reynolds-the-quran-in-its-historical-context-2

40 Andrew Rippinproposed meanings of the source words are used today, so the difference betweenthese two goals is certainly not an absolute one and is probably more one of emphasisrather than absolutes. The historical dictionary may be felt to be more attuned toscholarly purposes but the functionality of basic dictionaries cannot be denied either.There are many complexities that go into making a dictionary, which compilersmust consider. By reflecting upon the choices that recent compilers have made, Ihope to provide some insights into the merits of individual works, as well asthoughts about the direction of future work that will meet scholarly needs and goals.It must be observed at the outset that Qur'anic vocabulary is quite limited inscope and a high proportion of words are used only occasionally. 9 Robert Brunsch-. vig's 1956 article on the scope of common Arabic words that are not found in theQur'an remains a significant reminder of this fact. 10 In a similar manner, otherresources such as word frequency lists and thematically organized analyses ofvocabulary such as those compiled by Arnbrosll and, before him, Allard 12 can behelpful. Such semantic classifications allow insight into the character of 'thevocabulary that is employed (and not employed) in the Qur'an. The extent towhich a dictionary can engage in such rC?flections is open to debate but it certainlycan (and must) provide the basic source material for such investigations.Dictionaries are conveyers of ideological information as well, and compilers asWell as users .need to be aware of such positioning. 13 To illustrate this one mayusefully look at the way a controversial word is treated. In Badawi and AbdelHaleem the entry under the root t;l-r-b, for example, cites the oft-disputed Q 4:34,dealing with discipline of wives, as an illustration of the meaning ;,to hit/strike" fort;laraba. Another ten senses of the root are provided: to beat; to make a clangingsound, to stamp; to travel about, to hit the road; to cut through; to set forth (a parable);to compare, contrast; to secure, tighten; to seal; to raise, to erect; to brand, to stamp.A modernist apologetic sense is omitted here but certainly may be found in otherworks of a popular character, where meanings such as "chastise" 14 are to be found.9 See Shawkat Toorawa's contribution to this volume.I 0 R. Brunschvig, "Simples remarques negatives sur le vocabulaire du Coran," Studia Islamica, 5,1956, 19-32; English trans.: "Simple negative remarks on the vocabulary of the Qur'iin," inA. Rippin (ed.) The Qur'an: style and contents, Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2001, 285-96;G.U. Yule, The Statistics of Lilera1y Style, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944, 45-47(cited in F.E. Greenspan, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. A Study of the Phenomenon andIts Treatment since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verbal Forms, Chico, CA: Scholars Press,1984,31, n. 3) points out that frequency tables of vocabulary usage are misleading because theyignore the largest group, words not used at all.II A.A. Ambros, "Eine Lexikostatistik des Verbs im Koran," Wiener Zeitschriji fiir die Kunde desMorgen/andes 11, 1987, 9-36; idem, "Gestaltung und Funktionen der Biosphaere im Koran,''ZDMG 140, 1990, 290-325. A development of this work is, of course, A.A. Ambros, S. Prochazka,The Nouns of Koranic Arabic Arranged by Topics: A Companion Volume to the "ConciseDictiona~y of Koranic Arabic", Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2006.12 M. Allard, Analyse conceptuelle du Coran sur cartes pe1jon!es, Paris: Mouton, 1963.13 Debates over the inclusion of"slang" or- "swear" words illustrate the basic point.14 See, e.g., , 503.Studies in Qur 'iinic vocabulary 41The treatment of t;l-r-b provides an interesting instance with which to comparethe work of Arnbros in terms of the general goals of a dictionary. For the root,Arnbros lists four main senses - to strike or beat; to make (a way); to coin(a parable); to describe or characterize allegorically-with attention paid to the waythe meanings are formed with prepositions, and with an extensive analysis of howthe verb is used with the word mathal, "parable." This difference between the twodictionaries suggests some differentiation in goals: Badawi and Abdel Haleem'semphasis falls on semantics, while Arnbros combines that with grammaticalanalysis. Arnbros's approach has provoked the objection from a reviewer that it is"more like a philologist's collection of words as curiosities than an attempt toexplain their meaning or connect them together in any way" and "cryptic, condensedand difficult to read." 15 The lack of clarity of what any given dictionary is supposedto accomplish and how it should go about its task is thereby well illustrated.The place of contemporary scholarly reflection is also of some interest, especially· given the proliferation of works which emerge from outside scholarly circles. Forexample, in Badawi and Abdel Haleem's work the word al-$amad, which has beenconsidered extensively in scholarly literature, 16 is simply glossed as the divine attribute"Eternal, Dependable." Arnbros provides the traditional gloss but adds "more prob.'compact, massive', hence 'undivided' "with reference to his own article on the topic.HQw foreign words, proper names and other words that do not fit the root structureare to be treated is another critical question that every author of a dictionarymust face. Badawi and Abdel Haleem make note of words that are considered to be' foreign loans (it is hard for a lexicographer not to, given the problem of integratingsome ofthe words into a root-based structure), but they quote approvingly 17 C.H.M.Versteegh's statement, "It is much more difficult to understand how the. assumptionof a foreign origin for obscure Qur'anic words can contribute to their understanding"(although Versteegh was referring to classical Arab treatments of thesubject 18 and not to the contemporary lexicographer's task). Proper names alwaysprove problematic in this respect. In Badawi and Abdel Haleem most names areplaced alphabetically and not analysed by root, although 'Isa, for example, is found·under the root '-y-s, "camels of good stock." While that entry acknowledges thatmost philologists do understand Jesus's name as a borrowing from "Hebrew orSyriac," the authors also affirm that some wish to see it as derived from the meaningof the root. The criterion used to establish which words should be entertained as15 H.B. Haleem, Review of A.A. Ambros, S. Prochazka, A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic andThe Nouns of Koranic Arabic Arranged by Topics: A Companion Volume to the "ConciseDictiona1y of Koranic Arabic,'' in The Joumal of Islamic Studies 19, 2008, 400-02. Haleem isthanked in the preface to Badawi and Abdel Haleem's dictionary for assistance in "undertakingnumerous revisions" (along with several other people) as well as in Abdel Haleem, The Qur 'an:A New Translation, xxxvi.16 E.g., A.A. Ambros, "Die Analyse von Sure 112-Kritiken, Synthesen, neue Ansaetze," Der Islam,63, 1986, 219-47.17 Badawi and Abdel Haleem, xxi.18 The quote is from his Arabic Grammar and Qur 'iinic Exegesis in Early Islam, Leiden: Brill, 1993, 89.