A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
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 -
Peace,
Hmmm. I cannot reference ancient grammar books nor was I there in the schools where they taught Arabic poetry, grammar, etc. So I do not know HOW they explained all of this at any particular time. It is safe however to say that many of the terms we have jazm, jarr, raf' etc. are from these early days of people trying to codify how Arabic was spoken to bel able to teach it more correctly to others and later generations. This was mainly done because as all languages do, Arabic was evolving. It was evolving (being corrupted. However you wanna call it) into the many Arabic dialects we have today. There was also a second intentional evolution which is MSA or modern standard Arabic (also called fus-haa by some but is really 'arabiyyah mu'asirah). It is the old classical Arabic of the QUran, arabic poems and the hadeeth with many stylistic and some grammatical phenomena struck from use preference for lack of use of case endings, lack of the excitative, lack of confirming participle 'la', preferred use of VSO(verb/subject/object) because of lack of case endings, and in most cases the complete ommision of jussive and subjunctive moods. However msa fits into the greater and more archaic fus-haa but breaks the rules of fus-haa with its omission of case endings and subjunctive and jussive moods.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Hmmm. I cannot reference ancient grammar books nor was I there in the schools where they taught Arabic poetry, grammar, etc. So I do not know HOW they explained all of this at any particular time. It is safe however to say that many of the terms we have jazm, jarr, raf' etc. are from these early days of people trying to codify how Arabic was spoken to bel able to teach it more correctly to others and later generations. This was mainly done because as all languages do, Arabic was evolving. It was evolving (being corrupted. However you wanna call it) into the many Arabic dialects we have today. There was also a second intentional evolution which is MSA or modern standard Arabic (also called fus-haa by some but is really 'arabiyyah mu'asirah). It is the old classical Arabic of the QUran, arabic poems and the hadeeth with many stylistic and some grammatical phenomena struck from use preference for lack of use of case endings, lack of the excitative, lack of confirming participle 'la', preferred use of VSO(verb/subject/object) because of lack of case endings, and in most cases the complete ommision of jussive and subjunctive moods. However msa fits into the greater and more archaic fus-haa but breaks the rules of fus-haa with its omission of case endings and subjunctive and jussive moods.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Brother Anwar and other brothers and sisters
I have been reading these sites with my utmost prayers to our Creator, to make me and all of us understand the exact meanings of Qur'Aanic verses as they were understood by the people of the language at the time of Prophet Mohammad(S) and his companions, so we could be at the right message and not arrive at the conclusions by conjecturing.
It was with great interest that I started to read the chapters on Gezm, Shadda, Sukun, and few other simple grammar rules from Lanes and Wright. What I understood from these readings and from the various discussions on this forum, that Qur'Aan script does not necessarily use the cursive writing technique, but extensively uses joining of one or more words with the help of the above signs. If it is so then these multiple words, jointed together, could erroneously appear as one, when in fact, they need to be broken at the above signs, and meanings separated for all the words present in the jointed compound, before we could actually understand as to what that sentence might be saying.
I see that using this technique, few of our Brothers have been posting their understanding of the Qur'Aanic verses, by breaking the words at the above signs and using the grammar rules and thus finding as to what are the words in those "compouded scripted words" and looking up at all those words in Lanes and then conceptualising the new sentences that come out of it, with almost different, but very profound meanings. When I was reading different translations before, my elders always told me to accept it as it has been explained that way by Ulema for centuties, although a lot of time it gave me no real insight into the message. When I started to look at these meanings posted here and at www.servantofthelight.com, suddenly a more clear message started to appear to a naive like me.
Can some one, like Brother Anwar and other peopole with interest in linguistics, look at the concepts of Gezm, Shadda, Sukoon and other simple grammar rules, one more time, as is suggested by these brothers, and test out the technique promoted by these brothers to see if that is possibly the right linguistic technique. If it is so , can someone please use it, apply it, as they are applying, and check to see wether those newer concepts in meanings are more closer to what our Creator may have said in Qur'Aan. If it is not so, then do we need to go go back to the preconceived meanings pounded into our minds by previous and even a lot of current generations of our Ulema, who claim that the language is clear and obvious to them and they do not need to look at these concepts, since they understand it better.
Can some one with understanding, for a moment look at all of this, with a clean slate of mind, one more time to see if we may have been wrong all along, without being ashamed of it, and see if the script wrting technique at that time was such that multiple words were joined togeter, and we really need to break them down with the help of Gezm, sukoon, etc., as has been done at www.servantofthelight.com, where new understanding of the words are being posted. If this technique is proved with reasons to be wrong, then we can stop looking at it, otherwise we all may have to join hands with them, without being ashamed of accepting our possible errors in decoding the script.
The reason that we need to look at it with a clear slate of mind again is, as I see it now, that with the current knowledge and understanding of Qur'Aan, it is hard to claim that we have the Book where the meanings are more profound and we can put a constituion for peace for humanity, better than anyone else. We have no consensus at all. The world sees Qur'Aan as book of punishments, scaring sentences, using gifts in the hereafetr to attract people and some biblical stories and a few words about good deeds claimed by all others too.
I see Islam as not just a religion like all other religions, but in fact it is Deen-e Islam and not just Mazhab-e- Islam. Qur'Aan calls it Deen-e- Islam, which I think means Path and journey to peace, with Muslim as the bearer of peace, and Qur'Aan being a source of guidance to this journey to peace, rather than a set of do this and do not do that, like all other religions do, with everyone claiming that their do's and dont's are better than others.I pray to our Creator to make us understand his guiding message in a way that our Prophet (S) and his companions understood it.
-
Peace,
I think the site is mistaken a bit. THe jazm, kasrah etc. were signs invented later on to represent the Quan being recited. Also the breakdown of Al-Quran is completely false. The website's denunciation of Sibawayah has not basis and we have no proof the story it proposes. I'll have to review the site some more. But it seems it may be completely wrong as it concerns the study of Classical Arabic grammar. Just because Sibawayah was persian does not limit his ability to be a competent and even masterful Arabic linguist.
Godbless,
Anwar