I can say no more than just a Wow!
-
Where did "Watch out" come from ?
its comes from to b careful... watchout , everytime you do research... just kidding
-
(96101)
abdan
A slave N ? accusative masculine indefinite noun(96102)
idh
when T ? time adverb(96103)
all
he prays? V ? 3rd person masculine singular (form II) perfect verbHow can the above text become this Watch out, worship is a slavery.
Where did "Watch out" come from ?
idh means "lo behold". When is meaning of Idh. No one uses "lo behold" in English any more. Its meaning is "Watch out", look or pay attention etc.
https//www.google.com/search?q=www.google.com&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoften-USIE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#q=behold+definition -
But here Rabb takes a (deeper?) meaning of "manage your affairs", making every occurence of "Rabb" referring to the person itself i.e "manage MY affairs" and not to a third party that is a "Lord" (i.e the Maker, Creator).
You cannot make a one syllable word containing only two letters to mean anything advanced. The word means something like Developer. For the same reason the Jews called their spiritual teachers for "Rabbi", because it means something like "he who develops", but more comprehensibly understood as "teacher".
More morphologically perceived, Rabb means "Foundation-Giver". The best one word translation in English I could make of that is developer hence the above explanation. An alternative would be sustainer, but the word carries a more explicit meaning of providing development. One who can provide a foundation improves the life situation for people through growth.
Be well
Amenuel -
I agree with you Man Of Faith, hence why I'm confused by the translation given in the original post.
961
You gather it together in order to manage your affairs with the help of timeless knowledge that was proportioned for this purpose.
Rabbi'ka is "Your Rabb", which part of the translation above refers to Rabb ?
-
I agree with you Man Of Faith, hence why I'm confused by the translation given in the original post.
Rabbi'ka is "Your Rabb", which part of the translation above refers to Rabb ?
Rabb also means "managing affairs". You are having problems understanding because you are thinking and are used to viewing the world from lenses of a created personalized god of religion Islam. Would suggest to research and read a write up titled as "linguistic riddle solved for those who want to learn" on this very forum.
-
I agree with you Man Of Faith, hence why I'm confused by the translation given in the original post.
Rabbi'ka is "Your Rabb", which part of the translation above refers to Rabb ?
I cannot make any sense of the translation.
961
My word by word "Make manifest about the attribute of your Rabb the one (who) shaped.." The passage is supposed to continue from that point, it is not a complete sentence, and the continuous discourse is necessary to make a definite rendition.
Be well
Amenuel -
I cannot make any sense of the translation.
961
My word by word "Make manifest about the attribute of your Rabb the one (who) shaped.." The passage is supposed to continue from that point, it is not a complete sentence, and the continuous discourse is necessary to make a definite rendition.
Be well
AmenuelLanguage has several parts. Syntax is equally important in understanding the language. While words are building block with their meanings of own. How these are arranged in sentence imparts more meanings.
This is a verbal sentence.
an imperative verb, is the verb of verbal sentence, as well itself a whole sentence. It's root is Qaf-Ra-Alif. Its primary meanings is "he gathered it together". Meanings of recite is not primary meanings and is written in Lane with two horizontal bars implying this origin of root meaning to times of the classic Arabic are very very doubtful.
After, verb next part of a verbal sentence is "Faail". Which can not be by rule of Syntax " a prepositional phrase". Which is what we have next in order. Hence, only qualifier for this position is . I will stop here for you to verify, what I have said, as you seem interested in understanding and not just ridiculing without bases or just on faith alone.
-
Language has several parts. Syntax is equally important in understanding the language. While words are building block with their meanings of own. How these are arranged in sentence imparts more meanings.
This is a verbal sentence.
an imperative verb, is the verb of verbal sentence, as well itself a whole sentence. It's root is Qaf-Ra-Alif. Its primary meanings is "he gathered it together". Meanings of recite is not primary meanings and is written in Lane with two horizontal bars implying this origin of root meaning to times of the classic Arabic are very very doubtful.
