الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
-
bkanwar
It seems you have now even lost common sense. I asked you what type of La is this, and had you noticed that the last word of your meaningless utterence is accusative, you might have come to understand that La is of absolute negation, and it acts like Inna and modifies the hitherto called subject as accusative which will now be called Ism La. It needs a predicate to make any sensible statement.
-
Badar,
See page 1 of thread, or go the link and please acquaint your self with basics of Arabic before embarking upon etymology and formation of individual word.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Individual%20Ayaat/001.%20Al%20Fateha/01.02.htm
-
Dear Mazhar, please do not be part of those who have already confounded the message and truth with confusion and flasehood. I asked you a very simple question based upon jargon you wrote. Please give a simple answer. What is your understanding of term predicate? How are you implying to our discussion. Please try to elaborate with example, if you can.
Peace,
Badar
-
Any speech is called sensible and meaningful if it has a subject and a predicate. are three words which do not have any relationship with each other. is a Relative Pronoun. It can be used when the antecedent is definite, singular and masculine. And for next words there has to be a "responsive" . Then is La which acts like Inna/Anna substituting the subject as accusative which is called Noun of La. And when this La is placed there has to be the predicate available there. Hence your these three words are just air blown out of the mouth.
-
Any speech is called sensible and meaningful if it has a subject and a predicate. are three words which do not have any relationship with each other. is a Relative Pronoun. It can be used when the antecedent is definite, singular and masculine. And for next words there has to be a "responsive" . Then is La which acts like Inna/Anna substituting the subject as accusative which is called Noun of La. And when this La is placed there has to be the predicate available there. Hence your these three words are just air blown out of the mouth.
Thanks, now I see your problem. A result of blind following, limited study based upon lack of inquisitiveness and product of a culture where asking questions is considered crime.
Please read following with care and go check these words from both Lane and Wright. If you still have problem understanding let me know we shall discuss it more.
Dear Mazhar this is what I am doing. But not finding many to understand the message.
Now let me tell you what is, if you care to pay attention. It is a combination of a determinative particle, followed by not the particle but a demonstrative syllable for raising attention similar to particle followed by , a noun, of which significance is vague and unknown until, it is explained by, what follows it.
Therefore, to call simply a relative pronoun is too simplistic in scheme of the game, my Dear. If you like, I can improve further the understanding of word . But does anybody care about it?
Peace,
Badar
(P.S. Please note that, I have corrected spellings of in this post. There is typo in other posts, correct spellings are as in this post) -
Bottom line is already given.
is equal to . meaning ?One who is not a deity for adoration and worship?.
Some people are born retarded. We assign them the name "Special" since they did nothing wrong. But when a normal man behaves like retarded one we do not call him Special but an idiot.
The is being considered as abbreviated and it is thought that Lane said this. Lane was not an idiot to have said like this. You are attributing it to him as you did with Verb of Heart by just picking a word from the line without reading it fully. Get out of the "circle of stupidity" and start learning Arabic by first knowing its alphabet.
-
Some people are born retarded. We assign them the name "Special" since they did nothing wrong. But when a normal man behaves like retarded one we do not call him Special but an idiot.
The is being considered as abbreviated and it is thought that Lane said this. Lane was not an idiot to have said like this. You are attributing it to him as you did with Verb of Heart by just picking a word from the line without reading it fully. Get out of the "circle of stupidity" and start learning Arabic by first knowing its alphabet.
Dear Mazhar, I thought you were a reasonable sincere person at heart. But you are proving yourself not to be worthy of these characteristics by your behavior. I am sure you did not bother to open either Lane or Wright for learning sake. I should ignore you in future. Since there are many other people who sincerely wanting to learn. I am giving reference pages here. If it is not too much work for you and if you are interested in learning something; please do bother to open linked pages and read with care.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000111.pdf
See Wright Vol i page 269 at the bottom, for used as . For Lane, please read left grid at bottom.
Peace,
Badar
-
bkanwar,
dear, perhaps I also earlier told you that Lane and few others are always on my desktop. You are perhaps referring to this;
"It is also a conjunct noun in the sense of and its variations......". The problem with you as I pointed to you earlier is that you do not read view of Lane and others in totality and draw a conclusion from half part of their sentence. From this quote of Lane you have presumed that stands for abbreviated "". Except for stupidity I don't find any other relevant word to describe your act.
Now read the whole thing what he is saying, "and as such is prefixed to an active participle noun and passive participle noun". And then he quotes an active participle and says it is equivalent to . He has translated in Arabic what means, "the one who strikes". He is not saying that of it is "". Similarly he has translated passive participle as "The one who was struck". is always definite relative pronoun.
-
bkanwar,
dear, perhaps I also earlier told you that Lane and few others are always on my desktop. You are perhaps referring to this;
"It is also a conjunct noun in the sense of and its variations......". The problem with you as I pointed to you earlier is that you do not read view of Lane and others in totality and draw a conclusion from half part of their sentence. From this quote of Lane you have presumed that stands for abbreviated "". Except for stupidity I don't find any other relevant word to describe your act.
Now read the whole thing what he is saying, "and as such is prefixed to an active participle noun and passive participle noun". And then he quotes an active participle and says it is equivalent to . He has translated in Arabic what means, "the one who strikes". He is not saying that of it is "". Similarly he has translated passive participle as "The one who was struck". is always definite relative pronoun.
Please, remove preconcieved notions from your mind to understand things. is NOT always definite relative pronoun. It is also used substantively, same meanings as or meaning he who, that, which, whoever, whatever. When used adjectively, it signifies who, which and that.
Please pick up Wright from your desk and refer to vol. i pages 270-71 rem 347. Or here is the link for you.
http//www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol1.pdf
Peace,
Badar
-
Please, remove preconcieved notions from your mind to understand things. is NOT always definite relative pronoun. It is also used substantively, same meanings as or meaning he who, that, which, whoever, whatever. When used adjectively, it signifies who, which and that.
Please pick up Wright from your desk and refer to vol. i pages 270-71 rem 347. Or here is the link for you.
http//www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol1.pdf
Peace,
Badar
You are yet religiously sticking to your bad habit; I am as sure as I am sure that I am writing this when night has darkened that again you are reading half of what he might have said. I have read what you said above, therefore, no need to tax eyes to locate it in Wright. You find out what he says about Ma and Man. And find throughout his book whether anywhere he could dare say that is indefinite. Don't remain circling in circle of stupidityl. Try to get out of it.