Marijn van Putten
@phdnix.bsky.social
Historical Linguist; Working on Quranic Arabic and the linguistic history of Arabic and Tamazight. Game designer for Team18k
Whenever you find yourself annoyed at someone spelling إن شاء الله as إنشاء الله, just remember people have been doing that at least since 1156 AH/1753 CE (the date of this manuscript of the al-Dani's Taysir).
November 5, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Whenever you find yourself annoyed at someone spelling إن شاء الله as إنشاء الله, just remember people have been doing that at least since 1156 AH/1753 CE (the date of this manuscript of the al-Dani's Taysir).
Incidentally these hollow maqyûl forms are quite interesting. It's a place where the medieval grammarians also report some amount of variation, but in Quranic Arabic passive participles of hollow verbs have the shape maCîC/maCûC. Nice to see these non-quranic forms continue in modern dialects.
November 2, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Incidentally these hollow maqyûl forms are quite interesting. It's a place where the medieval grammarians also report some amount of variation, but in Quranic Arabic passive participles of hollow verbs have the shape maCîC/maCûC. Nice to see these non-quranic forms continue in modern dialects.
al-Farrâ' reports some dialects where the vowel is long even in connected speech, but the Hijazi practice and what one recites by is with a short vowel in connected speech.
October 26, 2025 at 3:05 PM
al-Farrâ' reports some dialects where the vowel is long even in connected speech, but the Hijazi practice and what one recites by is with a short vowel in connected speech.
This is also the normative pronunciation in the Quran. This is why in modern print Qurans there appears a 0 on top of the alif. To indicate that it should not be pronounced in this context. (Q3:81), and indeed, reciters do not.
quran.com/3/81
quran.com/3/81
October 26, 2025 at 3:05 PM
This is also the normative pronunciation in the Quran. This is why in modern print Qurans there appears a 0 on top of the alif. To indicate that it should not be pronounced in this context. (Q3:81), and indeed, reciters do not.
quran.com/3/81
quran.com/3/81
No... check out what Sibawayh has to say about this (vol. 4, 164 harun edition)! The final vowel is short, not long. It is completely unrelated في دار vs. في الدار phenomenon!
The rule is: in connected (وصل) speech the vowel is short ʾana. When pausing on the word (وقف) it is long ʾanā#.
The rule is: in connected (وصل) speech the vowel is short ʾana. When pausing on the word (وقف) it is long ʾanā#.
October 26, 2025 at 3:05 PM
No... check out what Sibawayh has to say about this (vol. 4, 164 harun edition)! The final vowel is short, not long. It is completely unrelated في دار vs. في الدار phenomenon!
The rule is: in connected (وصل) speech the vowel is short ʾana. When pausing on the word (وقف) it is long ʾanā#.
The rule is: in connected (وصل) speech the vowel is short ʾana. When pausing on the word (وقف) it is long ʾanā#.
The greatest distraction to the correct transcription system is the introduction of the American LIbrary Association transcription which uses the digraphs gh, kh, etc., and which incorrectly prescribes a whole bunch of things. Not just the short pronoun but also the shockingly wrong <anā> for <ʾana>
October 21, 2025 at 8:26 AM
The greatest distraction to the correct transcription system is the introduction of the American LIbrary Association transcription which uses the digraphs gh, kh, etc., and which incorrectly prescribes a whole bunch of things. Not just the short pronoun but also the shockingly wrong <anā> for <ʾana>
In recent months I’ve been very busy exploring the concept of šāḏḏ within the literature of Quranic Reading Traditions. This term is frequently translated as “non-canonical”, and thus the šāḏḏ readings are “non-canonical readings”.
October 13, 2025 at 2:06 PM
In recent months I’ve been very busy exploring the concept of šāḏḏ within the literature of Quranic Reading Traditions. This term is frequently translated as “non-canonical”, and thus the šāḏḏ readings are “non-canonical readings”.