After, verb next part of a verbal sentence is "Faail". Which can not be by rule of Syntax " a prepositional phrase". Which is what we have next in order. Hence, only qualifier for this position is . I will stop here for you to verify, what I have said, as you seem interested in understanding and not just ridiculing without bases or just on faith alone.
That's not true.
-
The faail "the one applying the verb" that you're looking for is IMPLICIT
961
You gather it together in order to manage your affairs with the help of timeless knowledge that was proportioned for this purpose.
is indeed a verb in imperative tense (in arabic it's literally an "order" tense, as in "Do it!"
To make it simple, looking at the "Do it" example, the "faail" i.e the one applying the verb"the subject" is "You", it's Implicit as you can see and not shown in the sentence. Same thing in arabic and its called Hidden.
After, verb next part of a verbal sentence is "Faail". Which can not be by rule of Syntax " a prepositional phrase". Which is what we have next in order. Hence, only qualifier for this position is
So you chose Rabbi'ka as the faail. nope
For further explanation, while keeping it simple there is a second verb in that verse too
past verb, its faail ? Implicit and refers to HE, translate it to whatever verb you found in your dictionnary, "created" would be it for me. If you check the previous word "Rabbi'ka" the previous HE is actually referring to Rabb, the link between the two is "" easily translated to "that".Gather them you get Rabbi'ka that created.
Now we already know what's Rabb, the "ka" is simply "your"
Finally we get Your Rabb that created.Link it to the first part of the verse, I'll go with "recite" as the first verb so it's gonna be
"Recite in the name of your Rabb that created"the following website might help http//www.learnarabiconline.com/sentence-parsing.shtml
-
I was hopping that at last there is someone who is ready and capable of rationale discussion on this forum. I would present evidence of the real meanings of just the first word letter root and its meanings. Recite is written with two horizontal bar further down. Lane gives explanation of his annotations of two horizontal bars in his preface. Two horizontal bars signify really very very broken signification as original meaning of the root.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000030.pdf
-
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Be/Do/Make Manifest With Feature Rabb One Shaped
You cannot make void Arabic grammar when rendering a translation.
And I did once ask you to break down your renditions into tiny pieces in order to explain morphology why you reach to such conclusions that you do. You got some explaining to do.
And original manuscript's Arabic does not contain any "bars" if you refer to diacritical markers. I do not recognize them. In my world a word does always mean the same no matter occurrence. This was just a way for the ancient interpreters to be able to extract multiple meanings to shape their interpretation as according to themselves. My remake of Quran's passages have removed every diacritical marker except a few which seem native such as (alef with madda) used to mark emphatic stress not altering the meaning but like I wrote give emphasis to a word and is noticed in pronunciation by stress on the letter.
Be well
Amenuel -
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Be/Do/Make Manifest With Feature Rabb One Shaped
You cannot make void Arabic grammar when rendering a translation.
And I did once ask you to break down your renditions into tiny pieces in order to explain morphology why you reach to such conclusions that you do. You got some explaining to do.
And original manuscript's Arabic does not contain any "bars" if you refer to diacritical markers. I do not recognize them. In my world a word does always mean the same no matter occurrence. This was just a way for the ancient interpreters to be able to extract multiple meanings to shape their interpretation as according to themselves. My remake of Quran's passages have removed every diacritical marker except a few which seem native such as (alef with madda) used to mark emphatic stress not altering the meaning but like I wrote give emphasis to a word and is noticed in pronunciation by stress on the letter.
Be well
AmenuelPeace,
very good interpretation, this indeed almost captures the essense of this ayah.
i say almost because of course the depth is greater than any single word. 'a picture says a thousand words' and every letter is a picture, surely as Allh reminds us, even if the trees of the earth were pens and the sea ink, and the like thereof, still the Words of Allh would not be exausted. And i firmly trust that it is true even if all man and jinn gathered to produce the quran they couldnt.
