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

154 Gerd-R. Puin(24) I~(25) I~(26) I~yunas'aWli"Jyunab'aWli"Jyatafay'aWti"J(Q 43:18)(Q 75:13)(Q 16:48)~o far, the older orthography without the vowel letter waw has bee~ observed onlym one case:(27) \.s-j5\ Jatawak'aJu (ms. H), instead of I)? J5\ (Q 20: 18) in StT.If we consult the old manuscripts we can find many more examples of the oldorthography among nouns, as compared with the (relatively) more advanced 'orthography of the Standard Text:(28) rf~!.A(29) f':;;(30) t.S').ma'Jukumgaza'Juhumsuraka'Ju(ms. D)(ms. AC)(ms. A)instead ofinstead ofinstead of~j~("JI?.I}S'"j;(Q 67:30),(Q 3:136),(Q 6:94).Of course, the original script in the manuscripts (left side) does not show vocalizationsigns. I have equipped it here with the dagger a/if, the hamza and the dammain examples (27) to (30) in order to visualize the function of the alift. in the :·manuscripts.We observe that the waws are inserted behind the a/if(28, 29) because thatthe a/if could now be interpreted as representing the long /a:/ sound. In .(27) and (30) the waws were placed before the final alifs, which in tum lost their .quality as glottal stops but were retained in script, though now considered to be"superfluous (za 'ida)". ·Although l;l.{\ occurs in the Standard Text 17 times with two waws as matreslectionis, the second waw is absent in a few manuscripts:(31) ':IJI (~ .{\) 'Juw!u'J in mss. CDF 7 for 1){1 Juwluw"J in StT.!he evidence ofthis "defective" writing at the end of the word in the manuscriptsIS a strong argument against the primordial existence of a long /u:/ vowel in thesecond syllable: if the word's ending was in fact the vowel /ul and not/a/- which··.·I do ~ot doubt because of the later writing with a mater lectionis waw as I_,JJI - .·•then 1t must have been a short lui, originally expressed by the a/if only. Such a~nal, a/if would then have had the '!.uality to express any short vowel, the /a/ likem ~)\;.,the /ul in this example or in ts" _,:3\ and as an /i/ in examples like t:; or --: · ·' •. JJiT,.1; below. The a/if at the end of a word, without a mater lectionis, will be treatedlater in section 3.3. ·Vowel/etters and ortho-epic writing in the Qur 'an 155. also concerns the question about the function ofthe final alifin words like'idhii, or I.SI, 'anii, or the negation ~' Iii. Evidently, these alifs are not meant to,des:1gu1ate long /a/ sounds, but the short vowel /a!. If we combine this observationthe fact that all of the three Arabic vowels could be expressed by a simple a/ifend, then we come to the conclusion that the leading idea of this orthog-. was its quality as a glottal stop, so that its function in a modem rendering ofArabic script could be illustrated like this: livi.siNJ~I~JKPlene writing of the (long?) vowel /u(:)/the Standard Text the masculine plural of the perfect verbsin2:61, 90; 3:112;e.g. in 3:184; 7:116in2:226(from'\4 *plus mater lectionis?),(from 4 * plus mater lectionis?),(from ti * plus mater lectionis?):.,Js.reguianvwritten with a final waw; this is found also in manuscripts C and G, andin the Ottoman/Turkish tradition. 8 Only the orthography of modem Arabicadd the "usual" ending so that the words would appear as \JJt;;, IJJI>. andin analogy to endings like l_;._;...r,. Perhaps the Standard Textbrought into harmony with the modem expectations by adding the final a/if,·:!-'.'''""'"~" the rasm of mss. DFK has only JJI although the following word i.J~jthe "normal" plural ending with an a/if.understand the waw in the words in question as a mater lectionis, thismean that the lui ending ofthe plural was originally short. If, however, theending was a long /u:/, one would have to regard the waw as the "normal"writing ofthe long /u:/, the a/if not being disambiguated by a mater lectionis.either case- and this is important- there is no final a/if!This leads to the question: where does the "superfluous a/if" at the end of the'illl