A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
Badar.
Also this is not a huge deal, but I wanted to correct you Badar. It is not Rubb it is Rabb. And it is Anwar, not Anwer. And may our Rabb also bless you.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, I stand corrected on both, transliteration of , as well spelling of your name. On other query, I am busy this weekend with visiting family so later.
May Rabb bless you.
Badar
-
Peace,
Yes pls show me where you think this interchange between jim and yaa has happened. I also think you may have made a visual mistake.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, here are the relavant referance link for above. I do not think that Jiim and Yaa are generated close enough in Vocal tract to justify or explain this exchange. Intresting, isn't?
Peace
Badar
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000005.pdf
-
Peace,
Wow, I am really glad you sited that. I always had a theory about that, having listened to the pronunciation of the Jeem in different Arabic countries. I will tell you this, the ONLY Arab group to maintain this original pronunciation of the jeem which is close to the yaa, are the Sudanese. And if you you move the jeem more to front of your mouth you get the most common (and closest to English) pronunciation of it. If you move it back in the throat you get the Egyptian and Yemeni Geem. But if you leave it in the middle it is a hybrid between a yaa and the more common J sound. This middle Jeem, that the Sudanese still employ I have always believed to be the most original form of the jeem, and you just confirmed my suspicions. Thakn you again for that and enjoy visiting your family.
Yaay, Sudanese! I love their jeem and their great Classical Arabic education. I think they have the best Classical Arabic education in the whole Arab world. As I have never been more impressed by well educated (in Arabic) Sudanese speakers compared to educated speakers from other Arabic countries. Oh and I also love the Maghrebi qaaf. Both the Maghrebi Qaaf and the Sudanese Jim are classic examples of conservative tendencies in these dialects.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Wow, I am really glad you sited that. I always had a theory about that, having listened to the pronunciation of the Jeem in different Arabic countries. I will tell you this, the ONLY Arab group to maintain this original pronunciation of the jeem which is close to the yaa, are the Sudanese. And if you you move the jeem more to front of your mouth you get the most common (and closest to English) pronunciation of it. If you move it back in the throat you get the Egyptian and Yemeni Geem. But if you leave it in the middle it is a hybrid between a yaa and the more common J sound. This middle Jeem, that the Sudanese still employ I have always believed to be the most original form of the jeem, and you just confirmed my suspicions. Thakn you again for that and enjoy visiting your family.
Yaay, Sudanese! I love their jeem and their great Classical Arabic education. I think they have the best Classical Arabic education in the whole Arab world. As I have never been more impressed by well educated (in Arabic) Sudanese speakers compared to educated speakers from other Arabic countries. Oh and I also love the Maghrebi qaaf. Both the Maghrebi Qaaf and the Sudanese Jim are classic examples of conservative tendencies in these dialects.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, I am glad that you find this ignorant/illiterate of Arabic to be of some use. I reviewed, Idgham again today. I understood it, to be more relating to Tajweed before. That is only assimilation of alphabets in vocalization of words, not in script writing. Please see link below. Do you understand Idgham differently, if so please share some reference.
Badar
http//www.readwithtajweed.com/tajweed_Idghaam.htm
-
Idgham is not about writing it is about pronuncation. It is the original pronuncation of the Arabs. What do you mean by illiterate/ignorant of Arabic? Nowadays it is only related to the Quran. But it is about pronouncing Arabic well. However it shows up in writing as there are often ques to how something is to be pronounced in the Quran per the rules of old Arabic. You might want to review it more in depth as it concerns the measures of Arabic verbs. You will probably not find that on just any old site online. I woud pick up Wright's, 'A grammar of the Arabic language'.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Idgham is not about writing it is about pronuncation. It is the original pronuncation of the Arabs. What do you mean by illiterate/ignorant of Arabic? Nowadays it is only related to the Quran. But it is about pronouncing Arabic well. However it shows up in writing as there are often ques to how something is to be pronounced in the Quran per the rules of old Arabic. You might want to review it more in depth as it concerns the measures of Arabic verbs. You will probably not find that on just any old site online. I woud pick up Wright's, 'A grammar of the Arabic language'.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, thanks. Topic of Idgham is beyond Wright. I remember now, the last 6 chapter of Sibawayh's AlKitab are titiled as Bab Al Idgham. I am reviewing them.
