Language
By Bebnabd G. Weiss, Cairo
The question of the origin of language is almost as old as philosophy
itself. The Greek philosophers concerned themselves with it well before
the time of Socrates, and the question continued to re-emerge among
them and their Hellenistic successors throughout the greater part of
antiquity.! That Mushm thinkers should have interested themselves
in this question is not smprising. A question of such long standing
among reflective minds was bound, one would think, to be raised among
them sooner or later.
The main pmpose of this article wiU be to offer a tentative recon¬
struction ofthe history ofthe Muslim discussions ofthe origin of language
(mdbda' al-lugha) based on an examination both of source material
used by earher writers, viz. Goldzihee and H. Louoel," and of certain
1 A good account of the ancient discussions of the origin of language is to
be found in William Sidney Allen : Ancient Ideas on the Origin and Develop¬
ment of Langvage. In: Transactions of the Philological Society of London
1948.
2 To my knowledge Goldziheb was the first Western scholar to have
given any attention to the Muslim discussions. His treatment is to be found
in a lengthy article written in Hungarian in 1878 on the development of
Arabic philology, nine pages of which are devoted to the Muslim discussions of the origin of language. Sec his A nyelvtvdomany torteneterol az araboknal.
In: Nyelv Tudomanyi Kozlemenyek 14 (1878), pp. 309—375. Goldziheb
dlaced great emphasis on tho impact of Greek thinking on the Muslim dis¬
cussions and considered the view that language was revealed by God to be
the orthodox Muslim counterpart to the physis theory of the Greeks, with
the Mu'tazilites embracing the thesis theory more or less in its original form.
The Muslim discussions, in Goldziher's view, differed from the earlier
(discussions primarily in that they were governed by religious-dogmatic
considerations and in particular by tafsir of II : 31; what was for the Greeks a purely philosophical question became for the Muslims a theological question.
Sinoe Goldziher's time the only extensive treatments of the Muslim
discussions, as far as I know, have been those of Roger Arnaldez in the
fii"st ohapter of his Grammaire et theologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordove. Paris 1956 and of Henri Loucel in an article entitled L'Origine du langage d'apres
les grammairiens arabes. In: Ai-abioa 10 (1963), S. 188—208; 253—281; 11
(1964), S. 57—72; 157—87.
3 ZDMG 124/1
34 Bebnabd G. Weiss
additional items. We will not attempt here to resolve the question of the
relationship between the Muslim discussions and those of the ancients.
However, it will foUow from the central argument to be advanced in
these pages that much, if not most, of the initial impetus to the Muslim
discussions is to be located within Islam and that these discussions,
whatever may have been the role of earher ideas in them, cannot there¬
fore be accurately described as a simple continuation of the earher
discussions. Both the issues and central dialectic in the Muslim dis¬
cussions have a distinctively Islamic quality about them, as will be seen
presently.
The standard account of Muslim thinking about the origin of language,
which appears primarily in certain books of usül al-fiqh^ as well as in the
later manuals of Him al-wad',* speaks of five principal positions, which
we may designate and describe as follows :
1. The "naturahst" theory, i.e. the theory that language has its
origin in a natural affinity (munäsaba tabiHya) between expressions and
the things they signify. Language, on this theory, is born of a natural
human inclination to imitate the sounds of nature.
2. The "conventionalist" theory, i.e. the theory that language is a
social convention (istilah), the product of a cooperative "naming" of
things, the choice of names being basically arbitrary.
Goldziheb relied primarily on al-Suyüti's al-Muzhir fl 'ulüm al-lu^gha
wa-anwä'ihä and Fakhr al-Din al-Räzi's al-Tafslr al-kablr. Abnaldez relied
of course on the al-Ihkäm fl usül al-ahkäm of Ibn Hazm, whereas Loucel
utilized a number of works wbich he classifies as philological, chiefly al-
Khasä'is of Ibn Jinni, al-Sähibl of Ibn Färis, and al-Muzhir of al-Suyütl; of
course, in using tbe last of these he necessarily utilizes material which the
great Muslim compiler had drawn from other disciplines, particularly u^sül
al-fiqh.
Recently Professor MuHsnsr Mahdi has commented briefly on Muslim
thinking on the origin of language in Logic in Classical Islamic Culture. Ed.
G. VON Gbunebaum. Wiesbaden 1970, pp. .51—54. This subject was first
suggested to me as a topic for research some years ago by Dr. Rudolph
Mach of Princeton, who also called my attention to the article of Goldziheb.