A really interesting observation of Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276/889) in his ʾadab al-kātib. Commenting on why balā, matā and ʾannā are spelled with yāʾ he said: "because the ʾimālah (i.e. balē, matē, ʾannē) for these is better and more eloquent than tafḫīm (balā, matā, ʾannā)"
October 8, 2025 at 8:57 PM
A really interesting observation of Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276/889) in his ʾadab al-kātib. Commenting on why balā, matā and ʾannā are spelled with yāʾ he said: "because the ʾimālah (i.e. balē, matē, ʾannē) for these is better and more eloquent than tafḫīm (balā, matā, ʾannā)"
It always bothered me that šuʿbah read yihiddī (< transguttural harmony *yahiddī < metathesis assimilation *yahtadī) but not the parallel yiḫiṣṣimūna (where yaḫiṣṣimūna is reported instead)...
But turns out there's a marginal path that reports it, even in Ibn al-Jazari!
But turns out there's a marginal path that reports it, even in Ibn al-Jazari!
October 2, 2025 at 1:25 PM
It always bothered me that šuʿbah read yihiddī (< transguttural harmony *yahiddī < metathesis assimilation *yahtadī) but not the parallel yiḫiṣṣimūna (where yaḫiṣṣimūna is reported instead)...
But turns out there's a marginal path that reports it, even in Ibn al-Jazari!
But turns out there's a marginal path that reports it, even in Ibn al-Jazari!
The Qira'ah Shadhdhah of Flügel `an Hafs `an `Asim strikes once again. (Q17:64, Hafs has rajilika, all other readers have rajlika)
September 30, 2025 at 11:10 AM
The Qira'ah Shadhdhah of Flügel `an Hafs `an `Asim strikes once again. (Q17:64, Hafs has rajilika, all other readers have rajlika)
But even much earlier sources explicitly attribute this to him:
Ibn Ḫālawayh (d. 380) mentions it for lā tiqrabā
Al-Farrāʾ (d. 207) even reports it for him in places where this goes against the rasm (also reported by Ibn Ḫālawayh) such as in Q12:11 tīmannā/tiʾmannā.
Ibn Ḫālawayh (d. 380) mentions it for lā tiqrabā
Al-Farrāʾ (d. 207) even reports it for him in places where this goes against the rasm (also reported by Ibn Ḫālawayh) such as in Q12:11 tīmannā/tiʾmannā.
September 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
But even much earlier sources explicitly attribute this to him:
Ibn Ḫālawayh (d. 380) mentions it for lā tiqrabā
Al-Farrāʾ (d. 207) even reports it for him in places where this goes against the rasm (also reported by Ibn Ḫālawayh) such as in Q12:11 tīmannā/tiʾmannā.
Ibn Ḫālawayh (d. 380) mentions it for lā tiqrabā
Al-Farrāʾ (d. 207) even reports it for him in places where this goes against the rasm (also reported by Ibn Ḫālawayh) such as in Q12:11 tīmannā/tiʾmannā.
If we look at the ʾIsnāds that each of the sources have we see that three of our five sources all get their transmission of al-ʾAʿmaš through Ibn al-Faḥḥām.
None of them report the Barth-Ginsberg Law for him.
Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāt also doesn't in his Ibn Šannabūḏ path,
None of them report the Barth-Ginsberg Law for him.
Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāt also doesn't in his Ibn Šannabūḏ path,
September 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
If we look at the ʾIsnāds that each of the sources have we see that three of our five sources all get their transmission of al-ʾAʿmaš through Ibn al-Faḥḥām.
None of them report the Barth-Ginsberg Law for him.
Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāt also doesn't in his Ibn Šannabūḏ path,
None of them report the Barth-Ginsberg Law for him.
Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāt also doesn't in his Ibn Šannabūḏ path,
- al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Mālikī al-Baġdādī (d. 438):
No mention of Barth-Ginsberg.
- Ibn Fāris al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 452): No mention.
- al-Huḏalī (d. 465): No mention.
- ʾAbū Maʿšar al-Ṭabarī (d. 478): No mention (no screenshot).
- al-Rūḏbārī (d. after 489): Mentions it!
No mention of Barth-Ginsberg.
- Ibn Fāris al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 452): No mention.
- al-Huḏalī (d. 465): No mention.
- ʾAbū Maʿšar al-Ṭabarī (d. 478): No mention (no screenshot).
