Ramadhan inevitably a proper noun?
-
Unfortunately you did not get the point at all. This is a question concerning grammar! Please check all occurences of "al-ladhy" and "al-laty" and find an occurence where it refers to a preceding undefinite noun. Only cases without "al" before "al-laty" are "jahanam" (Hell) and "janati adnin" (gardens of Eden). These seem to be proper nouns. Hence the argument of my friend seems to be valid.
I really hope for a good reply referring to the actual grammatical issue...
Calm down, little man.
-
Calm down, little man.
I'm THE SMALLEST!
-
wow
No people around who really want to find out truth? No people who see the grammatical point and have something to contribute? Wakas, Ayman, somebody?
Peace!
Mmhh... you seem to get pissy pants fast.
-
peace bro Timur,
I'm unable to answer the question, hence me not replying. I did however contact some people over this. Bro Ayman is travelling at the moment, GW he will reply later.
In the meantime you may wish to PM Mazhar, uq, Samia, Layth. Perhaps they can help.
-
wow
No people around who really want to find out truth? No people who see the grammatical point and have something to contribute? Wakas, Ayman, somebody?
Peace!
The truth is rather ugly and crappy, so lets tell each other sweet lies for a while.
-
Salaam all, Timur
Grammatically speaking, you cannot tell from the phrase (shahru Ramadan) whether Ramadan is a proper noun or not, because it's a complex of "mudaf and mudaf elayhi" or, in other words (X of Y). Y can have, or have not a (al), even without being a proper noun.
For example The book of Mathematics in Arabic (the = al) will be linked to (mathematics) not to (book) = book of al mathematics (kitabu-l- hisab) i,e kitab al hisab.
A book of mathematics In Arabic (no a nor al) will appar with either word book mathematics (kitabu hisab).
Shahru ramadan will mean ( a moon of heat, summer) or if you like (the month of Ramadan).I hope I answered your query.
-
Peace Samia,
thanks for your reply and your efforts in helping me. I already knew that "shahr ramadhan" alone doesn't show if "ramadhan" is a proper noun or a common noun. The issue I want to adress is actually the word following "shahr ramadhan" which is namely "al-ladhy". "Al-ladhy" refers to "shahr ramadhan" correct? But the word "al-ladhy" refers to has to be definite and cannot be indefinite like "a month of heat" in contrast to "the month of heat" which would require an "al" in front of "ramadhan" (-->"shahru l-ramadhan". From the use of "al-ladhy" we can conclude that "shahr ramadhan" is definite, correct? But there is no "al" in front of "ramadhan". The only solution is that "ramadhan" is a proper noun and therefore no "al" is required to make the construction "shahr ramadhan" definite...
I couldn't find any examples in the reading where "al-ladhy" or "al-laty" is used referring to an indefinite preceding noun. The only examples I could find where "al-laty" refers to a noun without "al" are jahanam" (Hell) and "janati adnin" (Gardens of Eden) which can be regarded as proper nouns... I hope I could clarify the point and maybe you can help me concerning this specific issue. ) -
Peace,
It is a description of a month, not a name.
Had it been 'Ramadhan Alshahr' then it would be a name.
Also, had it been 'Alshar Alramadhan' it would indicate it is a known thing (like Alshahr Alharam).
I agree with this.
-
Peace all,
thanks for your answers.
Layth, do you agree with Samia that grammaticaly "shahr ramadhan" has to be definite because of the use of "al-ladhy" and therefore "ramadhan" has to be proper noun? If this is so the translation of Monotheist Group would be clearly incorrect because of the use of the indefinite article "a". The only similar constructions to "shahr ramadhan al-ladhy..." I could find in the reading were "jahanam al-laty..." and "janati adnin al-laty..". So we have "ramadhan" in the same category like proper nouns like "jahanam" and "adnin". Doesn't this indicate that "ramadhan" is the name of a "month"/"(full-)moon" as "adnin" is a name of certain gardens?
Is "adnin" the description of the gardens or their name? hmm
-
Peace all,
The word raman is a proper noun.
The evidence for this is that full inflection is not allowed as exhibited in 2185, we read ?ahru ramana and not ?ahru ramani.
When a singular noun is barred from full inflection, it is usually a sign that it is a proper noun. Being barred from full inflection means that a noun can only take a fatah or a ammah; it cannot take a kasrah or any form of tanwn.
There are several instances of a proper noun being not fully inflected in the Quran, such as makkah in 4824, dam in 234, ysuf in 127, and in 4163 there are 4 instances ibrhm, ism'l, isq, and ya'qb.
All these instances should, regularly, be inflected in the genitive, however, they are instead inflected in the accusative because they are barred from full inflection, the Arab grammarians called this . Whereas they termed fully declinable nouns .
These are established grammatical rules in the Classical Arabic tongue.
What is the implication when translating 2185?
The implication is that raman is rendered into English as "Ramadan" because it is a proper name of a month.
-
peace all,
Thank you all for your contributions. It is interesting that bro uq has cited the similar example of "makkah" because whether this is a proper noun or not has been discussed before on this forum (as has ramadan), e.g.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598276.msg201108#msg201108
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597437.msg224876#msg224876The only thing I'd add is that it may be useful to clarify if the answer is depending on whether we are using the current tashkeel/vocalisation and what are the possibilities without the tashkeel/vocalisation.
-
Peace all!
I'd like to share brother Mazhars answers with his permission of course
Salamun alaika;
It is possessive phrase. First noun of a Possessive Phrase is always INDEFINITE-without Al but also without Tanwin. The first noun of consturct- Possessive phrase draws its definitness from the second noun.
Thereby, the first noun is definite and is the Subject of Nominal sentence.
Relative singular masculine Pronoun is the Predicate. Relative pronouns are definite.
This sentence is the linkage clause of Relative Pronoun. The pronoun in the prepositional phrase refers to . Last word is the Proxy Subject of Passive verb.
Peculiar features of Subject
Subject may be a single noun; demonstrative pronoun; a pronoun; a relative clause; or it may be a phrase other than prepositional phrase. But it cannot be a complete sentence. However, if the topic of a sentence is a phrase it may itself contain embedded sentence.The topic of a sentence cannot be any of the following two elements;
(a) Prepositional phrase;
(b) Adverbial phrase
When any of above two entities appear in the beginning; location of subject of a sentence, they in fact relate to the predicate/comment and the order of the sentence has been inverted.
Subject is usually definite. It can be indefinite in certain situations; we will discuss it next.
Subject is always nominative.Nominal sentences are used when the SUBJECT is the most important element in the sentence and which the speaker seeks to emphasize.
Importance of the month of Ramazan is stressed
The month of Ramadan is the month during which the Qur'aan was compositely; flash descended.
When you move forward you find this
Now the subject phrase of previous sentence is referred by definite noun
Peace and thanks for your help!
The first noun of consturct- Possessive phrase draws its definitness from the second noun.
This is only the case if the second noun is definite, right?Relative singular masculine Pronoun is the Predicate. Relative pronouns are definite.
Can they only refer to definite nouns? This is the reason why "ramadhan" has to be definite and therefore a proper noun, isn't it?yes
-
Peace uq,
thanks for discussing the subject from a different perspective. Your arguments are accurate if we rely on the "the current tashkeel/vocalisation" (Wakas).
Picking up on Wakas last contribution I think we should concentrate on the possibilities without the tashkeel/vocalisation since in early copies of the reading we won't find any vocalisation. Hence we have to think ourselves or simply rely on the guys who added the vocalisation marks later in history.
However the argument concentrating on the use of "al-ladhy" in reference to "shahr ramadhan" does not rely on vocalisation. And according to what Samia and Mazhar explained the argument is valid. Also according to my own findings in the reading it seems to be valid. "Al-ladhy"/ "al-laty" as relative pronouns can only refer to definite subjects. "Shahr ramadhan" can only be definite if "ramadhan" is a proper noun like "adnin" in the example of "janati adnin al-laty".
What conclusions should we draw if "ramadhan" has indeed to be a proper noun? Does this mean it is a meaningless name that may have developed from an originally common noun? Or can a proper noun carry descriptive information about the thing it is referring to? Any examples of proper nouns in the reading that clearly carry descriptive information about that noun?
Peace all.
-
There are several instances of a proper noun being not fully inflected in the Quran, such as makkah in 4824, dam in 234, ysuf in 127, and in 4163 there are 4 instances ibrhm, ism'l, isq, and ya'qb.
The reason they aren't fully inflected is because all of the words you mention are borrowed/foreign words. The vocalisation on foreign words and inflection or non-inflection is meaningless. Reading into them is a certain path to misunderstanding.
Eg makkah in 4824 can't be explained etymologically with Arabic. It can however be explained etymologically using aramaic. The only conclusion you can make about those words not being inflected is they have a foreign (non Arabic) origin. If you want to understand if they are proper nouns or not one should look at the donor language.
Ramadhan however is a proper arabic word. Referring to the non-inflection of foreign words in Quran is comparing apples to pears. They don't abide to the same rules.
It is very common in many languages that when a foreign word gets imported into another language the inflection gets lost. Sometimes it gets carried over. In any case it's a mistake to draw conclusions from the inflections applied.
In many inflected languages, such as Greek and Russian, some nouns and adjectives of foreign origin are left uninflected in contexts where native words would be inflected; for instance, the name Abraam in Greek (from Hebrew), the Modern Greek word ble (from French bleu), the Italian word computer, and the Russian words , kenguru (kangaroo) and , pal'to (coat, from French paletot).
But all this is beside the point. Uq was using examples of not fully inflected proper nouns in Quran that have foreign origin with a not fully inflected word that has arabic origin. The whole argument of uq was in that sense quite deceiving.
I for one am totally unconvinced ramadhan is a proper noun. I'm even less convinced it is the name of month based on a hadith funded calendar.
Peace
-
peace rlz,
The reason they aren't fully inflected is because all of the words you mention are borrowed/foreign words. The vocalisation on foreign words and inflection or non-inflection is meaningless. Reading into them is a certain path to misunderstanding.
Eg makkah in 4824 can't be explained etymologically with Arabic.
I recommend reading the links in my previous post, and
= Miim-Kaf-Kaf = Sucking, Sucking up, Absorbing, drinking up, Destruction/Destroying, diminishing, diminution/failing; failure, to cast, to throw away, to discard, to straighten/tighten or impede/restrict, to beseech/ask/accept, crowding, competition (izdihaam). Makkah (city of).
makkah n.f. 4824
Source ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=mkk
-
Aramaic m?kkQ?, ?low? is to me the valid origin of the Quranic makkah. This understanding is supported exactly by it's non full inflection, which is a clear indication of etymological foreign origins - Aramaic. In this sense I don't even understand makkah to be anywhere related to modern mecca but that's a whole different debate.
http//i.imgur.com/nMV1kJj.png
I disagree though with the author it refers to modern day Mecca, but is a general placename for a valley most likely the valley of baca. See 1437 and 396
Peace