My first treatment of the subject is contained in the first chapter of my
doctoral dissertation (Language in Orthodox Muslim Thought. Princeton 1966).
3 See especially Sayf al-Din al-Ämidi: al-Ihkäm fl usül al-ahkäm. Cairo
1914, Vol. 1, pp. 104-^112; Fakhr al-Din al-Räzi: al-Mahsül fl 'ilm al-usül,
as quoted by al-Suyüti in: al-Muzhir. Cairo: 'Isä al-Bäbi al-Halabi n.d.,
Vol. 1, pp. 16—20; Ibn al-Häjib: Muntaliä al-untsül Cairo: 1326 hijri, pp.
19—20; and Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-Shawkäni: Irshäd al-fulml ilä tahqiq
al-haqq min 'ilm al-usül. Cairo 1930, pp. 11—12.
* These manuals, which began to appear in the eighteenth century and
which are not to be confused with the literature of commentary on the
al-Risäla al-wad'lya of al-Tji, can be found in the Där al-Kutub and al-Azhar libraries in Cairo, in whose catalogues they are listed under "wad'".
3. The "revelationist" theory, i.e. the theory that language was
originaUy revealed to man by God, God not man being therefore the
"namer" of things.
4. The "revelationist-conventionalist" theory, i.e. the theory that
God revealed only as much of language as was required to make coUa-
boration and convention possible, the rest of language being the result of
the conventional naming process.
5. The "non-committal" (waqf) view, according to which neither the
"conventionalist" nor the "revelationist" theories can be established as
more probable than the other and therfore must both be regarded as
equal possibilities.
We may add to these a sixth position, which might be described as a
quahfied noncommittal view in that whUe it recognizes that neither the
"conventionahst" nor the "revelationist" theories can be proven abso¬
lutely yet it considers the latter theory as somewhat more probable than
the former. This position is not generaUy mentioned in the standard
account, and the only proponent of it known to me is Sayf al-Din al-Ämi¬
di (d. 1233).
The persons generaUy cited as the leading proponents of the first five
positions are: 'Abbäd ibn Sulaymän (d. 864), for the first position; Abü
Häshim (d. 933), the son of Abü 'AU al-Jubbä'i, for the second; Abu'l-
Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 935—6), for the third; Abü Ishäq al-Isfarä'ini
(d. 1027), for the fourth; and Abü Bakr al-BäqiUäni (d. 1013), for the
fifth. It is the fifth position which is said to have become generally ac¬
cepted among the later jurist-theologians.
It wiU be noted that, of the five principal positions, the last two
belong together with the second and third and that these four together
form a bloc of interacting positions, to which the first position appears
to be an outsider. It will be noted also that the proponents of the second
and third positions were contemporaries and therefore could have deba¬
ted with each other ; and that the proponents of the last two views were
contemporaries of the generation immediately foUowing and can be
regarded as carrying on the discussion begun by their predecessors,
adding to it their own views. On the other hand, give the dates indi¬
cated in parentheses, we do not have the possibility of a direct con¬
frontation or live debate between the proponent of the first position and
the proponent of any other position in our hst, since the proponent of
the first position flourished a fuU generation before the earliest two among
the others. More specifically, a debate between the proponent of the
naturahst view ('Abbäd ibn Sulaymän) and the proponent of the con¬
ventionahst view (Abü Häshim) along the lines of the physis-thesis
debate of the ancient Greeks is out of thc question.
3»
36 Bebnabd G. Weiss
We may add to these considerations six further points, which shed
important light on the Muslim discussions :
1. Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328) declares quite confidently that no one in
Islam advanced the conventionalist theory before Abü Häshim ■— Abü
Häshim, in other words, was the first to do so.« One might suspect Ibn
Taymiya, as a partisan of the revelationist theory, of seeking dehber-
ately to prove the innovative character of the conventionalist view, but
on the other hand it is true that the name of no scholar earlier than AbO
Häshim is, at least to my knowledge, anywhere mentioned in connection
with the conventionalist theory, and one would think that had this
theory been seriously considered prior to AbO Häshim's time some
mention of the earlier proponent or proponents would appear somewhere
in the literature. One assumes, furthermore, that Ibn Taymiya was
well-read in the scholarly literature of his time and that if he was una¬
ware of an earlier proponent the existence of such a proponent is unhkely.
