A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
Peace Brother Mazhar, please read question very carefully as the question is very clear and evident. If you could contribute in a positive way, please do so. Otherwise, I would request you, to please refrain from unnecessary responses. This is in order not to clutter this thread, as this is a serious discussion. Thanks for your consideration.
Badar
-
peace
I think smallest breakdown is
I hereby extend a challenge to all Arab linguistics in the spirit of learning and enhancement of knowledge. Please come forwards and give roots for these two words from Alkitab. Hence, help to identify them in Lexicon, thereby comprehend meanings. Thanks
Words are and
Badar
-
Peace Brother Mazhar, please read question very carefully as the question is very clear and evident. If you could contribute in a positive way, please do so. Otherwise, I would request you, to please refrain from unnecessary responses. This is in order not to clutter this thread, as this is a serious discussion. Thanks for your consideration.
Badar
I just quoted the verses where has been used twice in the Grand Qur'aan for reference of serious people who avoid Nakhooz, stupid and irrelevant discussions and discourses.
-
Apologies Badar but I really don't understand how you get to your conclusions. II'll tell you how it looks from where I'm standing. Lets say the Quran was originally in english, ok.
Fatiha ayah 1would look like this
Praise to God, Lord of the worlds.And for centuries Muslims have memorised saying it like above.
And you come along and say 'praise'?! , you know what, 'praise' is actually 'praise' and it should be read 'pee' and 'raise'. Therefore here, Quran means, we should raise our pees to God (wierd religious ritual unless maybe it's a cult of urologists).That's how things are going, Badar. Quran is a recitation. At no point was it ever recited as 'waa lateen'. Apologies for the grossness of the example but really, you need to provide methodological backing for your method.
-
Peace,
The root for ata'a or yuti'u is taw, alif/waw, 'ain.
The form you included is the jussive or subjunctive of form Af'ala also known as form 4, where the ya drops and the 'i' sound is condensed into a kasrah.
Antaha has the root of nahaa (noon, haa(soft), wa/ya), and is the form afta'ala, also known as form 8. THe word is also in conjunctive/jusstive form and the ya is dropped and the 'i' sound is condensed into a kasrah.
Note occassinally in the Quran kasrah replaces ya, domma replaces waw and and alif replaces fathah. But mostly when you see the words like this they are jussive or subjunctive.
I hope this answers your questions.
Gobless,
Anwar -
"just quoted the verses where has been used twice in the Grand Qur'aan for reference of serious people who avoid Nakhooz, stupid and irrelevant discussions and discourses."
Dear Brother Mazhar, it is my observation that lots of time your posts at least on first read appear not relevant to topic in discussion. If you would have indicated that you wanted to point only occurrences of this word in Alkitab, it would have helped. I did not mean to hurt your feeling; if I did my sincere apologies for that.
"That's how things are going, Badar. Quran is a recitation. At no point was it ever recited as 'waa lateen'. Apologies for the grossness of the example but really, you need to provide methodological backing for your method".
Dear abdalquran, this exactly is the problem. Quran was preserved as a written document and not as an oral tradition only. Just to avoid these kinds of issues. One can not prove how it was read or recited 100 years ago. What to talk about 1400 years ago. My methodology is very simple. Alkitab is preserved as script to me. The language of Alkitab both meanings and concepts as well grammar too is preserved as written script I am just using pattern matching to get to the meanings. Do I believe that I am doing it absolutely correctly? The answer is not at all; because if I do, either, I am a na?ve or deluding myself. I hope to be neither. This is due we are dealing with a lost language; lost as spoken language, hence lost comprehension via spoken means.
Peace all,
Dear belh and anwer, both of you answered the query. Let us discuss it further. Both of you are pointing to same roots for the said words. Hence, I will take opportunity to address in one reply.
Dear Anwer, before we proceed further let me be absolutely sure, that I understand you correctly. For word you are suggesting roots of either / . Based on these roots you suggest that it becomes and further it becomes due Ya changing into Kesra. If my understanding is correct please confirm, so may I proceed further. Thanks all for participation for sake of enhancement of knowledge.
Badar
-
Badar,
your arabic font seemed off so let me separate it.
The root for is taw, waw, 'ain.
In the above word there would normally be a yaa in between the taw and the 'ain. But because the word is jussive or subjunctive the yaa is dropped and the 'i' sound shortened, hence the kasrah instead of the ya'.
You say
Based on these roots you suggest that it becomes and further it becomes due Ya changing into Kesra.In short yes. However you should stick a ya in front of and for it to be more accurate and to avoid confusion.
Root for yantahi is noon, haa, waaw/yaa. The ya drops and is replaced by a kasrah as well. It is literally shortened into a kasrah because of jussive or subjunctive tense.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Apologies Badar but I really don't understand how you get to your conclusions. II'll tell you how it looks from where I'm standing. Lets say the Quran was originally in english, ok.
Fatiha ayah 1would look like this
Praise to God, Lord of the worlds.And for centuries Muslims have memorised saying it like above.
