Alif; Laam and Meem with ancillary glyph/prolongation sign
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.011.gif
Letters/consonants of Arabic alphabet ( ‎, Alif; Laam and Meem. Initial letter Alif is not conjoined with the succeeding letter while Laam and Meem are conjoined, and both have above them ancillary glyph/prolongation sign/mark which changes the sound value of the letter to which it is added. It reflects that the Book in hand is in the language that has letters and other marks, representing that its writing system is letter-diacritic combination based, resulting in the combination of sounds that form a syllable, rather than a single sound.The first Ayah of Grand Qur'aan reflects that the style of handwriting/written Arabic is cursive, which means that most of the letters within a word are directly connected to the adjacent letters. Arabic style has a substantially different shape of letters depending on whether it will be connecting with a preceding and/or a succeeding letter, thus all primary letters have conditional forms for their glyphs, depending on whether they are at the beginning, middle or end of a word, and resultantly they may exhibit four distinct forms (initial, medial, final or isolated). However, six letters have only isolated or final form, these are ,,,,, and so force the following letter, if any, to take an initial or isolated form, as if there were a word break. The Aa'ya'at comprising of letters and ancillary glyph have two of such letters and - http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/010.%20Yunus%20alahissalam/Temp%2001%2010.01.gif .These forms are called
??.
?..
This variation in the letters of Arabic is exactly according to the perception of Root " " from which http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0004.%20Kitab%20Kaaf%20Ta%20Ba/6.gif is made. When we bring close the mouth of some receptacle and sew it then the shape of it at certain points where stitch is applied gets changed. We will have to accept that the Arabic is the most scientific language as its Roots enfold all the physical realities.CONTINUE
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0000.%20Haroof%20particles/01.%20Initial%20particles.htm -
Definitely Bro Mazhar...
This language always keeps me wondering on and on.... Allah is ths All-Wise and He has got his reasons why he chose arabic to be the language on the final scripture.
Thanks.
Now consider one simple and apparent reality. Can there be creation without simultaneously there being a language? Creation af matter and creation of language has to take place simultaneously otherwise how could the created thing be introduced to others?
-
Peace Mazhar,
Letters/consonants of Arabic alphabet ( ‎, Alif; Laam and Meem.
This is false. What is presently known as the Arabic alphabet is actually the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet. This is why dotting had to be used to differentiate the letters since Nabataean Aramaic has 22 letters while Arabic has 28. On the other hand, the real Arabic Alphabet (called Musnad script) has the full 28 letters represented. See an example of an Arabian inscription that uses the Musnad script here
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig22-safaitic09_img.htm
Unlike the present day script derived from Aramaic which is written from right to left, top to bottom, the Arabic script didn't have a specific orientation. Sometimes it was written from left to right or bottom to top. Sometimes it would start in one orientation and then zig zag to another orientation (as in the case of the inscription in the link). One could usually tell where the inscription starts because most inscriptions start with the letter Lam. You can also tell the direction of the inscription by the letter Mim since it is in the shape of a solid half-circle open in the direction of writing. The Raa is shaped like an English C but with jagged edges and it is also open in the direction of the writing. So it could be that a function of the words "Alm" and "Alr" was to quickly point to the reader where the text starts and the direction of the writing. This could imply that the great reading, or at least the chapters that start with those words, was originally written in the Arabic Musnad script and not in Aramaic Nabataean. Perhaps the great reading is somewhat older than what everyone thinks.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
This is false. What is presently known as the Arabic alphabet is actually the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet. This is why dotting had to be used to differentiate the letters since Nabataean Aramaic has 22 letters while Arabic has 28. On the other hand, the real Arabic Alphabet (called Musnad script) has the full 28 letters represented. See an example of an Arabian inscription that uses the Musnad script here
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig22-safaitic09_img.htm
Unlike the present day script derived from Aramaic which is written from right to left, top to bottom, the Arabic script didn't have a specific orientation. Sometimes it was written from left to right or bottom to top. Sometimes it would start in one orientation and then zig zag to another orientation (as in the case of the inscription in the link). One could usually tell where the inscription starts because most inscriptions start with the letter Lam. You can also tell the direction of the inscription by the letter Mim since it is in the shape of a solid half-circle open in the direction of writing. The Raa is shaped like an English C but with jagged edges and it is also open in the direction of the writing. So it could be that a function of the words "Alm" and "Alr" was to quickly point to the reader where the text starts and the direction of the writing. This could imply that the great reading, or at least the chapters that start with those words, was originally written in the Arabic Musnad script and not in Aramaic Nabataean. Perhaps the great reading is somewhat older than what everyone thinks.
