What is meant by the "energetic mood"?

Quality

This article could be much better. It does not answer basic questions like "Who made up MSA?", "When was MSA created?", and "Who sets the standards for MSA?"

It would be good if someone more knowledgable than myself could address these deficiencies.

No one "creates" a natural language, and with respect to standards, Arabic does not have a single standard setting body - not unlike most langauges - so I am afraid these are somewhat silly questions. That being said, the article is poorly written as an explanation of Modern Standard Arabic as a "langauge" or "register" of the Arabic language. I also agree with the critic belong, Hasan that there are a number of peculiar statements. (Collounsbury 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).

presentation of the word fuSHa

How come there the dot shows up underneath the letter "s" and the letter "a". It should show up underneath the "s" and "h" in the word. Is this just a problem with my computer. Or did someone misspell it.

This page is all-wrong!! (sorry)

What is referred to here as "Modern Standard Arabic" is really the same Arabic Language of the Quran and (Al-Fus-haa), the difference can be said to be merely the "style" and the word choices.
I'm a native Arabic speaker, by the way.

The page presents five differences,
1 Influence from Dialects
2 Pronunciation
3 Syntax
4 Vocabulary

Let's examine them:
First is "Influence from Dialects", the writer(s) say:
((It is inevitable that an artificially maintained language coexisting with naturally-spoken forms of the same language will allow elements of the latter to creep into the former. This has occurred in Modern Standard Arabic.))

I think this is not true, can you provide an example of where this happened? I can't think of any, and I didn't notice any.

The second point is "Pronunciation"
((When spoken extemporaneously, case endings and mood endings are not observed. The final short vowels on past-tense verb forms drop or change in a way that is similar to the spoken forms.))

This is not a feature of the langauge, this is an error often committed by newscasters and such, but it's not a part or a feature of the language.

For "Syntax", several points are made:
((The verb, as often as not, comes between the subject and object.))
This is not new, it's also present in the "Classical Arabic".

((An existential "There is..." construction has been introduced by calquing the word هناك (hu-naa-ka) or هنالك (hu-naa-li-ka), both meaning "there", in imitation of English sentences such as "There were three problems".))
I cannot really assert that this is false, because I'm not sure about it, but I'd say that I doubt it very much.

((The energetic mood no longer exists in Modern Standard Arabic.))
Sorry, what's the energetic mood?

((Secondary object pronouns were attached directly onto the verb complex in Classical Arabic, but use a separate helper إيا ('iyyaa-) in Modern Standard Arabic.))
Sorry again, what are Secondary object pronouns?! I tried google, but all I got was copies of this wiki page!

The next point is "Vocabulary":
((Much Koranic vocabulary has disappeared or become less commonly used in secular contexts, and Classical Arabic words for common terms often have different Modern Standard Arabic equivalents. This is often due to dialect borrowing.))
Well, again this is a matter of word choice! It's still the same language!!

If you can provide references to reliable sources that back up your points, then go ahead and change the article. Using reliable references is critical because the fact that you are a native speaker is good, but in and of itself it does not mean you are correct about all facets of the language. Lots of native English speakers have no idea about the details of the language. So do some good research to a variety of sources and see if you can coordinate all the material in the various articles on the various Arabic languages. - Taxman ^Talk 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you see, I think it's the actual page that needs reliable sources, specially the first and the second points (influence from dialects, and pronounciation).
You're right though; I specially need confirmation for the Syntax part.
For the Vocabulary though, I'm not saying it's false, I'm just saying it's not a valid "difference" between MAS and Classical Arabic, i.e. not something that makes MSA different from FusHa.

First, the complaining party, "Hasan" has some valid points here, the MSA article does make a number of assertions and use technical language which requires explanation for clarity (an encyclopedia entry should be reasonbly clear for the non-specialist). However, as an Arabic speaker myself, I am afraid I can't agree with "Hasan"'s sweeping comments. A few points then.

First re "What is referred to here as "Modern Standard Arabic" is really the same Arabic Language of the Quran and (Al-Fus-haa), the difference can be said to be merely the "style" and the word choices" - that certainly is the interpretation of most Muslim Arabs, a highly ideological one. However, outside scholars reasonably identify important changes in syntax, usage and vocabulary between Quranic, Classical, and Modern usage. A matter of interpretation, to be sure, but not something that is "wrong." I personally would agree with the standard non-religious scholars' differentiation between Quranic, Classic and Modern Standard.

Regarding influences of "dialects" and "Hasan"'s complaint:

"((It is inevitable that an artificially maintained language coexisting with naturally-spoken forms of the same language will allow elements of the latter to creep into the former. This has occurred in Modern Standard Arabic.))

I think this is not true, can you provide an example of where this happened? I can't think of any, and I didn't notice any."

I would agree the wording in the article is pejorative ('artificially maintained') and should be restated, however to my understanding the flow of dialect innovations into "standard arabic" is not controversial. Except of course to those with an ideological reason to deny it.

For reference to changes, this online reference seems to be reasonably readable and a standard: http://arabworld.nitle.org/texts.php?module_id=1&reading_id=35&sequence=4

"Hasan"'s main problem appears to be ideological - the assertion of unchanging Arabic langauge. I am afraid that objective scholars do not take that idea seriously. On the other hand, the article does contain some highly pejorative styling, as in "Modern Standard Arabic has always been an artificially regulated language, and has not evolved as a naturally-spoken language might." 'Artificially regulated' is a value judgement, and given a lack of any real 'regulators' - other than common literary usage - seems factually stretching the point. The section on idiom also sounds pejorative and dismissive. Certainly Modern Standard is absorbing new idioms, some of which are direct translations, but why the bit about 'misinterpretation' - a questionable judgement. It also would be nice to have the article be clear as to some technical vocab, as in "energetic mood" - I personally learned Arabic grammar in Aragic and have no clue as to what "energetic mood" is - clarification would be nice.

(Collounsbury 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).

Sources?

Ok, I stated above that the info on this page is not correct, and I was asked to provide a reliable source.
Well, I'm not the one making claims here .. the page (or its author(s), therof) is the one making several claims that needs reliable sources.
Are there any sources that support what this page says?!
Really, this is a joke .. any Arabic person can see that. -Hasan

Point is that the article needs references anyway, so why not add them to support your changes. Is it that hard to get ahold of references on the language? If you don't use references to support your changes it's bascially just being changed from what someone else thinks to what you think, which isn't terribly helpful. If you feel strongly enough about it just make the changes, but solicit some input from other editors by leaving messages on the talk pages of other articles on the Arabic language. - Taxman ^Talk 17:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any changes, except by adding a "disputed" tag.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
* it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
Both points hold in this case. -Hasan

I'm well aware of the policy. But it doesn't matter at all if you're not going to do anything about it. Just fix the darn article and make sure you're right by getting some sources. - Taxman ^Talk 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone may have time to fix an article, particular wiki conceit that is, it is useful he's flagged it as problematic. He's wrong about a number of things, but the article is also dodgey. (Collounsbury 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).

=Energetic Mood

The energetic mood is definitely classical, however it's use pops into MSA. It is formed by adding a noon at the end of any verb. An example would be: لأضربن هذا الولد - li-aDribna hadha al-walad which means roughly "I'm gonna whoop the crap out of this boy" instead of just لأضرب هذا الولد which is closer to "I'm gonna beat/hit this boy." I'm not native, but fairly fluent in MSA. I've seen this consruction in my studies, the news, and the occasionally fiery speech given from the pulpit/manbar.