Badar
-
Peace,
I think I have an idea of what you mean, but your question is way to broad and not specific at all. So let's take awsala for instance. In the imperfect it is yoosilu.
The two letters of these forms correspond to this grammatical change you are talking about. I don't think idgham is beyond, wright at all I'll have to review it to give you the right pages to review.Godbless,
Anwar -
Idgham is not about writing it is about pronuncation .
For non Arab, it may be otherway round. For him it is how to pronounce a written word. Like a non English student has to be told that "P" is silent in Psychology but it has to be there in the writing.
Language and its words describe things and matters around human beings. Language/Word must exist simultaneously with the creation. So both are something physical and concrete. Writing has to precede its pronunciation by others. Pronunciation is not converted into writing, it is the writing which is pronounced.
-
For non Arab, it may be otherway round. For him it is how to pronounce a written word. Like a non English student has to be told that "P" is silent in Psychology but it has to be there in the writing.
Language and its words describe things and matters around human beings. Language/Word must exist simultaneously with the creation. So both are something physical and concrete. Writing has to precede its pronunciation by others. Pronunciation is not converted into writing, it is the writing which is pronounced.
Dear Brother Mazhar, very humbly and politely that account above is absolutely incorrect and misleading. May I suggest, if you want few basic books in linguistics? If you do not care , it is okay. No intent to get into a fight. Just want to get records correct.
Badar
-
Dear Anwar, thanks again. I know I asked you an open question. What I meant to ask that in addition to change of verbs from perfect to imperfect. Is it possible to express concepts in certain Particles like into imperfect? By changing it?s form, from perfect to imperfect. Or rule holds good only in regards of verbs.
Furthermore, in your studies have you come across about Alif of prolongation. If so what is your understanding of it. I mean is it added to a root just to prolong the sound only in pronouncing the word, or does it add anything to the meanings of word as well.
Thanks in advance.
Badar
-
For non Arab, it may be otherway round. For him it is how to pronounce a written word. Like a non English student has to be told that "P" is silent in Psychology but it has to be there in the writing.
Language and its words describe things and matters around human beings. Language/Word must exist simultaneously with the creation. So both are something physical and concrete. Writing has to precede its pronunciation by others. Pronunciation is not converted into writing, it is the writing which is pronounced.
Dear Brother Mazhar, very humbly and politely that account above is absolutely incorrect and misleading. May I suggest, if you want few basic books in linguistics? If you do not care , it is okay. No intent to get into a fight. Just want to get records correct.Brother this seems because you are not ready to even donate a second to think about it. Before Qur'aan had any body pronounced ; etc. Books in linguistics could benefit one only when he realizes the basic fact that beginning is with the code/name.
-
Here is some more challenge for all Arab linguistics around the globe. Please, share your understanding as to what could be the root for this word from AlKitab. Whatever, you understand the root to be, share what grammatical changes would explain the changes to the said root to achieve this form.
Thanks in advance, peace and love to all.
Badar
-
Mazhar,
This is wrong.
Language and its words describe things and matters around human beings. Language/Word must exist simultaneously with the creation. So both are something physical and concrete. Writing has to precede its pronunciation by others. Pronunciation is not converted into writing, it is the writing which is pronounced.
A language is spoken first before it is codified and written down in script. Just becuase someone learns a script first has nothing to do with the natural evolutionary stages of that language.
This is also wrong.
Brother this seems because you are not ready to even donate a second to think about it. Before Qur'aan had any body pronounced ; etc. Books in linguistics could benefit one only when he realizes the basic fact that beginning is with the code/name.
