A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
-
Peace,
Check out this page http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-five.html
http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-four.html
Looks like tas-hil (lightening of the hamza) is the answer when the word stands alone with a dammah or dammatain. But when it connects to other words with hamzas it an morph to a waw, yaa or use tas-heel again.
It explains the phenomena I was wondering about. That is, words like samaa'un etc.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Check out this page http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-five.html
http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-four.html
Looks like tas-hil (lightening of the hamza) is the answer when the word stands alone with a dammah or dammatain. But when it connects to other words with hamzas it an morph to a waw, yaa or use tas-heel again.
It explains the phenomena I was wondering about. That is, words like samaa'un etc.
Godbless,
AnwarPeace, AlKitab means "a bound book of principles" and not just a book of recitation. However, is it not later, truly the concept of most Muslims? Hence, only sounds no results. No results because correct results are dependent on correct actions. With sounds only comes no understanding. No understanding bigots to misunderstanding; resulting in perverted actions and results. What a pity?
Badar
-
Peace,
The information I gave you was designed to help you understand how the QUran factors in to the various Classical Arabic dialects, including the Quraysh. I hope you are not now scoffing at it or disregarding it.
Al-Kitaab means book/writing or law/decree. Either or. You can understand both ideas but they have to be taken as separate interpretations, conveying ideas that may be compatible or incompatible.
Understanding the words and meanings that these sounds communicate, then understanding the message communicated by these words and then acting on the messages found in the words that are found in the sounds is the key to our quest to learn and live the Quran.
We must have both the little and big picture in mind.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
The information I gave you was designed to help you understand how the QUran factors in to the various Classical Arabic dialects, including the Quraysh. I hope you are not now scoffing at it or disregarding it.
Godbless,
AnwarNo I am not. Whatever, can help to understand AlKitab, is the goal for me. I have ordered "The Arabic Language Its Role in History Escrito por Anwar G. Chejne" and it is on its way to me. I think it may prove to be interesting.
"Understanding the words and meanings that these sounds communicate, then understanding the message communicated by these words and then acting on the messages found in the words that are found in the sounds is the key to our quest to learn and live the Quran".
For the above I would like you to consider this. The sounds of people of time of prophet are only preserved in archives of writing. Current spoken sounds of Arabic are only renderings and distractions for correct understanding. This includes the grammatical rules including Sibawaih. Who contrary to popular belief among some Arabicits did not use Quranic Arabic as a basis for his Analysis.
Hence, MY CLAIM OF LOST LANGUAGE AS A SPOKEN ONE; as well my call to help join hands to reconstruct it, in order to have better understanding of AlKitab.
Badar
-
So here is the question, if one does not like to call it a challenge. The word is said to be a word derived from root . It is further said that it is female gender of this root, due addition of female marker at the end which is . However, who ever wrote these Arabic grammar rules, how can he justify such a rule to belong to the time of prophet; when Kureysh even did not speak words with Hemezh?
Peace to all
Badar
-
Peace,
The Quraysh did use hamza. After alif they lightened it heavily enough so that it was almost not heard and they asimilated it after waw and yaa. But they DID use hamza (final, middle and terminal), they just did not pronounce it as strongly as other tribes and they tended to assimlate it wherever it could be assimilated. There are definitely wierd words in Arabic. in my opinion is one of them. It's form is the verbal noun of faa'ala (form/measure 3). However this form is not necessarily from measure 3. Take ridaa' for instance. Anyway it can come from two roots. anasa where the alif dropped somehow and this female alif, yaa was added, Making it the femine of Unaasun (another wierd from which supposedly comes from Unaasun). It is possible that with this root the alif likes to run away. This is not unheard of but this would most likely be an archaic form even for Classical Arabic, meaning that it happened before the language known as Classical Arabic matured into the language of the Quran and the Arabic of its kind. However it can also come from noon, seen, waw. Given the form niswatun that may be more the case. the waw in niswatun would correspond to the last hamza in
(I hope you are still not confused about how the weak letters can transform into each other) It is very unlikely that is a variation of a form like niswaa'. I don't see why it would assimilate from niswaa' to . But I may have more to learn.So look up the root using noon, seen, waw, and look for forms that correspond to a form like nisaa' where the alif drops and an alif, hamza added. It is possible but given the word niswatun it is very unlikely. By the way niswatun is not just colloquial or dialect it is Fushaa as well. And I do remember having seen it in the Quran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
It is very evident that this word has nothing to do with women. I should have further broken it down for general audiences. is actually the Medda in , actually indicate elimination of second Alif/hemzeh . Hence, the female maker actually is and not . Since this female marker is a grammatical inovation of later time. Hence, neither relavant to language of Kureysh nor part of any original roots in the lexicon. The actual root for this word is , which is here in the lexicon.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000039.pdf
Peace,
Badar
-
Peace,
Badar, even though I agree with your conclusion, how you got there is completely wrong. So yes the root of is or even noon, seen, waw. However you should read Wright, i., page 24, E., 22, to see how your conclusion about the alif-maddah is not fully correct.
