Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Salaam all,
huruf,
Re reply #270. Thanks for clarifying.
There is a difference in saying "women" and "your women", with the latter being something more specific, which context will help us determine.
Whilst I agree that the morphology question is important, at the end of the day whatever root or meaning is assigned to "nisa" will still have to be plugged into Quran to see if it works. If a logical/practical impossibility or contradiction occurs, this will help us determine what meaning is meant or works best etc. I did not see such a thing from the verses you, nor others, brought forth. However, it might be handy for you/others to highlight the most problematic verses WITH reasons/evidence. We could then tackle them one by one.Sorry, Wakas, but I do not see in which way what you say is an answer to my post 270.
I specifically mentioned two ayas. First 4.3, where there is a an imperative telling the addressee to wed whatever is suitable from the nisaa'. The adressee is an-nas and not a sppecific sex. So women, as well as men, can marry some of an-nisaa'. Now here, conventionnally, nisaa' is taken to mean women, but nisaa' as put forward by many studiers would mean people who need protection or advocacy. In this case it would be speaking about that part of the nisaa' (those needing protection or defence) who are orphans. There is no mention of female or male orphans. So why is it taken that it is female orphans? Do male orphans not deserve defence or protection? None of them needs it? I do not see anywhere any pointers to the orphans being exclusively female. Now the other version is that it is the mothers or the orphans that are meant. Then, I am sorry to say, why is it not stated that it is marrying the mothers what all is about. There are no mothers in the horizon. What is so difficult about saying marry the mothers of the orphans, and that it says marry min el nisaa'? Because if in this case what is meant is "women" it is a redundancy if it were the males who were addressed. But from where do we know that it is addressing the males? We do not know it. In fact we know that it is An-naas that is being addressed. To affirm that it is adresseing the males we have to resort to taking for granted that the nisaa' are women. So it is a circular argument and we do have nothing to support it, because the addressee is An-nas.
The other aya I amentioned, 4.22, contains nothing of "nisaa'ukum". It says "do not marry what your fathers married min a-nisaa'. It would have sufficed to say "Do not marry those your fathers married", if, IF, fathers is what is meant and not parents. Because, if I am not wrong, the term in the plural comprises, unless otherwise specified, fathers and mothers. The dual, al abawan, means the father and the mother. So we would again be in a circular argument.
On the other hand, we are talking about the word nisaa' and one other argument that is put forward or something that is upheld is that it cannot mean more than one thing, that is, it cannot mean one thing in a context, and then something else in some other context. But, using the material and arguments put forward by the very people who hold that view, as it happens and as it has been showed, nisaa' has more than one meaning, women a wives are not synonim, they are two different meanings.
Also, when the Qur'an wants to say wives, it is not lost, it uses different words for that, like azwaj, and like Hala'il. So to pretend that nisaa'kum means your wives is wrong, it may or it may not. It depends on whom the addressee is and what has been previously stated. Obviously if it is addressing a mixed group, it cannot mean wives, it might mean your women, if we take that in that context it may mean women. But that "your women" would not be wives, but the women which form part of the group being addressed. Like when we say to several eole belonging to the same family "your family..." we mean their famil, them included.
Finally, I think that it is legitimate to speculate honestly on this subject. There are obviously people who are wonderfully happy with the semantic status quo, but the point is that the Qur'an asks us to take the best meaning of the Qur'an. If that status quo is, honestly (and not interestedly) the best meaning for them for some part of the Qur'an, then well and good, but that is not binding for anyone except those who honestly hold that view. For those who honestly think that that is not the best meaning, because there are other meanings that must be explored, then for them that is what is binding, nor what others may think that they should uphold.
I, for one, want this whole question explored to my satisfaction. Once that is done, we will see what we find. For the moment all I can say is that the status quo is not satisfactory, and commend those that, agreeing or otherwise, do make an effort to contribute with honesty and good faith.
