Linguistic Research between "Mohammed Isaaf An-Nashashibi" and "Ishaq Musa Al-Husseini" Study in (Originality and Contemporism)

This study used the linguistic method for Mohammed Isaa’f, Nashashibi and Ishaaq Mousa AlHussiane. That was through a comparing study between their lives, their scientific cultures and linguistic researches. Also, what has resulted from their linguistic books. Therefore, the study contained an introduction, preface, three chapters and a conclusion. The researcher illustrated in the introduction the ancient Arabs interest in the linguistic research, and its development until the modern age. This was in establishing two linguistic schools, one was for the new restoration of heritage, and the other was influenced by the western culture and worked on the renewal of things. The researcher indicated the importance of study, and showed the methods of research, the contents, the most important previous studies, and the difficulties he faced. The researcher specialized the preface which is entitled (Nashashibi and AlHussiane scientific Life), for their lives since their birth to their death. He indicated the influence of their life on their lingual thinking and on the authenticity and contemporary schools, and he showed their most prominent scientific achievements. The researcher addressed in the first chapter the lingual research for Nashashibi, and he used the lingual references which directed him to the old school, and his lingual opinions which explained his authentic method. Also, he showed his rejection to the claims of the new school, and then he showed his view and concept about the new and old school. In addition, he showed his point of view to the call for the informal language and the Latin letters, as well as his opinion in using grammar and his lingual criticism to the writers. All of that was in the shade of the lingual authenticity, which Nashashibi believed in. The research in the second chapter used AlHussiane lingual research, showing his lingual resources, which identified his lingual method that calls for the renewal of things. Moreover, he addressed his language, his linguistic method, which contradicts the conservatives’ method, his opinion in the problem of the colloquial and formal language and its causes, as well as his opinion in the call for the Latin writing and his rejection to it. He showed his point of view to abbreviations and Arabization, in addition to discussing the characteristics of the Arabic language according to him, and his lingual opinions in sounds, and grammar. All of that was in the shades of modernity and the call for renewal for AlHussiane. In the third chapter, the researcher explained the different and mutual points between Nashashibi and AlHussiane in the light of their lingual thinking, which is represented in the new and old. He showed their differences in the lingual method, the issue of meaning and pronunciation and the Arabic letter and its problem. Also, their difference in their teaching methods, and their call to facilitate grammar. As for the mutual points that the researcher talked about, were in their defense to the Arabic Language, their rejection to the call of the colloquial language and Latin letters, and a side in their call to facilitate the Arabic grammar. The researcher illustrated in the conclusion the most important results this study has achieved.