I have been working, largely in vain to interpret the quran (translate it) into another language (english, and maori), but i realized, you realy cant.. but then it hit me, it just needs un-translating, back into the pictures that make it up, because then it is (with Gods will) easy to understand, although I must say, Immanuel, you have a insight for getting the essense of words. 'feature' and 'manifest' realy are quite good explanations of the concepts
peace, and may Allh bless you, and guide us all to a better understanding.
-
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
I actually agree with your lexical data, mine was very simplistic, and the way I wrote for example Rabbi'ka, the pronounciation of it is derived from my french, it would seem more reasonable for you as "Rabbe'ka". Anyways no big deal.
However I disagree with you regarding the "bars" or the "Tashkeel" and the reason why you said they were implemented by interpreters.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Take " B ' aseme " . Now normally with no "tashkeel" it would be written "asem", the reason why it's not "asema" or "asemo" is because it has the "B" or precisely "be" before it which gives it a grammatical role and subsequently the "ending sound", a straightforward rule in the arabic grammar (or whatever you may call it).
Same for Rabb ' ek, and why it is not Rabb ' ak or Rabb ' uk.
In fact, Rabb itself is implementing the "bars". The bar implemented https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadda gave the transliteration the reason to write it as "R(a)b-b" and not "R(a)b" (Knowing that Rabb is merely two letters R-B, and the "bar" on top of "R" made it explicit as "R(a)b" + the Shadda on top of the "b" made it "R(a)b-b"
Some of these "bars" (specially the ones at the end of the word) hold strong relationships with the grammatical position(or role) of the word itself, hence why "Rabb'e could be Rabb'a or Rabb'u in other conditions IN THE SENTENCE, and it could only be seen through transliteration as a consequence of the usage of the appropriate diacritical mark in the arabic language).
Therefore making anyone with basic grammar able to put the bars even on a text that has no bars in a very straightforward manner, and it would automatically reflect on the pronounciation and the transliteration. Bottom line is, those diacritical markers make a lot of things easier for the reader.
-
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Be/Do/Make Manifest With Feature Rabb One Shaped
You cannot make void Arabic grammar when rendering a translation.
And I did once ask you to break down your renditions into tiny pieces in order to explain morphology why you reach to such conclusions that you do. You got some explaining to do.
And original manuscript's Arabic does not contain any "bars" if you refer to diacritical markers. I do not recognize them. In my world a word does always mean the same no matter occurrence. This was just a way for the ancient interpreters to be able to extract multiple meanings to shape their interpretation as according to themselves. My remake of Quran's passages have removed every diacritical marker except a few which seem native such as (alef with madda) used to mark emphatic stress not altering the meaning but like I wrote give emphasis to a word and is noticed in pronunciation by stress on the letter.
Be well
AmenuelWhat do you understand is the source of the document under discussion? When and how did it come into existence or in other words who authored it? These are very important issues to be able to understand it. Do you care sharing your understanding?
-
I actually agree with your lexical data, mine was very simplistic, and the way I wrote for example Rabbi'ka, the pronounciation of it is derived from my french, it would seem more reasonable for you as "Rabbe'ka". Anyways no big deal.
However I disagree with you regarding the "bars" or the "Tashkeel" and the reason why you said they were implemented by interpreters.
Take " B ' aseme " . Now normally with no "tashkeel" it would be written "asem", the reason why it's not "asema" or "asemo" is because it has the "B" or precisely "be" before it which gives it a grammatical role and subsequently the "ending sound", a straightforward rule in the arabic grammar (or whatever you may call it).
Same for Rabb ' ek, and why it is not Rabb ' ak or Rabb ' uk.
