Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
salaam Mazhar,
Thanks for the reply.
Who was its Subject? Simple answer is that this Verb is Linkage clause for Relative Pronoun Ma. That is the Subject. "for you people-society as a whole"-Prepositional Phrase relates to preceding Verb.
If I have understood you correctly, the literal translation would be something like "then marry/marry-off what suited to/for you (plural) from an-nisa"?
I know there has been debate between "marry" or "marry-off" in this verse, but I haven't studied it in detail. You seem to suggest it is "marry-off".
-
Damon,
Another diatribe? Is that all you got? ;D
But thanks for clarifying when you said
Go to my last reply to you and you'll find who I KNOW is doing the action of the verb Taaba.
If I have understood Mazhar correctly, he disagrees with you. In any case, I am seeking clarification from others on this because you seem adament about your position. We'll see.
And dont worry, I haven't forgotten about your other questions. Takes a little time to sift through your lame and tedious diatribes. Tackling one issue at a time will likely be more constructive, hence my approach.
-
salaam Mazhar,
Thanks for the reply.
If I have understood you correctly, the literal translation would be something like "then marry/marry-off what suited to/for you (plural) from an-nisa"?
I know there has been debate between "marry" or "marry-off" in this verse, but I haven't studied it in detail. You seem to suggest it is "marry-off".
The Verb is transitive, it can also be doubly transitive. Interestingly, Taba is also a transitive verb.
A prepositional phrase is neither a subject nor an object of a verb.
A relative Pronoun needs a linkage clause as is also the case in English gramar. There needs a Pronoun to refer back to the Relative Pronoun-Ma. The Pronoun can be elided only if the Relative Pronoun is the Object of a verb, but not when it is the subject of a verb. And the Verb Taba has certainly a masculine pronoun in it as its subject which links back to Ma. It has nothing to do with feminine plural."from AnNisa" is not the object of a verb. Some ones who are in the womenfolk--and they are only "the mothers of the father-orphaned children--widows", the children who are the subject of discourse. If they are not there, the whole Ayah becomes inapplicable--since the permission ceases when the condition does not exist.
-
Damon,
Another diatribe? Is that all you got? ;D
Nah bro, I've got plenty more. ignore Just having a little fun here bro. laugh
But thanks for clarifying when you said
If I have understood Mazhar correctly, he disagrees with you.And I thoroughly disagree with the interpretation he gave. He's no authority.
In any case, I am seeking clarification from others on this because you seem adament about your position. We'll see.
That's part of your problem Wakas, you are seeking clarification from others. Wouldn't it be better in the spirit of 17/36 if you went through the grammar books and The Quran yourself? You are sending me to corpus quran and links for this iltifat nonsense because that is your method of obtaining information and understanding of Quran and you wish for me to go that same route. I ain't buying it Wakas.
And dont worry, I haven't forgotten about your other questions. Takes a little time to sift through your lame and tedious diatribes. Tackling one issue at a time will likely be more constructive, hence my approach.
I'm far from worried, but I will be waiting.
-
Quote
But thanks for clarifying when you said
If I have understood Mazhar correctly, he disagrees with you.
And I thoroughly disagree with the interpretation he gave. He's no authority.Rebuttal by quoting authority is needed. Arabic is a living language. Pl quote any source to rebut the points indicated.
-
Another thing is that I am not aware of the rule which moves the Hamza from the BEGINNING of the root word to the END in any of the root words derived forms As far as I know the root letters always remain in the same order. If that order os rearranged then we are officially dealing with an entirely different root word at that point.
I am not aware of such a thing either and this mention by you is the first time I hear of any such a thing. From where you have got it I have no idea.
As expressed in my message the final hamza in nisaa' I attributed to a broken plural such as many broken plurals are formed. And nisaa' is a plural, is it not?
And what is the problem of anisa being feminine? So what? And anis is the masculine of anisa, so what? In what sense does that preclude nisaa' from being of that same root? That the root means social disposition not only does not detract from nisaa' having that root, but rather reinforces it in my view.