Salaam
-
laugh laugh laugh
I can't believe some people can really be this foolish. Posting questions and making statements INSTEAD OF using Grammar of Arabic to Refute what I had brought up Linguistically. )
Mazhar, I have to now put you in the same basket as Wakas which is the Ignore basket. If you can use your Superb Grammar knowledge to go with your razzle dazzle textbook talk and refute any of my points, then I'll give you the attention you so desperately crave. Unless and Until you are able to do so... peace
-
Ladies and Gentlemen who are sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this thread. We have another example of More Dishonesty perpetrated by Mr. Wakas. I DID NOT contradict myself at all. If he was honest he would quote me in entirety instead of chopping out bits and pieces to make it look how he wants everyone to think it looks.
I want everyone here to read my quote from This Post that I made a couple of pages back
The word Taaba ( ) can be acted out by another 3rd person party not mentioned (such as The Quranic Government or whoever is in charge of overseeing the "Nikah" operation) OR by An-Nisaa'. I personally take the view that it is acted out by those who are from among AnNisaa' because they are the ones who are mentioned in this verse and I am big fan of clarity concerning those talked to or talked about in The Quran. Also, I don't think only the person or people overseeing the operation of the Social Relationships between those from among the Nisaa and those who aren't not from among them should have the only say regarding who gets a social contract with who.
There are some people in my personal circles who say that the verb Taaba maybe acted out by an unmentioned party such as The Quranic Government or an Institution overseeing The "Nikah Operations" of 4/3. But I have made it ALL TOO CLEAR in my post that I do NOT subscribe to that view and that I subscribe to the view that it is those who are from among the Nisaa' who are the subject-doers of this verb. I am pretty sure you guys realize this and can read this for yourselves. But in case any of you missed it I am pointing it out now. No contradiction at all on my part, just more dishonesty on another person's part. The same person who has YET to bring any grammatical evidence of his own to refute what I had brought forth for you all to see.
Nadia, are you reading this?? Please tell me another way to handle an obvious act of dishonesty!!! I am all eyes and virtual ears. Until then, I am going to have to point such things out for the benefit of those watching this thread in order to find out THE TRUTH.
Guys, I also know that this is a standard Bating Tactic that a person uses when he or she realizes that another person chose to ignore them. It can be understood as Bating Into More Debate or might just be good 'ole fashion Heckling without any argument.
-
laugh laugh laugh
I can't believe some people can really be this foolish. Posting questions and making statements INSTEAD OF using Grammar of Arabic to Refute what I had brought up Linguistically.
Mazhar, I have to now put you in the same basket as Wakas which is the Ignore basket. If you can use your Superb Grammar knowledge to go with your razzle dazzle textbook talk and refute any of my points, then I'll give you the attention you so desperately crave. Unless and Until you are able to do so... peace
Don't worry I have handled super fools before you on this forum who even falsly claimed to be pure Arabs from Arab parents and then had run away exposed.
You have not answered three posts. You know your stupidity will immediately emerge on surface even for those who can not read Arabic words. Thereby, you have no option but to say like this.
-
Guys firstly, can we please find more inventive ways of calling others stupid etc rather than the literal? Thanks.
Damon, thank you for summarising...it might take a week or so for me to check up on what you wrote in depth though, given my schedule these days. Also, regarding the ongoing battle with the mod and the man, maybe you should engage directly? Just an idea. Right now it looks like a fight between an old married couple where the kids are asked to pass messages because they just ain't talkin' P
peace
-
Guys firstly, can we please find more inventive ways of calling others stupid etc rather than the literal? Thanks.
Damon, thank you for summarising...it might take a week or so for me to check up on what you wrote in depth though, given my schedule these days. Also, regarding the ongoing battle with the mod and the man, maybe you should engage directly? Just an idea. Right now it looks like a fight between an old married couple where the kids are asked to pass messages because they just ain't talkin' P
peace
Peace.
Pl read stupidity as thoughtlessness. I also told him that what he had authoritatively said, which I quoted with red colour, was just a thoughtless assertion.
-
To get rid of Shirleys gimmicks, I just reproduce here simple and basic information about Nouns' gender, for those who do not understand advanced grammar of Arabic.
Particles in the Arabic language do not have gender. Verbs do, but their gender is based on that of their subjects, and their subjects are, of course, nouns. So, in reality, nouns are the only part of speech that have any gender in Arabic.
