Marijn van Putten, Ph.D. (2013), Leiden University, is a historical linguist specializing in the linguistic history of Arabic, Berber and Semitic. In addition to this, his research focuses on the textual history of the Quran and the early history of the Quranic reading traditions.

• Preface and AcknowledgementsTranscriptionAbbreviationsSigla1 Introduction1.1 Previous Scholarship1.2 The Uthmanic Text Type and the Quranic Consonantal Text1.3 Overview2 What Is the ʕarabiyyah?2.1 Introduction2.2 The Linguistic Variation in the ʕarabiyyah2.3 Where Is Classical Arabic?2.4 Prescriptivism of the Grammarians2.5 Conclusion3 Classical Arabic and the Reading Traditions3.1 Introduction3.2 Reading or Recitation?3.3 Lack of Regular Sound Change3.4 The Readings Are Not Dialects3.5 Readers Usually Agree on the Hijazi Form3.6 The Readings Are Intentionally Artificial3.7 The Choices of the Canonical Readers3.8 Conclusion4 The Quranic Consonantal Text: Morphology4.1 Introduction4.2 The ʔalla- Base Relative Pronoun4.3 The Distal Demonstrative Expansion with -l(i)- in ḏālika, tilka and hunālika4.4 The Plural Demonstratives (hāʔulāʔi/(hāʔulā; ʔulāʔika/ʔulāka4.5 Proximal Deictics with Mandatory hā- Prefix4.6 Feminine Proximal Deictic hāḏih4.7 Loss of Barth-Ginsberg Alternation4.8 Uninflected halumma4.9 Imperatives and Apocopates of II=III Verbs Have the Shape vCCvC Rather Than (v)CvCC4.10 Mā ḥiǧāziyyah4.11 The Morphosyntax of kāla4.12 The Presentative hāʔum4.13 The Use of Zawǧ as ‘Wife’4.14 Alternations between G- and C-stems4.15 Morphological Isoglosses Not Recognized by the Grammarians4.16 Questionable Morphological Isoglosses4.17 The Quran Is Morphologically Hijazi5 The Quranic Consonantal Text: Phonology5.1 Introduction5.2 The Loss of the *ʔ5.3 Development of the Phoneme ō5.4 Lack of Cyī > Cī5.5 Passive of Hollow Verbs5.6 Retention of ṣirāṭ5.7 Lack of Syncopation of *u and *i5.8 Development of the Phoneme Ē5.9 Hollow Root ʔimālah5.10 Major Assimilation in Gt-stems.5.11 *raʔaya, *naʔaya > rāʔa, nāʔa5.12 Lexical Isoglosses5.13 Phonetic Isoglosses Not Recognized by the Grammarians5.14 The Quran Is Phonologically Hijazi5.15 Conclusion6 Classicized Hijazi: Imposition of the Hamzah6.1 Introduction6.2 Pseudocorrect Hamzah6.3 Hamzah among the Quranic Readers6.4 Pseudocorrect Presence of Hamzah6.5 Failure to Insert Hamzah6.6 Conclusion7 Classicized Hijazi: Final Short Vowels and tanwīn7.1 Lack of Final Short Vowels in the Reading Traditions7.2 Was ʔabū ʕamr’s Reading an ʔiʕrāb-less Reading?7.3 A Phonetic Rule That Requires Absence of Full ʔiʕrāb7.4 Conclusion8 From Hijazi Beginnings to Classical Arabic.8.1 The Prophet’s Career8.2 The Uthmanic Recension (ca. 30 AH/650 CE)8.3 The Era of the Readers (ca. 40 AH–250 AH)8.4 Crystallization of Classical Arabic (ca. 250–350 AH)8.5 ConclusionAppendix A: Notes on Orthography, Phonology and Morphology of the Quranic Consonantal TextAppendix B: Orthographic ComparisonBibliographyIndex

Marijn van Putten, Ph.D. (2013), Leiden University, is a historical linguist specializing in the linguistic history of Arabic, Berber and Semitic. In addition to this, his research focuses on the textual history of the Quran and the early history of the Quranic reading traditions.

• Preface and AcknowledgementsTranscriptionAbbreviationsSigla1 Introduction1.1 Previous Scholarship1.2 The Uthmanic Text Type and the Quranic Consonantal Text1.3 Overview2 What Is the ʕarabiyyah?2.1 Introduction2.2 The Linguistic Variation in the ʕarabiyyah2.3 Where Is Classical Arabic?2.4 Prescriptivism of the Grammarians2.5 Conclusion3 Classical Arabic and the Reading Traditions3.1 Introduction3.2 Reading or Recitation?3.3 Lack of Regular Sound Change3.4 The Readings Are Not Dialects3.5 Readers Usually Agree on the Hijazi Form3.6 The Readings Are Intentionally Artificial3.7 The Choices of the Canonical Readers3.8 Conclusion4 The Quranic Consonantal Text: Morphology4.1 Introduction4.2 The ʔalla- Base Relative Pronoun4.3 The Distal Demonstrative Expansion with -l(i)- in ḏālika, tilka and hunālika4.4 The Plural Demonstratives (hāʔulāʔi/(hāʔulā; ʔulāʔika/ʔulāka4.5 Proximal Deictics with Mandatory hā- Prefix4.6 Feminine Proximal Deictic hāḏih4.7 Loss of Barth-Ginsberg Alternation4.8 Uninflected halumma4.9 Imperatives and Apocopates of II=III Verbs Have the Shape vCCvC Rather Than (v)CvCC4.10 Mā ḥiǧāziyyah4.11 The Morphosyntax of kāla4.12 The Presentative hāʔum4.13 The Use of Zawǧ as ‘Wife’4.14 Alternations between G- and C-stems4.15 Morphological Isoglosses Not Recognized by the Grammarians4.16 Questionable Morphological Isoglosses4.17 The Quran Is Morphologically Hijazi5 The Quranic Consonantal Text: Phonology5.1 Introduction5.2 The Loss of the *ʔ5.3 Development of the Phoneme ō5.4 Lack of Cyī > Cī5.5 Passive of Hollow Verbs5.6 Retention of ṣirāṭ5.7 Lack of Syncopation of *u and *i5.8 Development of the Phoneme Ē5.9 Hollow Root ʔimālah5.10 Major Assimilation in Gt-stems.5.11 *raʔaya, *naʔaya > rāʔa, nāʔa5.12 Lexical Isoglosses5.13 Phonetic Isoglosses Not Recognized by the Grammarians5.14 The Quran Is Phonologically Hijazi5.15 Conclusion6 Classicized Hijazi: Imposition of the Hamzah6.1 Introduction6.2 Pseudocorrect Hamzah6.3 Hamzah among the Quranic Readers6.4 Pseudocorrect Presence of Hamzah6.5 Failure to Insert Hamzah6.6 Conclusion7 Classicized Hijazi: Final Short Vowels and tanwīn7.1 Lack of Final Short Vowels in the Reading Traditions7.2 Was ʔabū ʕamr’s Reading an ʔiʕrāb-less Reading?7.3 A Phonetic Rule That Requires Absence of Full ʔiʕrāb7.4 Conclusion8 From Hijazi Beginnings to Classical Arabic.8.1 The Prophet’s Career8.2 The Uthmanic Recension (ca. 30 AH/650 CE)8.3 The Era of the Readers (ca. 40 AH–250 AH)8.4 Crystallization of Classical Arabic (ca. 250–350 AH)8.5 ConclusionAppendix A: Notes on Orthography, Phonology and Morphology of the Quranic Consonantal TextAppendix B: Orthographic ComparisonBibliographyIndex