2. No mention is made anywhere of a person or persons who pro¬
pounded the naturahst theory in the time when the conventionahst
theory was being championed by AbO Häshim. This suggests that the
theory had by AbO Häshim's time fallen by the wayside. His principal
contestant is a proponent not of the naturalist theory but of the reve¬
lationist theory. The sources indicate that the naturalist theory was
eventuaUy abandoned by Mushm scholars in general.* Evidently this
abandonment occurred before AbO Häshim's time.
3. The revelationist theory was advanced in kaläm circles before the
time of al-Ash'aii and Abü Häshim. More specifically, we are told by
Fakhr al-Din al-Räzi that the famous Mu'tazilite teacher AbO 'Ali
al-Jubbä'i (d. 915—6) held this theory, as weU as his disciple al-Ka'bi.'
Since no earlier mutakallim is mentioned in connection with this theory,
we are left with the impression that al-Jubbä'i was the first to advance
it in kaläm circles, although nowhere have I found a categorical state¬
ment that this is so.
4. Al-Jubbä'i is known to have engaged in controversy with the follow¬
ers of 'Abbäd ibn Sulaymän. 'Abbäd had taken issue with the school
of Abu'l-Hudhayl (d. 840—841), the most celebrated of the early Mu'-
tazihtes, on various points. Since al-Jubbä'i belonged to this school, he
^ Ibn Taymiya: al-lmän. Cairo: Matba'at al-imäm, n.d., p. 54.
' Fakhr al-Dm al-Räzi makes it clear that the one theory concerning
which later scholars did not withhold judgment was that of 'Abbäd; the
other theories were recognized at least as possibilities by later scholars, as we shall see. See al-Suyüti: al-Muzhir Vol. 1, p. 16.
'Fakhr al-Din al-Räzi: al-Tajslr al-kabir. Cairo: al-Matba'a al-Bähiya, n.d.. Vol. 2, p. 175.
took up the cudgels on its behalf against 'Abbäd, whose views were then represented by the latter's followers.*
5. Muslim philologists well before 'Abbäd's time had speculated over
the similarity between words and their meanings. According to Ibn
Jinni (d. 1002), one of the first to engage in this sort of speculation was
IChahl ibn Ahmad (d. 791), the reputed founder of Arabic philology.
Khalil is said, for example, to have held that the difference between the
sounds of the grasshopper and the cricket is refiected in the words that
signify those sounds: sarra and sarsara. Such interest in onomatopoeia
was carried to extremes by some etymologists, who attributed natural
meanings to the Arabic consonants. Thus we find the difference in mean¬
ing between qadama and hhadama made to rest on the difference in
sound between qäf and khä'. Qadama, because of the hardness of the qäf,
means "to eat something hard and dry"; whereas khadama, by virtue
of the lighter quality of the khä', means "to eat something soft and
moist."' The study of the inherent meaning of consonants was even¬
tually formalized and became known as 'ilm al-takslr (er Hlm al-jafr).^°
Al-Ämidi affirms that the naturalist theory was prevalent among
specialists in this Hlm.^^ This suggests a strong link between the natura¬
hst theory and early Muslim philology, i"
6. Ultimately the revelationist theory has its origins in the early,
i.e. "pre-kaläm, tafsir tradition, and in particular in early tafsir of 11:31:
wa-'allama ädama 'l-asmä'a kullahä. According to al-Tabari, the majority
of early exegetes, including the noted Companion and tafsir authority
Ibn 'Abbäs, interpreted this verse as meaning that God taught Adam
the names of aU existent things.This interpretation clearly implies
that God taught Adam language in its entirety.
These considerations, taken together, would seem to give us grounds
for constructing the following picture of the Muslim discussions of the
origin of language :
The notion of language as a thing divinely revealed dates back to
earliest times and was prevalent within the circles of those who devoted
' See W. MoNTGOMEKY Watt: 'Abbäd ibn Sulaymän. In: EP.
» Ibn Jinni: al-KhasäH?. Cairo, 1952, Vol. 2, pp. 152, 157—158.
1" Also called 'ilm al-hurüf. See Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-Tahänawi : Kash- shäf isiilahät al-funün. Istanbul 1899, Vol. 1, p. 223.
" Al-Ämidi: al-Ihkäm, Vol. 1, p. 104.
12 The theories of Muslim philologists concerning the "natural" meanings
of words and letters without doubt owed much to earlier thinking on such
matters. However, as stated above, the question of the influence of earlier
ideas on Muslim thinking about language does not fall within the scope of
this article.
" Al-Tabari: al-Tafslr. Cairo: Där al-Ma'ärif, n.d.. Vol. 1, pp. 482—486.