The grammatical gender of nouns is one of two a noun may be masculine or it may be feminine, and there is no neutral option. Moreover, masculinity is the default grammatical gender and a word does not have to have anything special in order to reflect this. Femininity, on the other hand, is not default and a noun would have to have something special to reflect this gender. Therefore, this tutorial discusses grammatical femininity in Arabic nouns.
Inflecting for FemininityA noun is masculine by default. It must have one of four signs in order for it to be considered feminine. Which nouns receive one of these four signs (and are therefore feminine) and which do not receive any of these signs (and are therefore left masculine) is entirely coincidental. There is no rule that dictates whether a noun will be masculine or feminine; it is entirely based on coinage. Yes, there are clues such as things that are conceptually masculine will most likely be grammatically masculine as well ? the word ?man? (ل is masculine and the word ?woman? (ة is feminine.
This applies to static nouns (د and gerunds (ر. Derived nouns (ق, on the other hand, usually have the capability to be masculine sometimes and feminine other times; they toggle depending on the grammatical requirements. For instance, the derived noun is masculine but it has a feminine form as well.
The four signs of femininity are as follows. Below the list is a table with some examples.
- a round Taa (ة at the end of the noun
o if it is written , it is called
o it if is written , it is called
-
an at the end of the noun
-
an at the end of the noun
-
an assumed round Taa at the end of the noun
Definitions
femininity determined by rule
femininity determined by simply hearing it from the Arabs
Types of FemininityThere are two types of femininity one where the feminine noun has a masculine counterpart among the living beings, and one where it does not. For example, (she-camel) is of the first type because its counterpart is a male-camel and a male-camel is both masculine and living. The word , on the other hand, is of the second type because, although it has a counterpart ? namely, the moon ? and the moon is masculine, the moon is not alive.
Definitions
femininity wherein the entity has a live, masculine counterpart
femininity wherein the entity does not have a live, masculine counterpart
Women-An Nisa are
-
Peace All,
Perhaps a way forward with this potentially revealing discussion is to establish some ground rules. The first thing could be to cut out all the name-calling. I cannot believe that Mazhar has just called someone stupid and we are supposed to be peaceful people. Number two could be to follow the Koranic edict to walk away when you don't agree. Of course, if that happens on these boards then we will have no discussion. Perhaps then, we need to come up with some of those phrases that help keep a discussion civilised as opposed to feral. Phrases like, " I hear what you are saying, however...", "with respect". There is no need to make statements such as, " if you had bothered to...". These statements only serve to wind people up.
If we are going to get anywhere with this discussion we will need to treat each other with respect. As we all know, the use of language is very important. It seems that there are a lot of extremely intelligent people on here with very little emotional intelligence. In order to improve on this it is best not to respond straightaway to something that has wound you up. I must say that I expected better from peaceful people.
On another note, in an earlier thread I suggested that the word for marry must mean something other than marry, if the Koran is not to have contradictions. If I remember rightly I was told that was impossible.
Dawn.
-
Salaam Dawn,
I hear what you are saying, however....
No, I'm just joking with you Sis. Just to let you know I am not the least bit affected by the name calling. I've read enough of his posts and I realize that this is his way of talking to people. But I also know that people who fling accusations and call names do so to take the attention away from the fact that it is they who are guilty of the accusations and the names they call other people. Knowing this is why I don't let that sort of thing bother me at all. Shallow and unintelligent people will make it a point to use fancy words and fake jargon to make themselves appear to be deep and intellectual. That sort of pretense lets me know that a person is really quite dumb. I am not trying to engage in a senseless back and forth with that guy, but how long will he be allowed to call people names before he gets checked on it? I make a post about a person WITHOUT calling him names and I get reprimanded about it. What's wrong with this picture?
-
Salaam Nadia,
There is another point that I failed to mention in my post above and that is the particle . Depending on how it is used in an Arabic sentence, this word will be either a "partitive" min or an "explanatory" min. This is what I had pointed out in two prior posts when I was discussing this word in some detail earlier.
The function it plays in an Arabic sentence is inferred from context. To make it clear, the word is Partitive when the noun it refers to is a PART OF something. It is Explanatory when the noun it refers to COMES FROM something or somewhere.
