02:01-39
-
Assalamo Alaikum Sisiter,
Link is restored.
How English word "that" could be a proper and complete substitute of Za'lika, since in it there is simultaneously one first person and a second person? With English word "that" how would we care for "ka" in Za'lika?
Sorry just saw this post
I am not sure if I understood you. Yes, Arabic cares for number and gender, but whether it was "tilk (fem sing/non human plural)", "ulaa'ika (plural fem and masc)"or thaalika sing", they will all be translated as that or those (English cares for the sing and plural only). I can't translate an isolates "that" except generally, unless I know what noun follows it.
What do you mean by the "ka" in "zaalika"? What would it be without "ka"? -
Sister,
I understand that the majority of Arabic words cannot be translated with one English word if one intends to convey the complete perception contained in that Arabic word. Translation means to convey the perception of the words, phrases, and sentence of one language in another language, which in length and volume will never be equal to the original text.
This applies to all languages whether we translate into them or from them.
La Raiba, perhaps neither means Not/no doubt since it is not La Shakk, and in English it conveys emphasis when used in between a statement for conveying the belief/understanding of certainty about the thing being stated. On the contrary Raib is always in something, la raiba fehi or one is engulfed in Raib fi raibin.
La raiba alone is not a predicate. With reference to the predicate is .
The difference between "raib" and "shakk" is the difference between "doubt" and "suspicion". "la raib" can be used just as "no doubt" in English. It does not have to always be a predicate. This is why I suggested both translations.
There's a slight difference between "shakk" and "raib"; The first presumes confusion between two contradicting facts, and the other presumes malignity in the one matter. Sometimes they can be used alternatively, but in cases you can't according to the context. -
The difference between "raib" and "shakk" is the difference between "doubt" and "suspicion". "la raib" can be used just as "no doubt" in English. It does not have to always be a predicate. This is why I suggested both translations.
There's a slight difference between "shakk" and "raib"; The first presumes confusion between two contradicting facts, and the other presumes malignity in the one matter. Sometimes they can be used alternatively, but in cases you can't according to the context.Well said. It clarifies that "shakk" and "raib" are distinct from each other. When two things are distinct from each other they cannot be used interchangeably. In the verse under study "lar raiba fehi" is the predicate.
Shakk is something that could create a state reflected by the word "raib" and not vice versa. In shakk there may not be feeling of irritation,agitation, uneasiness of mind. In English when we say "there is no doubt in it", the words "in it" mean about/regarding the statement made and not what Arabic word "fi" denotes. -
Dear Brother and Sister, why do you believe that "raib", in this particular verse is used for confusion. According to lexicon it also means "an affair or bussiness". Could it not mean as
This
for you, when used combined together as phrase, doesn't convey meaning of just "this", but something which is, was and will be. Hence, "this is for you an eternally bound book of the law". ( )= Not just a book, but a bound book of law. . "In which no affair or bussiness has been left out".
Badar
-
Thanks for making me read the portion on gezm again. I am not trying to digress from the topic being discussed in this thread, but on reading the link over and over again, I see it clearly written that Gezm is the final letter of a declinable word just like sukoon in an indeclinable word (as rightly indicated by our respected sister in her description given higher up also). I would therefore understand from it that gezm or sukoon are the last letters in those words. Thus if gezm indicates the last letter of a declinable word as per link of Lane, it should be an indication of separation from the next word and start of a new word, although written in a joined fashion. May I humbly request the sister and brothers to please look at the link again to see if the above is the correct understanding of gezm. We all know that Lanes work is mostly based on authentic Taj el Aroos and Lisan el Arab, in addition to other references in his work.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf
Also the current thread started by the brother is an excellent thread and it should be named as transliteration of Al' Qur' Aan (rather than 2;1-39) and should continue from the first word of Qur'Aan till the last word. All linguistic help should be welcomed as linguistic understanding is probably the only way to reach the level of understanding which the Quraish companions of the Prophet (S) had at that time as it is revealed in their dialect.
Best regards. May Rab shower his mercy on all.
-
Salaam kn, Anwar, all
"jezm" is a grammatical action on verbs and not nouns. It could be executed with a sukuun or with other tools depending on the word being declined. For example the verb , when subjected to jezm, it will lose the alif maqsura, without even putting a sukuun on the final letter ; other example is verbs conjugated to masc pl they will lose the nuun which will be replaced with an alif becomes and we say that the verb is in jezm . The sukuun can be a sign of jezm as in the case of some verbs conjugated to sing masc. such as \ , or can be part of a word as . This is why LL says that jezm touches only the final letter when it is expressed with a sukuun. Jezm does not, however, affect only the final letter, ex \ Here jezm is manifested in two ways
-deletion of the median letter, the wau in this case- declenching final letter with a sukuun.
-
Dear Sister, please do not mix Sukoon with Jezm. These are two distinct concepts. Although lots of modern linguist use them interchangabley. Your statement
Salaam kn, Anwar, all
"jezm" is a grammatical action on verbs and not nouns.
differs from reality. If it is a real understanding and it is only meant for verbs and not nouns. How would you explain just few following examples.
and on and on.
Badar
-
Dear Sister, please do not mix Sukoon with Jezm. These are two distinct concepts. Although lots of modern linguist use them interchangabley. Your statement
differs from reality. If it is a real understanding and it is only meant for verbs and not nouns. How would you explain just few following examples.and on and on.
Badar
Actually I know very well what I am saying and it's not rocket science. You do not seem to know what jezm is. If you carefully read what I wrote, you would not write these nouns with "sukuuns" in red.
jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.
A verb can undergo jezm, a noun does not. You would never read for a scholar saying that such and such noun is "majzoum" -
Actually I know very well what I am saying and it's not rocket science. You do not seem to know what jezm is. If you carefully read what I wrote, you would not write these nouns with "sukuuns" in red.
jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.Dear Sister, I am glad you were quick to point and recognise two of the three Sukoon out of three examples. That is and . If you know this much I am sure you would know the case of as well. Furthermore, if you read the link page from Lane, it really no where indicates that jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.
May Rab guide us all and shower his blessings, irrespective of our shortcomings.
Badar
-
If you know this much I am sure you would know the case of as well. Furthermore, if you read the link page from Lane, it really no where indicates that jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.
Of course Lane will not say that. He expects his audience to know the basics, and this is a basic. If you understand the relation between sukuun and jazm, you do not need Lane or any other scholar to point to you that it's analogic to the relation of nasb to fatha. Only your teacher will do your homework ;D