38 Bbrnabd G. Weiss
their time to the pious study of the Koran. Later, in the mid-ninth
century, 'Abbäd ibn Sulaymän propounded within kaläm circles a
naturahst theory of the origin of language, based in aU probability on
the onomatopoeic speculations of philologists. There is no record that
his theory was challenged by any of his Mu'tazilite contemporaries, but
it seems altogether hkely that it was chaUenged in the next generation by
al-Jubbä'i. This we gather not merely from the fact that al-Jubbä'i
held the revelationist theory, but also from the fact that he was an
active adversary of the school of 'Abbäd. We cannot be sure that the
arguments against 'Abbäd's position which are recorded in the later
literature were actually advanced by al-Jubbä'i himself, since these
arguments are not clearly attributed to him; however, it is difficult to
imagine al-Jubbä'i as embracing the revelationist theory without
advancing some sort of argument against the position of his opponent.
Al-Jubbä'i was, it appears, in turn chaUenged by his own son, AbO
Häshim, who adopted, not 'Abbäd's view, but, for the first time in
Islam, the conventionalist view. In the dispute which followed in the
early tenth century between proponents of the conventionalist and reve¬
lationist theories, the naturalist theory appears to have fallen by the
wayside. What might have been a triangular debate turns out to be
two-sided, with the great al-Ash'ari taking up the cudgels on behaUf of the
revelationist theory against Abu Hashim. It is this debate which can be
said to constitute the truly classic Mushm discussion of the origin of
language, to which belong not only Abü Häshim and al-Ash'ari, but
also Ibn FOrak,i* Ibn Färis, Ibn Jinni and others. The earher contro¬
versy between al-Jubbä'i and the followers of 'Abbäd over the origin of
language, if there was one, appears to have been a relatively minor event,
confined entirely to Mu'tazilite quarters. It is only vaguely hinted at in
the sources, whereas the controversy between the partisans of the
revelationist and conventionalist theories is expressly mentioned.
The latter controversy, it would seem, brought into play major cur¬
rents of thought and touched upon vital issues of the time. The revela¬
tionist theory appears to have come close to assuming for a time much
the character of an orthodox doctrine. The affinity between it and the
old, i.e. pre-speculative, orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the
uncreated Koran seems fairly obvious. If one affirms non-reflectively
(bilä kayf ) that the Koran is the Eternal Speech of God and means by
"speech" verbal speech (which is certainly the meaning which presents
" Fakhr al-DIn al-Räzi, in his summary statement of the main positions
in the Muslim discussions in his al-Mahsül, mentions Ibn Fürak together
with al-Ash'ari as the principal proponents of the revelationist view. See
al-Muzhir, Vol. 1, p. 16.
itself to the non-reflective user), then one establishes a chmate of thought
in which it is hardly appropriate to make man the ultimate author and
inventor of language. How can there be an Eternal Divine Speech,
identifiable with the actual words of the Koran, if man be the originator
of that instrument through which speech is possible? Of course, pre-
speculative orthodoxy never went so far as to affirm exphcitly that
language is itself eternal, however much this may seem to be imphed in
its doctrine. Our contention is simply that it created a climate favorable
to the notion that language, rather than being a thing instituted by man,
is a thing imparted by God. (It is no accident that tawqif and ilhäm are
for the revelationists the preferred terms for describing the origin of
language.) If we add to this the predilection of early pious specialists in
tafsir for the revelationist theory, we would seem to have an even stronger
case for the orthodox complexion of that theory.
In the light of these considerations, it may seem strange that some
Mu'tazihtes, who of comse did not accept the doctrine of the uncreated
Koran, should have embraced the revelationist theory. (It should be
noted that not only did al-Jubbä'i and al-Ka'bi embrace it; so also did
Abü 'Ali al-Färisi ; and, according to Loucel, Ibn Jinni and al-Zamakh-
shari leaned toward it.) The explanation for this presumably is that these
Mu'tazilites felt a strong attachment and loyalty to what was indeed a
very early tradition, emerging out of the most primitive tafsir.
