English Professors/Teachers: Please Help Me with This!!!!?

Question

Tell me if this persons statement about the word "Arabic" is correct...

Here is what someone said in reference to someone else referring to an Arab person as a Arabic person:

"Arabic" is an adjective referring specifically to literature of the Arab people, not a noun referring to someone of Arabian descent. You don't call Arabian people "Arabics", you call them "Arabs".

So he is saying that the word Arabic can only be used as an adjective describing a language and can not be used to decribe a person. Is he right? If he is wrong, please explain why. Thanks!

Let me kind of rephrase: He is saying that the word Arabic can only be used as an adjective to decrice their language and can not be used as a NOUN.

Answer 1

Maxnull is close, and Brett isn't wrong, but let me try another angle on this. I'll start by illustrating a similar situation in a completely different context - Australia. Here a native (or indigineous) person is correctly referred to as an Aborigine, but never an Aboriginal. Aboriginal is a 'descriptive' word (I won't argue whether in some situations it's a noun and some an adjective) that is 'generally' appended to 'something'. So you might talk about 'Aboriginal culture', or point at something and say "It's Aboriginal", and talk about an "Aboriginal language" (which we lazily contract to simply "Aboriginal" sometimes). The only way you can associate the word 'Aboriginal' with a person is to use it in an explicitly descriptive context, eg "a person of Aboriginal descent", or "a person with Aboriginal features", or "a person who maintains an Aboriginal identity". But he or she remains, in all contexts, an Aborigine. It's as if 'Aborigine' is reserved for that special use only.

OK, so now the use of 'Arabic' and 'Arab' (and the extra word 'Arabian'). Strictly speaking 'Arab' is the word reserved for the person. Arabic and Arabian are the descriptive words (be they nouns or adjectives in different circumstances).

Neither Arabic or Arabian are reserved for any particular descriptive use, but convention seems to associate 'Arabian' with geography (in 'Arabian peninsula', or 'Arabian desert') and animals ('Arabian horses) . 'Arabic' on the other hand seems to be largely associated with cultural things, such as language, script, art, music, and culture generally. Just as with the Aboriginal example previously, you could associate these descriptive words with a person only in similar circumstances such as 'a person of Arabian - or Arabic - descent', or 'a person with Arabic features'.

So is the person you say made the statement right or wrong? Well I'd say they are right in that the use of 'Arabic person' is not a standard usage (the standard usage would be 'Arab'); but I would disagree that 'Arabic' is reserved specifically for literature - it has a much wider 'allowed' usage than that.

It is often the case that a person in 'correcting' an error then stumbles over the next tree branch lying on the ground, and I think that's the case here. They are right about 'Arab', but they are wrong (to my mind) about 'Arabic'.

Let me quote the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition) in support of that contention (this by the way is the 16 volume ultimate English Dictionary):

"Arabic. 1. Of or pertaining to Arabia or its language. arabic numerals, etc" So it is not just about language!

I might add that the same dictionary 'allows' the use of Arab in descriptive contexts, such as:

"2. An Arab horse" or
"3. A child of the streets" or
"B1. Of or pertaining to Arabia or the Arabs.

But it reserves it's first listing (primary meaning) for:

"1. One of the Semitic race inhabiting Saudi Arabia and neighbouring countries."

I'll add one final point. This is a brilliant question in that you have pinned down the 'fundamental' truth that what's 'right and wrong' in language is ultimately what we decide it is - and by 'we' I mean all of us. That's why I referred to a usage above as 'standard' and 'non-standard'. For instance if I was to go to some inner city and address a person as 'dear fellow' I'd be using (definitely) 'non-standard' language, but if I said 'yo, bro' or 'gday mate' I'd be using 'standard' language in that context. But I'd be foolish to say one use was simply 'correct' or 'incorrect' in all contexts. So, while language professors like to talk about 'correct and 'incorrect' (it makes the world a more reasonable place from their perspective) you have to allow for the fact that they (almost never) spend enough time in the real world. The appropriate response then is to feel pity for them, rather than contempt. Cheers.

Answer 2

"Arabic" is a noun as well as an adjective. The language name is the same as the adjective just as it is with every other language. "English", "French", and "Japanese" are all language names and nouns. They are also adjectives. We can also speak of The English, the French and the Japanese as people and again the words are nouns.

With Arab and its variations the region is Arabia; the adjective from the region is Arabian; the noun for the people is Arab; the adjective pertaining to that noun is Arabic; Arabic is also a noun as the name of the language. A little more complcated than England/English or France/French but much the same overall.

Answer 3

He's right. It would be more correct to say "Arab" "Arab person" or "Arabian person".

This is just one of those things in our language that just is the way it is. "Arabic" is used just for the language. "Arabian" is never used for the language, but can be used for the people or culture. Since "Arabian" is commonly used to mean a breed of horses, the best adjective to use is "Arab".

Answer 4

he's wrong

arabic is the name of their language hence it's a noun

it's also an adjective when it's being used to describe the language

so the language Arabic is a noun

when describing the lanugage it's an adjective