An example of this word being used as a partitive function would be (one of the teachers). This is the type of phrase showing ONE entity is a PART of a group of like/similar entities.
An example of this word having an explanatory function would be (a sword of steel). This shows when something COMES FROM SOMETHING in a material/physical fashion. Let's call this Explanatory 1.
But the explanatory function is also used to show a location or geographical origin. For example we have the sentence (Hisham is FROM Pakistan). Generally, when used in this manner this particle denotes a beginning point related either to time or place of origin or any other geographical direction/location. How about we call this one Explanatory 2?
So YES, the word can be used as a preposition and if it is used as a preposition, then the phrase it is a part of will be a prepositional phrase. But when I say preposition I am talking about it being used as either Explanatory 1 or Explanatory 2. If it is used as in the first example I gave it is not a prepositional phrase in the sense of demonstrating place, origin or location. It is now a Partitive clause showing something as being a "sum" or "parts" of a WHOLE or a COLLECTION.
Please look at the phrase in 4/3 and ask yourself which of the three examples above it resembles or relates to. D
Again, this has not been refuted either.
DEAR HURUF,
Please let me know if my last explanation about "Collective Nouns" taking on the Feminine Plural Pronoun was clear enough or if you would like for me to go into it a bit more. I would also be more than happy to provide you with references and links to the Grammar Books if you want to look into this on your own.
Salaam,
Damon. -
On another note, in an earlier thread I suggested that the word for marry must mean something other than marry, if the Koran is not to have contradictions. If I remember rightly I was told that was impossible.
I am personally not aware of the thread in question so I have no idea about the conversation. But I am certainly curious. Is there anyway you can expound a bit on this?
Salaam,
Damon. -
Peace Shirley,
Re the question of the meaning of the word 'marry'. The thread is called, 'polygamy, time to settle the issue' and it was started by Fallen Angel. My point was made in post 65.
Dawn.
-
Damon,
I recommend you use your words accurately if you do not wish to be accused of being contradictory.
There is a difference in the following, (1) is a contradiction, whilst (2) is not. You said (1).
Word X can only mean Y (an absolute statement, i.e. no other options)
Word X can mean Y or Z.Word X can only mean Y in my view (a statement which is qualified/limited, i.e. leaves other options as possible)
Word X can mean Y or Z theoreticallyIf it is not a contradiction, then at the very least, you chose your words poorly.
And I note you are silent about the rest of my post. Not to worry, we will let the evidence speak for itself.
-
Again, this has not been refuted either.
To kee record straight; Shirley alwo twists things. When Min was ellaborated, how he reacted and stated
Quote from Mazhar on December 06, 2012, 085239 AM
"Min" is ALWAYS a preposition and acts upon its object rendering it in genitive case. No grammar book suggests anything contrary to it.Generally this particle denotes a beginning point related either to time or place. Also, it signifies the beginning point in matters unrelated to time and place, as used in sentence, "It is from Sulaiman".
This will be found in the grammar books about prepositions and about "Min".
The prepositions originally designate relations of place, i.e. local relations, but are transferred first, to relation of time, i.e. temporal relations, and next to various sorts of ideal relations conceived under the figure of local relations to which they correspond.
The simple prepositions are divisible into three clauses, indicating respectively, motion proceeding from or away from a place; motion to or towards it; and rest in it. The prepositions which indicate motion proceeding from or away from a place are "Min" and "an".(a) The local point of departure, departure from a place; hence it is connected with verbs which convey the idea of separation, departure, holding oneself or another aloof from any person or thing, liberating, preserving, fleeing, frightening away, forbidding and the like. Hence is used to signify, on the one hand, by or through, and on the other hand, in place of, instead of.
(b) The temporal point of departure, the point at which an act or state has commenced. When used in this signification, Arab Grammarians call it "denotes the commencement of the limits in place and time" or simply "lil ibteda" to denote the commencement.
(c) The casual point of departure, the origin and source of a thing; Grammarians say that in this case is used for assigning the reason.