In any case, the conventionalist theory was the one which through
persons such as Abu'l-Husayn al-Ba^ri (d. 1044) and, in all likelihood,
his master al-Qädi 'Abd al-Jabbär (d. 1026)^« was to gain ground among
the Mu'tazilites and to be regarded eventually as a distinctively Mu'-
tazihte theory.^* One suspects that those Mu'tazilites after Abü Häshim
1^ Although Abu'l-Husayn al-Basr! does not devote a special section of
his Kitdb al-mülamad to the question of mabda' al-lugha, as do later writers in usül al-fiqh, it is clear from his use of the term isfiläh that he subscribed to
the conventionalist view. See, for example, Kitäb al-mütamad. Damascus
1964, Vol. 1, p. 16. As the Kitäb al-mütamad is considered to be based on the
Kitäb al-'umad of 'Abd al-Jabbär (whioh has not survived), we may suppose
that the same view is reflected in the latter work as well. In the al-Mughnl,
'Abd al-Jabbär in his criticism of Ibn Kidläb's view that God speaks eter¬
nally with a speeoh whioh is different from human speeoh argues that all
speeoh is meaningful only through muwäda'a (al-kaläm innamä yah^'uki
mufidan bi'l-muwäda'a) . Muwäda'a seems here to have the meaning of
convention of. Al-Mughni. Cairo 1961, Vol. 7, p. 101. It should be recalled that
both 'Abd al-Jabbär and Abu'l-Husayn al-Ba^ri belonged to the school of
Abü Häshim.
1' Abu'l-Fath ibn Burhän, for example, attributes the conventionalist view simply to "the Mu'tazilites." See al-Suyüti; al-Muzhir, Vol. 1 p. 20.
Later writers in usül al-fiqh generally follow this practice.
40 Bernard G. Weiss
who adopted the revelationist view were moderates who leaned in the
direction of Sunni orthodox on certain points, without quite breaking
rank as al-Ash'ari did.
It seems on the whole fairly clear that when AbO Häshim openly
espoused the conventionahst theory, thus challenging seriously for the
first time a deeply-rooted tendency to regard language as divinely given,
he touched upon a vital nerve of orthodoxy. Unfortunately we do not
have a contemporary record of the debate which, according to Ibn
Taymiya, ensued between AbO Hashim and al-Ash'arl,i' nor do w^ have
any writings of either on the subject. Therefore we cannot know exactly
what was said in this debate, nor exactly what was the attitude or frame
of mind of the two protagonists. How dogmatic or unyielding was al-
Ash'ari, for example, in his espousal of the revelationist view? One gets
the impression from Ibn Taymiya that he was consciously combatting
bid'a, or heretical innovation; but then Ibn Taymiya, himself an ad¬
herent of the revelationist theory, cannot be assumed to have been
completely impartial.
The controversy was in any case short-lived. Around the end of the
tenth century the leading representative of the Ash'arite school, namely
al-Bäqilläni (d. 1013), declared that the question ofthe origin of language
could not be absolutely resolved. Both positions were plausible, but
neither could be argued conclusively. With this pronouncement, the
controversy virtuaUy comes to an end—at least within Sunni intellectual
circles. A contemporary of al-Bäqilläni, namely AbO Ishäq al-Isfarä'ini,
attempted to work out a compromise between the two principal positions,
but most later Sunni writers adhere to al-Bäqilläni's judgment, in effect
shelving the question of the origin of language, consigning it to the
realm of unimportant or at least secondary things.
What brought the controversy to such a sudden end? One gets the
impression from the sources that it died a natural death. A purely in-
teUectual process ran its full course. An issue was examined carefuUy
from every possible angle. Koranic texts were scrutinized, logical argu¬
ments were weighed, and men of reason decided in the end that there
was no Koranic text and no logical argument which estabhshes con¬
clusively either of the two main positions.i*
This account does not seem to do fuU justice to the facts. On closer
examination one suspects that the factor primarily responsible for the
" Ibn Taymiya states very definitely that al-Ash'ari and Abü Häshim
debated (ianäza'a) with each other over the origin of language. See al-lman, p. 54.
1* Since Loucel has dealt with the opposing arguments in detail, we have
not attempted to elaborate on them in this article.
early dechne ofthe discussions ofthe origin of language was the adoption
by the Ash'arites after al-Ash'ari's time of a new interpretation of the
Divine Speech which characterized it as an abstract quality (sifa)
inhering in the divine nature and thus raised it above the level of ordi¬
nary language or verbal speech (kaläm lisäni). It is not entirely clear
whether al-Ash'ari himself conceived of the Divine Speech in quite this
manner."" Without such a conception in one's theology, the question of the origin of language obviously becomes a crucial issue. In al-Ash'ari's
time it seems that the debate was reaching the point where orthodoxy
was pitted against a hard-line Mu'tazUitism represented by Abü Häshim.
