I can say no more than just a Wow!
-
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Be/Do/Make Manifest With Feature Rabb One Shaped
You cannot make void Arabic grammar when rendering a translation.
And I did once ask you to break down your renditions into tiny pieces in order to explain morphology why you reach to such conclusions that you do. You got some explaining to do.
And original manuscript's Arabic does not contain any "bars" if you refer to diacritical markers. I do not recognize them. In my world a word does always mean the same no matter occurrence. This was just a way for the ancient interpreters to be able to extract multiple meanings to shape their interpretation as according to themselves. My remake of Quran's passages have removed every diacritical marker except a few which seem native such as (alef with madda) used to mark emphatic stress not altering the meaning but like I wrote give emphasis to a word and is noticed in pronunciation by stress on the letter.
Be well
AmenuelPeace,
very good interpretation, this indeed almost captures the essense of this ayah.
i say almost because of course the depth is greater than any single word. 'a picture says a thousand words' and every letter is a picture, surely as Allh reminds us, even if the trees of the earth were pens and the sea ink, and the like thereof, still the Words of Allh would not be exausted. And i firmly trust that it is true even if all man and jinn gathered to produce the quran they couldnt.
I have been working, largely in vain to interpret the quran (translate it) into another language (english, and maori), but i realized, you realy cant.. but then it hit me, it just needs un-translating, back into the pictures that make it up, because then it is (with Gods will) easy to understand, although I must say, Immanuel, you have a insight for getting the essense of words. 'feature' and 'manifest' realy are quite good explanations of the concepts
peace, and may Allh bless you, and guide us all to a better understanding.
-
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
I actually agree with your lexical data, mine was very simplistic, and the way I wrote for example Rabbi'ka, the pronounciation of it is derived from my french, it would seem more reasonable for you as "Rabbe'ka". Anyways no big deal.
However I disagree with you regarding the "bars" or the "Tashkeel" and the reason why you said they were implemented by interpreters.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Take " B ' aseme " . Now normally with no "tashkeel" it would be written "asem", the reason why it's not "asema" or "asemo" is because it has the "B" or precisely "be" before it which gives it a grammatical role and subsequently the "ending sound", a straightforward rule in the arabic grammar (or whatever you may call it).
Same for Rabb ' ek, and why it is not Rabb ' ak or Rabb ' uk.
In fact, Rabb itself is implementing the "bars". The bar implemented https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadda gave the transliteration the reason to write it as "R(a)b-b" and not "R(a)b" (Knowing that Rabb is merely two letters R-B, and the "bar" on top of "R" made it explicit as "R(a)b" + the Shadda on top of the "b" made it "R(a)b-b"
Some of these "bars" (specially the ones at the end of the word) hold strong relationships with the grammatical position(or role) of the word itself, hence why "Rabb'e could be Rabb'a or Rabb'u in other conditions IN THE SENTENCE, and it could only be seen through transliteration as a consequence of the usage of the appropriate diacritical mark in the arabic language).
Therefore making anyone with basic grammar able to put the bars even on a text that has no bars in a very straightforward manner, and it would automatically reflect on the pronounciation and the transliteration. Bottom line is, those diacritical markers make a lot of things easier for the reader.
-
This is discussing very much rationally, actually both Cerberus and me. We might disagree on lexical data, but we do include sensible grammar at least.
A ' qaraa - B ' aseme - Rabb ' ek - al' dhi - khalaqa
Be/Do/Make Manifest With Feature Rabb One Shaped
You cannot make void Arabic grammar when rendering a translation.
And I did once ask you to break down your renditions into tiny pieces in order to explain morphology why you reach to such conclusions that you do. You got some explaining to do.
And original manuscript's Arabic does not contain any "bars" if you refer to diacritical markers. I do not recognize them. In my world a word does always mean the same no matter occurrence. This was just a way for the ancient interpreters to be able to extract multiple meanings to shape their interpretation as according to themselves. My remake of Quran's passages have removed every diacritical marker except a few which seem native such as (alef with madda) used to mark emphatic stress not altering the meaning but like I wrote give emphasis to a word and is noticed in pronunciation by stress on the letter.
Be well
AmenuelWhat do you understand is the source of the document under discussion? When and how did it come into existence or in other words who authored it? These are very important issues to be able to understand it. Do you care sharing your understanding?
-
I actually agree with your lexical data, mine was very simplistic, and the way I wrote for example Rabbi'ka, the pronounciation of it is derived from my french, it would seem more reasonable for you as "Rabbe'ka". Anyways no big deal.
However I disagree with you regarding the "bars" or the "Tashkeel" and the reason why you said they were implemented by interpreters.
