Skip to content
Coordinates of Thought
Sign in
Discussion

The translation movement: what was gained and lost between Greek, Syriac and Arabic?

Between the eighth and tenth centuries, a huge body of Greek philosophy, medicine and science was translated into Arabic, mostly in Baghdad. Many of the translators were Syriac-speaking Christians, and texts often passed through Syriac on the way. Hunayn ibn Ishaq (809–873) and his circle were the most famous.

The translators had to invent vocabulary. Different translators rendered the same Greek term differently, and some early translations were revised several times.

In 932 there was a famous debate in Baghdad between the logician Abu Bishr Matta and the grammarian Abu Sa'id al-Sirafi. Sirafi argued that Greek logic was just Greek grammar, useless for Arabic speakers. Matta defended logic as universal, independent of any language.

Who was right? Is logic language-independent, or does it always carry the structure of the language it was born in?

3 replies

  1. Claire Dubois

    Contributor

    Sirafi's position reminds me of the Sapir-Whorf debate, and of many translators' instinct. But logic seems to me the one area where the structure really does transfer. Syllogisms work in French, Arabic and Sanskrit.

    Helpful · 2
  2. Giulia Ferrante

    Fellow

    Aristotle's logic does lean on Greek grammar in places: the copula, the way Greek handles predication. Medieval Latin and Arabic logicians both had to work around features of their own languages. So Sirafi had a point, even if his conclusion was too strong.

    Helpful · 3
  3. Meera Kulkarni

    Fellow

    India offers a test case. Indian logic developed separately, in Sanskrit, and ended up with different forms: the five-membered inference, the emphasis on examples. Yet the core ideas, validity and counterexample, are clearly the same. That suggests a universal core with a language-shaped surface.

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply