A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
Your conclusions are wrong. Hamzatul-wasl or alif-al-wasl are not prosthetic. They belong to the word. If you cannot find alif, haa and lam in the dicitonary you need to get another dictionary and look a little harder because it is in there.
Godbless,
AnwarThanks and peace, let us talk about more well know case and word. For example and . Please see referance below from Wright if does not open go to page 19 and Lane's page. Which last time you thought was still authentic referances.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000159.pdf
http//www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol1.pdfPeace
Badar
-
Ism and ahl are different. Ism is known to be a special case. However what applies to ism does not apply to ahl. This can be seen more in the verbs that they are associated with. ism is associated with samaa and ahl with ahala. Also you should understand that there are many strange occurrences in Arabic (they are however a minority in the language) that are associated with and can be traced back to archaic verbal forms or archaic known forms. Sometimes even loan words.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Thanks again and peace. How about ? When one says . This Alif disappears again. If it were not Alif of ease of pronunciation i.e., Alif required at the beginning of words starting with two consonants and first being sakin; which could not be pronounced in Arabic without adding Alif or Hamza tul wasal. It would not disappear like it does with out altering the meanings of the words. The meanings still remains the same, with or without Alif. It is not rare a phenomenon; in fact it is the rule and there are so many other words as an example. E.H. Palmer makes it adundantly clear in his book of Arabic Grammar.
Peace.
Badar
-
Ism and ahl are different. Ism is known to be a special case. However what applies to ism does not apply to ahl. This can be seen more in the verbs that they are associated with. ism is associated with samaa and ahl with ahala. Also you should understand that there are many strange occurrences in Arabic (they are however a minority in the language) that are associated with and can be traced back to archaic verbal forms or archaic known forms. Sometimes even loan words.
Godbless,
AnwarIf Im not mistaken ism mean is name. Have a look at asma ulhusna (good name, ismi-hasan).
-
Peace,
Farabi, don't waste your time with these simplicities. I and everyone involved in this conversation knows that. Badar, the alif is a funny creature. In many cases when it follows a vowel from a previous word or pronunciation it will be swallowed up. I believe this is part of the rules of idgham. It happens When you say muhammad ibn abdullah it is pronounced muhammadinibni 'abdillaahi. The noon on the nunation is followed by a kasrah which is is why the alif is swallowed up. This happens in the case of alif maddah and in other cases. It has just become the custom to drop the alif out of the text. I'm sure this has a name as well but this is the basic concept. Before being quick to respond back think about what I said. Yes this phenomena has a name and I am not giving the name here, but I am explaining what happens and why. Please understand this, depsite the fact that I have not given a categorized name for it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Farabi, don't waste your time with these simplicities. I and everyone involved in this conversation knows that. Badar, the alif is a funny creature. In many cases when it follows a vowel from a previous word or pronunciation it will be swallowed up. I believe this is part of the rules of idgham. It happens When you say muhammad ibn abdullah it is pronounced muhammadinibni 'abdillaahi. The noon on the nunation is followed by a kasrah which is is why the alif is swallowed up. This happens in the case of alif maddah and in other cases. It has just become the custom to drop the alif out of the text. I'm sure this has a name as well but this is the basic concept. Before being quick to respond back think about what I said. Yes this phenomena has a name and I am not giving the name here, but I am explaining what happens and why. Please understand this, depsite the fact that I have not given a categorized name for it.
Godbless,
AnwarSo now please tell then in our word of intrest. It has nun before it. . I agree alif has lots of purposes and uses. Why is this alif here for? If this is not a hamza til wasl.
Badar
-
Peace,
Badar, it is part of the word ahl.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, please consider this; if you have not looked up this word in Lane, so far. Here is the link for your review, please. Point to be noted that, Lane gives no references to any other Arabic Lexicon or Lexigrapher except, Imam Raghib Isfahani for this word. We know Imam died in 502 AH. This was the time when Arabic and meanings of Quran were already lost. Poor Imam, was put to death in attempting to revive both. Hence, though as honest in his attempt, he can not be completely authentic with out other references. This further implies that this word was not worthy for other lexigrapher to even record. As particle "hal" was well known and "alif" only added as for tajweed hamza til wasl or as interogative "alif". Either of these would be the case due jezm on "Haa". After you have reviewed the link page, as well given a thought to my line of reasoning. I shall continue this discourse.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000158.pdf
PeaceBadar
-
I disagree with your reasoning. Go check the lexicons in Arabic. Muhit al-Muhit, Lisan al-Arab and others. The Arabic language had not been lost by then, however these later lexicographers were mainly collecting early works and analyzing earlier works of Arabic to properly compile their later editions as a more unified and better organized book than what had been scattered and maybe not as well organized before. That is the problem with only dealing with one dictionary. You must consult as many Classical Arabic dictionaries as possible to try to get the full picture of a word. I'm sure Mr. Isfahani also has older sources for his dictionary but because you only consulted lane you would not know this. I would not negatively prejudge Arabic lexographers unless you have a very specific and really valid reason to do this. This is not like hadeeth, which is the classification and recording of rumor. And you must provide more evidences than just a birth date, because his sources were most likely written much earlier. Many of these old Lexicographers were actually working from even older texts that no longer survive.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I disagree with your reasoning. Go check the lexicons in Arabic. Muhit al-Muhit, Lisan al-Arab and others. The Arabic language had not been lost by then, however these later lexicographers were mainly collecting early works and analyzing earlier works of Arabic to properly compile their later editions as a more unified and better organized book than what had been scattered and maybe not as well organized before. That is the problem with only dealing with one dictionary. You must consult as many Classical Arabic dictionaries as possible to try to get the full picture of a word. I'm sure Mr. Isfahani also has older sources for his dictionary but because you only consulted lane you would not know this. I would not negatively prejudge Arabic lexographers unless you have a very specific and really valid reason to do this. This is not like hadeeth, which is the classification and recording of rumor. And you must provide more evidences than just a birth date, because his sources were most likely written much earlier. Many of these old Lexicographers were actually working from even older texts that no longer survive.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, now I am disappointed and saddened as well. The only person whom I thought was using some rationale is going back to conjunctures only. Lane is based on almost all authentic Arabic Lexicon available until his time. He starts of with references for every word. Hence this is not one, but in reality is a combination of all authentic Classical Arabic Lexicons, in one.
I do not know if you can read Urdu or not. But lot on this forum can not. Here is reference from G.A Pervaiz. Where he is referencing to indicate people are not even sure of this word if taken in real conventional meaning of ?family, people, etc?. What its root may be? May be Hebrew
http//www.tolueislam.com/Urdu/lq/lq_alif.djvu go page 93/105.
I shall get back with Lisan Al Arab soon.
Peace,
Badar
-
Here are further links. "Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qur'an" by Abul-Qasim Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Raghib al-Isfahani
Book 1, page 29/557. Starts off with word , no referances. Just sentences which were used likely at his time, 500 years after AH.
http//www.aboutquran.com/res/lex/rIsfahani/MufradatRaghib.pdf
Al Muit not considered very authentic by lot and considered to have lots of errors.
Peace,
Badar
-
I know there are lot of good intented people on this forum as well arround the globe. To them it is again my humble call and request to please come and join hands to revive the dead language and hence message itself.
This is a real challenge for all Arab linguists. Did tribe of Kureysh pronounced words with Hemza?
Peace,
Badar
I am bringing back this part of discussion. I would request to all, please read footnote in Wright, pages 72-73 3rd revised edition. This very clearly points out that, Hemza was not pronounced by prophet and his tribe. Also pointing out that original script being written in dialect of Hijaz, had no Hamzas. It further points out the changes that have taken place in language, as well written script of Quran over time.
Please, please come forwards and join hands for Rabb's sake. Just to seek the real understanding of the message; can we not put our personal beliefs and egos aside?
Peace,
Badar