Neologism and Terminography in the Arabic Translation of Pierre Joseph Macquer’s <i>Art de la Teinture en Soie</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores patterns of neologism formation in the field of Arabic scientific terminology during the 19 th century by examining the translation of Pierre Joseph Macquer’s Art de la Teinture en Soie (1763), published in Arabic as Kitāb fī Ṣ inā ʿ at Ṣ ibā ġ at al- Ḥ arīr in 1823. The first sections of the article summarize the historical, political, and industrial context in which this translation emerged in order to contextualize the work carried out by the translator of Macquer’s treaty, Don Raphaël de Monachis, within the broader framework of the nah ḍ a [Arab Renaissance]. This was a period a marked by intense translation activity, particularly from French into Arabic, as part of the Egyptian ruler Muḥammad ʿAlī Bāšā’s modernization reforms. The last section of the article offers a detailed linguistic analysis of the terminological strategies adopted by de Monachis. Drawing on a comparison of the French terms included in Art de la Teinture en Soie and the Arabic equivalents, the article identifies multiple translation techniques, including derivation [ ištiqāq ], Arabization [ ta ʿ rīb ], semantic calques, literal translations, hybrid compounds, and the use of vernacular expressions. It highlights specific cases such as the use of ( qābil li- , “capable of”) to render adjectives like miscible or extractive , and نزع ( naz ʿ , “removal”) to express French prefixes such as dé- and dis- in terms like dégommage and disbroder . Finally, the article argues that Don Raphaël de Monachis should be considered one of the first modern Arabic terminographers. His translation of Macquer’s work laid important groundwork for the terminological efforts that would characterize the broader nah ḍ a movement. His role as a translator extended beyond linguistic transfer: he was a linguistic innovator and mediator between epistemological systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".