AlFathia
-
From my website http//haqeeqat.pk/Word%20by%20Word.htm
Elisions
It is made explicit at the very outset of the Divine Discourse that Arabic is a pro-drop language. Taking care of elisions in the source text and incorporating it in target language text are important to correctly convey the perception embedded therein. Ellipses at the sentence level is distinguished from other types of omissions by the condition of recoverability. The basic principle of ellipsis is that nothing can be omitted unless it can be recovered. Recoverability is the essential condition put forward by Arab grammarians for ellipsis. Ellipsis is not allowed if there are no indicators to help the addressee to identify the elided elements.
Since Grand Qur?n is for the humanity, its first audience were the people of Mecca and surrounding localities. Further, while reading Grand Qur?n, it must be kept in mind that it was gradually-intermittently revealed to the Messenger who then communicated it to the people of those days. Therefore, while conveying an Ayah?unitary verbal passage wherein some element is elided, it was so because it was already in their knowledge and they were quite familiar about it. Its mentioning would have cost redundancy.
Arabs dislike using larger quantity of words and like to convey voluminous information by employing minimum words. It also reflects that the Arabic language regards its listener and reader as a responsible, attentive and intelligent person who focuses his listening and perception faculties on that which is being stated. Thus the placing of words which could compromise the literary par excellence of the text along with offence to the first listeners, it is elided. The elisions are conspicuous by grammatical structures; and for the readers of later time-frame the semantics of the elided element are also mentioned at another place with repetition of key words in the elliptical sentences.
............
The first sentence of Qur'an is visibly ecliptic since it has neither subject noun and predicate which are necessary parts of nominal sentence; nor it has verb and object which are parts of a verbal sentence.
It is clear from the contents of the sentence that it is elliptical.
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/001.%20Al%20Fateha/1.01a.gif
Elided Verb The elevated Messenger of Allah the Exalted pronounced
"Ar'Reh'maan the Personal Name of Allah the Exalted is the recourse.
Ar'Reh'maan is eternally the Fountain of Infinite Mercy".
Pl find time to read detailed analysis
Ayah 11 Analysis
Is it above not all based upon tradition? Please remove yourself for a minute from all these traditions of prophet pronouncing it, etc. Look at this verse just as text of any book. A person without this traditional knowledge reading it, how he is supposed to understand it?
Let me capture this discussion in few sentences.
-
You claimed the verse 11 to be an elliptical sentence. I have provided you the concept of elliptical sentence from English with references. Which clearly says "a sentence could be elliptical only if the information elided is already provided to listeners". You can't show this to be the case with this verse. Instead you keep reverting to traditional accounts. Which is what Tabri's translation is all about. Although, you deny defending it, but in practice this is exactly what you keep doing.
-
You are unable to point a reference from most Authentic translation of Arabic grammar rules book by William Wright any mention of a category of Elliptical sentence or its definition and rules. Which implies that Arabs who wrote grammar rules had no clue about elliptical sentences. Yet, you insist upon this verse as an elliptical sentence.
-
You keep rejecting all reason and logic based deductions within confines of established rules suggesting that this possessive phrase should be considered as Subject of the sentence despite lack of nominative case, since its first part is a prepositional phrase necessitating use of genitive case. However, you give no counter reason and logic, except saying that subject of a sentence has to be always in nominative. This also I have not found to be the case in such explicit and strict terms in Wright. If I have missed anything in this regards you please point it out to me from Wright that a Subject has to be always in nominative and no exceptions.
-
-
Which clearly says "a sentence could be elliptical only if the information elided is already provided to listeners".
Your problem is that you read one and the same thing differently whenever you respond.
Earlier you said
This is how an elliptical sentence is defined in English.
"An elliptical sentence refers to sentences with information missing. This form does not require an ellipsis. These sentences are grammatically correct only if the necessary information to understand the sentence has been supplied previously or is clear from the context of the sentence. As you will see from the examples below, written English would look quite strange if every elliptical sentence had an ellipsis in it."
I told you it is evident from the fact of absence of subject and predicate in the Ayah that it is elliptical sentence. All words of the Ayah are in genitive case, and words in genitive case are neither subject nor predicate.