(d) The distance from a place, person or thing, particularly after words which signify proximity, such as or , to be near, near etc.(e) The difference between two persons or things which are contrasted or compared with one another. Hence the use of after comparative adjectives; as "he is better than me ". The definition or explanation/clarification of a general or universal by a special or particular term, the later being one of several objects that go to make up the former, "therefore avoid the abomination of idols". Its sign is that it is proper to place in its place.
(h) The specifying a general term.Prepositional Phrases are the weakest area of almost all the translators who have hitherto translated the text of Qur'aan. They just overlooked or casually passed on without determining to which part of the text Prepositional Phrase relates.
Leeds 'Varsity was trying taking care of Prepositional Phrases while preparing dependency graphs. Hopefully they will keep working on the project.Advice Readers may even take a look on grammar of English about Prepositional Phrases and can apply the same to Arabic language, not much difference.
Shirley responds--Kindly read his fresh post and compare it with my post.
Blah, Blah, Blah, - the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone - Blah, Blah, Blah and you take this reciprocal rendering of the guiness outlining circumfrence of a circle, Blah, Blah, Blah
More self made razzle dazzle. If ANYONE here can prove An-Nisaa is a PLACE or LOCATION then by default that would make the word "MIN" a Preposition of Place in 4/3!! IF An-Nisaa is NOT a place or location (which I know it is not) then that would mean the word "MIN" is not a Preposition of Place in 4/3. It is something else. That's the bottom line. Again, try using some Common Sense
Save all of the Grammar Razzle Dazzle and PROVE An-Nisaa' is a place or location. If not, I'm done with this silliness. A person who was really interested in helping his fellow forum posters understand issues of the language would simplify it for them and walk them through the language step by step (as I have attempted to do in my post with the 10 point summation). using Razzle Dazzle and fancy terminologies are the tactics of people who want others to see him as a grammarian of some sort and also do not want them to know the aspects of the language to find things out for themselves.
Mazhar and Wakas are just alike. Their traditionalist views of Nisaa and 4/3 are coming apart and as a result They Are Coming Apart Themselves.
Quote from Shirley on December 06, 2012, 023154 PM
Hey Idiot, did you even bother to READ my post? Try READING WHAT I SAID!!!I already established that Min is a word which consists of parts from a whole. I already beat you to that when I made This Post. I also pointed out that it is NOT used as a preposition of place or location because An-Nisaa is NOT a place or location!! I asked you to establish that "min" is a PREPOSITION OF PLACE in 4/3. The ONLY way you can do that is if you can somehow establish that An-Nisaa is a PLACE or LOCATION!!!!!! Did you get it that time? Do you not know how to read??? And neither YOU nor WAKAS made an attempt to either disprove the Ma..Min Clause or that MA taaba lakum MIN An-Nisaa is written in the Ma...Min Clause.
If you can't do either one of those three things, I'm wasting my time with you. A COMPLETE waste of time.
I'm letting you know ahead of time, if you don't bring some sort of evidence that An-Nisaa' is a PLACE or LOCATION or GEOGRAPHICAL DIRECTION and somehow disprove the Ma...Min Clause I pointed out in your next post, I will not bother to reply. That's it. You are now in the same basket that I had placed Wakas in. I have better things to do than to keep tossing a stick and telling you to go fetch it.
Sorry, shirley, you play games and I am Master of taking much superior gamers than you like RK to the corner to expose their foul play, and then they keep mum. 19er Section is an evidence that all 19er and his right hand has no ground to defend their "messenger".
Now let the Members know what you understand by "Min", forget about Nisa at the moment.
-
Is it a word, if yes, which part of the speech
(a) Particle, if so what type---Preposition- , conjunction, interjection etc.
(b) Noun, or
(c) Verb. -
If Preposition , what will be its governance and upon whom?
-
If Preposition, what will it denote when used with locative noun, time adverb, generic noun, collective noun, singular noun, plural noun either regular or broken?
-
If Preposition, how would you determine as to whom-which word in the sentence it relates?
And by the way what you understand as to what type of Noun An-Nisa is?
What is the "Al" doing in it, who those women are whom this definite Article "Al" is referring to, making them known and defined women? Mind it common noun in Arabic in default state is always indefinite.
Is it the noun of abundance or paucity?This will take us to proper understanding. Waiting reply. Thanks.