Salaam
-
I am not aware of such a thing either and this mention by you is the first time I hear of any such a thing. From where you have got it I have no idea.
As expressed in my message the final hamza in nisaa' I attributed to a broken plural such as many broken plurals are formed. And nisaa' is a plural, is it not?
And what is the problem of anisa being feminine? So what? And anis is the masculine of anisa, so what? In what sense does that preclude nisaa' from being of that same root? That the root means social disposition not only does not detract from nisaa' having that root, but rather reinforces it in my view.
Salaam
Woah, woah, woah...calm down there Huruf. You seem to be getting bent out of shape. I made sure my reply to your post was in the friendliest possible tone and I am only replying because of my appreciation of your input. I looked at your post as being intelligent and rational and I was hoping with my post to you we can positively feed off of each others ideas until we arrive at better conclusions than we have now. Why you are bringing the heat my way is totally beyond me.
I had raised my points not to argue or put you down, I was saying that even with broken plurals, the sequence of the root letters remain the same. That's all I was saying Huruf. The mentioning of Anisa was to help keep the conversation going and to give us more to talk about and share with one another.
Now, if you knew that I meant no ill will towards you and this is the way you're going reply to me anyway, then perhaps it would be best if we just don't discuss with one another.
And please do not mistake my aggressive stance with Wakas as my natural style of talking with people. Wakas and I have a history.
-
Wakas,
If it's going to take you some time to address those points, then so be it. But I don't want to monitor this thread everyday if it's going to take you a week or so to get back to me. You have my e-mail address. If it's not too inconvenient for you can you e-mail me to let me know when to come and pick our conversation back up?
-
I had raised my points not to argue or put you down, I was saying that even with broken plurals, the sequence of the root letters remain the same. That's all I was saying Huruf.
I still don't see why you say that. The hamza at the end does not come from any root at all, it is part of a broken plural form as coming from hamza-nun-sin. The hamza, the first letter of the root, the same as with naas, of the same root as I already pointed out in my first message on this, drops. The hamza is not from the root in nisaa' in this possibility I am putting forward. And that is why I insisted on nisaa' being a plural.
In the dictionnary Wehr the word is given as coming from root n-s-w and the only meaning is that of women. That I find really weird. A root which has just the meaning of the plural of another word, but that, to me shows that the author of the dictionnary was not too comfortable with root n-s-hamza.
Salaam
-
Damon,
Now that I have shown you have no evidence other than your own statement as evidence with regards to whom/what "taba" refers to, let's move onto the next points
Damon claims "In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form."
- He cites no studies into such a subject, so all we have is his own statement as evidence.
- he seemingly does not realise what he requests is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance" - the following from Wikipedia perfectly describes his attempt
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - he admits Arabic language is imperfect, meaning it can and does contain imperfections, but seemingly neglects this possibility that "nisa" may be an imperfection, i.e. a word that may have delevoped independently or borrowed from another language etc etc etc. Whether it is true or not I dont know, but since we agree Arabic is imperfect, this makes it possible. Simple.
- I even stated I am more than happy to agree with his claim, because it is ultimately irrlevant. At best, it is an evidence in favour of his position. Note the use of "an", i.e. one evidence. The ultimate evidence will of course be how it slots into Quran.
Damon now claims "Actually bro, the Dictionaries DO NOT say that Nisaa' is the plural of Imraa' because they are not under the same entry in ANY Dictionary. "
Previously said "Now, here's the issue at hand. ALL OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES that I have ever read give for the singular word woman as IMRAA'A. I also know for certain that their is a DUAL form of this word which is IMRAA'ATAYN. HOWEVER, when it comes to the PLURAL form of this word THEY give the Arabic word Nisaa' "---> Contradicts himself.
Damon claims without evidence "And secondly, every grammar book that I have ever referenced conclude that the PLURAL of ALL Arabic words come from the SAME ROOT letters as their singular and dual form."
Evidence with link please.
