Proper Name "Muslim"

unknownuser

Hello All

Actually the word Rumman (A type of fruit) is a proper noun and on the same wazn as Quran, 5568

Cheers

wildguest1956

Peace JM

In the Quran, the verb samma and its derivatives are always followed by a proper noun.
That implies that the word muslim, in the verse (but not necessarily in all the verses) has to be seen as a proper noun too.

The word "ism" in Arabic can refer to proper and common nouns. There is nothing in the great reading that suggests otherwise. This is why The God is said to have "attributes" (i.e. common nouns). This is why they are translated.

I was referring to the verb samma.
See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6422.msg99227#msg99227

Each community of people has a name, and, in the verse , God has stated that the right name for the community of people who have decided to submit to God is ?Muslim?. This is the way I understand it.
Since the Quran is in the Arabic language, God has given an Arabic word. God could have used the language of Abraham, or the language of Moses, but He has chosen the Arabic language.
It is true the proper nouns are usually not translated, but there are exceptions. Allah is a translation, Isa too. In the same manner, the names of the towns are usually translated.

Allah is not a translation in English. It is a transliteration like Ayman. Isa is also a transliteration in English. People transliterate Allah because they wrongly take it as a proper name.

I was meaning that allah is a translation of its equivalent word(s) in the bible.

I know you will disagree with almost 100% of this post, but this is my opinion. For me, Allah, Quran, Muslim, and Islam are proper names, although they can be seen as common names too?

The word "allah" is certainly not a proper name according to the great reading. We hear in one passage (I don't remember the number now) "huwa allah fi alsamawat wa al-ard...". Such constructs with the pointing device "huwa" are not used with proper names so "allah" is definitely a common noun. In fact, the meaning intended is "huwa al-ilah fi alsamawat wa alard" (he is the god in the heavens and the earth).

As I have said, I see no problem for a word to be used as a common noun in some places, and as a proper noun in other ones.
It can be used as a proper noun when it refers to something unique and special. Like the word ?god? in English in the sentence "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
See also the word ?right? here http//www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Similraly, the word "quran" refers to other readings and is used in passages such as 1778 where it cannot be a proper name. The same goes for "muslim" and "islam".

Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities. For example, "Janet", "Jupiter" and "Germany" are proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized in English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy way to recognise them. This fails, however, in German, in which nouns of all types are capitalized.
All other nouns are called common nouns. For example, "girl", "planet", and "country" are common nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a tiger nor a smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated. For example, the German surname Kn?del becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English (not the literal Dumpling). However, the translation of placenames and the names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the Portuguese word Lisboa becomes Lisbon in English; the English London becomes Londres in French; and the Greek Aristotels becomes Aristotle in English.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun

Phonetic adjustment and distortions during transliteration from one language to another is not translation.

Yes, indeed?

Allah, Quran, and Muslim are special and unique entities. In every language, special and unique entities are given a proper name.
Therefore I see nothing wrong for these words to be proper nouns, despite they can have a meaning as common nouns too.

Typically, you use to identify the Quran by ?the great reading?, whereas there is no ?great? in the Arabic al quran. When I use the word ?Quran?, instead of the translation ?reading?, I am, like you with the qualifier ?great? emphasizing on the fact I am speaking about a very special and unique reading. This is the basic role of a proper noun.

Actually, literally the word "quran" means "intense/great reading", since the "an" adds intensification (as in "sultan" great/intense authority, as opposed to "sulta"/authority).

Peace,

Ayman

AB has already given a counter example.
If you think quran should be translated as ?great reading? in every occurrence, then you should correct your article here http//www.free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm

IMHO, translating quran by ?great reading? in verses like gives a strange result.

We have sent it down an Arabic great reading (quran), perhaps you will be logical.

Peace

ayman

Peace JM,

AB has already given a counter example.

Unfortunately, all that AB gave is another example of how he is clueless about Classical Arabic. The word "ruman" in 5568 comes from the root "RMN" so the Arabic letter "noon" is part of the root. Thus, its weight (wazn) is Fu3AL NOT Fu3LAN like "quran" (root "QR'A&quot.

If you think quran should be translated as ?great reading? in every occurrence, then you should correct your article here http//www.free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm

The article was written a while back and I am sure that it needs some corrections.

IMHO, translating quran by ?great reading? in verses like gives a strange result.
We have sent it down an Arabic great reading (quran), perhaps you will be logical.