Peace,
Ayman
That is a thought. Nothing substantial in that. The question dates back to billions of years. And that is
One simple and apparent reality. Can there be creation without simultaneously there being a language? Creation af matter and creation of language has to take place simultaneously otherwise how could the created thing be introduced to others?
One script is here also
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERF_558 -
Peace Ayman,
This could imply that the great reading, or at least the chapters that start with those words, was originally written in the Arabic Musnad script and not in Aramaic Nabataean.
But this would imply that the great reading originated in southern/central Arabia which would contradict with the location of the prophet being in northern Arabia as evidenced by 37137-138, 699, 6141, 1611, 8029, 951. It would also imply that all the chapters that start with those words were revealed before the other chapters. Do you have any actual archeological evidence of the earliest script of some of the chapters of the great reading written in Musnad script which would confirm this theory? Therefore this theory of some chapters of the great reading originally written in Musnad script might not be correct.
This theory also contradicts your research about this matter in your article "How did it come to this". Are you suggesting that the following conclusion in that article might be incorrect?
"based on the orthographic evidence from the great reading itself and physical archeological evidence, the great reading must have originated in a north Arabian Lakhmid province or border town and not in a central Arabian area such as the area later known as Mecca."
http//www.free-minds.org/ayman
-
Peace Truthseeker,
But this would imply that the great reading originated in southern/central Arabia which would contradict with the location of the prophet being in northern Arabia as evidenced by 37137-138, 699, 6141, 1611, 8029, 951.
The answer to this is probably going to take some time. So I will try to give the short version for now. The key to the answer and to resolving all contradictions about how Arabic developed is a very interesting observation evident in the great reading.
More on this below but first the Musnad script was actually used by the nomads in Northern Arabia to write thousands of rock graffiti in Safaitic (a dialect very close to Arabic). The nomads lived in an illiterate society and they didn't care to become literate in the language and script of literacy. So they simply used the most suitable script to scribble their graffiti.
The situation was quite different in the literate society of the towns of Arabia where literacy had prestige and people had access to scribes who could write in the script of prestige.
It is evident from the great reading that the people of the prophet were city dwellers and not desert dwellers. The prophet lived in a multi-cultural cosmopolitan town where people engaged in agriculture and commerce. The nomads are always described as the outsiders. The great reading is in the language of the people of the prophet. So it is in the language of the city dwellers and not the nomads. This is the opposite of what traditions propose. Traditionalists turned things on their head and made the nomads the supposed ultimate arbiters of Arabic linguistics.
It would also imply that all the chapters that start with those words were revealed before the other chapters.
I agree. Keep in mind that I am just brainstorming some possibilities. At this stage, this is just speculation. But all theories about the Alm, Alr, etc. are speculation. This is probably as good a speculation as any.
Do you have any actual archeological evidence of the earliest script of some of the chapters of the great reading written in Musnad script which would confirm this theory?
Nope.
Therefore this theory of some chapters of the great reading originally written in Musnad script might not be correct.
I agree. It is just another theory to try to resolve the issue of the Alm, Alr, etc.
This theory also contradicts your research about this matter in your article "How did it come to this". Are you suggesting that the following conclusion in that article might be incorrect?
"based on the orthographic evidence from the great reading itself and physical archeological evidence, the great reading must have originated in a north Arabian Lakhmid province or border town and not in a central Arabian area such as the area later known as Mecca."
http//www.free-minds.org/aymanNo. It is not contradictory or incorrect. The above is true for the towns. The answer is in the difference between the linguistic situation in the wilderness and in the towns of Northern Arabia. When prestige mattered, the script of prestige was used. In the early days of revelation if the prophet didn?t have access to professional scribes and prestige was not a factor then Musnad with the full 28 Arabic letters represented would have been the script of choice just like in the case of the Safaitic graffiti of the nomads.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have two additional questions
Firstly, can you please provide any links to archeological evidence of the Musnad script being used in northern Arabia? I was under the impression that Musnad script was only used in central and southern Arabia.