-
Now that I have shown you have no evidence other than your own statement as evidence with regards to whom/what "taba" refers to, let's move onto the next points
WHERE did you do this and HOW did you do this? You've done no such thing bro. All you did was ASK another person and told me that other person disagrees with me. And I informed you that I equally disagree with that person. I am not dealing with that other person, I am dealing with you so I am relying on YOU to prove your own case concerning Taaba and what/whom it refers to. You have not done that Wakas and asking someone to step in and lend you a hand is not the same as YOU refutting me bro. I am here to challenge and refute your views and if your views are the same his then I will be killing two birds with one stone.
Damon claims "In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form."
- He cites no studies into such a subject, so all we have is his own statement as evidence.
You are so desperate to when an argument that you are asking for evidence that hens lay eggs. This is why I had asked you earlier to provide me with the different types of plurals that are formed in Arabic. I think you knew where I was going with this and you smelled a trap so you decided not to touch that question. But I'll answer the question myself and go into why you cannot have a plural word with an entirely different root from its singular form.
YOU KNOW (just as well as anyone here with an elementary knowledge of Arabic) that plurals are formed in ONLY TWO WAYS....sound plural (by adding a suffix to the SINGULAR form of the word) and broken plural ( by making internal changes to the SINGULAR form of the word). You know this and so does every Arabic student here. The plural forms can only be made by adding the appropriate sound and broken plural forms to the SINGULAR of the word. If you are looking for a quote from a book that says "Plurals are only formed by making changes to the singular form" I cannot provide that. I can only provide references to all of the Arabic grammar books that explain how the plurals are formed in Arabic. But you know about this Wakas and if you are silly and desperate enough to request that quote from one of the grammar books, I can play the same game and request a quote from a Grammar book that says "the plural form of some words can come from an entirely different root than its singular". But I won't do that because I don't play those kinds games.
- he seemingly does not realise what he requests is a logical fallacy
Oh boy, here we go with the Logical Fallacy business. Is this what you're going to do in the rest of our discussion, keep using that term until it might stick and actually become true somehow?
- he admits Arabic language is imperfect, meaning it can and does contain imperfections, but seemingly neglects this possibility that "nisa" may be an imperfection, i.e. a word that may have delevoped independently or borrowed from another language etc etc etc. Whether it is true or not I dont know, but since we agree Arabic is imperfect, this makes it possible. Simple.
Yes, I did say that Arabic is not a perfect language, but that's because the people who use the language are imperfect because they are humans. But that was a statement I should not have made because if we really think about it what does it mean for a language (any language) to be perfect or imperfect? All languages are constantly evolving so how can any of us (myself included) say that Arabic or any other language is perfect or imperfect? It's not the language I am interested in for its own sake, it's how the native speakers of this language have used it in the past and how they use it today. This is what I mean when I say it's not perfect. I don't know why you say so. But for me the Arabic Language (or any other human language for that matter) doesn't have to be perfect. I just have to use the language to figure how IDEAS are expressed, used and understood.
As far as the possibility of the word Nisaa' developing independently or being a borrowed word it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that the Arabs would have had to Borrow a foreign expression for one of the most COMMON words in any language. Man, woman, child, food, water, sun, animal, big, small, male, female, mother, father, boy, girl, etc. Also, WHY would they need to borrow a foreign word when their own language already possesses a root system and they have the root letters Meem-Ra-Hamza AND their system of feminization of masculine words?
- I even stated I am more than happy to agree with his claim, because it is ultimately irrlevant. At best, it is an evidence in favour of his position. Note the use of "an", i.e. one evidence. The ultimate evidence will of course be how it slots into Quran.
Fair enough.
Damon now claims "Actually bro, the Dictionaries DO NOT say that Nisaa' is the plural of Imraa' because they are not under the same entry in ANY Dictionary. "
Previously said "Now, here's the issue at hand. ALL OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES that I have ever read give for the singular word woman as IMRAA'A. I also know for certain that their is a DUAL form of this word which is IMRAA'ATAYN. HOWEVER, when it comes to the PLURAL form of this word THEY give the Arabic word Nisaa' "---> Contradicts himself.