I don't see anything strange in the translation. If you see that the translation doesn't sound correct, this is not an issue because I am 100% open to better translations. So the question becomes what is a good translation for the Arabic word "quran". This is a legitimate question and I fully support trying to find a better translation.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Hey JM

I never heard of the a three letter word called (r m n), it sounds that someone else is the clueless not me, however as you just said, translating it great reading in many smakes a child laughs

Cheers

unknownuser

Hey JM

here is another example for you mate, "Rihan" is a proper name for a type of flower and ends with An, 5512

Cheers

unknownuser

Hey JM

Here is another one, "Murgan" which means "Coral" 5522

Cheers

wildguest1956

Peace Ayman,

To my mind, translating quran by ?great reading? sounds very strange in . Translating it by ?reading? sounds good.

So, I cannot accept your point. Maybe we only have to agree to disagree.

As a side note, here is what you wrote about Arabic nahw.

Nahw itself has many errors in its rules and has become mostly useless. Thus, Modern Standard Arabic has largely done away with Nahw.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4434.msg64627#msg64627

The great reading is not wrong but it is the later invented Nahw that is wrong.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4434.msg65008#msg65008

So, if the invented nahw (syntax) is not reliable, why would the invented sarf (morphology) be reliable ?

Peace

PS Are you an Arabic teacher ?

Samia

Salaam JM

Please allow me to reply to your question

So, if the invented nahw (syntax) is not reliable, why would the invented sarf (morphology) be reliable ?

There is quite a difference between the grammar set by Ibn Seebawyh et al and the grammar of the Qur'aan, to the extent that the Qur'aan would look full of "grammatical" mistakes. A simple example is the dual verb, which we were taught as being a compulsary conjugation for the dual subject. Not the case in te Qur'aan.
As for morphology (sarf), no such descrepancies exist.

Samia

Salaam Ahmed

I know you are addressing JM, but I am addressing you and all non-native speakers for fear that you just confuse them. You seem to not understand what a root is. It is not a word, it is a group of letters, usually three, exceptionally four but not more, not linked by any tashkeel (vocalization), therefore it does not have a meaning. Even when we say the root of kitaab is k,t,b, these three letters do not have a meaning, unles you add some vowels (kataba, kutub, kutiba..etc) and then you have meaningfull words. The root is like the material of which a word is made.

And yes, (rumman) has a root of r,m,n.

The importance of the root system is that all the classical dictionaries have entries dependent on the root (its first or last letter), otherwise you can't use dictionaries like lisaanul3arab or al 3ain by al-Khalil ibnu Ahmed, or even Hans Wehr dictionary of Modern Arabic.

But even more important is the fact that the Arabic sentence is not order-sensitive. An English sentence is described by Subject - verb-object, or svo. If you do not understand any English, you will understand where to find the subject, the verb and the object/indirect object. In Arabic this is not the case

All four sentences could be translated in either Omar smacked Zaid or Zaid smacked Omar; but you cannot ,if you know your sarf, think that "daraba" is subject or object, because of the pattern; and you can't know the pattern if you do not understand the notion of root.
You, as native speaker, have no problem with that. You should have taught some non-native speakers to understand how things we take for granted are very complicted for them. So please, do not make fun of the root system and spread too much ignorance. It is more dignified to admit that you do not know it, than confusing others.

unknownuser

Salaam Ahmed

Hello Samia

I know you are addressing JM, but I am addressing all non-native speakers for fear that you just confuse them.

Great, so you think I'm confusing them?

well, let me shock you then, this so called proper name and common name DOES NOT EXIST IN ARABIC, this is a foriegn invention based on some foriegn languages, so JM is 100% right in saying Quran and Allah are names

You seem to not understand what a root is.

Even if it is the case, I don't need to understand it because there no such use in arabic for it, cheers for the offer any way

It is not a word, it is a group of letters, usually three, exceptionally four but not more, not linked by any tashkeel (vocalization), therefore it does not have a meaning. Even when we say the root of kitaab is k,t,b, these three letters do not have a meaning, unles you add some vowels (kataba, kutub, kutiba..etc) and then you have meaningfull words. The root is like the material of which a word is made.

Thanks for the info, however it means nothing to me in figuring out the meanings of the Arabic words, this root thingy to figure the meaning is a Satan invention

And yes, (rumman) has a root of r,m,n.

No , it is, R M M

how about Murgan then?

The importance of the root system is that all the classical dictionaries have entries dependent on the root (it first letter or its last letter), otherwise you can't use dictionaries like lisaanul3arab or al 3ain by al-Khalil ibnu Ahmed, or even Hans Wehr dictionary of Modern Arabic.