He also coined a term Ma-------Min clause and quoted two books. That was a gimmick.
-
-
salaam huruf,
Thanks for the reply.
Your assumption is that the addressee in 43 is "an-nas". It is a reasonable assumption, however it hinges entirely upon there being no switch of this kind anywhere in entire Quran. I provided a link wherein many examples were given in Quran of what is called "iltifaat", i.e. "a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about". I have not gone through every example cited to see if there is one identical to 43 so we can compare. However I did cite 1087 which should suffice as an example wherein the doer of the verb changes throughout
'We revealed to Moses and his brother "Settle (dual) for your (dual) people/qawm in Egypt/misr houses; and make (plural) your houses (plural) a qiblah and uphold (plural) the salat; and do thou give good tidings (singular) to the believers (plural)."'
If you are of the position, such switching does not occur in Quran, then please clarify what/why exactly, and what you are basing this on.
Having said the above, there is potentially, a possibility, wherein "an-nas" (i.e. people/mankind) is the addressee of the verb "nkh/marry", because in 43 the situation does not seem run of the mill, thus for example if we assume a man is allowed to have more than one wife in such a situation, then the present wife would have to consent - thus she is involved in the decision-making process.
Another possibility is "nkh/marry-off", meaning the people/society undertake such a task ensuring fairness etc.If the above are impossible, I'd like to know why etc.
The other aya I amentioned, 4.22, contains nothing of "nisaa'ukum". It says "do not marry what your fathers married min a-nisaa'. It would have sufficed to say "Do not marry those your fathers married"...
I do not see why a clarification, if that's what it is, is a problem. It is not a logical/practical impossibility or contradiction. Please also bear in mind, that whatever alternative you propose should be able to explain what follows in that verse.
On the other hand, we are talking about the word nisaa' and one other argument that is put forward or something that is upheld is that it cannot mean more than one thing, that is, it cannot mean one thing in a context, and then something else in some other context. But, using the material and arguments put forward by the very people who hold that view, as it happens and as it has been showed, nisaa' has more than one meaning, women a wives are not synonim, they are two different meanings.
To be clear that is not my argument. I do not mind if one word has more than one meaning/connotation, as long as there is a logical reason. Usually there is a core theme present in whatever meaning, but they can be "different". For a good example of this, see "shaytan" in www.Quran434.com part 1, section 14.
Also, when the Qur'an wants to say wives, it is not lost, it uses different words for that, like azwaj, and like Hala'il. So to pretend that nisaa'kum means your wives is wrong, it may or it may not. It depends on whom the addressee is and what has been previously stated. Obviously if it is addressing a mixed group, it cannot mean wives, it might mean your women, if we take that in that context it may mean women. But that "your women" would not be wives, but the women which form part of the group being addressed. Like when we say to several eole belonging to the same family "your family..." we mean their famil, them included.
- Note how you have not proven those are the exclusive terms for wife.
- From Quran, there seems to be two different status when it comes to partner, one is actual "wife" and other is "mma". Granted, there has been much debate on these terms, however the common understanding is that in those times men had wives as well as mma, thus theoretically, they could be collectively referred to as "your nisa" for example. If you know of a reason why this is impossible, let us know.
You are right that context will determine what is meant, ideally in a fashion wherein it is logically impossible for it mean X, thus Y is meant, or if not Y, then Z etc.
Ideally, I am looking for examples where "nisa" meaning "women" causes a logical/practical impossibility, and/or contradiction. If such an example is found, then we have something solid to investigate.
-
LOL....I don't coin terms.
Everyone, I ask that you all go to Page 238 of Introduction to Quranic and Classical Arabic
The page it is on in the actual book is 238 but you go there by typing 132 in the page block in the upper left of he PDF File. Read It and Weep Mazhar. laugh
Haywood also talks about it on pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book. Again, READ IT AND WEEP!!! D
I would like EVERYONE here to read the referenced pages from those Grammar Books. Notice how in each example they give to illustrate this construct the word is used Partitively. What is the significance of this? It is because when this word is understood as a partitive function that it can be used in this construct known as the ... Clause. The NAME of the construct means nothing. The FUNCTION is what is important and this FUNCTION is pointed out by Haywood and Thackston. It is only if this word is used in an Explanatory Function that it would be a problem because then it would basically be a preposition and prepositions refer to place, direction or location. If this were the case, this type of construct would make no sense if this word is used as an explanatory word or preposition of place.