Take " B ' aseme " . Now normally with no "tashkeel" it would be written "asem", the reason why it's not "asema" or "asemo" is because it has the "B" or precisely "be" before it which gives it a grammatical role and subsequently the "ending sound", a straightforward rule in the arabic grammar (or whatever you may call it).
Same for Rabb ' ek, and why it is not Rabb ' ak or Rabb ' uk.
In fact, Rabb itself is implementing the "bars". The bar implemented https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadda gave the transliteration the reason to write it as "R(a)b-b" and not "R(a)b" (Knowing that Rabb is merely two letters R-B, and the "bar" on top of "R" made it explicit as "R(a)b" + the Shadda on top of the "b" made it "R(a)b-b"
Some of these "bars" (specially the ones at the end of the word) hold strong relationships with the grammatical position(or role) of the word itself, hence why "Rabb'e could be Rabb'a or Rabb'u in other conditions IN THE SENTENCE, and it could only be seen through transliteration as a consequence of the usage of the appropriate diacritical mark in the arabic language).
Therefore making anyone with basic grammar able to put the bars even on a text that has no bars in a very straightforward manner, and it would automatically reflect on the pronounciation and the transliteration. Bottom line is, those diacritical markers make a lot of things easier for the reader.
Now I wanna add to what I previously said a case of deformation of the meaning by changing the diacritical marks.
Pickethall 302
"The Romans have been defeated"A simple change "in the beginning of the verb" more precisely by changing a mark on top of a letter to another the verb changed from "have defeated" to "have been defeated".
ghulibati vs ghalabati.
Anyways this ridiculous change can easily be spotted reading the entire verse. http//www.free-minds.org/where-was-mohammedThis is related to a change in the verb's form i.e not to be mixed with what I said before. As one verb is the root and adding letters in the beggining or the middle of it creates another verb (deriving from it), it could also be followed (in some cases) by changing the diacritical marks in the beggining or in the middle of the verb see the link Arabic verb forms
-
I actually agree with your lexical data, mine was very simplistic, and the way I wrote for example Rabbi'ka, the pronounciation of it is derived from my french, it would seem more reasonable for you as "Rabbe'ka". Anyways no big deal.
However I disagree with you regarding the "bars" or the "Tashkeel" and the reason why you said they were implemented by interpreters.
Take " B ' aseme " . Now normally with no "tashkeel" it would be written "asem", the reason why it's not "asema" or "asemo" is because it has the "B" or precisely "be" before it which gives it a grammatical role and subsequently the "ending sound", a straightforward rule in the arabic grammar (or whatever you may call it).
Same for Rabb ' ek, and why it is not Rabb ' ak or Rabb ' uk.
In fact, Rabb itself is implementing the "bars". The bar implemented https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadda gave the transliteration the reason to write it as "R(a)b-b" and not "R(a)b" (Knowing that Rabb is merely two letters R-B, and the "bar" on top of "R" made it explicit as "R(a)b" + the Shadda on top of the "b" made it "R(a)b-b"
Some of these "bars" (specially the ones at the end of the word) hold strong relationships with the grammatical position(or role) of the word itself, hence why "Rabb'e could be Rabb'a or Rabb'u in other conditions IN THE SENTENCE, and it could only be seen through transliteration as a consequence of the usage of the appropriate diacritical mark in the arabic language).
Therefore making anyone with basic grammar able to put the bars even on a text that has no bars in a very straightforward manner, and it would automatically reflect on the pronounciation and the transliteration. Bottom line is, those diacritical markers make a lot of things easier for the reader.
I am not using diacritics. I was speaking out the letters in formation, and that phonologically. It was not much more different than writing phoneme in English. When you speak this ancient Arabic fluently there would be a very faint sound at the end of B ' aseme as you make the reference to Rabb.
Just like with Rabbi'k it might be more plausible with a more distinct "yi" sound since the letter's name is actually "miim", so you have a point. But I said Rabb' ek because is 'b?e?'. If I was more patient I would add the proper phonemes by established linguists.
I do not recognize diacritics and they are later additions. I do not use official transliteration in order to present Arabic, because that is something the medieval clerics messed up with and they did not know how to pronounce proper Arabic. The language is less rough than it sounds by those who speak the clerical version. It is full of vowels and very soft.
Be well
Amenuel -
Nevertheless it does not make any difference to the topic at hand. Phonology is just how it sounds in speech. I tend to favor very ancient ways of regarding the letters. You can make out what the language wishes to convey as long as you know the letters. They are the key towards understanding. This language literally speaks from its very letters.