In as much as people would have expressed the ideas behind these words i.e. perverse, winds, fecundating/injecting, rope/connection and jugular vein, then yes. If the Arabs had not used these words or heard them from other Arabs before than they would have had no idea of what they meant when they were used in the Quran. Which would imply that the Quran invented Arabic words not in the naturally used vocabular and grammatical system of Classical (then colloquial) Arabic used by the pre-islamic arabs. And that frankly would be absurd as the Quran says that it is using a clear and eloquent Arabic of that day, not inventing a new language.
Badar,
Dear Anwar, thanks again. I know I asked you an open question. What I meant to ask that in addition to change of verbs from perfect to imperfect. Is it possible to express concepts in certain Particles like into imperfect? By changing it?s form, from perfect to imperfect. Or rule holds good only in regards of verbs.
Furthermore, in your studies have you come across about Alif of prolongation. If so what is your understanding of it. I mean is it added to a root just to prolong the sound only in pronouncing the word, or does it add anything to the meanings of word as well.
Thanks in advance.
I really don't understand the first part of your question clearly, but alif, waw changes to yaa, waw only when you go from perfect (past) to imperfect (present). In no other case does this happen. As for the prolonged alif. It is gramatical as well. for instance the prolonged alif in front of aamana is the natural joining of the alif and the hamza that would normally follow it. And fatha/alif sequence can take a maddah (prolongation) and all alif, hamza or hamza, alif sequences take it.
Here is some more challenge for all Arab linguistics around the globe. Please, share your understanding as to what could be the root for this word from AlKitab. Whatever, you understand the root to be, share what grammatical changes would explain the changes to the said root to achieve this form.
Thanks in advance, peace and love to all.
Again this is not a challenge at all. this is from the root yasara (ya, seen, raa). It is form/measure II, yassara (yaa, seen(shaddah), raa). It is also first person plural (we). When in imperfect (present tense) it will follow the form noon (dommah) yaa (fathah), seen(shaddah, kasrah), raa (dommah for nominative/marfoo'. The word here means 'we make easy.'
The prefixes are faa' (pronounced fa) which means 'so/and/but/however/moreover' and seen (pronounced 'sa' here) whcih is the future marker. The suffix is a haa' and is pronounced 'hu' it means as we saw previously 'it' or 'he'.
Taking all this into account the Arabic word above means 'we will make it/him easy.'
I am really shocked at these questions badar, but fire away, if it helps it helps. By the way the prefixes and suffixes are attached to these words but they have their own meanings which add to the meaning of the key word in between (nuyassiru).
Do you not find the time or the money for Arabic lessons where you live? WHy don't you just start sending me pm's and istead of call these grammatical challenges as they are really just grammar lessons for you.
Godbless,
Anwar -
In as much as people would have expressed the ideas behind these words i.e. perverse, winds, fecundating/injecting, rope/connection and jugular vein, then yes. If the Arabs had not used these words or heard them from other Arabs before than they would have had no idea of what they meant when they were used in the Quran. Which would imply that the Quran invented Arabic words not in the naturally used vocabular and grammatical system of Classical (then colloquial) Arabic used by the pre-islamic arabs. And that frankly would be absurd as the Quran says that it is using a clear and eloquent Arabic of that day, not inventing a new language.
It is quite unsound logic. Language is never static. New words and terms introduced by Qur'aan does not mean that Arabic language of that day was not eloquent. Both words were there in the language independent of each other, Qur'aan grouped them as metaphor to introduce a scientific/physical fact not visible to naked eye. Winds taking up the nuclei to initiate the process of making rain drops. People of those times also understood a reality from the use of this term, as fecundating winds with relation to plants, so it was not English to Arabs of that time. Sounds of the language has meanings, universally, only when these are scripted.