And you come along and say 'praise'?! , you know what, 'praise' is actually 'praise' and it should be read 'pee' and 'raise'. Therefore here, Quran means, we should raise our pees to God (wierd religious ritual unless maybe it's a cult of urologists).That's how things are going, Badar. Quran is a recitation. At no point was it ever recited as 'waa lateen'. Apologies for the grossness of the example but really, you need to provide methodological backing for your method.
Dear Borother
It is an example, but does not really explain and clarify the topic under discussion. There has to be a purpose of all the grammatical signs utilised in the script prservation of the Qur'Aan and they were not put in vain. They were put in out of fear of loosing the understanding of the written script, as written script would have been the only thing to survive, as opposed to the verbal preseravation which is almost impossible to survive in meaning and even presentation with the passing of time. God has preserved the text with all its grammatical signs placed by the scribes capable of good writing skills at that time.
If we take your example of Al Fatiha Ayah 12, and assume it was in english, then utilising the understanding we are getting from Badar and reading Lanes and grammar books and applying the rules as he is, seemingly rightly applying, it would have said the following
12 The decree for all width and breadth of land, on account of One who is not your illah (so called human created gods). But it is from One who is the Creator and nourisher of all his creations ( meaning of Rubb) including the creation (human) which he has created capable of comprehending and understanding it.
Muslims have memorised the above verse in arabic for centuries, but the very valid question raised here is wether in the process of just trying to memorise it, have they lost the site to the subtle and not so subtle change in the understanding and meanings of the real words and thus loosing it in all honesty.
Al= The
Hum= Decree
Du= width and breadth of landand so on and so forth as per rules of script writing explained in Edward Lanes, and Willam Wright which are magnificient translations of the great arab scholars of days gone by who had preserved these rule in their magnificient arabic books, knowing that if they would not do so, people may not get the meanings out of the written preserved script, as spoken words would keep changing in forms and meanings.
Hope I understand here the concept discussed above and the attempt being made to revive and understand the written script to its fullest understanding with least possible confusion and maximum clarity, rather than conjecturing the meanings based on books of history and books of traditions written centuries after the time of the Rasul and totally ignoring the rules of writing then laid down by the scribes.
I did not mean to digress here from the words in discussion, but brought it up only as it applies to the principles being tried here in an attempt to understand the Holy Book the way it may have been understood and preserved to the letter by the Prophet and his companions.
Salam
-
Badar,
your arabic font seemed off so let me separate it.
The root for is taw, waw, 'ain.
In the above word there would normally be a yaa in between the taw and the 'ain. But because the word is jussive or subjunctive the yaa is dropped and the 'i' sound shortened, hence the kasrah instead of the ya'.
You say
In short yes. However you should stick a ya in front of and for it to be more accurate and to avoid confusion.Root for yantahi is noon, haa, waaw/yaa. The ya drops and is replaced by a kasrah as well. It is literally shortened into a kasrah because of jussive or subjunctive tense.Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwer, thanks again. But your quote in red above, makes it confussing again. At one time you are saying my understanding is correct, yet you are asking to add a Yaa at the end. Let me try to settle first on root of word before we can discuss which grammatical rules would bring what changes. Are you implying to mean this Arabic structure . If not please type in your understanding utilizing Arabic keyboard here. Thanks.
http//www.arabic-keyboard.org/Badar
-
Peace,
I said 'yaa' at the beginning not the end. So
ANd
The first is the original form of yuti'u and the second is the jussive or subjunctive form.
Here's yantahi, in the same order (original/nominal, then jussive/subjunctive)
AND
Not to complicate things but you can take the nominal form of both of these words and stick a fatha on the end, instead of a dammah and it serves almost exactly the same function as jussive or subjunctive. The ony exeptions to this come with the use of past tense marker lam and present tense marker lan. Lan always takes the fathah and lam takes the forms you use above which I described as jussive/subjunctive.
So yantahiya and yantahi mean pretty much the the same thing. 'He might/may/would stop or may might/he/would he stop.' Where as yantahi (nominal), means he stops, he is to stop or he (will) stop. This future meaning depends on context. Same thing goes for yuti'u in the following order. yuti'a (jussive/subjunctive), yuti'u (nominal), yuti' (ya dropped and replaced with kasrah and sukun on the 'ain. jussive/subjunctive). Why does the ya drop? Weak letters tend to be shortened in the last form of the jussive/subjunctive. Weven with Yaqul. The way between the qaf and the lam is dropped and replaced with a dommah. In the case of yakun. The waw is dropped but in some cases the noon is dropped too. So it become yakun(no waw) or yaku.
Maybe I should slow down. If so let me know and I'll take it step by step. However you prefer.