Did you read this in my post
The basic principle of ellipsis is that nothing can be omitted unless it can be recovered. Recover-ability is the essential condition put forward by Arab grammarians for ellipsis. Ellipsis is not allowed if there are no indicators to help the addressee to identify the elided elements.
-
However, you give no counter reason and logic, except saying that subject of a sentence has to be always in nominative. This also I have not found to be the case in such explicit and strict terms in Wright.
Try reading Wright with little wide open eyes. In all references of sentences you will see subject in nominative case.
-
The basic principle of ellipsis is that nothing can be omitted unless it can be recovered. Recover-ability is the essential condition put forward by Arab grammarians for ellipsis. Ellipsis is not allowed if there are no indicators to help the addressee to identify the elided elements.
Please share from this verse the indicators within this verse that can help the addresses to identify elided elements from this verse?
-
Please share from this verse the indicators within this verse that can help the addresses to identify elided elements from this verse?
It means you have not glanced through the link I gave about analysis of Ayah.
These two words constitute the first grammatical unit . It comprises of a Prepositional Phrase + Possessive Phrase. The learned grammarians lay the principle that a Prepositional Phrase in Arabic is neither the Subject nor the predicate of a sentence. It relates to either. Therefore, a verb-verbal noun is understood and conveniently estimated before this phrase. We need a citation for a statement. A written word or a statement is firstly spoken by someone; thereby it is reiterated in time and space. We know the Person who orally and in writing communicated the Parlance?the Discourse?verbal Message of Allah the Exalted that we are reading and trying to translate and comprehend in target language English. Therefore, the elided Verb before the statement of universal import that can most appropriately be estimated is "Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam, the elevated Messenger of Allah the Exalted Pronounced that------". The structure of sentence is simple and is of declarative type.
This sentence of Ayah also occurs second time which facilitates understanding it as relating to predicate of verb like particle
Indeed it is sent by Suleiman?and it preludes?
"Ar'Reh'maan the Personal Name of Allah the Exalted is the recourse ?Who is eternally the Fountain of Infinite Mercy".
-
It means you have not glanced through the link I gave about analysis of Ayah.
These two words constitute the first grammatical unit . It comprises of a Prepositional Phrase + Possessive Phrase. The learned grammarians lay the principle that a Prepositional Phrase in Arabic is neither the Subject nor the predicate of a sentence. It relates to either. Therefore, a verb-verbal noun is understood and conveniently estimated before this phrase. We need a citation for a statement. A written word or a statement is firstly spoken by someone; thereby it is reiterated in time and space. We know the Person who orally and in writing communicated the Parlance?the Discourse?verbal Message of Allah the Exalted that we are reading and trying to translate and comprehend in target language English. Therefore, the elided Verb before the statement of universal import that can most appropriately be estimated is "Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam, the elevated Messenger of Allah the Exalted Pronounced that------". The structure of sentence is simple and is of declarative type.
This sentence of Ayah also occurs second time which facilitates understanding it as relating to predicate of verb like particle
Indeed it is sent by Suleiman?and it preludes?
"Ar'Reh'maan the Personal Name of Allah the Exalted is the recourse ?Who is eternally the Fountain of Infinite Mercy".
Yes that is an explanation again based upon traditional accounts. You have not pointed out any indicators within the the text/verse itself. Whereas, an elliptical sentence is where missing information is either provided before in the sentence or can be gleaned from context.
This brings the issue of analysis of word Allah itself. You have never commented on following. Care to take a look again.
"I am making few corrections in this write up based upon my discussion with an inquisitive soul. He kept asking me repeated questions. This led me to re-look my write up again. Now with increased understanding of the language. I have spotted few issues that I overlooked previously.
Main point of correction is word ?illah? or in Arabic script . This component of Allah can?t be as if it was the case this would add one more ?Alif? to spelling and hence making the linguistic analysis flawed. The word here is a verb from same three letter root. This means ?He worshiped or adored?.
Now let us substitute this word and its meanings in rest of the write up.
We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathe = he who, La = not and finally, . This would mean ?He who doesn?t do Alah?.
If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word ?alah? into the translation; this word which actually is a sentence would mean ?He who doesn?t at all worship or adore?.
