I was about to apostate but then i found the Quranist path
-
Salaam,
So I think my method of learning is the way to go since teaching sources are heavily biased and the language is so old and distorted. It is also a pedagogy and an approach in my line of work in English learning.
A reason why I may wish to ask you is because I may compare some modern grammar with the one in Quran. I think some grammar as was used in Quran is not the same.
In fact I have discovered that certain prepositions are understood improperly. It is still a work in progress.
It appears that interpreters ignore if there is a madda on the alef after the word or not. It makes a huge difference to it. In the case of no madda it takes the meaning of 'no/not', but with madda it would mean 'what is'. Many scribes did not even write it out I noticed. And many translators do not pay attention to it and translate and as they like themselves it seems.
, the root, as I have been understood it, would imply worldliness/flesh. It does conceal ground as but humans are also enveloped/covered in something. I take it that the Arabic likes to imply to give in to the flesh. Everything on Earth is one way or another covered up unless it is dissolved.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
So I think my method of learning is the way to go since teaching sources are heavily biased and the language is so old and distorted. It is also a pedagogy and an approach in my line of work in English learning.
A reason why I may wish to ask you is because I may compare some modern grammar with the one in Quran. I think some grammar as was used in Quran is not the same.
In fact I have discovered that certain prepositions are understood improperly. It is still a work in progress.
It appears that interpreters ignore if there is a madda on the alef after the word or not. It makes a huge difference to it. In the case of no madda it takes the meaning of 'no/not', but with madda it would mean 'what is'. Many scribes did not even write it out I noticed. And many translators do not pay attention to it and translate and as they like themselves it seems.
, the root, as I have been understood it, would imply worldliness/flesh. It does conceal ground as but humans are also enveloped/covered in something. I take it that the Arabic likes to imply to give in to the flesh. Everything on Earth is one way or another covered up unless it is dissolved.
Salaam
Hello,
Keep your good work and feel free to ask me if i can help you with anything. I suggest that you take a look on "Alain lexicon". It is the 1st and the oldest complete Arabic lexicon.
Regarding & , i am not sure that i got your point, but i've searched Quraan now and if found that the madda does not affect the meaning. In fact, it has more meanings other than these 2 meanings.
For me, the root , would imply the soul, the hidden part of the human being, if we consider that the human is consisted of a visible part, which is the flesh or the physical part. Then the 2nd part is the soul, is the hidden part, which we can't see it.
Salam,
-
Salaam,
If you take a more closer look you will notice that and will make a difference. I hope you have a version of Quran which includes the symbols.
Whenever is used it is supposed to be interpreted 'not' and if is used then it is 'what is'. I have understood that this is an important grammar feature, and it is more than only giving a variation in pronunciation (long hollow sound). Alef is a peculiar letter in Arabic, it is like an assistant letter and as a sound/letter it is supposed to resemble 'be' (the state of being).
In and they work like this In the alef emphasizes/marks/negates the meem (thereof) and causes it to become a negative response that is 'not', and in the alef is independent in meaning, i.e. functions as its own letter which means it says "thereof be" or what is as traditionally interpreted.
An without madda does thus never carry its own meaning but modifies a word (individual letter to be exact) in some way. is an example, the alef modifies the word to say that kutub is with someone (I know traditional grammar says it is because of singular but I do not buy this). By the way, ketaab means decree/knowledge and not book. The word has somehow at some point in history adopted this definition. Check an old Arabic dictionary and you will see. means you possess this decree as knowledge.
I am searching right now whether might actually be the real Arabic word to refer to an actual book or writing. David/Dawood had a zabur and I think it refer to what he wrote down, i.e. some poems in glorification of the Rabb.
But I find no valid reason to consider ketaab as book. It sounds lame in many instances to the point that translators often play interpretation acrobatics with the word.
Quran is a viable word to say sort of testament, a narrative. Traditionalists say recitation, but that could also be in written form, i.e. recorded on paper. And a book can be lacking physical form but be remembered and thus be a recitation quite literally. Few had access to books when Quran was made anyway. Quran is a viable candidate for the relatively modern word book. But I still think writing (physical) is zabur.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
If you take a more closer look you will notice that and will make a difference. I hope you have a version of Quran which includes the symbols.
Whenever is used it is supposed to be interpreted 'not' and if is used then it is 'what is'. I have understood that this is an important grammar feature, and it is more than only giving a variation in pronunciation (long hollow sound). Alef is a peculiar letter in Arabic, it is like an assistant letter and as a sound/letter it is supposed to resemble 'be' (the state of being).