Yes, a contradiction. To be sure The words Nisaa' and Imraa' ARE under two different entries in the dictionaries and this what I was saying in the first quote above. The bottom quote I made earlier in our talk and the top quote is what I said recently and I started that statement with the word Actually because it was my attempt to reject the notion of these two words being listed under the same entry because they are not. BUT I did make a contradicting statement. Question is....is this a refutation of anything I presented as evidence?? Remember, I numbered the things that I presented as evidence that I am awaiting a rebuttal for. But as far as my two statements, you can have that one. No biggie.
Damon claims without evidence "And secondly, every grammar book that I have ever referenced conclude that the PLURAL of ALL Arabic words come from the SAME ROOT letters as their singular and dual form."
Evidence with link please.
See my second explanation above. I am definitively stating that I cannot provide a quote from any grammar book that says what I said. So having admitted that, I am now asking you Wakas 3 very small and simple questions relating to this part of our talk
1). Are you aware of ANY other Arabic words other than the Imraa' and Nisaa' phenomena where the plural form comes from an entirely different root than it's singular form?
2).Is my explanation about the formation of plurals in Arabic correct or incorrect?
3). Is there any grammar book that you are aware of that says the plural form of a word can have an entirely different root than the singular form?
These three questions are very, very relevent and I am hoping that you would be gracious enough to answer them......Pleeeezzzee. pr
-
Damon,
WHERE did you do this and HOW did you do this?
Simple - you cited no evidence other than your own statement on "taba". This is not rocket science. Let me explain
Person A "Aliens exist"
Person B evidence?
Person A "I saw them, aliens exist"
Person B By "evidence" I mean something that can corroborate your statement, e.g. independent evidence not in the form of a statement from you.But no need to fret, I only cited my own view, a link to corpus, and Mazhar also disagrees with you. He even asked you for evidence to the contrary from a source, you never responded. In any case, we'll see who else familiar with Arabic agrees/disagrees etc so readers of the forum can consider your knowledge of Arabic.
Re my point 3
By your use of "highly unlikely" you indirectly admit what I said is possible. Even though your "highly unlikely" is conjecture, it is irrelevant, as all we need to know is that what I said is possible. And you admitted it is. Simple.Thanks for admitting you contradicted yourself.
Thanks for admitting you cannot provide evidence for what you stated when you said "And secondly, every grammar book that I have ever referenced conclude that the PLURAL of ALL Arabic words come from the SAME ROOT letters as their singular and dual form."
I dont mind answering your 3 questons. See below
You asked Are you aware of ANY other Arabic words other than the Imraa' and Nisaa' phenomena where the plural form comes from an entirely different root than it's singular form?
No, but I have not studied it, and as long as we bear in mind what I said- He cites no studies into such a subject, so all we have is his own statement as evidence.
- he seemingly does not realise what he requests is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance" - the following from Wikipedia perfectly describes his attempt
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - he admits Arabic language is imperfect, meaning it can and does contain imperfections, but seemingly neglects this possibility that "nisa" may be an imperfection, i.e. a word that may have delevoped independently or borrowed from another language etc etc etc. Whether it is true or not I dont know, but since we agree Arabic is imperfect, this makes it possible. Simple.
- I even stated I am more than happy to agree with his claim, because it is ultimately irrlevant. At best, it is an evidence in favour of his position. Note the use of "an", i.e. one evidence. The ultimate evidence will of course be how it slots into Quran.
You asked Is my explanation about the formation of plurals in Arabic correct or incorrect?
I am more than happy to accept your explanation, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously.You asked Is there any grammar book that you are aware of that says the plural form of a word can have an entirely different root than the singular form?
Other than the classical arabic dictionaries you alluded to, no. I have not studied grammar books with regard to this however. As I said, I am more than happy to accept your claim that nisa is made the exception, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously. -
Damon,
You first said it is a well known fact that the use of masculine plural DOES NOT mean an all male audience UNLESS SPECIFIED!!! Wakas, this is Arabic Grammar 101 bro.