This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?
Why should we trust this non-sense?
These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.
Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.
First of all let us analyze what traditionalists interpret this word to be?
And why they are wrong?
Traditionally, the word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al = in English ?The? and illah , meaning ?God? but in reality ?a deity for adoration and worship?.
Although, in actuality this "Al" here is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.
Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition ?Lee? is added in to a word beginning with a definite article ?Al? . Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article ?Al? joins with ?Lam? of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.
- 21 Alif of ?Al? gone, lam is present and preposition ?Lee? added.
2.. 47 and 432, is the word same concept.
However, for the word when the same preposition is added. We find that the ?Lam? of the supposed definite article ?Al? also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as (in reality one cannot type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).
Example, 12 and 115 more places 222, 298 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.
Whereas, allathi being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this in script and not
Furthermore, although both Lane and Wright cite the contraction of as . Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.677
Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
799
Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!
Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathi".
Let us, continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another alif above . In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fatha shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The ?alif? above Shadda, is called a ?dagger alif? and is written over many other words instead being included in these words in the text of Quran. Since here it is written over Shadda, implying there are two ?alifs?.
Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the ?Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets?. This would be an apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.
Let us analysis why it is wrong? If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this Shadda in place once the ?Al?, if it were really ?Al? of definite article. As in the phrase is gone , as in the example above of . However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this Shadda is not due to ?Al? of a definite article coming before the word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of allathi. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already ?alif? at the start which is not considered a ?Sun letter?. Hence no Shadda would be have been added as cited above.
Let us, further show in Arabic script, how this concept could be explained? First, all three words are written separately, then allathi written as contracted and finally two sequential, Alifs 4+5 can be combined and written as one. However, these combined alifs are written above Shadda. This make two remaining ?Lams? 3+6 sequential and hence could be combined and are written as one below Shadda, to make apparently one looking word Allah.
= Let us do a consonant count, of words on left side of equation see if it matches with word on right side of equation.
Right side, Alif 1 + Lam 2 + Lam 3 + Alif 4 + Alif 5 + Lam 6 + Ha 7. There are total of 7 consonants on right side.
Left side, Alif 1 + Lam 2 + (in the middle due to Shadda there should be 4 consonants, two below two ?dager Alifs above it). If one were to pay attention to red consonants in right side of equation. Two lams 3 +6 are below Shadda and two Alifs 4+5 are written above Shadda), 7 Ha is written at the end combined with two ?Lam? combined together in the middle and below Shadda, to formThis clearly, further shows that the persistence of this Shadda is due, not to the Shadda of ?Al?; but in reality it indicates a real doubling of the consonants.
This means inescapably, that one was to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word. Allathe (written as a contraction in script as "Al", La and alah. This would further imply that the middle Shadda is suggesting ?two lams? and two alifs?.
Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately sentence would mean ?He who doesn?t at all worship or adore?.
- Lexicon of Arabic Language; Edward W Lane; 1968, Vol. 1, page 74.
- A Grammar of the Arabic Language; William Wright. Revised 3RD Edition, Dover Edition 2005 Vol. 1 page 269 D."
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599853.110
-
Although, in actuality this "Al" here is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.
Please quote some other word where it is contraction of .
-
I think you missed following part of write up.
Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.
677
Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
799
Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!
Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathi".
-
The definite article is not contraction of Relative Pronoun.
Mazhar, you asked for an evidence, I provided you with one that others have translated as relative noun "those" even in current translation. Furthermore, both Lexicon and Grammar book have this linguistic rule. I don't what else can be presented as evidence.
The situation with traditional believers is so bleak that even if prophet some how came back to tell them the truth. They would kill him, instead of considering the possibility that they have gone astray.
-
How about "outright deceived" for Al-qum al-khaserun?
Qum is a word which means upright or right or straight and Khasarun means to be deceived or ruined. Two attributes (adjectival) marked by AL is very common in Arabic.
The other one surely means to be disoriented, astray and the sentence probably says thus "outright astray/disoriented?.
It could also be slightly sarcastic for ?properly lost".
