02:01-39
-
Dear Sister and Brothers
I have been trying to follow the concepts of grammar with the help of translations of Arabic grammar work by William Wright, E H Palmer and reviewing the Lannes lexicon.
If we follow the rules of grammar, as I understood, from these translations of Arab scholars and as translated by English translators like William Wright and Lexicon as translated by Edward Lane, and look at the meanings using "Gezm" as indicating break off points and a joining mark for two separate words, (words joined together, as it seem like a script writing technique indicated with a Gezm ,that these were actually two separate words, but written joined together)Following attempt at translation, using above technique may serve as an example.
AL= The
Ham= Decree
Do= for the vast/entire land
Lillahi= from Rab
Rabul= creator of
Alamiin= of those who can understand ( and thus comprehend and follow this decree from the Rab) ( This does not reflect that he is not the creator of other things, but merely indicates one of his creations)Does it mean that the opening statement of Gods book is a statement about the content of the book and for whom it is intended, rather than a praise for himself?
The above breakdown of the words is using the technique of writing and word joining explained in the above referenced books.
I feel sister, that you are very knowledgeable and will be able to look at these refernces for all of us and let us know if I am understanding it correctly.
Praying Rab for his guidance and true understanding of his message. -
Respected Sister and all others. I know most on this forum are trying to understand the divine message with out intermediaries. So am I. I am just a very humble student of Alkitab via trying to understand language it was revealed in. I am glad "kn" has revived the issue that I brought up some time ago. Dear sister and all other respected readers. I would very humbly request you to please read and re-read relavant pages of Lane and W. Wright's grammar book and share your understanding on this issue. I am posting links again here.
Badar
Original discussion on the issue
http//www.ourbeacon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1233&highlight=jezm
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596746.0
Relavant page from Lane
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf
Page from Wright go to pages 14/166, for discussion about jezm.
http//www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol1.pdf
-
I do not understand why Arabic word is a phrase in itself? Does this mean we do not have "words"?
The problem arises when you continue with the translation of the whole verse.
It should be
(1) That book, not doubt, has guidance in it for the pious
or
(2) There's no doubt in that book, it's guidance for the pious
The reason for the two different translations is how where you pause after "raib" >> translation (1); after "feehi" >> translation (2).I am waiting for the link to be clear.
Assalamo Alaikum Sisiter,
Link is restored.
How English word "that" could be a proper and complete substitute of Za'lika, since in it there is simultaneously one first person and a second person? With English word "that" how would we care for "ka" in Za'lika?
-
Salaam kn and Anwar
I will reply to you both in one post, because both of you speak with the same tongue, which I find very bizarre, as it is not even supported by the many links you bring. I read the Grammar by Wright, and "jezm" is shown on part of page three under "other orthographic signs" where the first is gezm and the second is shadda/tashdeed. Nothing of what you say is there (I already know). To prove me wrong, please copy and paste what you think/are sure is about "gezm being a break-off point of two words".
As for the the re-translation of chapter 1 offered by kn is it your own attempt or some scholar's? Would you please show me where in Arabic there's a word as " " or "", whatever it means? Or " "?
And to both of your Please do not post the same posts in different thread. I find it interesting that both of you are posting almost the same posts one after the other (well, apart from a question by herbman in the thread about Aidid)http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598058.msg196735#msg196735
-
Dear Sister
I have been following your discussion very very closely with brother Badar, regarding the rules of grammar on this site as well as Brother Badars discussion on ourbeacon forum. I therefore decided to buy all these grammar books and started looking at these links via internet also. It was very fascinating. Everytime, I see some discussion on these rules, I have been trying to look it up in William Wright, EH Palmer and Edward Lanes. I have used the links provided by Badar on this site for refernce and to understand the concept of gezm as well, and have tried to apply them and look it up in all three books. The translation I attempted was based on one of the discussions on these forums and is not from a translation book. I looked up at the meanings of Ham, Do and other words, breaking them based on gezm concept that I understood from these books, and was amazed to find them in Lanes as well.
I will try to put the link ( If I can)
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000271.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000094.pdf
Please help me if I am understanding it correct.
-
Thanks for the links.