Thanks for the info, but i don't use such dictioeries and never will because i don't need to

But even more important is the fact that the Arabic sentence is not order-sensitive. An English sentence is described by Subject - verb-object, or svo. If you do not understand any English, you will understand where to find the subject, the verb and the object/indirect object. In Arabic this is not the case

I'm sorry sister regardless I understand English or not, I'm not comparing Arabic with English, so I wondwer why you are explaining this comparison to me?, this is irrellevent

Cheers

wildguest1956

Thanks for your response, Samia.
I would suggest you to create a thread dedicated to gather all inconsistencies between the formalized Arabic grammar and the quranic one. It would be very informative.

Regarding the word quran.
According to what I understand, knowing

The root qaf-raa-alif means read
The wazn is Fu3AL, implying a connotation of greatness

Quran is from the root qaf-raa-alif, to which is applied the wazn Fu3AL, so it means ?great reading?.

I am very doubtful this kind of process actually works in a so mechanical way for all the roots. The first obstacle to it is that a root has often several distinct meanings associated to it. The second obstacle is that, inside a root, the same word can have several meanings too.

I have been said that a root is no more than a convenient way of arranging the words in a dictionary, and I think it is partly true.

Peace

unknownuser

Hello All

For months and months I fund many hear wasting their time on the subject of

Is that a common name or a proper name?

Now this question does not apply to the Arabic language, because Nouns in Arabic are grouped totally different to any other language, therefore I will try to translate a bit of info regarding nouns in the Arabic Language, the book I?m using is an Arabic Nahaw book made by Rida Said Mohammad Abdul Al Ghani who is the Professor or the Arabic language in Qalyob Province A R E, the book was later checked by Senior Consultant /Professor Abdul Al Moiz Ahmad Daood

The book starts by explaining that words in Arabic are 3 categories

I- Noun
II- Verb
III- Letter

Please note that the last category that is called ?Letter? words does not really mean ?one letter? it can be one or more than one letter, it is just a type of Arabic word that is called Letter, I?m going to explain the first category of Arabic words only for now

I- Noun (Ism)

Nouns in Arabic language are divided into two categories

A) Ism Muarrab (i.e. can have a dumma oo, or a fatiha aa or a kasira ee at the end)
B) Ism Mabbni (i.e. virtually is having a dumma oo, or a fatiha aa or a kasira ee but not pronounced)

The above two categories of Nouns are also divided in more sub categories

A) Ism Muarrab

Ism Al Istisna (the noun of exception), examples Ghair, Sawa
Ism Insan (the noun of human names), examples Mohammad, Ali
Ism Hayawan ( the noun of animals), examples Assad, Baqarah
Ism Nabat (the noun of plants), examples Qamh, Fool (bean)
Ism Gamad (the noun of stills ?no life?), examples Baab (door), Shubbak (window), Saiara (car)
Ism Muthana Min Al Ishara (the noun of dual pointing device), examples Hazaan, Hataan
Ism Muthana Mawsool (the noun of mawsool dual), examples Al Lazaan, Al Lataan
Ism Baad Al Aadad (the noun of some numbers), example, singualar number, the numbers from 20 to 90 and Alfaz Al Eqood (100, 200)

B) Ism Mabbni

Ism Al Ishara (the nuon of pointing device), examples Haza, Hazihi, Haolaa, Tilka
Ism Mawsool (the noun of mawsool), examples Al Lazi, Al Lati, Al Lazina, Al Laati, Al Laaei
Ism Shart (the noun of condition), examples Mn, Ma, Mata, Aina, Kaiffa
Ism Istifham (the noun of question), examples Mn, Ma, Mata, Aina, Kam, Kaiffa
Ism Gami Al Damair ( I don?t know how to translate this but it means, Hoa, Hya, Hu, Ha, Hum, Hun (those names can be connected to other words with no separation in between) for example ?Qalmahu?, is two words (Qalam) and (Hu), which means (his pen)
Baad Al Zuruf (some of the Zuruf ) again I don?t know how to translate ?sort of a nouns to indicate a place or time, examples are Iza, Baina, Al An, Haitha, Amsa
Al Aadad Al Murakaba (the composed numbers), examples numbers from 11 to 19 except number 12, number 2 is dealt as dual and can be Ism Murrab, number 10 must always be Mabbni

And that?s all for the nouns in Arabic, and as you can see there is no such thing called proper names nor common names

Thanks all and good night

Samia

Thanks for your response, Samia

You are welcome.

I would suggest you to create a thread dedicated to gather all inconsistencies between the formalized Arabic grammar and the quranic one. It would be very informative

I will seriously look into this. In amonth maybe. I am just very busy now and I do not want to start with one post and then disappear for a few weeks.