The revelationist theory was ideally suited to support the doctrine of the
uncreated Koran; the conventionalist view was ideaUy suited to under¬
mine that doctrine.
Ash'arism, by redefining the Divine Speech in such a way as to ele¬
vate it above ordinary language, neutralized the issue. The old orthodox
outlook continued to persist in the writings of persons like Ihn Hazm
and Ibn Taymiya. But a head-on confrontation between orthodoxy and
the Mu'tazilite movement over the question of the origin of language
was ruled out by the appearance of the new orthodoxy of the Ash'arites.
In the new orthodoxy the revelationist theory had no real raison d'etre.
This is not to say, however, that the Ash'arites discarded the revelationist
theory with casual indifference. At least one of them, namely Sayf al-
Din al-Amidi, maintained that while the revelationist theory cannot be
estabhshed conclusively it has more evidence in its favor than the
conventionahst theory ; it is therefore the stronger hj^pothesis."'
19 Fakhr al-Din al-Räzi: al-Tafslr al-kablr, Vol. 1, pp. 31—32. Cf. The
Summa Philosophiae of al-SJiahrastani. Ed. A. Guillaume. Oxford 1934,
Arabic text, pp. 268—317.
2" Al-Shahrastänl attributes to al-Ash'ari a distinction between the
Divine Speech and the "letters" (hurüf) of the Koran. There is no evidence,
however, in al-Ash'ari's main extant theological work, Kitäb al-luina', of a
distinction between Divine Speech and verbal speeoh. See Summa Philo¬
sophiae, Arabie text, p. 313.
21 Al-Ihkäm, p. 107ff.
Ein arabischer Bauerndialekt aus
dem südlichen Oberägypten
Von Manfeed Woidich, Germersheim
1.1. Während meines Aufenthalts in Assuan vom Oktober 1969 bis
zum Juli 1971, wohin ich vom Goethe-Institut zur Leitung der damaligen
Nebenstelle entsandt worden war, benützte ich die Gelegenheit, das so
wenig bekannte oberägyptische Arabisch näher kennenzulernen und
dazu Materialien zu sammeln. Da Assuan aus hier nicht näher zu er¬
örternden Gründen für dialektologische Arbeiten wenig geeignet er¬
schien, wandte ich mich nach Luxor, um den Dialekt der Bauern auf
dem Westufer zu studieren, von dem ich bereits bei früheren Aufent¬
halten im Januar 1967 und im Februar 1968 Tonbandaufnahmen hatte
machen können. Die Möglichkeit dazu bot sich in dem beim Tempel von
Midinat Habu gelegenen Dorf Köm Lölah, wo ein ländliches Hotel
gastliche Aufnahme bietet, das gleichzeitig auch einen Mittelpunkt des
Dorflebens darstellt. Man hat dort Gelegenheit, mit den verschiedensten
Leuten in Kontakt zu kommen. Köm Lölah liegt in dem Gebiet von
al-Ba'irät, umgangssprachlich il-Bi'rät (Nisbe: iB'eri), das sich südhch
an die bekanntere Gegend von il-Gurna anschließt. Setzt man von
Luxor mit der Volksfähre nach Westen über, so landet man in dem
Dorf ig-öizira, das bereits zu il-Bi'rät gehört. Bewegt man sich darauf
auf der asphaltierten Straße an Neu-Gurna und den Memnonskolossen
(is-salamät) vorbei auf die Berge zu, so gehört alles, was südlich dieser
Straße liegt, zu il-Bi'rät, was nördlich davon liegt, zu il-Gurna. Dort,
wo die Straße das Fruchtland verläßt und sich die ersten steinigen Hügel
erheben, gabelt sie sich und führt in Richtung Norden weiter zum
Ramesseum (ramasyön) , zum Tempel der Hatschepsut in Der il-bahari
und schheßhch zum Tal der Könige (bibän il-mlük), während sie in
südlicher Richtung nach weiteren Gabelungen, die nach Der il-Midina
und ins Tal der Königinnen (bibän il-harim) führen, schheßlich vor dem
Tempel von Midinat Habu endet, der am Rande von Köm Lölah liegt.
Die genaue Ausdehnung von il-Bi'rät nach Süden ist mir nicht bekannt,
ebensowenig diejenige des Dialektgebietes. Die Informanten behaupten,
daß das etwa 25 km entfernte Armant noch denselben Dialekt spricht
wie sie. Dagegen fühlen sie sich vom benachbarten il-Gurna durchaus
verschieden, wobei allerdings ein gewisser Lokalpatriotismus eine Rolle
