al-Lugha al-'Amiyya v the language of Allah in Egypt

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jan 24, 2018 at 11:35

I very much disagree. Egyptian Arabic or EA is really a لغة or Lugha (unique language) and it is not a لهجة or Lahga (dialect) not unlike Italian v Latin

EA has very different grammar/syntax and many non Arabic words

Here is an example:

EA: الواد اكل الاكل ده في مصر

Or el-Wad akl el-akl dah fi Masr

Modern Classical Arabic or MCA:

اكل الغلام هذا الطعام في القاهرة

Akal al-Ghulam hadha al-Ta'am fi al-Qahira

Even if you cannot read Arabic it is very clear that EA is very different from MCA

And here is the grammatical foundation of EA v MCA example:

in MCA: كتب الكاتب الكتاب or Katab al-Katib al-Kitab or verb followed by subject followed by the object

In EA: الكاتب كتب الكتاب or el-Katib katab el-kitab or subject followed by verb followed by object

Very different grammar and syntax

EA is full of words that underwent metathesis and would have no meaning in MCA eg: جوزي in EA v زوجي in MCA also فيلسوف v فليسوف and ينعل v يلعن and there are many other examples

You must be aware that Egyptian politicians as well Muslim religious leaders even members of the Muslim Brotherhood when giving speeches in Egypt usually start with a few sentences in MCA then they switch to the language that Egyptians truly understand and that is al-Lugha al-'Amiyya However the most interesting part to this is what Niloofar Haeri tells us that newspapers in Egypt have translators that translate the EA part of the speech to MCA and this is what gets published after all Allah's Arabic should always be supreme

This means that EA v MCA is not unlike Italian v Latin However add the Qur'an and EA is pushed back

PS: I find it truly pathetic when I listen to the BBC Arabic and I hear this bogus Arabic with nominative, accusative and genitive cases that are hardly used by Egyptians The Brits at the BBC want to be more Arabs than the Arabs themselves Truly pathetic

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".