Secondly, I thought that the great reading suggests that it was revealed in the language of the common people (people of the prophet) and not in the language of prestige/religion (used by people of the book). My question is did the common people use two scripts for their language? viz. the script of the nomads i.e. Musnad script and the script of the common people living in the towns i.e. Nabataean Aramaic script? Wouldn't the script of prestige in towns be the Greek or Latin script instead of Nabataean Aramaic?
The situation was quite different in the literate society of the towns of Arabia where literacy had prestige and people had access to scribes who could write in the script of prestige.
When prestige mattered, the script of prestige was used. In the early days of revelation if the prophet didn?t have access to professional scribes and prestige was not a factor then Musnad with the full 28 Arabic letters represented would have been the script of choice just like in the case of the Safaitic graffiti of the nomads.
The above is confusing me. I thought that the script of prestige was the one used for language of prestige/religion (of people of the book) i.e. Greek or Latin script. You are suggesting that the script of prestige was Nabataean Aramaic at that time.
Just to make sure I have understood you correctly, are you suggesting the following for northern Arabia at the time of revelation of the great reading?
- Language of prestige/religion in towns was written in Greek or Latin script (used by people of the book).
- Language of the common people was written in two scripts
a. Musnad script by nomads/people of wilderness
b. Nabataean Aramaic script by common people living in towns.
If the above is true then your theory of some chapters of the great reading originally written in Musnad script might have some merit and be worth further consideration and research.
-
It is evident from the great reading that the people of the prophet were city dwellers and not desert dwellers. The prophet lived in a multi-cultural cosmopolitan town where people engaged in agriculture and commerce. The nomads are always described as the outsiders. The great reading is in the language of the people of the prophet. So it is in the language of the city dwellers and not the nomads. This is the opposite of what traditions propose. Traditionalists turned things on their head and made the nomads the supposed ultimate arbiters of Arabic linguistics.
All the Messengers of Allah were sent to the cosmopoliton town/central city of their respective nations.
The last Messenger lived in a cosmopolitan town which was the centre of trade and commerce but NOT agriculture. That city is described as "Ghair Zee Zarin".
-
Peace Mazhar,
All the Messengers of Allah were sent to the cosmopoliton town/central city of their respective nations.
The last Messenger lived in a cosmopolitan town which was the centre of trade and commerce but NOT agriculture. That city is described as "Ghair Zee Zarin".The fact is that the people of the prophet were engaged in agriculture activities as per passages such as 5664, etc.
The word "zar3" means cultivation. At the time of Abraham, the area was not cultivated by humans. This doesn't mean that it didn't have any naturally occuring vegetation or that it remained uncultivated after humans settled in it. People cultivated figs, grapes, pomegranates and olives (699, 951, etc.).
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Truthseeker11,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have two additional questions
Firstly, can you please provide any links to archeological evidence of the Musnad script being used in northern Arabia? I was under the impression that Musnad script was only used in central and southern Arabia.The Musnad script being used only in central and southern Arabia is true only for Arabic inscriptions. Northern Arabian inscriptions in other Arabian dialects such as Safaitic and Thamudic do use the Arabian Musnad script.
Safaitic inscriptions such as the one I provided the link to above are found in Northern Arabia.
Secondly, I thought that the great reading suggests that it was revealed in the language of the common people (people of the prophet) and not in the language of prestige/religion (used by people of the book). My question is did the common people use two scripts for their language?
The answer is no. The common people simply didn't have any practical need for writing and thus had no use for any script. The majority of the people in the literate society of the towns were illiterate. The society is literate because literacy served religious and political function and carried prestige not because the majority of its population is literate.
The common people in the towns didn't have a script. When they needed something written, they had access to scribes who could write in the script of prestige. Usually this something was in the language of prestige. On the rare occasion when this something was in Arabic, the script of the language of prestige which the scribes normally write in (Nabataean Aramaic script in the Lakhmid province) was used to write the Arabic.
viz. the script of the nomads i.e. Musnad script and the script of the common people living in the towns i.e. Nabataean Aramaic script?
Unlike the town folk, the nomads didn't have access to scribes in the middle of the desert. Also, writing served a completely different purpose for nomads. The only purpose that nomads had for writing was scribbling graffiti on rocks to kill time during the solitary nomadic life. Ironically, due to the different purpose of writing and the lack of scribes in the middle of the desert, the nomads were more likely to write in their own oral vernacular than city dwellers. This is why unlike rare Arabic inscriptions there are thousands of Safaitic graffiti.
Wouldn't the script of prestige in towns be the Greek or Latin script instead of Nabataean Aramaic?