When asked for evidence, you presented the following
"Note Where only one form is shown above, there is no distinction between masculine and feminine forms. Where dual or plural pronouns refer to mixed sexes, the MASCULINE PREDOMINATES and the MASCULINE FORM OF THE PRONOUN IS USED. Thus if the pronoun "they" refers to "men AND women" PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN THE PASSAGE CONCERNED , the form HUM, not HUNNA, would be used. This would be the case even if the pronoun referred to "two women and one man". "
Again, go to PAGE 44 of the link. Type in page # 44 in the page block next to the arrows up top. In the parenthesis it will say (54 of 70
And just for good measure, here's the quote from page 15 of Arabic Verbs & Essentials of Grammar
"Note that you will not meet or need the feminine plurals as often as the masculine plurals. This is because you only use the feminine plural if all the people in a group are female. If the group is mixed male AND female, the masculine is used."
Note how what you quoted says no such thing as you alledged. Interestingly, the parts you highlighted in capitals/underlines/bold goes against your own position.
Conclusion
Your so-called "evidence 1" non-existentPlease try again.
-
Damon,
Re 1087
You tell us whom the speaker is, when I never asked about the speaker. I specifically asked "whom the spoken to and spoken of was" (in 1087). You do provide whom you consider the "spoken to" however which you claim as "the one who is commissioned to PROCLAIM the message of the narration to other people."
Rather than answering your own question, please answer what I actually asked, and provide whom is the "spoken of" in 1087, and for your claim to hold there can be no switch.Thus, as it stands, your "evidence 2" incomplete/lacking.
Your "evidence 3" refers to "evidence 1 answered previously.
-
Peace all,
Umm...no intention to be rude and I truly hope I don't come off as rude...
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
I am in dire need of clarification on this subject because I have been trying to make sense of 443 and 56. Shirley, I would love your insight on the post I made a while back.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604659.0
One post on here that particularly struck me, including the quote from Bender http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg314619#msg314619
And also
Concerning the verses that you say have a "very feminine" context, you and the rest of the innocent world are TAUGHT that it is a feminine context by not only giving Nisaa' a definition that is OBVIOUSLY false (and I choose my words carefully, the more this issue comes to light, the more obvious this mistranslation becomes) but also mistranslating many, many, many, other words to help paint a picture of feminine contexts. Sadaqat DOES NOT mean dowry and "maheed" DOES NOT mean menstruation.
Would you please explain how you would translate 2222, 443, 56 and 43 and give me reasons why with cross-referencing the Quran? I would greatly appreciate it.
Peace and blessings! yay
-
Wakas,
I have read your last three posts and going through them I have noted 4 issues that you are addressing. These four issues are
1). Taaba and who it is referring to
2). The issue of Plurals and their formations
3). What I said is a well known fact (of Arabic Grammar)
4). The interpretation of 10/87 (which I am tired of answering)I will now address all four of these one by one.
The issue of Taaba and WHO it is referring to. I made myself clear that it is referring to An-Nisaa'. You disagree with me and you even bring up the name of a third party as if that third party is an authority or makes what is false to be true.
I am stating it again for all to see. The word Taaba in 4/3 is referring to An-Nisaa'. How? Because the construction follows the Ma...Min Clause. Evidence? Page 132 of Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic which clearly explains the Ma - Min Clause and shows example Arabic sentences. Please read it.
Evidence # 1 established.
The issue of this well known fact that I mentioned. You asked for evidence. I provided the evidence twice. The first time you pretended to not find the page I referenced. Second round, you flat out denied what is written for all too see...
Note how what you quoted says no such thing as you alledged. Interestingly, the parts you highlighted in capitals/underlines/bold goes against your own position.
Conclusion
Your so-called "evidence 1" non-existentYou must not have read it bro. Read it again...
"Where only one form is shown above, there is no distinction between masculine and feminine forms. Where dual or plural pronouns refer to mixed sexes, the MASCULINE PREDOMINATES and the MASCULINE FORM OF THE PRONOUN IS USED.
