Resolve the confusion--pronoun in 16:66 and 23:21
-
I pointed out that in the two sentences of two Ayahs of Qur'aan only the Ha refers to Mammals and not masculine pronoun. Masculine pronound does not refer to female mammals.
The sentence you structured was ambiguous and incorrect grammatically. Please check it with Phd gentleman giving him the sentence I modifed.
Please write which sentence he thinks grammatically correct, specifically ask him whether a masculine pronoun can refer to female mammals; has he ever found it in literature.
Salaam,
RED I think you still do NOT understand what he meant with "depends how one handles the word ALAN3AAM". Try to understand what this means. If you still struggle to understand I will help you a bit, he meant to say that there are different theories.
BLUE I don't know I did not ask.
BUT obviously he could give 1666 as an evidence.
And I can give you for example THIS, tell me is there any literature, except maybe some poets who wants to imitate The Quran, where we have such phenomenon? Furthermore I am very sure your explanation in that thread can never be found in any grammar book or in any literature, except maybe some poets who wants to imitate The Quran.
I also can bring up 2197
2197
According to your own translation "The Hu'j is in the limited Days which are famous-a matter of common knowledge-information .Therefore, he who has "cut off, alienated, isolated-undertaken obligation" in these days for Hu'j, thereat neither engaging in matrimonial relations-sex affairs-all sex related excitements nor any un-restrained-abnormal act and any purposeless debating-wrangling is permissible during Hu'j."
So according to you FIHINNA is referring to ASHURUN.
Like MmKhan pointed out before we have also this ayaat
6612
Is there any literature, except maybe some poets who wants to imitate The Quran, where we have such phenomenon?And there are many more, these are only the ayaats that came at mind now.
If you have the right to make such jumps and thinking, then the people who take ALAN3AAM different as how you take it, have also this right. So if one wants to judge others, they have to be first themselves consistent, and you are everything but consistent in your translations and interpretations.Liike English conjunction "and" Arabic conjunction Waw have a basic conventional semantic meaning and a list of pragmatic meanings. You can study it in this paper
http//versita.metapress.com/content/w4xm166745229482/fulltext.pdfLooks like you have a hard time to understand the question I gave you. I did not ask for the interpretation of YAGI & ALI how to handle WAW and for what purposes it is used, I asked for the grammar rule which clarifies for me when we have to take WAW as the beginning of a new sentence and when not.
Besides this I have checked quickly their paper and they did not even give their interpretation of when to take WAW as a beginning of a new sentence.
I kindly ask you again to give me this mysterious grammar rule on which you have based your understanding to take the waw of " " as the start of a new sentence.You did not not answer me on the exegesis question. And I also like to know why my understanding on 2321 is not correct. You said it was not correct but not why.
Salaam,
Bender -
I also can bring up 2197
2197
According to your own translation "The Hu'j is in the limited Days which are famous-a matter of common knowledge-information .Therefore, he who has "cut off, alienated, isolated-undertaken obligation" in these days for Hu'j, thereat neither engaging in matrimonial relations-sex affairs-all sex related excitements nor any un-restrained-abnormal act and any purposeless debating-wrangling is permissible during Hu'j."
So according to you FIHINNA is referring to ASHURUN.
Yes that is correct. But what you are inferring?
-
I asked for the grammar rule which clarifies for me when we have to take WAW as the beginning of a new sentence and when not.
Man of Faith had the same problem, it was explained
Simple connector/conjunction Waw-
Its function is to join two related nouns, verbs, nominal sentences or two verbal sentences. Their features should match. It is frequently used in compound sentences two sentences/independent clauses joined by connector waw for economy of words, as is the case with English "and".
In the case under discussion the verbs of both the sentences do not match. Hence the second sentence is a new one unrelated to the previous but is a discourse coordinator.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.66a.gif
Note both words are in genitive case-exact match.