Greek was used in the Roman provinces by the Ghassanids, not in the Lakhmid areas.
The above is confusing me. I thought that the script of prestige was the one used for language of prestige/religion (of people of the book) i.e. Greek or Latin script. You are suggesting that the script of prestige was Nabataean Aramaic at that time.
Greek or Latin was only used in the Roman provinces not in the Lakhmid province. In the Lakhmid areas Nabataean Aramaic remained the language of prestige.
Just to make sure I have understood you correctly, are you suggesting the following for northern Arabia at the time of revelation of the great reading?
- Language of prestige/religion in towns was written in Greek or Latin script (used by people of the book).
- Language of the common people was written in two scripts
a. Musnad script by nomads/people of wilderness
b. Nabataean Aramaic script by common people living in towns.
If the above is true then your theory of some chapters of the great reading originally written in Musnad script might have some merit and be worth further consideration and research.
Here is what I am suggesting
- Language of prestige/religion in towns outside Roman dominion in Northern Arabia was Aramaic (used by people of the book).
- Much like the typical Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern country today, there were two main vernacular dialects spoken by the common folk. One dialect was spoken in the rural areas (ANA dialects such as Safaitic) and the other (Arabic) was spoken in the towns. The two dialects were largely mutually comprehensible despite their variances. This is much like say the Egyptian Cairienne dialect spoken by city dwellers and Egyptian Sinai dialect spoken by the nomads are mutually comprehensible. Like those modern day dialects, Safaitic would have been seen as a more ?rough? dialect than the Old Arabic city dialect. One can see some evidence of this ?roughness?, for example, in the Safaitic definite article having a demonstrative connotation while this is largely subdued in the Arabic definite article.
- When the common people in towns needed to write something, they had access to scribes who could write it in the language of prestige. This is why Old Arabic inscriptions are rare. On the rare occasions when Old Arabic was written, the script of the language of prestige that the scribes of that region were using was used to write it.
- When the nomads in the desert needed to write something, it didn?t serve any practical purpose but was done as a form of entertainment to kill time during the long hours of solitary nomadic life. This is why the nomads despite being illiterate scribbled thousands of graffiti in the desert of Northern Arabia. Because the purpose was entertainment and had nothing to do with literacy, they used their oral language. Also, since they didn?t have access to scribes, they used the simplest script that required no adjustments or knowledge of writing standards to represent foreign letters. Prestige was not a factor so they naturally used the Arabian Musnad script which had the 28 letters of Arabic represented.
I hope this clarifies things a little bit. As you mentioned above, this can be confusing. You are not alone to see it as confusing. There is currently no good theory on how or where Arabic was used and the evidence contradicts all the current theories. Even experts are confused. I think that the great reading provides all the answers that are needed to finally solve this puzzle. I am hoping to finally use the great reading to reduce the confusion in the book that I am working on.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
The fact is that the people of the prophet were engaged in agriculture activities as per passages such as 5664, etc.
The word "zar3" means cultivation. At the time of Abraham, the area was not cultivated by humans. This doesn't mean that it didn't have any naturally occuring vegetation or that it remained uncultivated after humans settled in it. People cultivated figs, grapes, pomegranates and olives (699, 951, etc.).
Peace,
Ayman
But brother none of the references quoted are specific to an area and are not relevant to the valley to which the Messenger belonged which has still nothing of such things. The word "Zee" with Zarin is important information giving; zarin is specific to organized cultivation of crops not gardens; perhaps.
-
Peace Mazhar,
But brother none of the references quoted are specific to an area and are not relevant to the valley to which the Messenger belonged which has still nothing of such things.
The great reading was certainly relevant to the people of the prophet. 5664 was directly addressing the people of the prophet. 951 talks directly about the figs and olives in the context of the town of the prophet. Why do you disregard what the great reading says? How do you know that this valley has "nothing of such things" when the god tells us otherwise?
1437 says ?an uncultivated valley? NOT ?a plantless valley?. Please see how the term "zar3" is used in the great reading in 1247, 5664, 4829, 6141, 1611, 134, 1437, 1832, 3227, 3921, 26148, and 4426. You can see that "zar3" involves an act of human cultivation. This doesn't mean that the valley was plantless, i.e., without naturally occurring plants. So the passage is certainly talking about an "uncultivated valley" not a "plantless valley". The valley was uncultivated at the time of Abraham but by the time of the prophet it become very much cultivated according to 5664 and many more passages.