It's funny that there are only two people still trying to harass me in this thread and they are the ones who are still holding onto a position that has been Linguistically and Grammatically refuted and shot down and they bring no grammatical validation for this position that they are so desperately holding onto. D
Mazhar you accused me of coining this term and it was an unjustified accusation. Thank You, I accept your apology. You also accused me of "twisting" something but never said WHAT SHIRLEY TWISTED!!! You just re-posted your own mumbo jumbo that no one pays any attention to. I am saying it AGAIN just as I said it before. An-Nisaa' is a COLLECTION/GROUP of people. They represent ONE WHOLE. Those who are represent PARTS of that WHOLE. This is why the word is referred to in this type of usage as a PART-itive word. Do you get it now?? It is only used as a preposition when the noun it refers to is a direction, location, place, geographical space, etc. So I am asking ONCE AGAIN if An-Nisaa' is a PLACE or LOCATION??? If the answer is yes, then that would make a prepositional phrase with the particle serving as an explanatory or preposition of place function. If the answer is NO An-Nisaa' is NOT a place or location (and this is my stance on this question) then the particle in is not used as a preposition of place and hence is not a prepositional phrase. in this case is used as in a Partitive function and THUS used as the second particle of the ... Clause Haywood and Thackston talked about in their Grammar Books.
It's as simple as that. Using big words to look impressive means nothing when there is no "substance" in those big words. Based on my observations of certain threads you have been involving yourself in (including this one) I see I am not the only one who realizes this about you and I can see that people are not falling for that nonsense at all. Stop insulting other people's intelligence with your Faux Intellect and actually PROVE your case or REFUTE mine. If you're going to continue with the fake harvard language at least use it to address and refute my arguments.
And lastly, I have PROVEN that I did not contradict myself. By posting my quote in it's entirety would have demonstrated to everyone reading it that I did not contradict myself at all. Dishonesty is Dishonesty no matter HOW the dishonest person tries to clean it up after being exposed for being DISHONEST!! I see now a campaign for "Damage Control" being put in place here.
-
LOL....I don't coin terms.
Everyone, I ask that you all go to Page 238 of Introduction to Quranic and Classical Arabic
The page it is on in the actual book is 238 but you go there by typing 132 in the page block in the upper left of he PDF File. Read It and Weep Mazhar.
Your link takes to this site
Islam portal
http//special.worldofislam.info/index.php?page=arabicThere is a book but that is not of Thakston. Thackston is in my grammar books folder. You quote just the Lesson No.
Haywood also talks about it on pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book. Again, READ IT AND WEEP!!!
Page 420 and 421 was uploaded by me.
Just cut and paste from any book what you say "this construct known as---" the ... Clause."
used as reletive pronoun itself needs a relative clause and a pronoun referring back to.
-
Oops, you're right. My bad.
This Is The Link to Thackston's book. I will not cut and paste. I would rather everyone have access to the entirety of the information for their benefit and they can ascertain many grammatical rules for themselves by having access to the same books you and I have access to. The Link above can be used to download the book or read the book online.
And Mazhar, for the last time PLEASE address the grammar that I posted. If what I posted is incorrect then prove that it is and then correct it.
-
Oops, you're right. My bad.
This Is The Link to Thackston's book. I will not cut and paste. I would rather everyone have access to the entirety of the information for their benefit and they can ascertain many grammatical rules for themselves by having access to the same books you and I have access to. The Link above can be used to download the book or read the book online.
And Mazhar, for the last time PLEASE address the grammar that I posted. If what I posted is incorrect then prove that it is and then correct it.
This correct link has a book with 177 pages. Your page 132 is almost empty. It has this
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/Spare%20images%20for%20uploading/Min.ht3.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/Spare%20images%20for%20uploading/Min.ht4.gifCan you get me "Ma---------Min clause" from somehwere? It is the grammar that you posted.