Waw recommencing particle-discourse coordinator, initiator of a new sentence
Its identification feature It joins two unrelated adhesive sentences. It is recognized from the features of the two sentences before and after it. There are different structures; one is that the sentence before and after is verbal sentence and nominal sentence as is the case in 2321.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/023.%20A3.gif
It is verbal sentence
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.21c.gif
It is inverted nominal sentence.
Again a new sentence which is verbal
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.21d.gifIt is telling not all mammals are for eating; some of them we eat, others are for carriage etc.
I hope it might clarify.
-
Sorry. I take the essence of what a passage talks about to see whether it is same sentence or not. The issue was 20130 and 20131 and I consider them to belong with each other due to the context. If there is any other issue with verbs as according to Mazhar it has to be his own obsession with grammar rules of what he knows that causes a problem. Except otherwise why should the person be content in 20130 if it was not to not crave for the wealth of others in 20131.
If his verb issues cause a hesitation I am sure that the grammar he knows will not avail him the slightest in the pursuit of the real meaning of the recitation but instead hamper the understanding. Scholar grammar is more important than the literal quality according to him and applying those rules is more important than creating a fluent text. Instead of saying I am wrong investigate why 20131 from a literal standpoint seems to be a continuation of 20131 despite "mismatched verbs". Challenge your so-called Arabic grammar knowledge instead and try to learn or are you thinking that you are fully learned?
Take a logical approach; You do something to be content and why is that? Yes; not to be upset by something else. And in 20131 it starts "and not crave for.. bla bla". How about a continuation of passages there?
But for your sake I am going to get to the bottom of that sentence too and analyze it to pieces. I will show you that it continues on from 20130.
Peace
-
Salaam,
See my first post.
No there is a differnce in the structure. Maybe if you can quote the verse you have in mind I can try to show you the difference.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
BenderSalaam brother,
Sorry for late reply -298
2285
3179
18106
The following needs to be checked carefully.
2174
2220
2321
I may get back to you with more references inshaAllah. But till then please go through the aayaat quoted above.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
But for your sake I am going to get to the bottom of that sentence too and analyze it to pieces. I will show you that it continues on from 20130.
Good, it is the appropriate method of getting the message, it is like the process-digestive system by which the food intake becomes the part of us.
-
Yes that is correct. But what you are inferring?
Salaam,
How do you explain that you used a feminine plural to refer to a masculine plural?
Man of Faith had the same problem, it was explained
Simple connector/conjunction Waw-
Its function is to join two related nouns, verbs, nominal sentences or two verbal sentences. Their features should match. It is frequently used in compound sentences two sentences/independent clauses joined by connector waw for economy of words, as is the case with English "and".
In the case under discussion the verbs of both the sentences do not match. Hence the second sentence is a new one unrelated to the previous but is a discourse coordinator.Finally, thank you. I understand now when we have to take WAW as a start of a new sentence according to this rule.
Can you show me the book or give me a link where I can find this grammar rule?
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.66a.gif
Note both words are in genitive case-exact match.
We were are already agreeing on this verse.
Waw recommencing particle-discourse coordinator, initiator of a new sentence
Its identification feature It joins two unrelated adhesive sentences. It is recognized from the features of the two sentences before and after it. There are different structures; one is that the sentence before and after is verbal sentence and nominal sentence as is the case in 2321.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/023.%20A3.gif
It is verbal sentence
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.21c.gif
It is inverted nominal sentence.According to you and the above grammar rule " " is unrelated to the previous. If it is unrelated then to what is FEEHAA related then.
Again a new sentence which is verbal
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.21d.gifWhy did you not start it then with a capital in your translation? click
I have gone through some of your translations to see if you are loyal to this grammar rule but from what I have seen it looks more like a random process.
If you like I can give you a lot of examples from your own translation where you did not follow this grammar rule. But maybe at the time you wrote your translation the above grammar rule you mentioned was not yet known by you.It is telling not all mammals are for eating; some of them we eat, others are for carriage etc.