The word "Zee" with Zarin is important information giving; zarin is specific to organized cultivation of crops not gardens; perhaps.
I am not sure what you mean. Zar3 means human cultivation of any kind of crops, including fruits.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
The great reading was certainly relevant to the people of the prophet. 5664 was directly addressing the people of the prophet. 951 talks directly about the figs and olives in the context of the town of the prophet. Why do you disregard what the great reading says? How do you know that this valley has "nothing of such things" when the god tells us otherwise?
1437 says ?an uncultivated valley? NOT ?a plantless valley?. Please see how the term "zar3" is used in the great reading in 1247, 5664, 4829, 6141, 1611, 134, 1437, 1832, 3227, 3921, 26148, and 4426. You can see that "zar3" involves an act of human cultivation. This doesn't mean that the valley was plantless, i.e., without naturally occurring plants. So the passage is certainly talking about an "uncultivated valley" not a "plantless valley". The valley was uncultivated at the time of Abraham but by the time of the prophet it become very much cultivated according to 5664 and many more passages.
I am not sure what you mean. Zar3 means human cultivation of any kind of crops, including fruits.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace brother Ayman;
Qur'aan has been called "alhaqqu"; a statement of proven fact. A proven fact never talks agaist the evident physical reality.
It is quote of the statement of a person who was present there and knew about the valley. The valley is the one where is located. And we even today find that there is nothing of the sort what in the referred Aa'ya'at is mentioned. This valley is different from the location of orchards where eventually the Last Messenger migrated and lived afterwards. All sorts of fruits are brought to this valley from outside world; they don't grow there. is perhaps mostly used for monocotyledons;family of grasses ; a botanist should critically study Qur'aan and he may find detailed information about Plant Kingdom and its major classification. is perhaps telling the peculiar feature of the land of this valley; not the act of people that they are not in habit of cultivating the land.
Had the address in 56 not been the bits of general questioning and indirectly giving delicate information; and restricted for the men of those days there would not have been this
O. Their perception and common knowledge and visible experience was dropping of water from the lower clouds Alghamame. Had this been used the question and claim would have become incorrect and false today since we can drop water from the sky today. But the cloud mentioned is ; we will never be technically so advanced to drop water from . This is the statement of proven fact, the Grand Qur'aan. -
Peace Mazhar,
Qur'aan has been called "alhaqqu"; a statement of proven fact.
Well then according to the great reading "zar3" means human cultivation.
A proven fact never talks agaist the evident physical reality.
It is quote of the statement of a person who was present there and knew about the valley. The valley is the one where is located. And we even today find that there is nothing of the sort what in the referred Aa'ya'at is mentioned. This valley is different from the location of orchards where eventually the Last Messenger migrated and lived afterwards. All sorts of fruits are brought to this valley from outside world; they don't grow there. is perhaps mostly used for monocotyledons;family of grasses ; a botanist should critically study Qur'aan and he may find detailed information about Plant Kingdom and its major classification.
Restricting "zar3" to "planting of monocotyledons;family of grasses" is a false meaning of "zar3" that you just invented right now and which is not in line with the clear meaning given by how the word is used in the great reading. Your invented meaning is certainly different from how a person who was present there and knew about the valley would understand the concept.
is perhaps telling the peculiar feature of the land of this valley; not the act of people that they are not in habit of cultivating the land.
The valley was not cultivated by humans at the time Abraham settled his descendants there. This is what we know. This doesn't mean that it didn't have any plants or that it remained uncultivated thousands of years later after humans settled there.
Had the address in 56 not been the bits of general questioning and indirectly giving delicate information; and restricted for the men of those days there would not have been this
O. Their perception and common knowledge and visible experience was dropping of water from the lower clouds Alghamame. Had this been used the question and claim would have become incorrect and false today since we can drop water from the sky today. But the cloud mentioned is ; we will never be technically so advanced to drop water from . This is the statement of proven fact, the Grand Qur'aan.I don't get what you are trying to say. The people of the prophet understood this and it was meaningful and relevant to them.
Peace,
Ayman
-
A proven fact never talks agaist the evident physical reality.
It is quote of the statement of a person who was present there and knew about the valley. The valley is the one where is located. And we even today find that there is nothing of the sort what in the referred Aa'ya'at is mentioned. This valley is different from the location of orchards where eventually the Last Messenger migrated and lived afterwards. All sorts of fruits are brought to this valley from outside world; they don't grow there. is perhaps mostly used for monocotyledons;family of grasses ; a botanist should critically study Qur'aan and he may find detailed information about Plant Kingdom and its major classification.
