What is the meaning of SuJuD according to The Quran? - new article
-
-
Grammarians do nothing except deriving general rules and principles from the text of a language. Where they cannot find some words match on all fours with a rule consistently found in the text they tag them as exceptions. It is perhaps an acceptable phenomenon with almost all languages.
Grammar is primarily knowing the relationship of words in a speech and text by the non natives. The natives know the grammar, though majority can never describe and prescribe that, of their mother language. Without knowing grammer no one can understand the perception and thought conveyed by the speaker and the text in his own language also.
-
The simple answer should have been that the Qur'aan has used this word as Noun of Place/Location repeatedly and not as Noun of Time which is also made on the same patterns.
How could it be a noun of place if Seybawayh himself denies that it is derived from the verb ?
-
Grammarians do nothing except deriving general rules and principles from the text of a language. Where they cannot find some words match on all fours with a rule consistently found in the text they tag them as exceptions. It is perhaps an acceptable phenomenon with almost all languages.
Grammar is primarily knowing the relationship of words in a speech and text by the non natives. The natives know the grammar, though majority can never describe and prescribe that, of their mother language. Without knowing grammer no one can understand the perception and thought conveyed by the speaker and the text in his own language also.
Which text of "Arabic", if not the qur'aan, did they derive rules from? No Arabic text existed before the qur'aan, and Arabic was not an evolved language.
You mix between morphology, which is known to native speakers, and grammar, which is asubject alien to Arabic language. Moreover, grammar depends on the pre-existent meaning and not the opposite. Grammar does not clarify the meaning but decides it. If I write , you have to know who beat the other before writing it in a grammatical form that reflects the meaning you intend.
Another example verse 125 4 ...who chose the other as a friend? I say it is Ibrahim who took God for a close friend, trusting Him and following Him, not the other way round as shows the "grammar". The grammar decides that it is God who chose Ibrahim as a friend, in spite of the fact that God says He does not differentiate between His messengers, and most importantly, God does not need a "close friend" to follow (the meaning of khalil is more than a friend). -
Which text of "Arabic", if not the qur'aan, did they derive rules from? No Arabic text existed before the qur'aan, and Arabic was not an evolved language.
You mix between morphology, which is known to native speakers, and grammar, which is asubject alien to Arabic language. Moreover, grammar depends on the pre-existent meaning and not the opposite. Grammar does not clarify the meaning but decides it. If I write , you have to know who beat the other before writing it in a grammatical form that reflects the meaning you intend.
Another example verse 125 4 ...who chose the other as a friend? I say it is Ibrahim who took God for a close friend, trusting Him and following Him, not the other way round as shows the "grammar". The grammar decides that it is God who chose Ibrahim as a friend, in spite of the fact that God says He does not differentiate between His messengers, and most importantly, God does not need a "close friend" to follow (the meaning of khalil is more than a friend).Sorry Sister, there is inbuilt contradiction in the quote. Pl Vowelize the first sentence and then compare it with the second sentence. Vowelization of sounds of consonants defines and locates the subject and the object in the speech and text.
-
Sorry Sister, there is inbuilt contradiction in the quote. Pl Vowelize the first sentence and then compare it with the second sentence. Vowelization of sounds of consonants defines and locates the subject and the object in the speech and text.
Sorry I did not get that. But will try.
Which is the first sentence and which is the second?
Vocalization does not determine the truth. I can vocalize it as and make understand that the man beat up the farmer, but some one else says I said so because the man was my enemy and actually it was the other way round the farmer beat up the man.
grammatically, both sentences are correct. But this does not solve the problem of truth. Only evidence would tell which is the true incident.
One can manipulate grammar to their own benefit. Just as in the verse in my quote. As we are made to accept that "Ibrahim khalilu allah His best friend on whom He can rely", we all automatically accept that "Muhammad" is "habibu allah His beloved one" then reject "Jesus son of God", whereas we should just alienate God from any kind of any special relation with any human. -
Vocalization does not determine the truth. I can vocalize it as and make understand that the man beat up the farmer, but some one else says I said so because the man was my enemy and actually it was the other way round the farmer beat up the man.
grammatically, both sentences are correct.Sorry Sister.
It is the vocalization that will let the listener perceive the thought of the speaker. He has to perceive it only from vocalization of those words since he cannot peep into the heart and brain of the speaker if he intended otherway round. The subject and object will be perceived by him only by vocalization-or technically by vowelization of the words.
-
Sorry Sister.
It is the vocalization that will let the listener perceive the thought of the speaker. He has to perceive it only from vocalization of those words since he cannot peep into the heart and brain of the speaker if he intended otherway round. The subject and object will be perceived by him only by vocalization-or technically by vowelization of the words.
I agree, and that is what I am saying. The thought of the speaker.
So, what if the speaker is lying? Would the grammar work as a lie detector? -
I agree, and that is what I am saying. The thought of the speaker.
So, what if the speaker is lying? Would the grammar work as a lie detector?The listener is to get what the speaker has vocalized. It is not the issue whether the speaker is lying or telling the truth.
The point about vocalization and ability of people in vowelization of the sound that has already reached in their mouths through the vocal cord is depicted in Quraan
O those/you, who consciously proclaim to have accepted/become believers, listen; "You people should not address by saying "Raa'ina"; and instead say "U'nzurna-you kindly pay us attention". Moreover, you people attentively listen to him . Be mindful, a grievous punishment is in wait/prepared for those who are the deliberate/persistent deniers/non believing.
