GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
-
Peace Anwar
The makkata here is an adverb
Now I understand your theory about idghaam after you explained them as adverbs, and I see that they can be qualified for idghaam. Sorry as I did not think of them as adverbs because you did not explain it that way in your original message (or maybe I did not pay attention). But what are the verbs that each of these adverbs qualify?
-
Dear Samia,
The best word that I could pick for this was adverb. If you look at it in English and use adverb these adverbs would be modifying the verb 'to be', which as you know in Arabic is most times understood. So you should look at it more like nasbul-haalati which I don't exactly know how to translate into English. It is modifying the condition of the month (shahru-ramadaana), the house (bakkata) and the condition of those in deep, or in a surrounding situation (bi batnim-makkata).
As for the bi in bibakkata if you checked out the quotes that I referred to addressing the case of mabniyah that Ahmed mentioned you can see that using the kasrah for the alif is not a convention for mabniyah and must be something the grammarians used to explain this convention away, which they really didn't understand, if that is the contention of SOME grammarians. The cases that contradict this show that my conclusion that this is a writting convention is more correct that saying that this is a case for mabniyah, and that I can validly look at this b-kasrah as b-ya (in/for Me)
Ahmed,
You can refer to the post that I addressed to samia for those examples if you haven't already checked them out.
Godbless,
AnwarIt is also honestly my contention that the Arabic script should be reworked, but we can talk about that later.
P.S.
Ahmed, thinking about our recent spout I started thinking. And you know what comes around goes around. . . I'm not saying this to threaten you but I'm saying that this came back around on me.
I remember having a conversation with my Fiancee's cousin and telling him that what he had said was 'porqueria' which in spanish is like saying 'bs', i.e. bull-sh*t or a load of crap. And I remember not meaning it in a disrespectful way, because I thought that him and I were close enough for me to be able to say something like that to him, and for him to know that I wasn't trying to invalidate his points completely, his thoughts or thought process. I was just saying that I disagreed with what he was saying at that moment.
My fiancee thought that it was disrespectful for me to say that and I had to explain what I meant to him, and her. In reality, I had assumed too much about his ability to know how I thought. That's something that takes years. And I've learned to take into consideration that for a person to have that type of insight into my personality takes years of a developing friendship and even then sometimes its misunderstood. So unless I'm just kidding around and the person I'm talking to knows that I'm not being serious, that is the only time that I will talk like that, but with people that I haven't met a day in my life and on a forum where we are trying to resolve serious issues, inconsistencies and trying to bring to light things that others may not have realized before, I try to refrain from those type of half-play, half-harsh jokes or comments.
We all mess up but as I said I try to refrain from that. I only get nasty like that when I think a person is either being hard-headed on purpose and hard-headed and nasty at that. I actually usually have patience and forgiveness for the slow (its not their fault) but I don't have patience for the slow & indignant, and even less for the slow, indignant AND assumptious.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar
I am trying to understand, but sometimes I am lost. If the missing verb is (to be), it has to be (was) so that the "khabar" will be "mansuub". Is this example correct
shahrun (was) ramadana?That would be quite interesting!
Hi
Yes the example is correct and the verb to be can also be in present form, i,e, Sharun is Ramdana, however the verb to be "past or present" can not be ommitted, i think there is a verse that runs on the same way as your example but I have to find it inshaallah you will see in it that the verb to be can't be ommitted, and if your exmaple was stated n the Quran the sentene "sharun kana ramdana" must come at the end of the sentence otherwise it will be flawed and won't make any sense, try it in the verse using your example and you will recognise what I mean
Salam
-
I actually went to bed then the verse hit me so i turned on my laptop to post it, it is similar to Samia example and we will see that the verb to be "Kana" can't be ommitted,
they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide-spreading,
(7)
See how it came at the end of the verse and the "Kana" can't be ommitted, this should demolish "Sharun Ramdanun" silly claim that it means the scorchng full moon
Good night all
-
Dear Samia,
Take it like this
Fa&alan anaa amaamuka
which means
biseeghatin fa&leeyin anaa amaamuka
Fa&l is a noun here and not an adjective and it is describing the way that I am in front of you (in a real way).
This is the same way that Ramadaana works. Sharun ramadaanan equals 'A month, in/as it concerns constant/intense heat'
Anaa hunaa li-sayyaratin uswatan bihi I am here for a car, just as he is.
In both of the above cases Kaana is not needed. The verb to be is understood, but uswatan and fa&lan describe the context in which someone 'is' in any particular situation, and they are both using knowns. In the same way you could say 'Isti&daadan huwa fee nasfil-mustawaa.' Here isti'daadan is modifying the understood verb to be. So in shah-run, ramadaanAN lalladhee . . . ' RamaadanAN is explaining in what context this month fell in but it is not explaining the month itself, which would make it an adjective and therefore it would have to be 'ramadaanun'.
I hope you see where I'm coming from?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar
Please be aware that verbs CAN'T be ommitted in the Arabic langugaes, only names or their Damirs refering to these names
Cheers
-
Peace Ahmed,
I know you understand that the verb to be is a very special case. I'm not talking about all verbs. I'm talking about the verb to be. It can be ommitted where in English it is never admitted, except in certain English dialects. And like in Arabic it is only omitted in the present tense, in very clear cut connections like 'that dog (is) smart.'
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace brother Anwar
Mate as far as I know words and verbs can't be ommitted, only damirs can
if you ommitt a verb then the grammar will be broken
I understand what you mean when we say The dog (is) smart, in arabic we will say Kalbun Zakyun, where it will contitute a "Muptdaa and Khabar" or a noun and an adjective, if you add the verb to be then we will have a totally different structure "Al Kalb Yakoon Zakia", it makes no sense bro gramaticlly
Take care
-
Peace Anwar
but when we deal with senstences for Irab we have to state the ommited words, in the case of "Kalbun Zakiu" in Irab though we will not mention the vern to be as ommitted at all, you may consider it virtually ommitted in the case of present to be because it makes no sense as past tense, but we don't mention this in Irab
Cheers
-
So if we both agree that the verb 'to be' can be ommitted, then why are you disagreeing with me? Or are you? It seems like you want to emphasize that verbs can't be omitted in Arabic, and I agree with that. But there is one special case which is the verb 'to be.' The verb 'to be' can be omitted despite the fact that there is an adverb to modify it like in the sentences I gave to Samia. So are we in agreement or what? And why does it seem like you are disagreeing with me if we both agree on the verb 'to be;' and that this verb (and only this verb from what I know) can be ommitted?
Godbless,
Anwar -
So if we both agree that the verb 'to be' can be ommitted, then why are you disagreeing with me? Or are you? It seems like you want to emphasize that verbs can't be omitted in Arabic, and I agree with that. But there is one special case which is the verb 'to be.' The verb 'to be' can be omitted despite the fact that there is an adverb to modify it like in the sentences I gave to Samia. So are we in agreement or what? And why does it seem like you are disagreeing with me if we both agree on the verb 'to be;' and that this verb (and only this verb from what I know) can be ommitted?
Godbless,
AnwarPeace bro
the issue is far more complicated than this bro and to be honest I agree that a present to be can be ommitted but this is just virtually known not a common rule in grammar that suggest that
also I discovered a mistake that I have done, in the order verbs you mentioned "Itaqun" and "Irahabun" and the one I brough in "Ibidun", i said that the Ya must be ommitted because Order verb with "Harf Al Illah" must be mabbiah ala hazf harf al illah", however I checked the grammar books I had and I was wrong, because the Ya that suppose to be at the end is "Ya Al Mukhtaba", i.e. "Ya of the speech", so all order verbs must be Mabniah ala hazf Ya Al Mukhatabah
now I hope you don't hold this against me as you did before, and as you can see that I always correct myself if others failed to do as such, i.e. I corner myself
but as I said before I was good in arabic up to about 19 years old then from there all my study was in engnieering and not the languages and that is 22 years mate so my memory my fail me that is why I bought those 3 grammar books, one of them is actually charts only to explain how the grammar workd with the Arabic words, I can photo copy it and send it to you if you wish, it is like a referenece
Salam
-
Peace,
This still does not solve the fact that not all instances of this have the 'ya' taken away. There are instances where the command is a ya and instances where it is just a kasrah. Go back to the posts I posted for Samia to see these instances.
Secondly, please don't complicate the matter by saying that it is more complicate. This is an Arabic rule and the verb to be is only put in when it is in subjunctive form, conditioan form or for emphasis. It is really not that complicated.
Godbless,
anwar -
Salaam all
so all order verbs must be Mabniah ala hazf Ya Al Mukhatabah
I would like to clarify something here.
The grammar "i3raab" affects the verb, but not the prefixes. The verb is, e.g, ya3buduun, the command form, which is "mabnii 3ala aljazm by ommitting nuun of the group" will be a3buduu . To this verb is added the suffixed pronoun (the object, or maf3uul bihi) which is the ya, which in turn is mabniyya 3alaa alsukuun. Now we have two consucutive sukuuns the yaa and the alif at the end of "a3buduu", so an extra nuun is inserted between them to prevent the coexistance of two jauxtapositioned sukuuns. This nuun is called (the nuun of protection) .
The elimination of the yaa almukhataba is not grammar, but style, common in Arabic.
As for verb to be, the grammar changes according to its presence or absence, as well as the meaning. It is usually there when it is in the past or indicating future
Notice how the case ending of changes with the presence or absence of verb (to be). I suppose that is what I see as a problem with
Since "ramadan" has a final fat7a, and if we are avoiding making this mudaaf and mudaaf elayhi, then there must be . The question is can we drop ? Is it permissible in Arabic? I do not think so. -
Brother Anwar
There is no need to go back and forth, I think Samia responded well that Shahr Ramadan with a missing "Yakun" does not make sense because verb to be can't be dropped otherwise we have a totally different structure of the sentence, she provided a good example with "Al Jaw Jamil" which in Irab is Mubtadaa and Khabar and both Marfuh Bi Al Dummah, if Kana or Yakun is there, then the first two examples we will have new structure, Kana needs an Ism and a Khabar, therefore Al Jaw will be Ism Kana and will stay Marfuh Bi Al Dummah while Jamil can't be Marfuh Bi Al Dummah any more as in the case of "No verb to be", with with verb to be the Khabar must be Mansub Bi Alfatiha and as you can see in the 3 examples, the first 2 "Jamil" have an Alif at the end "Alif Al Madd" because it is Mansub Bi Al Fatiha", the last "Jamil" is Marfuh Bi Al Dammah
Salam
-
Ahmed,
If you think I'm being stubborn or responding to Samia for the heck of it without true intentions, then thanks for the suggestion. But I'm not so you don't have to worry about that. It would be an injustice to not help Samia understand what I am saying, so I am going to respond to her to help her understand exactly where I am coming from, which it seems like she hasn't seen exactly. It honestly sounds like you are just trying to shut me up and I really don't appreciate that. But I will assume that you have the best intentions. Peace.
Dear Samia,
The conclusion and grammar of what I am saying is in the followoing sentence
Isti'daadan huwa jayyidun
or
Huwa isti'daadan jayyidun
or
huwa jayyidun isti'daadan.
The nasb is nasbul-haalati. Which is what I stated to you before. All nasbul-haalati are adverbs in English terms and in the above case it is modifying the verb to be in present tense, which in Arabic is ommitted, and not thought of as a verb in present tense (not future using ghadan with yakoon makes it a present tense verb that projects into the future). I don't want to get into an argument about how verbs aren't ommited in Arabic like Ahmed trying to insist. 99.999 percent of the verbs are not in ommitted in Arabic and the verb to be (when it is in present tense) is part of the .00001 percent.
(future and present tense actually over lap in Classical Arabic and in all languages to varying degrees)
When you say 'ghadan yakoonul-jawwu jameelan' that shows that you are talking about the future, and not the present. You probably don't think of the concept of 'to be' in the present tense which is why you are having trouble with this. It is the same as 'the weather IS pretty today' but in Arabic you would say 'the weather (is) pretty today' and the verb to be 'is' is ommitted from an English perspective, but from a purely Cl. Arabic perspective there never was a verb to be there, and the verb 'to be' only comes into play in the future, past, subjunctive or conditional tenses.
To take your words and help you to understand what I am saying I am going to add 'al-yawmu and (note that this is not al-yawma)
Al-Yawmu jameelun jawwan
or
al-yawmu jawwan jameelun
Notice that jaww is not an adjective but it is a strictly a noun. So differing from jameelan, which is an adjective in the nasb case, nouns in the nasb case set the stage for the condition of the sentence or statement. Even though the verb 'to be' in Arabic doesnt exist in the present tense, from an English persepctive, jawwan, just like the use of Isti'daadan before are both modifying the ommitted present tense verb 'to be'.
This, and especially the second is the case of 'sharun ramdaanan lalladhee . . .'
Godbless,
Anwar -
Ahmed,
If you think I'm being stubborn or responding to Samia for the heck of it without true intentions, then thanks for the suggestion. But I'm not so you don't have to worry about that. It would be an injustice to not help Samia understand what I am saying, so I am going to respond to her to help her understand exactly where I am coming from, which it seems like she hasn't seen exactly. It honestly sounds like you are just trying to shut me up and I really don't appreciate that. But I will assume that you have the best intentions. Peace.
Peace mate
well bro, what you said above never ever came to my mind, i was just providing extra info, that's all
i will read the rest later bro, got a lot to do
Salam
-
I'm guessing that either you guys agree with me, are thinking about it or just don't want to deal with the issue. It could be any of the three but I would appreciate an honest answer like "I'm not ready to deal with that" or "I just can't agree" or "it make sense" . . .
Godbless,
Anwar -
Hey Anwar
I have been very busy bro, but will invistigate later, just a quick question bro, is there any 5 letters roots in Arabic and if there is can you give us a couple of examples?
cheers