equals
not
We even see that in old texts we find this
You will also see on page 27 in the second paragraph under (a) labelled REM., that the feminine form that adds alif and hamza does include a maddah. Look at the feminine form of red, Hamraa' and you will see that it takes a Maddah.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Thanks for pointing this out, two alifs with hemzeh in the begining of word can take medda and not at end. In end it has to be an alif preceeded by fetha followed by alif hemezh.
Just few things while reading Wright or Lane one has to keep in mind that they are only works of translations from original Arabic sources. They have translated and combined several sources in one. Hence, they should be viewed as such.
In addition, when one applies the grammatical rules to lexicon, one has to keep in mind that lexicon is foremost and grammar only to help lexicon to further convey the lexical concepts. Hence, if a grammatical rule does not agree with lexical part, need to be skeptical about it.
Furthermore, from historical prospective we know that original preservation was mainly in the form of lexical concepts only. By this I mean only consonantal skeletal was preserved. The lexical meanings are in this consonantal part only. All grammatical additions are later phenomenon. May with good intention, but seem to have caused more confusion.
In word under consideration. I was only trying to draw attention that Medda is there to suggest presence of two alifs. Since, there is no original consonantal root in lexicon with either two alif in the end or with a Medda and Hemezh. Hence, last hemezh, and alif are not original. This is inspite of established rules of Arabic grammar later.
However, once this rule of combining two alif by sign of medda was established as such, a female marker was easy to make. Based upon this female marker one could make, so to call grammatical new words by adding it to consonantal roots of interest. The new words were made based on these rules and now are well established in the language. These new words are now established to the extent, that even natives can not recognize these as not part of original language.
Hence, imagine if lexicon of original consonantal skeletal was not available. There was no way one could say with certainty now, that this word meaning woman was not part of the original language.
Peace, hope keeping this discussion in public domain is helping others. Everybody, please ask relavant questions but please referain from not relavant ones.
Based upon improved understanding from Wright = = . If this is the case. It would imply
- That cosonantal root has no female marker attached to it.
- One need to still ponder what is implying to root or else it is not related to this root at all and in reality a pronoun for the following word.
- I have yet to look up verses where this word is used to check how contextual relationship of words will help to decide its use.
Badar
-
Peace,
Not to be rude but this below was the only thing in your post that mattered. The rest just made you sound like someone trying to justify his/her mistake. I don't even know why you are acting like that fathah makes any difference. Anway, as I said a few posts ago, it would be really hard to see how nisaa' could come from anisa and be using the female suffix used in hamraa'. And I know of no situation where the first radical would drop like that and a female suffix be added in such a way. I guess you missed when I said that, it took you a few posts but I guess you are starting to realize on your own something I told you a few posts ago. Oh, well. I could just take this as me wasting my time and my words, but I'll still give it a chance. Anway, .. .
What you stated in your 2nd point below is pure nonesense and I don't even think you understand what you said. Anyway I hope you will get it one day and stop misreading and misconstruing things. BUt that is up to you.
'Based upon improved understanding from Wright = = . If this is the case. It would imply
- That cosonantal root has no female marker attached to it.
- One need to still ponder what is implying to root or else it is not related to this root at all and in reality a pronoun for the following word.
- I have yet to look up verses where this word is used to check how contextual relationship of words will help to decide its use.
Badar
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Not to be rude but this below was the only thing in your post that mattered. The rest just made you sound like someone trying to justify his/her mistake. I don't even know why you are acting like that fathah makes any difference. Anway, as I said a few posts ago, it would be really hard to see how nisaa' could come from anisa and be using the female suffix used in hamraa'. And I know of no situation where the first radical would drop like that and a female suffix be added in such a way. I guess you missed when I said that, it took you a few posts but I guess you are starting to realize on your own something I told you a few posts ago. Oh, well. I could just take this as me wasting my time and my words, but I'll still give it a chance. Anway, .. .
What you stated in your 2nd point below is pure nonesense and I don't even think you understand what you said. Anyway I hope you will get it one day and stop misreading and misconstruing things. BUt that is up to you.