The first direct address and first direction to those who proclaim to have believed is for adopting the most respectful and cautious attitude while they are in the presence of the Messenger to an extent that they should not employ a word which could be articulated in such a manner that some audience could perceive a sound conveying meanings of little or derogatory import.
The first and foremost requirement/obligation of a person becoming a believer is to acknowledge and be cautious of the most dignified stature and position of the Messenger Muhammad and to conduct most respectfully with regard to him otherwise the belief and all good acts could go waste and be of no consequence.
The reason of prohibiting the use of otherwise a valid word of Arabic language is manifested in 446 where it is told that the Jews said this word in this manner
"and they say "Raa'ina" in the manner of twisting and turning it with the help of their tongues".
A complete account of the language is with reference to the way sounds are produced, i.e. articulation and the way they are perceived, i.e. its auditory properties. The precise shape and volume of the oral cavity, i.e. region of the vocal tract between the larynx and the opening of the mouth, distinguishes vowels from each other for auditory purpose and the main organ involved in adjusting the shape and volume is the tongue. If the body of the tongue is pushed forward and turned towards the roof of the mouth we get the stressed sound of vowel . This is exactly what those Jews did while uttering this word.
Word by Word Analysis 2104
Also
So called Mystery of Initial Letter/Consonants. -
Mazhar... You are far off point.
You do not need to write such a long post to convince me that hearing a word from the initiator is what the word or sentence meant. You forget that this is not the case. No one heard the Holy Spirit reveal the qur'aan nor the prophet recite it. Those who decided the vocalization are NOT the initiators of the speech, nor were they more nearer to him than us. We have to use our minds and any other evidence to know what was meant by a word without even thinking of how it was pronounced. Vocalization determined by others does not help. We still read non vocalized Arabic and study in non vocalized Arabic and we do understand it. Even when grammar affects the spelling, and not just diacritical signs, I can understand a sentence or even an article full of grammatical mistakes. Or maybe you think Arabs know Arabic grammar? Not even at the highest level. -
So is the case with everyone regarding native language. Urdu has also the same vowels as Arabic but we do not write in most of the text and read and understand conveniently.
What is the reason that not being able to describe the basic rules of grammar of native language we understand it?
And what is the cause that 90 percent literate or rather more of people of any language do not have the ability to write a book in their own language?
Speaking and understanding speech and text of mother tongue and writing it are two different things. There, one needs to know the grammar of his own language consciously--not that stored in his non-declarative memory which he learnt since his infancy demonstratively from surroundings. -
Those who decided the vocalization are NOT the initiators of the speech, nor were they more nearer to him than us. We have to use our minds and any other evidence to know what was meant by a word without even thinking of how it was pronounced. Vocalization determined by others does not help.
The Arabic is a language of syllables, and this is what the vocalization is. Can one ignore how a word was pronounced by an Arab to know what the speaker intended to say?
-
The Arabic is a language of syllables, and this is what the vocalization is. Can one ignore how a word was pronounced by an Arab to know what the speaker intended to say?
I think you mix again between morphology and grammar.
But again, even with morphology one can understand what the person wants to say from the context. The examples I gave were from grammar. The example of masjid is morphology. The problem with "masjid" is that grammarians insist it was pronounced "masjid" in spite of the fact that it does not conform to their rules of morphology. Their excuse was that it was an "odd" pattern or is not even a derivative of the verb sjd. Here one can smell a rotten fish leading people away from the real meaning and towards buildings that did not exist at the time of revelation, and even to a city that was full of shirk and idols all through the time of revelation. -
The example of masjid is morphology. The problem with "masjid" is that grammarians insist it was pronounced "masjid" in spite of the fact that it does not conform to their rules of morphology.
Sister,
Your stand that it should be with fatha on the second root consonant is also based on Rules of Morphology suggested by the same persons who declare and call this and few others as exception to the Rule finding such words in the text of Qur'aan.
The grammarians, Syntax experts deal with the role of word in the sentence, declension and are less concerned with the construction/structure/formation of the word, Morphology's subject.
Then the context becomes the most important to determine whether a noun is Noun of Location or Noun of Time.
I repeat that Masjid, in Grand Qur'aan is in the context of Noun of Location as is evident from all other words surrounding it at all places of occurrence.
-
Sister,
Your stand that it should be with fatha on the second root consonant is also based on Rules of Morphology suggested by the same persons who declare and call this and few others as exception to the Rule finding such words in the text of Qur'aan.
The grammarians, Syntax experts deal with the role of word in the sentence, declension and are less concerned with the construction/structure/formation of the word, Morphology's subject.
Then the context becomes the most important to determine whether a noun is Noun of Location or Noun of Time.
I repeat that Masjid, in Grand Qur'aan is in the context of Noun of Location as is evident from all other words surrounding it at all places of occurrence.
I was using their own argument to show that even according to their own rules it is not a noun of place, and not that I built my argument on their rule.
Since you believe that it is a noun of place and thus it is a building, what is the meaning of almasjid al7aram? Where is it and why is it 7aram (unlawful)?
-
Why use word "unlawful", instead of sacred, sanctified, in the adjectival phrase?
Is there a single context/sentence in Qur'aan, where one can find it written to convey the perception of Noun of Time?
Can you show where in the quraan the word 7aram or any of its derivatives means sacred?
Would you claim that this noun is not related to the verb "7arram to prohibit"?
I did not say masjid is a noun of time. I believe it is an initial-m- verbal noun -
Is this a general question or is it meant to say that I said masjid is a noun of time? Because I did not.
It stands resolved that it is certainly not a Noun of Time as has been held by everyone except somewhere on this Forum.
My question was whether Masdar Meemi is used in sentences to signify Place of Location.