In fact, Rabb itself is implementing the "bars". The bar implemented https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadda gave the transliteration the reason to write it as "R(a)b-b" and not "R(a)b" (Knowing that Rabb is merely two letters R-B, and the "bar" on top of "R" made it explicit as "R(a)b" + the Shadda on top of the "b" made it "R(a)b-b"
Some of these "bars" (specially the ones at the end of the word) hold strong relationships with the grammatical position(or role) of the word itself, hence why "Rabb'e could be Rabb'a or Rabb'u in other conditions IN THE SENTENCE, and it could only be seen through transliteration as a consequence of the usage of the appropriate diacritical mark in the arabic language).
Therefore making anyone with basic grammar able to put the bars even on a text that has no bars in a very straightforward manner, and it would automatically reflect on the pronounciation and the transliteration. Bottom line is, those diacritical markers make a lot of things easier for the reader.
Now I wanna add to what I previously said a case of deformation of the meaning by changing the diacritical marks.
Pickethall 302
"The Romans have been defeated"A simple change "in the beginning of the verb" more precisely by changing a mark on top of a letter to another the verb changed from "have defeated" to "have been defeated".
ghulibati vs ghalabati.
Anyways this ridiculous change can easily be spotted reading the entire verse. http//www.free-minds.org/where-was-mohammedThis is related to a change in the verb's form i.e not to be mixed with what I said before. As one verb is the root and adding letters in the beggining or the middle of it creates another verb (deriving from it), it could also be followed (in some cases) by changing the diacritical marks in the beggining or in the middle of the verb see the link Arabic verb forms
-
I actually agree with your lexical data, mine was very simplistic, and the way I wrote for example Rabbi'ka, the pronounciation of it is derived from my french, it would seem more reasonable for you as "Rabbe'ka". Anyways no big deal.
However I disagree with you regarding the "bars" or the "Tashkeel" and the reason why you said they were implemented by interpreters.
Take " B ' aseme " . Now normally with no "tashkeel" it would be written "asem", the reason why it's not "asema" or "asemo" is because it has the "B" or precisely "be" before it which gives it a grammatical role and subsequently the "ending sound", a straightforward rule in the arabic grammar (or whatever you may call it).
Same for Rabb ' ek, and why it is not Rabb ' ak or Rabb ' uk.
In fact, Rabb itself is implementing the "bars". The bar implemented https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadda gave the transliteration the reason to write it as "R(a)b-b" and not "R(a)b" (Knowing that Rabb is merely two letters R-B, and the "bar" on top of "R" made it explicit as "R(a)b" + the Shadda on top of the "b" made it "R(a)b-b"
Some of these "bars" (specially the ones at the end of the word) hold strong relationships with the grammatical position(or role) of the word itself, hence why "Rabb'e could be Rabb'a or Rabb'u in other conditions IN THE SENTENCE, and it could only be seen through transliteration as a consequence of the usage of the appropriate diacritical mark in the arabic language).
Therefore making anyone with basic grammar able to put the bars even on a text that has no bars in a very straightforward manner, and it would automatically reflect on the pronounciation and the transliteration. Bottom line is, those diacritical markers make a lot of things easier for the reader.
I am not using diacritics. I was speaking out the letters in formation, and that phonologically. It was not much more different than writing phoneme in English. When you speak this ancient Arabic fluently there would be a very faint sound at the end of B ' aseme as you make the reference to Rabb.
Just like with Rabbi'k it might be more plausible with a more distinct "yi" sound since the letter's name is actually "miim", so you have a point. But I said Rabb' ek because is 'b?e?'. If I was more patient I would add the proper phonemes by established linguists.
I do not recognize diacritics and they are later additions. I do not use official transliteration in order to present Arabic, because that is something the medieval clerics messed up with and they did not know how to pronounce proper Arabic. The language is less rough than it sounds by those who speak the clerical version. It is full of vowels and very soft.
Be well
Amenuel -
Nevertheless it does not make any difference to the topic at hand. Phonology is just how it sounds in speech. I tend to favor very ancient ways of regarding the letters. You can make out what the language wishes to convey as long as you know the letters. They are the key towards understanding. This language literally speaks from its very letters.