Godbless,
AnwarOne tries to justify his/her mistakes. When one is seeking self glorification or thinks I know it all. I am after neither. I am only trying to understand the message and want only glorification of the message and originator of the message. I have said out aloud that the language of AlKitab is lost, but revivable. I have realized the fact and admitted as such. This is in order to, neither act deluded nor be na?ve of a reality.
Please point the post of your to enlighten me where you said that word Nissa does not mean woman, in case if I missed it. I thought when I asked linguists of Arabic language, if they knew Quryesh spoke words with hemzeh. You responded by saying that ?my questions were stupid and in addition I was acting retarded?.
However, if it makes you feel better, for me to say I made a mistake in above break down of last medda of word Nisa. I am happy to admit that. As I do make lots of other mistakes as well and not at all hesitant to admit those. This is because I am an ordinary person just like any other Joe in the street Who wants to remain as such, still continue striving to understand his Rabb?s eternal message.Peace,
Badar -
Badar,
Please point the post of your to enlighten me where you said that word Nissa does not mean woman, in case if I missed it.
WHere did you get this from? I never said Nissa does not mean women. This is what I am talking about, why do you not understand what I am saying and then say I have said things that I never said? Nisaa' means women, plain and simple. But if you want to talk about the form of the word this is what I said
Anway, as I said a few posts ago, it would be really hard to see how nisaa' could come from anisa and be using the female suffix used in hamraa'. And I know of no situation where the first radical would drop like that and a female suffix be added in such a way
.How did you understand from that, that what I said was
Nissa does not mean womanI don't understand you, it's like what I say goes over your head so you try understand it is some really miscontrued and twisted way, and atleast in this case put words into my mouth.
The language of the Quran IS NOT lost. The knowledge of it has been obscured but is still obtainable for anyone who wishes to know. Get this idea out of your head and open the books up to learn from them, not prove how they are wrong with premature conclusions.
Your question about whether the Quraysh used hamza was set up in a way for you to claim 'HAA! you see there is hamza in the Quran so it can't be original as the Quraysh did not use hamza.' But you have no clue about what you are speaking and you make premature conclusions. The Arabic language was codified and organized in away that it represented the letters used by ALL tribes. And the Quraysh did use hamza's they just used them ALOT less and lightened them or assimilated them in most places. These being hamza's that are in the middle of the word or at the end. Initial hamza's they ALWAYS pronounced. So you need to take all of the statements about hamza and the Quraiysh into perspective. Some hadeeth will say the prophet did not like taqhiq of hamza, others will say he accepted them when the Quran was recited by people of other tribes. Whose to say that Gabriel picked the dialect of the Quraysh, maybe he mixed it up on purpose which is what some scholars believe, meaning that the QUran has different aspects from all the different Arabic dialects. Despite all this if you understand the relationship between weak letters in Arabic and general rules of assimilation these dialect differences are not a big deal at all. Understanding the idea of assimilation, tas-heel and tahqiq should have clarified it for you, but since you are on a mission to prove that the language of the Quran is lost I think you are prone to not want to put the evidences together and make correct conclusions.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Badar,
WHere did you get this from? I never said Nissa does not mean women. This is what I am talking about, why do you not understand what I am saying and then say I have said things that I never said? Nisaa' means women, plain and simple. But if you want to talk about the form of the word this is what I said .
How did you understand from that, that what I said was
I don't understand you, it's like what I say goes over your head so you try understand it is some really miscontrued and twisted way, and atleast in this case put words into my mouth.Godbless,
AnwarHere is what my conclusion about this word was above,
It is very evident that this word has nothing to do with women. I should have further broken it down for general audiences. is actually the Medda in , actually indicate elimination of second Alif/hemzeh . Hence, the female maker actually is and not . Since this female marker is a grammatical inovation of later time. Hence, neither relavant to language of Kureysh nor part of any original roots in the lexicon. The actual root for this word is , which is here in the lexicon.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000039.pdf
Peace,
Badar
Here is what your response was
Peace,
Badar, even though I agree with your conclusion, how you got there is completely wrong. So yes the root of is or even noon, seen, waw. However you should read Wright, i., page 24, E., 22, to see how your conclusion about the alif-maddah is not fully correct.
equals
not
We even see that in old texts we find this
You will also see on page 27 in the second paragraph under (a) labelled REM., that the feminine form that adds alif and hamza does include a maddah. Look at the feminine form of red, Hamraa' and you will see that it takes a Maddah.