I'll be honest with you and say that as it concerns the two forms I am calling jussive/subjunctive. One is really jussive and the other is subjunctive. But since for the most part they share the same function and I haven't taken the time to look up which is really classified as which (these are just names and knowing the function is what is important) I call them both jussive/subjunctive, and I try to explain when they do different things, like in the case of lam or lan.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dear Anwer, thanks for detailed answer. I think the ability to add first yaa is not relevant to the discussion about our word from Alkitab that is as there is no "yaa" at the start instead there is "Taa". Hence lets just leave it aside. This might confuse others who might not be as well versed with Arabic grammar . Now If I understand you correctly you are saying, the root for this quranic word is . This would imply it to be by defination,a weak verb, with a weak second radical in place, in the form of Waw. If this how you understand it too, please confirm. Only then, we will proceed further to evaluate if grammatical rules you are citing are applicable to bring about changes, suggested by you.
Peace and thanks again.
Badar
-
Badar,
Yeah, Ya is for 3rd person (except she) and in the case of yuti', 'he'. The 'taa' is for she or 2nd person forms. In the case of it is either you (masculine singular) or she (this can only be distinguished by context). Usually when discussing gramatical issues you usually stick to the male, singular form as a sort of common template, unless you need to discuss other persons. But that's cool, we can deal with it with the taa, as it is like this in this instance in the Quran. (Personally, I think whoever doesn't understand this really won't understand what comes next, so I hope those who would be confused by using the masculine, third person singular to try to discuss grammar principles that deal with tense and mood don't try to add to this conversation.)
Now If I understand you correctly you are saying, the root for this quranic word is . This would imply it to be by defination,a weak verb, with a weak second radical in place, in the form of Waw. If this how you understand it too, please confirm. Only then, we will proceed further to evaluate if grammatical rules you are citing are applicable to bring about changes, suggested by you.
Yes I agree with this. But let's also not forget that is also form IV or the form af'ala, and as such is subject to the grammatical "rules" that apply to this form of the verb.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Yes I agree with this. But let's also not forget that is also form IV or the form af'ala, and as such is subject to the grammatical "rules" that apply to this form of the verb..
Dear Anwer, thanks again. Now please share your understanding how this weak verb with second weak radical Waw would change to form IV of verb. Please use Arabic key board to show its changing form. You may like to use Taa instead of Yaa. Please use respective Harkaats as well for easy.
Badar
-
Peace Badar,
is the original nominative way of saying 'she obeys/she is to obey' or 'you obey (male singular)/you are to obey'. This is generally understood as present tense. It can also be understood as 'She/You are obeying' (which in English the present progressive) and 'she/you will obey'. The future meaning depends on context.
Now when we look at it in the jussive/subjuntive tense. It is going to change to either" or . Jussive/subjunctive in english would empoy the use of 'would, might or may.' And it could be you/she would/may/might OR may/would/might you/she. So if you say the above can mean May you obey, Would you obey, Might you obey OR you may obey, you would obey or you might obey. (let me know if that is not clear).
Lastly if the past tense marker 'lam' comes before the verb it will use the form.
If the future marker 'lan' comes before it, it will use the form.
I hope that was clear. Let me know if it wasn't.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Come again? What 'Haa'? The only thing I can think of is that you may have confused the terminal form of 'ain, with 'haa.' When that 'ain is written at the end of the word it resembles a haa (except in Morroccan script), but if you look closely it is not, and looks different than a (terminal) 'haa'.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Badar,
I'm sorry Badar. I thought we were just talking about the word itself and not the direct or indirect object that is attached to it. Ok, so the haa. . . (I had to look at http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/80_114/96_14-19.htm) to see and remember exactly what we are talking about). As you alread know it has a dammah on it and is pronounced 'hu.'
So, the ha refers to 'him.' It could be 'it' or 'him'. It depends on the context. From the context of Surah 96, ayaats 9 through 10 answer who the 'he' is.
-
Seest thou one who forbids-
-
A votary when he (turns) to pray?
-
Seest thou if he is on (the road of) Guidance?-
-
Or enjoins Righteousness?
-
Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?
-
Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?
-
Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,-
-
A lying, sinful forelock!
-
Then, let him call (for help) to his council (of comrades)
-
We will call on the angels of punishment (to deal with him)!
-
Nay, heed him not . . .
There are two issues I want to deal with here. In 9619, this is a negative command form. It follows all the rules of subjunctive/jussive form that is used with the past tense marker 'lam'. So if you say 'don't say!' to one male individual (Masculine, singular) ' it becomes Instead of 'you/she don't/doesn't say/you/she are/is not saying/you/she are/is not to say' which is (And just to make the picture complete), 'You/she might/may/would not say is
So we are now aware that
-
The form of taw, waw, 'ain, being used in 9619 is a negative command form, which corresponds to the subjunctive/jussive form used with the past tense maker 'lam'.
-
The 'hu' used that is attached to the word in question is referring to the masuline person referred to in 969-10. (Also be aware that this is using masculine singular but the example can be extrapolated to groups and to females. In Arabic if you say 'anyone' you will most probably be using a masculine singular form but this does not rule out the groups or females who might be engaged in the same activity you are talking about.'
I'll stop here and let you ask any more questions you feel you need to ask.
Godbless,
Anwar -