One of the reasons for the errors committed by some writers, journalists, and media figures is the seepage of colloquial meanings into standard Arabic. We should not condone such infiltration, given the fundamental difference between the standard and colloquial levels.

For each level, despite their superficial similarities, possesses its own distinct phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and semantic systems.

Those who live in a linguistic community that uses two languages invariably face the risk of mixing between them, especially if one of these languages is more dominant than the other in the lives of the community’s members.

Undoubtedly, the colloquial dialects in our Arab societies today constitute the prevailing and dominant linguistic level in our daily lives, even as it is challenged by various forms of “Arabizi,” that is, Arabic distorted by English words and expressions.

The effects of this dominance sometimes become apparent when we are compelled to write in standard Arabic, or to speak it, or to record audio or television reports in it. I will illustrate this effect here with only two examples from what I have read and watched on some news websites.

The First Example: The Word “مطارح” (maṭāriḥ)

This example appeared in an article published by BBC Arabic on the twenty-seventh of March 2025, under the title “Who Stands in the Way of Trump?”

The author of the article, who is Egyptian, states:

“According to the Council on Foreign Affairs website, the system of separation of powers in the United States inevitably leads to disputes, and the American constitution itself permitted this, just as it was explicit in maṭāriḥyet unclear on other points…”

“مطارح” (maṭāriḥ) is a standard Arabic word, the singular of which is “مطرح” (maṭraḥ), meaning “place” or “location,” but it is also a common word in colloquial dialects, including Egyptian Arabic.

There are other examples of such poor usage of the word “مطارح” (maṭāriḥ) found online, such as:

“And since they are unable to earn a living, they resort to living in mountainous areas or maṭāriḥ (garbage dumps) and subsist by collecting food scraps during the day and cover themselves with tree leaves or rags at night.”

“The delegations requested that the new budget document include a clear explanation of the maṭāriḥ(locations/areas) of changes from the previous budget and the theoretical basis for them.”

But what, then, is the error in using it, given that it originates from standard Arabic, in a report written in standard Arabic?

This is what I will clarify after presenting the second example.

The Second Example: The Word “حُجة” (ḥujjah)

I heard this example in a video clip also published by BBC Arabic on the fifth of April 2025, under the title “Why are Scientific Research Centers Being Targeted in Syria? BBC Investigates the Facts.”

This is what the presenter, who is also Egyptian, said, regardless of the poor language of the title and the errors she made in pronouncing the name of the French newspaper and the pronunciation of some Arabic words in general:

“The French newspaper Le Figaro indicated that Paris ended its partnership in 1981 with Syria bi-ḥijjah (with the pretext/on the grounds) that this partnership involved risks.”

“حُجة” (ḥujjah), with a ḍamma on the ḥāʾ, is a standard Arabic word meaning proof, as we say, for example: “Do you have a ḥujjah (proof) for that?” However, it is also used in colloquial dialects, and in some dialects, including Egyptian Arabic, it is pronounced with a kasra on the ḥāʾ, as the presenter pronounced it (ḥijjah).

There are similar examples of this online as well, including:

The region seceded bi-ḥijjah (on the pretext/on the grounds) of demanding more autonomy and self-administration.

Some people do not believe statistics, bi-ḥijjah (on the grounds/claiming) that they do not reflect the actual situation.

Critics rejected the book as unnatural, bi-ḥijjah (on the grounds/claiming) of its lack of originality.

Not everything in the dictionary is acceptable in usage.

The presence of the words “مطارح” (maṭāriḥ) and “حُجة” (ḥujjah), despite its pronunciation as “حِجة” (ḥijjah), in standard Arabic dictionaries does not justify their use in media language in a written, audio, or visual report.

As for the word “مطارح” (maṭāriḥ), in my opinion, it is more common in colloquial usage than in standard Arabic. This is precisely what came to my mind when I read the word in the BBC report about Trump: how does the writer use a “colloquial” word in a standard context?

And when I confirmed the word’s existence in standard Arabic, I wondered: what made it then so jarring in the context in which it was used?

Here, I realized that its circulation and repetition on the tongues of the common people, as in our Egyptian saying: “My apartment is four maṭāriḥ (rooms) and a bathroom,” meaning four rooms, has imbued it with a dominant colloquial flavor, making it no longer suitable for use in the standard level alongside purely standard Arabic words.

The more appropriate phrasing in that context, had the writer possessed a modicum of understanding of the nature of the Arabic language and its levels, would have been:

“And the American constitution itself permitted this, just as it was explicit in mawāḍiʿ/mawāqiʿ (places/locations) yet unclear on other points…”

If we consider the word “حُجة” (ḥujjah), which the presenter used in its Egyptian colloquial form, pronouncing it “حِجة” (ḥijjah), we find that its meaning in the Egyptian colloquial dialect, after being borrowed from standard Arabic, has changed and shifted to another connotation.

For “حُجة” (ḥujjah) in the standard level means proof, as I mentioned earlier, such as our saying: “The lawyer presented the ḥujjah (proof) against the accused,” meaning the evidence.

However, its meaning in the colloquial dialect has become “pretext” or “excuse,” as in the common saying: “The witness was absent bi-ḥijjah (on the pretext) of his wife’s illness.”

And this is the meaning that was in the Egyptian presenter’s mind when she wrote and read her report, saying: “Paris ended its partnership in 1981 with Syria bi-ḥijjah (on the pretext) that this partnership involved risks.”

Here, the presenter committed two errors:

• The first is that she pronounced the word in its colloquial form, “حِجة” (ḥijjah).
• The second is that she erred in choosing the most appropriate word. She intended to say that the termination of the partnership was based on a “weak pretext, which was its involvement of risks,” but she chose the wrong word to express this, a word that means “proof,” which is “حجة” (ḥujjah), because there was a confusion in her mind between the word’s meaning in the standard level and its meaning in the colloquial level. This is due to her limited understanding and shallow knowledge.

In conclusion, we note that the two errors in the use of the words “مطارح” (maṭāriḥ) and “حِجة” (ḥijjah) in the preceding two reports went unnoticed by any of the “senior” editors at BBC, who review and proofread what is published and broadcast, due to their lack of knowledge, let alone an understanding of the nature of the language and its levels.