Issue is not what the meaning of the phrase should be, it is which word is translated as "those" or where from translators brought this meanings. They have not translated "al" as the definite article and rather as relative noun "those" which in Arabic is "allathi". Which is another evidence to prove that "al" can be a contraction of "allathi", beside being mentioned in both Lexicon and Grammar books.
-
You're correct. There's no "them" in the original Arabic sentence.
And I find it wrong Qum is used to give mention of people plus including elsewhere in Quran. This was probably done by ancient clergymen to validate their linguistic invention.
Please elaborate/explain further your statement in red?
-
Mazhar, you asked for an evidence, I provided you with one that others have translated as relative noun "those" even in current translation. Furthermore, both Lexicon and Grammar book have this linguistic rule. I don't what else can be presented as evidence.
The situation with traditional believers is so bleak that even if prophet some how came back to tell them the truth. They would kill him, instead of considering the possibility that they have gone astray.
Your mind is totally blocked. "Those" does not match Allaze.
And again look at words of the sentence, those is not reference for Al.
-
Peace Manny_E.
Have you tried to study/look at what Qoran is saying?
It will be interesting to give us your side of how you find the book if you looked at it in detail?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Clergymen invented their own interpretation of a language and words which have only one general meaning took many different meanings. For example, Qum's meaning is very straightforward, yet it appears to mean different things depending on context.
Personally, I don't think they knew much about the language and it's the understanding we've lived with for hundreds of years.
What kind of book is Quran anyways in how it looks? Some kind of primitive deity which has problems with attention-seeking and emotions? Either it's a false book or something is wrong. If one looks at it objectively and by logic, it seems very retarded.
Quran as we know today is a totally wrong understanding of the written text above. This Quranic understanding is based upon hearsay written by Tabari. All later attempts have been to rationalize this retarded translation. This is based upon my meager own research spread over 13-14 years for learning of the language. The concepts that I understand so far are grand and have potential for profound influence. These negate all religions and concepts related to religions.
For instance Allah is not a name of a god or deity. It in fact is not even a single word. It is a sentence meaning "One who doesn't engage in worship". If no one engages in worship there can be no god in religious sense as all gods exist due to worshiping worshipers.
However, I don't know yet that whole Quran is recoverable? Translation of whole text is fraught with extreme linguistic challenges as should be evident from discussion so far above. It needs a concerted, open minded and research oriented team efforts. I am chip-in with my pennies and meager efforts to create at least an awareness in this regards.
-
For instance Allah is not a name of a god or deity. It in fact is not even a single word. It is a sentence meaning "One who doesn't engage in worship". If no one engages in worship there can be no god in religious sense as all gods exist due to worshiping worshipers.
Salam/Peace Bkanwar2. I have a question Does God really means something to be worshipped? Because some have conflicting studies about the root word of God. In fact i am not sure if God is really a name but a descriptor noun or a title. I even have doubts that God is an object of worship. In fact why has no one check on the word God in a non-religious sense?
-
I agree the scripture is totally off in terms of its interpretation, but I also disagree with your attempt at reinterpretation, even if it is well-intentioned by you. For example, the word allah is as you said not a word for a deity, but it doesn't mean what you wrote.
Allah is a one-word construct which is based on the same word which the famous AL prefix is derived from but it's the full trilateral form, and it ends with third-person singular and there's a plural form too which is Allahem. Because it's using the same root as AL means it gives attribute of being something. Because the word focuses on itself the simple answer is it speaks of one's existence, person or object since the Heh pronoun can be an animate or inanimate object. Allah has much in resemblance to the common Elah word (Alef Lam Heh) which speaks about the being like of a person or object, which is the standard AL prefix and pronoun.
I accept anyone's words though and giving my own understanding while declaring I disagree with yours and it doesn't imply any hostile intention or derogatory remark.
/Manny
Salam Manny_E forgive me but what does full trilateral form mean? My skill in linguistic is poor.
-
Most Arabic words follow a special three letter sequence which we call roots. In the case of AL it is Alef-Lam-Lam, which Allah uses as "full root" for the construct.