I hope it might clarify.
yes we are getting somewhere now.
Salaam,
Benderps. do not forget the exegesis question.
-
Salaam,
I understand that something is broken in here, but I do not understand how a masculine singular becomes a feminine plural.
Salaam,
BenderWe have no option but to accept as the language is. Plural nouns in Arabic
http//arabic.tripod.com/Nouns3.htmIrregular/broken plural nouns
http//arabic.tripod.com/Nouns5.htm -
Why did you not start it then with a capital in your translation? click
I have gone through some of your translations to see if you are loyal to this grammar rule but from what I have seen it looks more like a random process.
If you like I can give you a lot of examples from your own translation where you did not follow this grammar rule. But maybe at the time you wrote your translation the above grammar rule you mentioned was not yet known by you.Thanks, yes you have correctly pointed out the mistake. I started translation following the laid down academic rules of reading and understanding a book and thereafter translation. That translation was the second stage, segmentation of sentences and putting down meanings without much caring for the target language delicacies.
Third time translation is now undersay; upto 940, kindly see those and point out omissions, I will be much grateful for help. -
According to you and the above grammar rule " " is unrelated to the previous. If it is unrelated then to what is FEEHAA related then.
The above query was in relation to this quote
http//Its identification feature It joins two unrelated adhesive sentences. It is recognized from the features of the two sentences before and after it. There are different structures; one is that the sentence before and after is verbal sentence and nominal sentence as is the case in 2321
The answer was already in the quote, highlighted. New sentence giving different information-making statement about the subject under discussion not related but adhesive to previous sentence.
-
Finally, thank you. I understand now when we have to take WAW as a start of a new sentence according to this rule.
Can you show me the book or give me a link where I can find this grammar rule?
The most important thing for understanding a discourse is the segmentation of sentences. We must know where it beigins and where it ends. In DNA translation there is "start codon" and termining-ending codon; similarly in protein there is a start amino acid and ending amino acid.
Waw is the most important starting particle and also indicator of ending of earlier sentence.
Two very simple books of Grammar Syntax are
Hidaya and Fawaid
It is better to download them and keep in grammar folder for referenceHidaya http//www.al-islam.org/file/al-hidayah-fi-nahw
Fawaid http//www.jaffarya.org/main/docs/books/al-Fawaaid%20as-Samadiyyah.pdf
About waw and discourse segmentation
http//wa.amu.edu.pl/psicl/files/34/18Fareh.pdf
http//www.ijens.org/vol%2011%20i%2001/112701-8989%20ijecs-ijens.pdfYou may also like to have this book in your treasures
From the treasures of Arabic Morphology
http//special.worldofislam.info/Arabic/pdf/Treasures_of_Arabic_Morphology.pdf -
We have no option but to accept as the language is. Plural nouns in Arabic
http//arabic.tripod.com/Nouns3.htmIrregular/broken plural nouns
http//arabic.tripod.com/Nouns5.htmsalaam,
RED maybe better to replace it with I, because I and some others here have options.
REST Very interesting, when people do the same for AlAn3aam then they commit "fake reasoning (from) the earliest exegeses" but when you do it, then "we" have no option but to accept it.
Salaam,
Bender -
Thanks, yes you have correctly pointed out the mistake. I started translation following the laid down academic rules of reading and understanding a book and thereafter translation. That translation was the second stage, segmentation of sentences and putting down meanings without much caring for the target language delicacies.
Third time translation is now undersay; upto 940, kindly see those and point out omissions, I will be much grateful for help.Salaam,
I have to give you one thing and that is that you have a big determination and patience with your work.
RED sorry I have to refuse it, simply because I am to lazy for this and it does also not help that I am not the biggest fan of your translations.
salaam,
Bender -
RED maybe better to replace it with I, because I and some others here have options.