THIS is what I wanted you to read and read it over and over.
Now I will walk you through it. It says when plural pronouns refer to mixed sexes, the masculine predominates and the masculine form of the pronoun is used. When we look at 4/3, we see the masculine plural pronouns used 8 times. The quote from the grammar book above says the masculine form of the pronoun predominates when referring to mixed sexes. So, the question is if 4/3 is addressing mixed sexes or not. We have to find out the gender make up of the group of people who are being addressed. So we go backwards to 4/2 to find out who is being addressed. We look at 4/2 and see that (just like 4/3) a group of people are being addressed and the masculine plural is being used throughout 4/2. Again, we have to ask if this group of people is a mixed group or an all male group. So we go backwards again to 4/1 and we find out WHO IT IS that is being directly addressed. 4/1 begins by addressing Mankind/Human Beings/People and the word used for People/Mankind is An-Naas.
One question Wakas. Does the Arabic word An-Naas translate into a group of PEOPLE (male and female) or does it translate into a group of ONLY men? Very simple question.
And I am going to repeat the quote from the other book I referred you to
Note that you will not meet or need the feminine plurals as often as the masculine plurals. This is because you only use the feminine plural if all the people in a group are female. If the group is MIXED male AND female, the masculine is used.
Again Wakas, Does the Arabic word An-Naas translate into a group of PEOPLE (male and female) or does it translate into a group of ONLY men?
If you can somehow prove that the Arabic word An-Naas translates into men, males or a group of men, then I have not proven my case. If you Cannot prove this with the word An-Naas, then my evidence stands.
And by the way, this is also proven by the simple fact that THIS RULE that I am talking about is always applied in Spoken AND Written Arabic. All you have to do is find a group of maybe 10 people. 9 of those people in that group are females and the 10th person is a male. Because it is predominantly female SPEAK to them (in spoken text) and try referring to that group using the feminine plural and watch the reaction you get. Or you can WRITE to that same group of people and address them (in written text) using the feminine plural. Again the reaction will be one of correction and possibly the ire of that one male. This is just Arabic bro. Now, your insistence on someone presenting a book telling you this is the same as me asking someone to present a book explaining that I have to put an "es" at the end of the word "box" when I am referring to more than one box. It is common knowledge, common practice of the language and a well known rule. Students of Arabic know of this rule through study. Native Arabs know of it through osmosis.
Evidence # 2 Established.
Your issue with 10/87 lets me know that you didn't bother to read it from 10/69 to 10/87 like I suggested. And I have answered this question already. I don't know why I have to keep answering it or if you require me to answer it in a different way but my answer to it stands. It is Evidence number 1 in Reply # 32
I have given you my answer, you did not provide a rebuttal to it but you are asking me to answer that question again. I don't get it.
It was evidence # 1 in that post, but in this post it is officially Evidence # 3 Established
Lastly, I sincerely Thank You for answering my three questions about the formation of Plurals in the Arabic Language.
Let's go through all three one by one if you don't mind.
Damon believes that the plurals of all Arabic words logically have to come from the root of their singular forms. Wakas disagrees. Wakas asks Damon for some type of evidence to support his views of this issue. Damon cannot provide any. Damon asked Wakas Three questions that we are going to look at now...
Question Are you aware of ANY other Arabic words other than the Imraa' and Nisaa' phenomena where the plural form comes from an entirely different root than it's singular form?
Answer NO, but I have not studied it,
I am placing emphasis on the yes or no answer (in this case it is NO). I will address the other part of this answer (but I have not studied it) with question three.
QuestionIs my explanation about the formation of plurals in Arabic correct or incorrect?
Answer I am more than happy to accept your explanation, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously.
I asked if my explanation was CORRECT or INCORRECT. I would have appreciated your answer being either "No, it is incorrect" or "Yes, it is correct". But instead you have worded it in a way to where you do not solidly commit to the correctness of my explanation. That's okay bro, you are Happy to Accept my explanation.That's pretty darn cunning of you Wakas. I'll take this as a "Yes, your explanation is correct".
