1117), is mentioned in biographical literature as a poet, a teacher and a grammarian.47To the best of my knowledge none of his grammatical works survive.Quotations attributed to al-Dumayk in the Judaeo-Arabic compilation constitute the only source on the grammatical teachings of this scholar known today.Al-Dumayk pursued his career in Damascus, and it may not be a coincidence that he is quoted in a work penned by a scribe who lived in that city at approximately the same time.
In addition to the definition of a noun cited above, the following is transmitted in our fragments in the name of al-Dumayk: vidro Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 284-305 composed a book on Arabic inflection according to the Greek system in two discourses (maqālatān), no copies of which have so far been identified.60

3
Concluding Remarks on the Corpus of Grammars of Classical Arabic in Judaeo-Arabic Grammars of Classical Arabic copied in Hebrew characters are interesting from two perspectives.Firstly, they furnish new material on the history of the Arabic grammatical tradition.These manuscripts complement Muslim sources on the subject by preserving otherwise unknown texts, some of which do not belong to the mainstream of the Arabic grammatical tradition.In the corpus presented above there are three examples of this-the Kūfan pedagogical primer (item 5), quotations from al-Dumayk (item 6) and a grammar of Classical Arabic possibly associated with Ḥunayn b.Isḥāq (item 7).Secondly, grammars of Classical Arabic in Judaeo-Arabic are important because they testify to Jews' active interest in grammar other than the grammar of Biblical Hebrew.One of the most challenging questions that arises in connection with the corpus is whether Jews composed any of the treatises or simply transliterated Muslim works.In the present state of research it is impossible to give a definitive answer.On the one hand, not all fragments could be identified with Muslim grammars.On the other hand, no anonymous grammars known to me carry explicit indications of Jewish authorship.Hebrew is never mentioned, either for comparisons with Arabic or as a language that an author masters.Hebrew terminology, which is often found in Judaeo-Arabic works on Hebrew grammar, is equally absent.The Kūfan primer (item 5) was clearly copied from a Vorlage in Arabic script, and the adaptation of al-Lumaʿ fī l-ʿarabiyya (item 1) contains additional quotations from the Qurʾān not found in the original text.Although these facts do not preclude Jewish authorship, they make it less probable.Of all texts discussed here, the compilation of language-related materials in item 6 seems less likely to have been copied as a whole, and may have been put together by a Jew.
Even if simply transliterated from Muslim works, the fragments bear clear evidence of Jewish engagement with Classical Arabic grammar for its own sake vidro Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 284-305 customer.The Kūfan primer in the hand of Hillel b. ʿEli is a faulty copy on scrap paper.The compilation in the hand of Nathan b.Samuel is a poorly organised and unfinished collection of materials.Both appear to be the scribes' private books prepared with the intention of studying Classical Arabic grammar.
73.1 (1 Folio), T-S Ar 5.4529 (1 Bifolio and 1 Folio), 12th-Century Handwriting The fragments are in the hand of the well-known court scribe and poet Nathan b.Samuel Nezer ha-Ḥaverim (or he-Ḥaver).30Nathan b.Samuel was born and started his scribal career in Damascus, moved to Egypt in 1127 and was active until his death in 1163 as a scribe of the Palestinian academy at the court of the gaon Maṣliaḥ ha-Kohen b.Solomon.31 .11 Below, The Chapter On Verbs is announced but is not copied, leaving a large empty space at the bottom of the page.The text is consistently vocalised with Arabic signs, which occasionally reflect non-standard pronunciation (e.g. Downloaded from Brill.com10/22/2020 07:42:07AM via University College London Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 284-305 chapter‫פ‬ َ ‫ג‬ ْ ‫מ‬ ‫יِ‬ ‫ע‬ ُ Century HandwritingThe manuscripts belong to a partially preserved Judaeo-Arabic copy of Šarḥ Mulḥat al-iʿrāb, a commentary on the didactic grammatical poem Mulḥat al-iʿrāb "Witty Poem on Inflectional Endings" by a renown Arabic author Abū Muḥammad al-Qāsim b. ʿAlī l-Ḥarīrī (446/1054-516/1122).14The grammatical poem was composed by al-Ḥarīrī in c. 504/1110 at the prompting of the Chris- ), RNL Evr Arab II 253 (1 Folio), RNL Evr Arab I 4631 (1 Folio),13 12th-11 Al-Zaǧǧāǧī, Kitāb al-Ǧumal, pp.3-6, esp.p. 6. 12 Carter, "Grammatical tradition," Binaghi, La postérité andalouse, pp.155-156, 158-159.13 I thank Dr José Martinéz Delgado (University of Granada) for drawing my attention to these manuscripts.The correct order of pages is: RNL Evr Arab II .254, T-S 24.31 and T-S AS 155.132 correspond with those commonly 23 An up-to-date overview of the different views of modern scholars is Baalbaki, "Introduction," esp.pp.xxxix-xlii.24 See, e.g., Weil, Streitfragen.vidro Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 284-305 and Mosseri II.214, a piyyuṭ fragment where the name Nathan b.Samuel ḥazaq is marked on verso.Sībawayhi said: the definition of a noun is what can receive one of the particles that govern the genitive.In fact, Sībawayhi did not give a definition of the noun in the Kitāb "The Book", but simply exemplified nouns with raǧul "man" and faras "horse."34In the sources a number of definitions are ascribed to Sībawayhi,35 but to the best of my knowledge not the one given here.Instead, the above definition strongly resembles a part of the definition given by Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Mubarrad (d.285/898) in al-Muqtaḍab "The Epitome": Abī Ṭālib said: the definition of a noun is what signifies the meaning of its nominatum.The verb is the nominatum(?).The particle is what signifies the meaning …The passage is not well preserved, and at least the definition of the verb seems corrupt.ʿAlīb.Abī Ṭālib is frequently named as the initiator of the Arabic grammar in Muslim bibliographical literature.37WhereasArabicgrammatical works not usually cite definitions of parts of speech ascribed to ʿAlī, bibliographical treatises do, for example:The noun is what gives information about the nominatum.The verb is what informs about the movement of the nominatum.The particle is what gives information about a meaning that is neither that of a noun nor that of a verb.38 Noun is what gives information about the nominatum.Verb is that by which information is given.Particle is what comes to a meaning.39Aset of definitions similar to the one in the former quotation appears to have given rise to the now corrupt version in the Judaeo-Arabic compilation.