This is not " ", but "" of root " ". The double meem shows when the perfect verb is conjugated to the self, which is the rule for what we call "doubled verb". It's a very much used kind of verb, and you find its derivative in the qur'aanic expression " very hot fire", and also in the derivative we use for fever . So no final jezm, but a jezm on a meem followed by another meem with fatha. Maybe the confusion comes from the entry which is void of shadda, simply because the entries are not vocalized.As for the link on "jazama/jazm ", yes the word/verb means to be decisive, final. Because of this meaning, the sukuun (a sign) is called jezm, because it cuts the letter from any link with the following letter, or from tanween. Just like "damma" where the actual verb Damma means to join, or a hug, and where you have to join the two lips to pronounce it; or fatha which means "an opening", and that's what you do with the mouth when pronouncing it; and also for "kasr " when you decline the lips, and their staright line
is "broken", etc..
You have to differentiate between a real word and a name given for a sign for some reason. -
I do not understand why Arabic word is a phrase in itself? Does this mean we do not have "words"?
The problem arises when you continue with the translation of the whole verse.
It should be
(1) That book, not doubt, has guidance in it for the pious
or
(2) There's no doubt in that book, it's guidance for the pious
The reason for the two different translations is how where you pause after "raib" >> translation (1); after "feehi" >> translation (2).I am waiting for the link to be clear.
Sister,
I understand that the majority of Arabic words cannot be translated with one English word if one intends to convey the complete perception contained in that Arabic word. Translation means to convey the perception of the words, phrases, and sentence of one language in another language, which in length and volume will never be equal to the original text.
To describe this I got the term of ?phrase? from your post,
The English translation is a sentence, whereas the Arabic is a phrase.
I feel that understanding and then translating becomes rather vivid and easier when we continue with the whole verse.
?La Raiba?, perhaps neither means ?Not/no doubt? since it is not ?La Shakk?, and in English it conveys emphasis when used in between a statement for conveying the belief/understanding of certainty about the thing being stated. On the contrary Raib is always ?in? something, ?la raiba fehi? or one is engulfed in Raib ?fi raibin?.
?La raiba? alone is not a predicate. With reference to the predicate is .
Only such book can act as guide in time and space which is void of all sorts of conjectural content. The aforesaid book having this particular characteristic is declared , a guide for those who conduct in a cautious, heedful, and mindful manner. is active participle, the objective of whom in life is to remain cautious and not to indulge in an unrestrained behaviour, such people need a guide who should tell them at every mile stone which way they have to keep journeying.
-
Assalamo Alaikum Sisiter,
Link is restored.
How English word "that" could be a proper and complete substitute of Za'lika, since in it there is simultaneously one first person and a second person? With English word "that" how would we care for "ka" in Za'lika?
Sorry just saw this post
I am not sure if I understood you. Yes, Arabic cares for number and gender, but whether it was "tilk (fem sing/non human plural)", "ulaa'ika (plural fem and masc)"or thaalika sing", they will all be translated as that or those (English cares for the sing and plural only). I can't translate an isolates "that" except generally, unless I know what noun follows it.
What do you mean by the "ka" in "zaalika"? What would it be without "ka"? -
Sister,
I understand that the majority of Arabic words cannot be translated with one English word if one intends to convey the complete perception contained in that Arabic word. Translation means to convey the perception of the words, phrases, and sentence of one language in another language, which in length and volume will never be equal to the original text.
This applies to all languages whether we translate into them or from them.
La Raiba, perhaps neither means Not/no doubt since it is not La Shakk, and in English it conveys emphasis when used in between a statement for conveying the belief/understanding of certainty about the thing being stated. On the contrary Raib is always in something, la raiba fehi or one is engulfed in Raib fi raibin.
La raiba alone is not a predicate. With reference to the predicate is .
The difference between "raib" and "shakk" is the difference between "doubt" and "suspicion". "la raib" can be used just as "no doubt" in English. It does not have to always be a predicate. This is why I suggested both translations.
There's a slight difference between "shakk" and "raib"; The first presumes confusion between two contradicting facts, and the other presumes malignity in the one matter. Sometimes they can be used alternatively, but in cases you can't according to the context. -
The difference between "raib" and "shakk" is the difference between "doubt" and "suspicion". "la raib" can be used just as "no doubt" in English. It does not have to always be a predicate. This is why I suggested both translations.
There's a slight difference between "shakk" and "raib"; The first presumes confusion between two contradicting facts, and the other presumes malignity in the one matter. Sometimes they can be used alternatively, but in cases you can't according to the context.Well said. It clarifies that "shakk" and "raib" are distinct from each other. When two things are distinct from each other they cannot be used interchangeably. In the verse under study "lar raiba fehi" is the predicate.