Okay, I have no choice/option but to accept a non-native language exactly as it is, if I sincerely wish to understand a discourse in that laguage. The logic is that langauge is a long cherished convention of a people to whom that language belongs. If they call Sun is feminine, I cannot take it as masculine, though my mother language treats it as masculine.
-
All translators religiously following the traditional exegeses relate the masculine singular pronoun and feminine pronoun to feminine plural noun occuring in exactly identical first sentences in both Ayahs.
I could not find any rule in Arabic grammar to agree with all of them. Can you reconcile?
Salam Mazhar ,
The key rule to resolve this lies In the quantity of the word In question is it "many " or only a "few " . In arabic There is gross quantity ( ) and small quantity ( ة and for each There is a rule when it comes to describe it with Feminine pronom or with masculin
The rule In Quraan and in basic arabic is That
When the word describe something That is " many " ( ) or a "lot" the end pronom used is in feminine form , same as In the second verse you quoted. ( )
And when the word describe something That is "few " or " little" th? end pronom is used In masculin form , same as In the first verse you quoted ( ه
Examples of that rules from the Qur'aan
1- first example when the the word describe something that is " many " ( ) so the feminine pronom is used
verse 3/42
- 3 - 42
(kaalt AL Malaa'yika) , kaalt is in the femminie form because the "AL Malaa'yika" are too many , eventhough the "AL Malaa'yika" are not female.
Another example
verse 14/10
- 14 - 10
(kaalt Rusuluhum) , eventhough the " AL Rusul " ( messemgers ) are not female kaalt is In the femminine form because "AL Rusul" ( the messemgers are too many , .
There are other exemple of that rule That includes names also who ends up with ( taa' t'nyit) or the plurals under the pattern fa"ul and af"ul , like shuhur and "ashhur ", both are plurals but "shuhur " are more in counting. And there are many other rules like that. And those rules are not arbitrary but follow the "real " , " physical "" natural " "phenomena "
1- second example when the the word describe something that is " few " or " little" ( ) so the masculin pronom is used
Verse 12/30
- 12 - 30
( Kaala Niswah) , eventhough the " Niswah " (womens ) are female the verbe "Kaala " is in masculin form because the " Niswah" (Womens) who was with Yusuf (S) where only a few womens.
So how in the verse you quoted , those rules fit
Notice the first verse 23/21(2) - 23 - 21
( ا is in feminin form because it talks about many things that we can get from AL An"aam ( The 8 pairs animal) notably the verse is listing ( milk , many benefits , and we eat from them ) , so do we get milk from the male of these animals or only from the females , surely from the females only , so the verse is including in that verse males and females of these 8 pair animals because it does talk about all the benefits from both gender , by so they are many , and this is why the verse use the feminine form of the pronom at the end of the word in question.
In the second verse 16/66 it talk only about Milk
- 16 - 66
So it only talk about the female of the 8 pairs from these animals so they are few compared to the other verse which includ both gender , so this is why in the second verse he used the masculin form at the end of the word in question.
-
-
- 23 - 21
( ا is in feminin form because it talks about many things that we can get from AL An"aam ( The 8 pairs animal) notably the verse is listing ( milk , many benefits , and we eat from them ) , so do we get milk from the male of these animals or only from the females , surely from the females only , so the verse is including in that verse males and females of these 8 pair animals because it does talk about all the benefits from both gender , by so they are many , and this is why the verse use the feminine form of the pronom at the end of the word in question.
In the second verse 16/66 it talk only about Milk
- 16 - 66
So it only talk about the female of the 8 pairs from these animals so they are few compared to the other verse which includ both gender , so this is why in the second verse he used the masculin form at the end of the word in question.
Salamun alaika,
Thanks for relevant input about grammar delicacies.
But here the noun is the same one towards which you are relating both the pronouns; i.e. ; thus there is not the issue of plural of paucity and plural of abundance involved here. Moreover the verb can't be taken to have any relevance with other benefits people draw from mammals. -