Al Arabiya and Harmony with the Times
A language possesses an internal structure that makes it coherent, understandable, learnable, and expandable. However, the components of this structure vary from one language to another. Our Arabic language suffers from fundamental obstacles that are noticed only by specialists and are often overlooked. Nevertheless, it is considered by some to possess the following characteristics:
1. The triliteral root system: Most Arabic words derive from a three-letter root, such as “k.t.b,” which is the root for “kataba” (he wrote), “kitab” (book), “katib” (writer), “maktaba” (library), “kitaba” (writing), and “maktub” (written). Or “‘.l.m,” which is the root for “‘alama” (knowledge), “‘alim” (scholar), “mu‘allim” (teacher), “‘ulum” (sciences), and “ta‘lim” (education). This makes Arabic theoretically capable of infinite expansion. Hebrew, Aramaic (the language of Christ), Amharic, Tigrinya (languages of Ethiopia), Maltese, and others share this feature, especially ancient languages. Non-Semitic languages, such as English, Persian, Turkish, Kurdish, and European languages, do not know the triliteral root rule; instead, they rely on adding several letters before or after a base to change meaning, rather than forming new words around a fixed consonantal root.
2. Its ability to generate new words, known as derivation, meaning the creation of new words from old roots. This implies that Arabic can theoretically absorb new concepts without borrowing.
3. Morphological logic, or word patterns, such as “fa‘ala” (verb), “fa‘il” (agent), “maf‘ul” (object), “fa‘al” (adjective/participle). This is a precise mathematical system through which the meaning of a word can be predicted before hearing it.
4. Synonymy and semantic breadth, which is the source of the language’s richness. For example, the lion has 50 names, and there are dozens of names for water, sand, and dates. This grants the language rare descriptive precision.
Acknowledging the need for language development is not enough, as there are obstacles preventing it. These include the diversity of Arab cultures and dialects, as well as the difficulty of deriving words for modern technologies and sciences, leading to their borrowing from other languages. For instance, it is impossible to create or derive an Arabic word that conveys the meaning of “software.” There are also psychological, religious, and political obstacles that hinder language development. Additionally, there is an absence of an authority possessing the right, competence, and capacity to bridge the gap between Modern Standard Arabic and colloquial dialects, or to facilitate the process of Arabization, which suffers from weakness. There is also a lack of digital standardization and hesitation in teaching Arabic through literature and daily life rather than through dry grammar rules. Arabic is not only a religious language but also a language of science and creativity.
From all this, we see that it is almost impossible to reach even a consensus among three Arab countries on what “developing Arabic” means, let alone carrying out the task. Otherwise, the language will remain stagnant due to its difficulty and the near-impossibility of teaching it easily to others.
***
We also note that the official language of the United States is English, yet there are numerous differences between their English and British English, whether in pronunciation or spelling. For example, the word “color” is spelled “color” in America, whereas it is “colour” in British English. Similarly, “organize” is used in the US, while the original British form is “organise.” These differences arose due to migration, printing technologies, colonial history, and the efforts of one man who insisted on simplifying American English.
At the heart of this debate lies a question regarding whether orthography should reflect tradition and history, or whether clarity and efficiency should take precedence. This is indeed the dilemma we face, as no state or authority wishes to answer the question. What we need is for several Arab countries with significant cultural, religious, and material weight, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco, to address this issue and reintroduce Arabic to the youth, making it more compatible with the modern era.
Ahmad Al-Sarraf