- al-Rūḏbārī (d. after 489): Mentions it!
September 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
- al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Mālikī al-Baġdādī (d. 438):
No mention of Barth-Ginsberg.
- Ibn Fāris al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 452): No mention.
- al-Huḏalī (d. 465): No mention.
- ʾAbū Maʿšar al-Ṭabarī (d. 478): No mention (no screenshot).
- al-Rūḏbārī (d. after 489): Mentions it!
No mention of Barth-Ginsberg.
- Ibn Fāris al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 452): No mention.
- al-Huḏalī (d. 465): No mention.
- ʾAbū Maʿšar al-Ṭabarī (d. 478): No mention (no screenshot).
- al-Rūḏbārī (d. after 489): Mentions it!
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ says:
al-ʾAʿmaš recired in the path of al-Muṭṭawwaʿī "nistaʿīnu" with a kasrah on the first nūn, and it is likewise for the kasrah of the tāʾ in "tiʿlam", "tiʿṯaw", "tirkanū", "fa-timassakumu n-nāru" and what is like that.
al-ʾAʿmaš recired in the path of al-Muṭṭawwaʿī "nistaʿīnu" with a kasrah on the first nūn, and it is likewise for the kasrah of the tāʾ in "tiʿlam", "tiʿṯaw", "tirkanū", "fa-timassakumu n-nāru" and what is like that.
September 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ says:
al-ʾAʿmaš recired in the path of al-Muṭṭawwaʿī "nistaʿīnu" with a kasrah on the first nūn, and it is likewise for the kasrah of the tāʾ in "tiʿlam", "tiʿṯaw", "tirkanū", "fa-timassakumu n-nāru" and what is like that.
al-ʾAʿmaš recired in the path of al-Muṭṭawwaʿī "nistaʿīnu" with a kasrah on the first nūn, and it is likewise for the kasrah of the tāʾ in "tiʿlam", "tiʿṯaw", "tirkanū", "fa-timassakumu n-nāru" and what is like that.
In the reading of the reader al-ʾAʿmaš (d. 148) already on verse 5 of al-Fātiḥah he recites something that no canonical reader does: he reads nistaʿīnu rather than nAstaʿīnu.
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 541), but this is absent in other descriptions, what's going on? 🧵
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 541), but this is absent in other descriptions, what's going on? 🧵
September 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
In the reading of the reader al-ʾAʿmaš (d. 148) already on verse 5 of al-Fātiḥah he recites something that no canonical reader does: he reads nistaʿīnu rather than nAstaʿīnu.
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 541), but this is absent in other descriptions, what's going on? 🧵
This is what Sibṭ al-Ḫayyāṭ (d. 541), but this is absent in other descriptions, what's going on? 🧵
Can't believe this is the first time I'm seeing this but this is from Sibawayh, beautiful evidence for the lateral fricative nature of the Dâd: if you remove iTbâq from the Dâd you don't get a dâl, but a lâm!
July 9, 2025 at 1:08 PM
Can't believe this is the first time I'm seeing this but this is from Sibawayh, beautiful evidence for the lateral fricative nature of the Dâd: if you remove iTbâq from the Dâd you don't get a dâl, but a lâm!
An interesting comment by al-Farrāʾ which clearly admits that Ḥamzah tried to fit as much as possible Ibn Masʿūd's reading to the Uthmanic text.
"the students of Ibn Masʿūd and Ḥamzah read: wa-man yaṭṭawwaʿ (rather than taṭawwaʿa) because Ibn Masʿūd's muṣhaf has يتطوع"
"the students of Ibn Masʿūd and Ḥamzah read: wa-man yaṭṭawwaʿ (rather than taṭawwaʿa) because Ibn Masʿūd's muṣhaf has يتطوع"
June 16, 2025 at 12:51 PM
An interesting comment by al-Farrāʾ which clearly admits that Ḥamzah tried to fit as much as possible Ibn Masʿūd's reading to the Uthmanic text.
"the students of Ibn Masʿūd and Ḥamzah read: wa-man yaṭṭawwaʿ (rather than taṭawwaʿa) because Ibn Masʿūd's muṣhaf has يتطوع"
"the students of Ibn Masʿūd and Ḥamzah read: wa-man yaṭṭawwaʿ (rather than taṭawwaʿa) because Ibn Masʿūd's muṣhaf has يتطوع"
Hey people who know more about Icelandic naming conventions than me.
Why is Ólafur Arnalds called that and not Ólafur Arnaldsson?
Why is Ólafur Arnalds called that and not Ólafur Arnaldsson?
June 16, 2025 at 10:39 AM
Hey people who know more about Icelandic naming conventions than me.
Why is Ólafur Arnalds called that and not Ólafur Arnaldsson?
Why is Ólafur Arnalds called that and not Ólafur Arnaldsson?
ʾAbū ʿAmr al-Dānī didn't make it to Dénia's "Notable People" list on Wikipedia, and I don't know how to feel about that.
April 23, 2025 at 4:55 PM
ʾAbū ʿAmr al-Dānī didn't make it to Dénia's "Notable People" list on Wikipedia, and I don't know how to feel about that.
He does still mention the option that it's badalan min al-hāʾ though! The entry is also found under the root اهل in Ibn Manẓūr by the way! (picture 2)
April 14, 2025 at 7:20 AM
He does still mention the option that it's badalan min al-hāʾ though! The entry is also found under the root اهل in Ibn Manẓūr by the way! (picture 2)
The norms of "proper" Arabic were imposed by the Quranic readings onto a text that did not support such a reading. Some fully ignored the written text, others created an odd hybrid by imposing diptosy only where the written text could support it.
March 20, 2025 at 9:26 PM
The norms of "proper" Arabic were imposed by the Quranic readings onto a text that did not support such a reading. Some fully ignored the written text, others created an odd hybrid by imposing diptosy only where the written text could support it.
The article contends with the surprising issue that the tribal name ثمود clearly conjugates as a triptote in the consonantal text (as seen by the final ʾalif in the accusative), is nevertheless treated by most of the canonical readers as *diptotic*
March 20, 2025 at 9:26 PM
The article contends with the surprising issue that the tribal name ثمود clearly conjugates as a triptote in the consonantal text (as seen by the final ʾalif in the accusative), is nevertheless treated by most of the canonical readers as *diptotic*
"New" Publication!
This paper I presented in 2016, pretty sure I handed it in by 2017... but now it's finally out.
I would have probably written it a bit different today, but it's still I think an interesting article with fun observations! 🧵
This paper I presented in 2016, pretty sure I handed it in by 2017... but now it's finally out.
I would have probably written it a bit different today, but it's still I think an interesting article with fun observations! 🧵
March 20, 2025 at 9:26 PM
"New" Publication!
This paper I presented in 2016, pretty sure I handed it in by 2017... but now it's finally out.
I would have probably written it a bit different today, but it's still I think an interesting article with fun observations! 🧵
This paper I presented in 2016, pretty sure I handed it in by 2017... but now it's finally out.
I would have probably written it a bit different today, but it's still I think an interesting article with fun observations! 🧵
Call for the last postdoc on my ERC project on vocalised Quranic manuscripts. Are you or do you know a talented codicologist who would like to study beautiful Kufic vocalised manuscripts, do (tell them to) apply!
www.universiteitleiden.nl/vacatures/20...
www.universiteitleiden.nl/vacatures/20...
March 18, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Call for the last postdoc on my ERC project on vocalised Quranic manuscripts. Are you or do you know a talented codicologist who would like to study beautiful Kufic vocalised manuscripts, do (tell them to) apply!
www.universiteitleiden.nl/vacatures/20...
www.universiteitleiden.nl/vacatures/20...
I'll be giving a talk at Princeton University on the 8th of April!
More information can be found here: csla.princeton.edu/events/lectu...
More information can be found here: csla.princeton.edu/events/lectu...
March 17, 2025 at 9:02 PM
I'll be giving a talk at Princeton University on the 8th of April!
More information can be found here: csla.princeton.edu/events/lectu...
More information can be found here: csla.princeton.edu/events/lectu...