In and they work like this In the alef emphasizes/marks/negates the meem (thereof) and causes it to become a negative response that is 'not', and in the alef is independent in meaning, i.e. functions as its own letter which means it says "thereof be" or what is as traditionally interpreted.
An without madda does thus never carry its own meaning but modifies a word (individual letter to be exact) in some way. is an example, the alef modifies the word to say that kutub is with someone (I know traditional grammar says it is because of singular but I do not buy this). By the way, ketaab means decree/knowledge and not book. The word has somehow at some point in history adopted this definition. Check an old Arabic dictionary and you will see. means you possess this decree as knowledge.
I am searching right now whether might actually be the real Arabic word to refer to an actual book or writing. David/Dawood had a zabur and I think it refer to what he wrote down, i.e. some poems in glorification of the Rabb.
But I find no valid reason to consider ketaab as book. It sounds lame in many instances to the point that translators often play interpretation acrobatics with the word.
Quran is a viable word to say sort of testament, a narrative. Traditionalists say recitation, but that could also be in written form, i.e. recorded on paper. And a book can be lacking physical form but be remembered and thus be a recitation quite literally. Few had access to books when Quran was made anyway. Quran is a viable candidate for the relatively modern word book. But I still think writing (physical) is zabur.
Salaam
Salam,
I'll give you some examples for &
Surat Al-Ma'ida, verse 36.
The first "" in the verse is without madda and it means "thereof", the structre of the sentence can't give the meaning of "not" for "" in this case. The second "" without madda also, means "not".Surat Al-Ma'idah, verse 28.
In this verse, "" is with madda and it means "not".Surat Al-Ma'ida, verse 24.
In this verse "" without madds and it means "as long as" or "since"Surat Al-Ma'ida, verse 3.
1st "" with madda and means "thereof". 2nd "" with madda and means "thereof". 3rd "" without madda & means "not". 4th "" without madda and it means "thereof".The root of is " " . The meaning of of its derived words depend on punctuation. I do not have punctuation in my key board, so in my local dialect "the old one" the word kuttab with emphasized "" means the place where people get knowledge or learning. "Kuttab" in classical Arabic means give some one a knowledge or teach. The meanings are alot and it depends on the morphology and the punctuation of the word, beside the structure of the sentence and presence of presumptions or evidences. So, Ketab may have both meanings.
I found the world "" in the Arabic dictionary means fold/ lap/ pleat. so the world "" would be the folded papers together which means "the written book".
I agree with you about the last point. In Arabic we say , for the phisycal form of Quran. It is a new word i guess.
I agree with you about the last point. In Arabic we say , for the physical and written form of Quran. It is a new word i guess. In Quran it was mentioned "" which is the plueral of "", but "" and its plural "" are not mentioned.
Regards,
-
Salaam,
I think a lot of the traditional understanding of grammar is wrong. I consider it has to do with and . There is no other way. No inventor of a language would make no easy separation between two words.
If there is a deviation then it is a scribe error.
Edit In the examples you gave I interpretation is highly doubtful and suspicious. I doubt whether they reallt speak of what translations say whereas and may as well say what I said.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
I think a lot of the traditional understanding of grammar is wrong. I consider it has to do with and . There is no other way. No inventor of a language would make no easy separation between two words.
If there is a deviation then it is a scribe error.
Edit In the examples you gave I interpretation is highly doubtful and suspicious. I doubt whether they reallt speak of what translations say whereas and may as well say what I said.
Salaam
Hello,
In these examples, i gave the possible meanings of them according to the presumptions in the sentences. In the first example, the 1st "" if i interpret it as "not", the sentence would be meaningless. The metaphrase would be " Indeed, those who disbelieve/blaspheme if they should have all (that is/ thereof) in the earth and the like of it with it" In the brackets the meaning of "", in this case it is impossible to meant "not".
Regards,
-
Okay. Thanks for your input, but I am still not convinced. I think there is a clear grammar rule.
I find that gross errors in translation make it look like that.
Salaam
-
Okay. Thanks for your input, but I am still not convinced. I think there is a clear grammar rule.
I find that gross errors in translation make it look like that.
Salaam
Hello,
Please let me know after you finish your research about the rule of the madda in "". To be honest, i've never thought about it before this discussion and the little search & examples i did to figure it out.
Salam,
-
About too apostate huh? Sounds exciting.