And probably the most crucial of the three questions
QuestionIs there any grammar book that you are aware of that says the plural form of a word can have an entirely different root than the singular form?
Answer Other than the classical arabic dictionaries you alluded to, no.
First of all, Thank You for being honest and answering no. But, I must point out that I did not ask you about any dictionaries. I asked you if you know of any GRAMMAR BOOKS that I am not aware of which says that a plural can represent the singular form of a word from an entirely different root.
Now, If the word Nisaa' is the plural form of 'Imra'a (two different roots) and this is normal to happen my two questions are
1). Why don't we have more words with this kind of arrangement where there is a singular form from one set of roots and the plural form of that word from an entirely different set of roots? And...
2). Why aren't there any Arabic grammar books explaining this grammatical anomaly?
I'm not asking YOU (Wakas) to answer these two questions. I am just putting the questions out there that we all should be asking.
I want to finish with the rest of your answer to my question Brother.
I have not studied grammar books with regard to this however.
The thing is You and I have BOTH studied a lot of Arabic Grammar books. You even list some on Study Quran (a lot of people owe you a big THANK YOU for doing this by the way). We don't have to study the grammar books with regard to this grammatical anomaly, because if the grammar rule existed we would have come across it by now. And a rule like that would be hard to miss because it stands out so eerily from the grammatical norm.
As I said, I am more than happy to accept your claim that nisa is made the exception, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously.
I bear in mind what you said previously but ask yourself two important questions;
1). How can ONE WORD be an exception like this? There are many grammatical rules that outline exceptions and alternatives for words that have Hamza as a root letter, especially when the word is in 8th form of the Verb. But these alternative rules are known and they are written in the grammar books?
2). WHY would this word be an exception when the singular word for woman already exists in the Arabic Language and it actually stems from a masculine word?
These are just two of the questions that I asked myself which got me started into looking at this Nisaa' thing much closer.
Now, I have something that I have to say and I am issuing my apologies ahead of time to any males on this forum who so happen to be Arab.
But we look at your answers to my three questions and we look at my additional inquiries and we add to this conversation the "CULTURE" of male chauvinism among Arab men. In fact, the Arab Culture in general is a very macho, man centric culture. This, I have always took note of but learned for sure about it when I read a few books about Arabs and Arab Culture, one of them being The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai (sorry to any Arab men here on this forum, but this book was a huge eye opener).
We can look at all of the Arab countries now and there is our verification of what I am talking about. It is so prevalent that even NON ARAB countries that have taken on ARAB CULTURE (as part of the package of Arab Religion) practice the same male chauvinism and oppression of women that Arab men are known for.
I think I'll stop there before people start threatening me on the forum.
Anyway, take the answers to those three questions and the additional information of Male Arab Culture and put it all together (not just you Wakas, I mean everyone here).
-
Peace all,
Umm...no intention to be rude and I truly hope I don't come off as rude...
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
I am in dire need of clarification on this subject because I have been trying to make sense of 443 and 56. Shirley, I would love your insight on the post I made a while back.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604659.0
One post on here that particularly struck me, including the quote from Bender http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg314619#msg314619
And also
Would you please explain how you would translate 2222, 443, 56 and 43 and give me reasons why with cross-referencing the Quran? I would greatly appreciate it.Peace and blessings! yay
Peace
Can you explain what Bender meant? Like, break it up into small steps. Or perhaps, Bender can come and clarify. I am having trouble understanding his perspective. Sorry, I'm a little slow. -[
-
Peace all,
Umm...no intention to be rude and I truly hope I don't come off as rude...
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
I am in dire need of clarification on this subject because I have been trying to make sense of 443 and 56. Shirley, I would love your insight on the post I made a while back.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604659.0
One post on here that particularly struck me, including the quote from Bender http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg314619#msg314619
And also
Would you please explain how you would translate 2222, 443, 56 and 43 and give me reasons why with cross-referencing the Quran? I would greatly appreciate it.Peace and blessings! yay
I also have the same question as you, in regard to those verses.