There is another suggestion as for the root of qur'aan, specially by those who pronounce it "quran" without the hamza q,r,n. But if you take the root by the majority q,r,alif, then qur'aan will be of the pattern "fu3laan" not "fu3aal". This is an adverb, just like "qiraa'a". This is not uncommon in Arabic, whether a verb has more than one adverb, or if an adverb has this pattern. Examples 3erfaan, shukraan, kufraan...

The first obstacle to it is that a root has often several distinct meanings associated to it. The second obstacle is that, inside a root, the same word can have several meanings too.

You are right. The context can solve this problem.

Samia

Salaam Ahmed

A) Ism Muarrab

B) Ism Mabbni

If you just continued to the third- and last- case of i3raab, which is

C) Ism Mamnuu3 menal sarf (diptode),

you will find the Proper Names or nouns. Other nouns are by default not proper (i.e common).

unknownuser

Salaam Ahmed

A) Ism Muarrab

B) Ism Mabbni

If you just continued to the third- and last- case of i3raab, which is

C) Ism Mamnuu3 menal sarf (diptode),

you will find the Proper Names or nouns. Other nouns are by default not proper (i.e common).

Salam Samia

thanks for the info, however I could not find any thing in the books that I have that says there are two types of names, a common name and a proper name, this does not exist in the arabic language, it is called Nouns and can be categorised according to other criteria not proper and common

Cheers

ayman

Peace JM and Samia,

To my mind, translating quran by ?great reading? sounds very strange in . Translating it by ?reading? sounds good.
So, I cannot accept your point. Maybe we only have to agree to disagree.

Translating it as "reading" is fine too. I don't see an issue there.

As a side note, here is what you wrote about Arabic nahw.

So, if the invented nahw (syntax) is not reliable, why would the invented sarf (morphology) be reliable?

There is quite a difference between the grammar set by Ibn Seebawyh et al and the grammar of the Qur'aan, to the extent that the Qur'aan would look full of "grammatical" mistakes. A simple example is the dual verb, which we were taught as being a compulsary conjugation for the dual subject. Not the case in te Qur'aan.
As for morphology (sarf), no such descrepancies exist.

Unfortunately, there are problems with how Arabic scholars deal with the morphology too. Those problems have their roots in Arabic linguists ignorance of the evolution of Arabic and considering it somekind of sacred language. Thus Arabic linguists believed (and many still do) that Classical Arabic existed since the beginning of time and that ancient people such as Adam, Abraham and Ishmael spoke Classical Arabic. Thus, they quote supposed pre-Islamic Arabic poems which they claim were recited by Adam in eulogy of his slain son, all in easy to read Classical Arabic I might add!

Of course, Arabic, like any language, developed over time. In terms of Semitic languages, Arabic is relatively new to the scene. Also, as with any language, it borrows heavily from other languages, even non-Semitic ones such as Middle Persian and Greek. For example, we find the word "istabraq" (brocade) in the great reading. This word is borrowed directly from Middle Persian. So you can't neatly fit it into standard Arabic morphology and roots. The same goes with words like "dinar", which was borrowed from Greek through Persian or words like "tah" (yo!/hey man!), which is borrowed from Ethiopic. It is amusing to watch Arabic linguists trying hard to perfectly fit foreign words like these into the Arabic root system.

Of course, many of the foreign words have been "Arabized". For example, "jund" (army/soldiers), which is borrowed from Persian, has been thoroughly Arabized.

PS Are you an Arabic teacher?

Although my formal education is in engineering and this is what my PhD and my professional work is in, I do volunteer to teach Arabic whenever I can. For example, I recently volunteered to teach Arabic courses at a local university and manage the Arabic language program until the university can get a more permanent faculty.

I teach students many of the concepts that I put out here on the forum. Unfortunately, many of those concepts are not taught to native modern Arabic speakers. My general observation after going through various systems of Arabic education is that the way Arabic is taught desperately needs to be reformed. This goes for both native and non-native Arabic speakers. Many of the issues and misunderstandings in the world today can be resolved by changing the way Arabic is taught.

Peace,

Ayman

lovelymoslems

Salaam all,

Really sorry for the late reply. The last week had been disastrous for me.
From the discussion going, and by re-reading the related verses, it does seem that my proposal of treating "muslimin" should be rejected.
And thus, it is just a common noun.
Although if "submitter" is not considered a good translation, then we probably should create another one.

Many thanks to Ayman, Ahmed, and Samia for the Arabic knowledge.

=adley=

Muslim shall represent to obyance to Allah's deen, it will fit to call as devoter