I think it is a natural evolution for people using a language in a limited way (for Arabic that seems to be administrative and short practical uniformed texts) to expand to a more intellectual use of the language
The point of Robin is about script, not language.You confuse the two.
Probably the Quran was the first example and test of this expansion for Arabic.
I do think it is.
On top of that the reading difficulty might have been wished for since apparently for more than a century it has remained defective.
I do not think that "wished" is the word. For me the text have been written like this, as a rasm, because there was no other way to write it as there was no diacritic and vowels; this was done after by people who own the text; each group has made his own version claiming that it was the "real" version of the "Prophet" ; they retained 14.
Techniques to vocalize were plentiful in other semitic languages. It is not that difficult to do. And yet, the Quranic copyists didn't do it. It can't be out of ignorance.
It might be difficult to decide to borrow (the diacritical dots are syriac) from people (Christians) who are depicted as bad people by the text.
If we compare how the Germanic languages came out of the shadow of Latin we do see a different parcour. There first seemed to be a Latin administration with Latin literature. Slowly (with growing middle class?), the Germanic languages took over in all domains.
It is not an issue of language in the Arabic case, but script. Germans have adopted the Roman script without difficulties as they had not one before.
Situations are not comparable.
For Arabic there first seems to have been a limited Arabic administration (also in trade?) and no Arabic (religious) literature. Then all of a sudden, Arabic took over the religious realm although technically it wasnt prepared for it.
I (personally) do not know any "limited Arabic administration". There is no need of an "administration" for trade, only organisation. Arabs spoke their Arabic dialects and work with the defective script they had. You call this "administration" I do not.There was no Arab state. Arabization of administration was made up by Abd al Malik (685-705). Before, it was a Roman one since the shifting of the power to Arabs (634-36). They had to learn "administration", it took them 50 years to learn it and then fired the Romans and replaced them by Arabs. Diacritical point was already used since 640 (PERF 558)
Then all of a sudden, Arabic took over the religious realm although technically it wasn't prepared for it.
The assumption of Robin (technically Arabic script wasn't prepared for writing literature as the Quran ) is inexact. He is totally lost.
I consider that the Quran is a text and not an oral "proclamation" written down as it is induced by the text itself (!).
Dye was relatively embarrassed when he more or less says the same thing : that he doubts that the Quran is an oral "proclamation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aIOYq5UwYListen to him carefully...(59min) : "I'm not at all convinced by this things' description..." (Hahaha!!!)
I never was...
Was it because the neighbouring Semitic languages were quite close to the Arabic mother tongue? So unlike the Germanic speakers who didn't understand a jota of the Latin texts without a thorough education, the Arabic speakers managed quite well with the Aramaic and Geez texts?
1/ Yes.
2/ Not comparable situation
3/ Possibly.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today