2. The Problems

The Arabic language is diglossic, which is a sign of richness and complexity. If it has not been for the preservation of Mother Arabic, the Arabic language would have been as diverse as the European languages today[1].

Language syntactic, phonological, and semantic change is a natural law and is unavoidable. The metaphor mother tongue could be taken literally, as it ages and dies while its daughters go to become languages, and eventually evolve to be mothers.

The elixir formula is clear in the case of diglossia in the Arabic language, as it preserved its integrity. It also provided a medium ground that can accommodate change. The true elixir in the case of Arabic is the Quran[2].

We will define the relationships of the Arabic language classes in the following manner:

To better demonstrate the above concepts, have a look at the list in The Balance.

There are roughly two major intelligibility areas in the Arab World:

  1. Maghreb - covering the majority of the Western areas.

  2. Middle East - covering the rest of the Arab world.

Although the Arabic language is preserved, it is threatened to be a purely liturgical language, refusing the evolution to our modern needs. In this new era of mass communications, many languages face the threat of disappearing.

Some of the factors that may influence the survival of a language are:

  1. Broad geographical native use

  2. Alphabets - for example, Chinese does not have alphabets.

2.1. Difference Between MA and RA

There are several differences between Mother Arabic and Regional Arabic. They can be categorized in three levels, syntactic, phonological, and semantic.

  • Syntactic - One of the major differences between the MA and RA's is that RA's drop the case. The case defines whether the sentence is nominative or accusative.

    Had it not been for the elixir formula, RA's would have been even further polarized to model the Latin language and its daughters [3].

  • Phonological

  • Semantic

2.2. Word-for-Word in Computer Software

Unfortunately, much of the available Arabized software seems to have a different idea of what translation entails. Although one loses certain aspects of the meaning and context, word-for-word translations look and sound unnatural and drive users away.

This phenomenon is evident in the younger generation who refuse to use Arabized software because of the awkwardness of the terminology.

2.3. Merging Spoken and Written Arabic

2.3.1. The Question of Imports

Importing new words into a language is a dangerous task. It opens the door for the corruption of the language's integrity. However, it also can enrich the language and accelerate it's evolutionary process. Translators are to treat this with extreme care.

Resistance from the Arab academia and intellectuals has accompanied the care-free approach that is taken toward importing foreign words. This practice has lessened the acceptability of Arabized equivalents.

However, in certain instances the use of borrowed terms is most appropriate.

2.3.2. Current Arabic Computer Literature

Current computer literature has both odd and awkward terminology, rendering it often unintelligible. This is a result of two factors:

  • Arabic Romanticism - Arabic has been considered (and some still argue) to be a language only suitable for fiction. One of the elements which persuade this line of thought is the School of Mahjar.

  • Post-colonialism - Arab countries have suffered a long and enduring colonial period. This has resulted in drastic shifts in RA's.

Fortunately, the lack of legacy among the currently available computer Arabic literature is to our advantage to design a wiser organized standard.



[1] True bilinguals, as research into the cognitive aspects of language acquisition shows, tend to show better problem solving skills.

[2] Regardless of your religious belief, the Quran is the heart of why this formula exists in the first place. Not only was it at the heart of maintaining the link between the daughters (RA's) but it also had its impact on other languages (such as Urdu, Farsi, etc)

[3] Latin and Arabic are not governed by the same standards. Indo-European languages depend on the vowels to carry its semantic load, unlike Semitic languages.