Restricting "zar3" to "planting of monocotyledons;family of grasses" is a false meaning of "zar3" that you just invented right now and which is not in line with the clear meaning given by how the word is used in the great reading. Your invented meaning is certainly different from how a person who was present there and knew about the valley would understand the concept.
I am trying to suggest that the Grand Qur'aan is too specific and distinctly demarcates every thing, while we remain in the general frame of mind. Neither anything stated is false nor I just invented. In 4829 is specifically told as monocotyledon. The primary classification of plants is monocotyledon and dicotyledone. And all crops yeilding grain are grasses, monocotyledon. And if you look at the meanings of cultivation, it primarily means preperation of the land for growing crops and not gardens of fruits. Where there are gardens there in between is which will reflect that it is something different.
-
Peace Mazhar,
I am trying to suggest that the Grand Qur'aan is too specific and distinctly demarcates every thing, while we remain in the general frame of mind. Neither anything stated is false nor I just invented. In 4829 is specifically told as monocotyledon. The primary classification of plants is monocotyledon and dicotyledone. And all crops yeilding grain are grasses, monocotyledon. And if you look at the meanings of cultivation, it primarily means preperation of the land for growing crops and not gardens of fruits. Where there are gardens there in between is which will reflect that it is something different.
4829 doesn't suggest that the meaning of zar3 is restricted to monocotyledon, let alone it being the primary meaning. In fact 4829 makes it clear that the primary meaning is that it is human planted plants because of the clear reference to "pleases the people who planted it/zura3". Again, the only thing we can say for sure is that "zar3" involves a human act of planting, anything else is speculation.
Peace,
Ayman
-
I am trying to suggest that the Grand Qur'aan is too specific and distinctly demarcates every thing, while we remain in the general frame of mind. Neither anything stated is false nor I just invented. In 4829 is specifically told as monocotyledon. The primary classification of plants is monocotyledon and dicotyledone. And all crops yeilding grain are grasses, monocotyledon. And if you look at the meanings of cultivation, it primarily means preperation of the land for growing crops and not gardens of fruits. Where there are gardens there in between is which will reflect that it is something different.
4829 doesn't suggest that the meaning of zar3 is restricted to monocotyledon, let alone it being the primary meaning. In fact 4829 makes it clear that the primary meaning is that it is human planted plants because of the clear reference to "pleases the people who planted it/zura3". Again, the only thing we can say for sure is that "zar3" involves a human act of planting, anything else is speculation.
Brother here it goes 4829
If it is not monocotyledon then what else is this?
-
Peace Mazhar,
Brother here it goes 4829
If it is not monocotyledon then what else is this?
Monocotyledon is one possible meaning but it is not the only one or the exclusive one. Here is what Lisan Al-3arab says
.
.Translation
The sprout of plants and palm trees
Leaves of vegetationAgain, the only sure thing from 4829 is that this is human-planted plants.
Irrespective of what type of plant "zar3" is, the sure thing is that it is human planted. So please focus on the indisputable fact that 1437 talks about a valley that didn't have any human-planted plants at the time Abraham settled his family. This doesn't mean that the valley wasn't fertile and didn't have naturally occuring vegetation. It also doesn't mean that thousands of years later humans didn't plant anything in it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 094713 PM
Brother here it goes 4829
If it is not monocotyledon then what else is this?
Monocotyledon is one possible meaning but it is not the only one or the exclusive one. Here is what Lisan Al-3arab says
.
.Translation
The sprout of plants and palm trees
Leaves of vegetationAgain, the only sure thing from 4829 is that this is human-planted plants.
Irrespective of what type of plant "zar3" is, the sure thing is that it is human planted. So please focus on the indisputable fact that 1437 talks about a valley that didn't have any human-planted plants at the time Abraham settled his family. This doesn't mean that the valley wasn't fertile and didn't have naturally occuring vegetation. It also doesn't mean that thousands of years later humans didn't plant anything in it.
What Lisan Al-3arab indicated is precisely and exclusively monocoteledon. He has translated , singular sprout of and only NOT all plants. And he did not say "leaves of vegetation". Both and are monocotyledon. Arabic is a scientific language, each Root containing in it the physical realities.