Godbless,
AnwarHere is what you are on record about Hemzeh,
Peace,
I am not disputing the lack of use of hamza by the Quraysh Arabs. I agree with you. I dispute whether the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) actually said that hadeeth NOT the general idea that the hadeeth is communicating.
Godbless,
AnwarPlease decide what you want to say. I am not trying to convince you or any one else about anything. I am on the quest of finding out the truth about message, very truthfully and will continue to share in the same spirit.
Badar,
And the Quraysh did use hamza's they just used them ALOT less and lightened them or assimilated them in most places. These being hamza's that are in the middle of the word or at the end. Initial hamza's they ALWAYS pronounced. So you need to take all of the statements about hamza and the Quraiysh into perspective.
Godbless,
AnwarAlready said if any one claims to be present at the time of prophet. Now willing to testify, how Kuryseh pronounced words? or else claim to know more Arabic than authentic Arabic lexicons, as well prophet good for him/them.
I can only go forward by shuffling through archives of written material; using gift of reason logic given to me, by my Rabb. Since there is no body speaking that language anymore, Bro.
Peace
-
Peace,
So your point in posting all that was what? I never said in any of that that nisaa' does not mean 'women' and I never contradicted myself. So what was your point in posting all that. I did decide on what I wanted to say and i said it. So why is all of that not crystal clear for you. Why are you confused by what I have been saying to the point of thinking that I said that nisaa' does not mean women or that I am not clear on the Quraysh's use of hamza. The word 'lack' does not mean 'complete omission'.
In that same passage where I say I agree with you about the lack of hamza's (I should have said lack of pronunciation of hamza's and not lack of hamza's which might be what i confusing you) I also said
But as far as I know there was not an absolute omission of all hamzas. There was actually a consistent pattern to this from what I understood, a pattern that the Quraysh as children intuitively learned from older Quraysh about which hamzas would be omitted in the Quraysh dialect and how.
So again why are you not understanding what I am saying, and posting what I have said as if it is some sort of proof against me?
Since there is no body speaking that language anymore, Bro.
ON this I can somewhat agree. But those who learn tajweed and recite the Quran, hadeeths and du'as with this sort of tajweed ARE still speaking this language. Tajweed does not mean reciting the Quran well, it means speaking Classical Arabic well, like the original Arabs around and during the time of the prophet (God bless him). And there when you open up Wright, Lane, other lexicons, grammatical books (zamakhshari and sibawayah) and you learn tajweed you are learning the various pronunciations of Old Classical Arabic of that time. So no, it is no longer spoken as a native tongue and only remnants of of it (large and small) remain in Modern Standard Arabic (a large remnant), and all of the modern 'arabic' dialects. But the knowledge has not been lost, it has just been shelved away by most of us (Muslms and modern 'Arabs', and hence obscured. Relegated to books that few people are willing to read or have ever heard of.
And this is why so many Muslims (including Quranists) understand the Quran so poorly.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I am a little confused now. But please pardom me.
As I am understanding, it is as follows, regarding Nissa.Is Brother Badar suggesting that above word does not mean women as on the previous page, and as per his explanation on the last page?
Is Brother Anwar suggesting that Nissa on the previous page means women?Please correct me if I have confused it more.
But then how do I explain the following
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000039.pdf
Salam
-
Peace,
Nisaa' means women. Always has and always will. I was discussing the grammatical form of the word, that was it. I have always believed the word to mean women AND/OR the meaning of the verbal noun of the 3rd measure of root noon, seen, waw/ya/alif.
But I have NEVER said that it does not mean 'women'. It DOES mean women. One more time, Nisaa' means women. I was just discussing the peculiar grammatical form of the word.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace to all. Here is my question in pure learning spirit and not trying to point out mistakes in Qur?an. AlrRiba commonly understood or misunderstood as ?interest?/usury. My question is. How this word should be spelled in Arabic? One finds written in Qur?an as (from www.openburhan.com site), (in, Holy Quran by Taj company LTD. English Translation by Pickthall and Urdu by Maulana Fatheh Mohhammed Jallendhri certified by Hafiz Abdul Rauf, no year of publication given). Finally, Lane says it is also or with lots of references (Lane part 3 page 1023).
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000189.pdf
Very sincerely,
Badar -
Peace,
It should be spelled as Lane says. Both ways. I would venture to even say that an alif maqsoorah could be used, unconventional but not wrong. Wright explain this phenomenon of spelling where it occurs with zakat, salat and other words.
Godbless,
Anwar