-
Again this is not a challenge at all. this is from the root yasara (ya, seen, raa). It is form/measure II, yassara (yaa, seen(shaddah), raa). It is also first person plural (we). When in imperfect (present tense) it will follow the form noon (dommah) yaa (fathah), seen(shaddah, kasrah), raa (dommah for nominative/marfoo'. The word here means 'we make easy.'
The prefixes are faa' (pronounced fa) which means 'so/and/but/however/moreover' and seen (pronounced 'sa' here) whcih is the future marker. The suffix is a haa' and is pronounced 'hu' it means as we saw previously 'it' or 'he'.
Taking all this into account the Arabic word above means 'we will make it/him easy.'
I am really shocked at these questions badar, but fire away, if it helps it helps. By the way the prefixes and suffixes are attached to these words but they have their own meanings which add to the meaning of the key word in between (nuyassiru).
Do you not find the time or the money for Arabic lessons where you live? WHy don't you just start sending me pm's and istead of call these grammatical challenges as they are really just grammar lessons for you.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, thanks a lot again for your reply. Furthermore, my heartiest thanks for offering private Arabic Grammar lessons. However, if it is okay with you, I would like to continue this discourse in open, for general audiences to view and benefit as well.
Now let me ask you this. How confident are you that this is how prophet or his companion understood this word? What I mean by this is, are you certain that they knew all this grammatical jargon. This may be a difficult question to answer. Let me ask you this, are you sure that in the work of preservation of language in the lexicons and Arabic Grammar, when preservation started. This is, how it was understood? If so, do you have a reference that this word was understood like, you have explained? If so, please share your reference with us.
Badar
-
Peace,
I can say very confidently that this is how even the prophet (God bless him) understood this word. I am not sure if English is your native language, but whatevever it is you understand all of its rules and how it is spoken without the jargon (although you can take English classes and learn the jargon for all of the grammar and words that you use). You know this from constant repitition, listening and speaking. Also you know about this from correction, mostly as a child. It is only when trying to teach a language to another person that his jargon becomes useful. Linguists also have classified all these terms that are common in languages in order to make studying (and comparing) easier as well. So to simplify it, the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) and his companions and his parents and grandparents, etc. etc. did not know fa'-'ala as measure II of fa'ala (measure I). But they knew what it meant and that it is different from all of the other measures. They knew what it connoted and they knew all of its active and passive participles and all of the things associated with it that we have jargon for even though they did not know the jargon that we use today. You get me? The jargon was invented to explain the language in a more organized and standardized fashion. But the phenomena that the jargon explains was NOT invented and is integral to the language.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I can say very confidently that this is how even the prophet (God bless him) understood this word. I am not sure if English is your native language, but whatevever it is you understand all of its rules and how it is spoken without the jargon (although you can take English classes and learn the jargon for all of the grammar and words that you use). You know this from constant repitition, listening and speaking. Also you know about this from correction, mostly as a child. It is only when trying to teach a language to another person that his jargon becomes useful. Linguists also have classified all these terms that are common in languages in order to make studying (and comparing) easier as well. So to simplify it, the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) and his companions and his parents and grandparents, etc. etc. did not know fa'-'ala as measure II of fa'ala (measure I). But they knew what it meant and that it is different from all of the other measures. They knew what it connoted and they knew all of its active and passive participles and all of the things associated with it that we have jargon for even though they did not know the jargon that we use today. You get me? The jargon was invented to explain the language in a more organized and standardized fashion. But the phenomena that the jargon explains was NOT invented and is integral to the language.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, a very rationale answer. I do not doubt a bit that they did not understand it. Indeed and undoubtedly they completely understood it. Your description depicts linguistic facts. However, we also know that they did not write rules of grammar. This preservation started later on. Hence, my question was more pertaining to this process. These grammatical rules in most languages are also evolving. Hence, Arabic cannot be an exception. Therefore, my question was that, you have any knowledge how many rules were described in earlier times and how many are more recent.
Badar