Al-Asmai’s Linguistic Objections – Dr. Mohammad Gomaa Al-Dirbi. Faculty of Al-alsun, Luxor – EGYPT
- Al-Asmai’s Linguistic objections
- Dr. Mohammad Gomaa Al-Dirbi
- Faculty of Al-Alsun, Luxor
- Al-Asmai was a scholar of the second century AH (d. 216 AH) who held various linguistic objections, most notably his rejections regarding the usage of both the common people and the elite.
- One need only consult the master’s thesis housed at the Faculty of Dar al-Ulum, Cairo University—titled (Al-Asmai’s Linguistic Critiques)—to see the evidence. This work compiles eight hundred such critiques: 47 phonological, 366 morphological, 87 syntactic, 148 lexicomorphological, and 152 lexicosemantic. this comprehensive collection exposes the inadequacy of Dr. Hadi Hammoudi’s book, (Al-Asmai’s Lexicon معجم الأصمعيّ), in which the total number of critiques did not even reach 170.
- Yet, given its title, one would have expected the book to provide readers with more than just this limited number of entries. To highlight this shortcoming, the aforementioned master’s thesis deliberately cited the phrase “Al-Aṣmai’s lexicon overlooked it” when referencing the sources for each correction; this is in addition to the book’s internal contradictions, errors in vocalization, and the attribution of certain corrections to Al-Asmai when they actually originated with others.
- The thesis demonstrated the existence of significant disorder and contradiction in the accounts attributed to al-Asmai Specifically, some sources might cite a particular critical observation by al-Asmai only to be contradicted by other sources regarding that same observation; sources might attribute a critique to him that conflicts with the content of his own books; and contradictions were even found among al-Asmai’s own works. The thesis posited that this inconsistency stems from al-Asmai retracting certain critiques and from the fact that he did not write most of his books himself but rather dictated them to his students—sometimes dictating the same work on more than one occasion.
- Regarding Al-Asmai’s criteria for acceptance and rejection, the thesis notes that he dismissed much linguistic material simply because it had not reached him—a stance adopted by some other scholars. Conversely, other scholars challenged his position by citing clear linguistic evidence that had escaped his notice; furthermore, in instances where such evidence had indeed reached him yet was rejected, critics highlighted his bias against specific poets, such as Al-Kumayt (الكُميت), Dhi al-Rumma(ذي الرُّمَّة) , and others.
- Al-Asmai found fault with many eloquent speakers as well as poets from the Pre-Islamic and Islamic eras; this thesis has endeavored to comprehensively examine the rebuttals directed at him and to weigh the views of the various critics involved in order to arrive at the most sound conclusion—supporting this preferred view with new, unprecedented evidence.
- While some scholars have noted in general terms that Al-Asmai was strict—accepting only the most eloquent linguistic forms and rejecting all others—this thesis confirms the validity of that view through a detailed analysis covering citations, linguistic varieties,(Alsama (audition) and Alqiyas (analogy), figurative language, religious scruples, rare or anomalous usages, and the opinions of other scholars.
- Al-Asmai’s views—including his critical observations—still require extensive study. Perhaps Dr. Mohammad Gomaa Al-Dirbi—who three years ago published the book (Nouut Al-Nisa narrated by al-Asmai نعوت النساء عن الأصمعيّ) (Descriptions of Women, according to Al-Asmai) with Dar Al-Watan for Publishing and Distribution in Cairo—might add something of value to the work (تعقُّبات الأصمعيّ اللغويَّة) (Al-Asmai’s Linguistic Critiques), published twenty years ago, thereby serving the legacy of Al-Asmai: the Basran scholar and doyen of narrators and memorizers.