Salam i have check both root words of Alif-Lam-Lam & Alif-Lam-ha
Alif-Lam-ha ( ه = to serve, worship or adore; to protect, grant refuge, preserve save, rescue, liberate; object of worship ie God; (Alif-Lam-Lam-ha) God, the one true God applied as a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essences of existing things.
allahumma "O God!" 326, 5114, 832, 1010, 3946
allah
"there is no god but God" 2255, 32, 318, 362, 487, 208, 2014, 2098, 2726, 2870, 3735, 3865, 4719, 5922, 5923, 6413
"He is God, that is God" 63, 695, 3513, 396
"Belonging to God" 2115, 2142, 2284, 328, 3109, 3129, 3180, 4126, 4131, 4131, 4132, 4170, 612, 6136, 6136, 81, 841, 1055, 1066, 142, 2385, 2387, 2389, 2464, 3126, 484, 487, 5325, 5331, 5710, 597, 637
"By God" 1273, 1285, 1291, 1295, 1656, 1663, 2157, 2697, 3756
"With or from God; in God's sight" ('ind Allah) 279, 294, 2110, 2217, 2282, 314, 337, 378, 378, 3163, 3198, 3198, 478, 478, 494, 6124, 7131, 7187, 822, 828, 855, 919, 920, 922, 936, 999, 1446, 1695, 1696, 2413, 2415, 2461, 2747, 2860, 3039, 3353, 3363, 3369, 4035, 4152, 4236, 4610, 485, 613, 6211, 6415, 7320
"God is with" 940, 4735
"Apart from God" (dun Allah) 223, 364, 5116, 916, 931, 1018, 1037, 1843, 1981, 2724, 2881, 2925, 3674, 3786, 4074, 4628, 5358, 7125
"Other than God" (ghayr Allah) 2173, 482, 53, 614, 619, 640, 646, 6114, 6145, 6164, 7140, 1596, 1652, 16115, 1722, 1739, 2122, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2871, 2872, 353, 3964, 5026, 5151, 5243ilah n.m. (pl. alihah) 2133, 2133, 2133, 2163, 2163, 4171, 573, 619, 931, 1452, 1622, 1622, 1651, 18110, 18110, 2098, 21108, 21108, 2234, 2234, 2838, 2946, 2946, 374, 385, 4037, 416, 416, 4384, 4384, 1143
other (false) gods - 2163, 2255, 32, 36, 318, 318, 362, 487, 573, 5116, 619, 646, 674, 6102, 6106, 759, 765, 773, 785, 7127, 7138, 7138, 7140, 7158, 931, 9129, 1090, 1114, 1150, 1153, 1154, 1161, 1184, 11101, 1330, 1596, 162, 1651, 1722, 1739, 1742, 1814, 1815, 1946, 1981, 208, 2014, 2088, 2088, 2097, 2098, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2125, 2129, 2136, 2143, 2159, 2162, 2168, 2187, 2199, 2323, 2332, 2391, 2391, 23116, 23117, 253, 2542, 2543, 2568, 2629, 26213, 2726, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2838, 2870, 2871, 2872, 2888, 2888, 353, 3623, 3674, 3735, 3736, 3786, 3791, 385, 386, 3791, 385, 386, 3865, 396, 403, 4062, 4065, 4345, 4358, 448, 4523, 4622, 4628, 4719, 5026, 5151, 5243, 5922, 5923, 6413, 7123, 739
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 1, pages 119, 120 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=alh
Alif-Lam-Lam ( ل = Pact, covenant; blood relationship, consanguinity; Anything which has a quality requiring it to be regarded as sacred, or inviolable; which has some right pertaining to it, nearness with respect to kindred, good origin, promise or an assurance of safety or security, neighbour, bond.
illan n.m. 98, 910
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 1, pages 111, 112 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=all
-
I accept anyone's words though and giving my own understanding while declaring I disagree with yours and it doesn't imply any hostile intention or derogatory remark.
/Manny
Manny every word in any language has spellings. Let us first decipher spellings of Allah. This is objective data and everyone should be able to come to same conclusion eventually.
-
Manny every word in any language has spellings. Let us first decipher spellings of Allah. This is objective data and everyone should be able to come to same conclusion eventually.
Maybe but will it be the conclusion you hoping to be? Not sure. No offense by the way.