Shakk is something that could create a state reflected by the word "raib" and not vice versa. In shakk there may not be feeling of irritation,agitation, uneasiness of mind. In English when we say "there is no doubt in it", the words "in it" mean about/regarding the statement made and not what Arabic word "fi" denotes. -
Dear Brother and Sister, why do you believe that "raib", in this particular verse is used for confusion. According to lexicon it also means "an affair or bussiness". Could it not mean as
This
for you, when used combined together as phrase, doesn't convey meaning of just "this", but something which is, was and will be. Hence, "this is for you an eternally bound book of the law". ( )= Not just a book, but a bound book of law. . "In which no affair or bussiness has been left out".
Badar
-
Thanks for making me read the portion on gezm again. I am not trying to digress from the topic being discussed in this thread, but on reading the link over and over again, I see it clearly written that Gezm is the final letter of a declinable word just like sukoon in an indeclinable word (as rightly indicated by our respected sister in her description given higher up also). I would therefore understand from it that gezm or sukoon are the last letters in those words. Thus if gezm indicates the last letter of a declinable word as per link of Lane, it should be an indication of separation from the next word and start of a new word, although written in a joined fashion. May I humbly request the sister and brothers to please look at the link again to see if the above is the correct understanding of gezm. We all know that Lanes work is mostly based on authentic Taj el Aroos and Lisan el Arab, in addition to other references in his work.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf
Also the current thread started by the brother is an excellent thread and it should be named as transliteration of Al' Qur' Aan (rather than 2;1-39) and should continue from the first word of Qur'Aan till the last word. All linguistic help should be welcomed as linguistic understanding is probably the only way to reach the level of understanding which the Quraish companions of the Prophet (S) had at that time as it is revealed in their dialect.
Best regards. May Rab shower his mercy on all.
-
Salaam kn, Anwar, all
"jezm" is a grammatical action on verbs and not nouns. It could be executed with a sukuun or with other tools depending on the word being declined. For example the verb , when subjected to jezm, it will lose the alif maqsura, without even putting a sukuun on the final letter ; other example is verbs conjugated to masc pl they will lose the nuun which will be replaced with an alif becomes and we say that the verb is in jezm . The sukuun can be a sign of jezm as in the case of some verbs conjugated to sing masc. such as \ , or can be part of a word as . This is why LL says that jezm touches only the final letter when it is expressed with a sukuun. Jezm does not, however, affect only the final letter, ex \ Here jezm is manifested in two ways
-deletion of the median letter, the wau in this case- declenching final letter with a sukuun.
-
Dear Sister, please do not mix Sukoon with Jezm. These are two distinct concepts. Although lots of modern linguist use them interchangabley. Your statement
Salaam kn, Anwar, all
"jezm" is a grammatical action on verbs and not nouns.
differs from reality. If it is a real understanding and it is only meant for verbs and not nouns. How would you explain just few following examples.
and on and on.
Badar
-
Dear Sister, please do not mix Sukoon with Jezm. These are two distinct concepts. Although lots of modern linguist use them interchangabley. Your statement
differs from reality. If it is a real understanding and it is only meant for verbs and not nouns. How would you explain just few following examples.and on and on.
Badar
Actually I know very well what I am saying and it's not rocket science. You do not seem to know what jezm is. If you carefully read what I wrote, you would not write these nouns with "sukuuns" in red.
jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.
A verb can undergo jezm, a noun does not. You would never read for a scholar saying that such and such noun is "majzoum" -
Actually I know very well what I am saying and it's not rocket science. You do not seem to know what jezm is. If you carefully read what I wrote, you would not write these nouns with "sukuuns" in red.
jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.Dear Sister, I am glad you were quick to point and recognise two of the three Sukoon out of three examples. That is and . If you know this much I am sure you would know the case of as well. Furthermore, if you read the link page from Lane, it really no where indicates that jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.
May Rab guide us all and shower his blessings, irrespective of our shortcomings.
Badar
-
If you know this much I am sure you would know the case of as well. Furthermore, if you read the link page from Lane, it really no where indicates that jezm to sukuun is like nasb to fatha.
Of course Lane will not say that. He expects his audience to know the basics, and this is a basic. If you understand the relation between sukuun and jazm, you do not need Lane or any other scholar to point to you that it's analogic to the relation of nasb to fatha. Only your teacher will do your homework ;D