-
Wakas,
Something I meant to add in my reply is the rest of the quote from page 44 of Haywoods Grammar book
Thus if the pronoun "they" refers to "men AND women" PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN THE PASSAGE CONCERNED , the form HUM, not HUNNA, would be used. This would be the case even if the pronoun referred to "two women and one man". "
This is saying EXACTLY what I had said in terms of a plural masculine pronouns being used when referring to a group that was PREVIOUSLY mentioned. The masculine plural is being used in 4/3 and it is referring to a group that was PREVIOUSLY mentioned in 4/1. I think I know WHY you are rejecting this and WHAT you are focusing in this quote. I think you should read it again Very Carefully instead of continuing to reject it or coming back with an attempted rebuttal against it. You noted my highlighted and bold emphasis. Now I AM highlighting my emphasis in that quote. Please LOOK AT IT Bro.
-
It is time that the issues of Nisaa' and 43 get cleared up.
First, the word Nisaa'. This word does not, indeed it CANNOT, mean women....
Having said this, I wish to lightly touch up on 43 which is the verse people mistranslate in order to justify polygamous marriage. The one question everyone should be asking is WHO IS IT that is being addressed in 43? Whenever a certain group of people are being addressed directly in The Quran they are specified such as Jinn and Ins (6130), Bani Adam (726), Bani Isra'el (240), Ahlul Kitab (515), An-Nabiy (3350) and the Momineen (2104). Another category of people that is directly addressed in The Quran is PEOPLE IN GENERAL (41). So if we want to know WHO is being addressed in 43 we have to go back to 41 and 42 to look for the phrase and when we do that we will find in 41 WHO IT IS that is being addressed - - "OH PEOPLE/HUMANITY/MANKIND!!!
An-Nas INCLUDES women young and old. There is absolutely NO CHANGE in address between 41 and 43, it is a continuation. Having explored these facts the people who think that 43 is talking about polygamous marriage must also believe that the Quran is telling women to marry other women. There is absolutely NO WORD in 41, 42 or 43 which shows that it is MEN/MALES who are being addressed. It IS PEOPLE/HUMAN BEINGS that are being addressed. Obviously The Quran IS NOT telling women to marry other women. So the traditional understanding of this verse is incorrect and needs to be adjusted. No matter how much some people claim to be Quranists, if they still believe 43 is talking about polygamous marriage (or even marriage at all) then they still have a TRADITIONALIST mindset. The only difference is how they interpret 43 in order to justify the same thing as them.
Peace Shirley -- context, cross-reference, and logic determines who is being addressed.
Here are all combinations;
Obviously Qur'an is not telling women to marry women or men to marry men...men to marry men
men to marry women
men to marry boys
men to marry girls
women to marry men
women to marry women
women to marry boys
women to marry girls
boys to marry men
boys to marry women
boys to marry boys
boys to marry girls
girls to marry men
girls to marry women
girls to marry boysIn context only one correct answer which Qur'an is telling men to marry feminine/women...
41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord The One created you from soul one/single and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/men much wanisa/and feminine and fear The God The One you ask with it and the wombs indeed The God is over you Watchful
42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it is sin great
43 and if you fear that not do justice in/concerning the orphans so for marrying what aba/choice for/to you from al-nisaa/the feminine paired/twos and three and four so if you fear that not do justice so one/single or what possess your right hands that minimum that not you oppress
44 and give al-nisaa/the feminine their handouts graciously so if they remit to/for you about a thing from it of soul/their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease
45 and not give the foolish your wealth the one made The God to/for you standing/support and provide them in it and clothe them and speak to them a word nice/appropriate
46 and test the orphans until when attained the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is in need for so let eat/consume in the fair manner/honor so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on/over them and sufficient in The God Reckon-er
47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the feminine a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
Yes we are all waiting for Shirley to translate/cross-reference especially verses on inheritance and menses...
654 and the ones (f) who despaired from the menstruation from nisakum/feminine yours if you doubt so their waiting period three cycles and the ones (f) not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads/give birth and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier
