AlFathia
-
Needs more clarification, especially the part in red. What exactly are you trying to ask?
If these diacritics weren't even around why would someone diacritize them in Indian reprints of the Quran?
You claimed to know how they form the sentences based on verb forms, the meaning behind ALM. But no scholar nor quran alone officially understands them, and I have only seen few theories for their existence, all ranged from straight bs to mainly executing aesthetical purpose.
My qustion is. Why would the imprinted versions of the Quran contain shadda and madda in them if these grammatical diacritics were never around before at least some 200 years after Quran was revealed. What was the point of their alteration if they do not know their meanings?
-
Likely these weren't so what does it tell you?
I am not sure because i sadly don't know much about diacritical marks but i did learned that the arabic diacritical marks did not appear until 900s
-
The prototype for explanation and derivation of words used by Arab linguists is , further verb forms are derived by adding more letters to these three letters. These derived verbs carry additional meanings, besides the meaning carried in any primary basic three letter root. For instance means "he did" its derived 3 form conveys meaning of doing that act on an object.
So how does it alter the meaning behind ALM which as far as I know never had any dots above?
-
If these diacritics weren't even around why would someone diacritize them in Indian reprints of the Quran?
You claimed to know how they form the sentences based on verb forms, the meaning behind ALM. But no scholar nor quran alone officially understands them, and I have only seen few theories for their existence, all ranged from straight bs to mainly executing aesthetical purpose.
Your question embarks on several aspects of any language. As well in areas that still need honest research.
- Quran is really first written document in Classic Arabic. Writing of text started with Quran. A written text is a representation of spoken sound on paper. The natives of spoken language can read and understand correctly even with minimal written clues. As the real template of the language is in their head and not in the text written on paper. However, for any non-native speaker, this kind of written text is not enough. Unless clues are provided regarding all aspect of a given language on paper. Therefore, these were added. Also simultaneously the rules that were used to represent these mark were written as well. Hence, any future seeker of understanding could use the key of rules to understand text. I hope it is going to make sense to you.
Why these marks were added? In addition to above, since there was a translation done by Tabari, not based upon the linguistic rules but upon hearsay under the patron-ship of those in power. Hence, it likely was felt to improve written version for future native's (whose language was rapidly evolving and changing due intercultural mixing and influences) and non-natives understanding.
These are my deduction based upon broader observations. This area is in serious need of honest, dedicated and unbiased research.
-
If you guys know English well you will have no problem reading following. This is an example to highlight point I have made above.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
-
Your question embarks on several aspects of any language. As well in areas that still need honest research.
- Quran is really first written document in Classic Arabic. Writing of text started with Quran. A written text is a representation of spoken sound on paper. The natives of spoken language can read and understand correctly even with minimal written clues. As the real template of the language is in their head and not in the text written on paper. However, for any non-native speaker, this kind of written text is not enough. Unless clues are provided regarding all aspect of a given language on paper. Therefore, these were added. Also simultaneously the rules that were used to represent these mark were written as well. Hence, any future seeker of understanding could use the key of rules to understand text. I hope it is going to make sense to you.
Why these marks were added? In addition to above, since there was a translation done by Tabari, not based upon the linguistic rules but upon hearsay under the patron-ship of those in power. Hence, it likely was felt to improve written version for future native's (whose language was rapidly evolving and changing due intercultural mixing and influences) and non-natives understanding.
These are my deduction based upon broader observations. This area is in serious need of honest, dedicated and unbiased research.
For simplicity sake you could sum-up your post in a very short and traditionally common way of explaining they were added so as to make non-natives read the Quran better. And I never buy this explanation since its omits the very purpose of understanding the written text. In my native language I still may struggle understand some of the words without marked vowels in case a text is deceivably formed. Usually it is not a problem though, just as in Arabic, I am sure most vowel diacritics are needed in very limited situations, such as judicial texts.
Secondly, how do traditionalist know the right pronunciation/understanding of the text and a certain way to mark specific words? And example are "two angels of Babylon Harut and Marut". It takes a slight twist of a pen to change the phrase into the angels/kings of Babylon i.e. plural infinitive and since my believes do not have place for hidden beings called angels, I am thus left with only one possible option. My question, however, was, what made them add plural dual in the first place, for example? Obviously to make a mysterious story for future generations to be constantly fascinated by those odd stories in the book. But even if the two angels was true, how do THEY know what sort of grammar rule explains it in a text they
a) could barely understand at the time of its appearance;
b) had no written grammar rules for it at the time of its appearance.
And such are all other places in the Quran including the ILM. If they have no clue what the phrase ALM mean why would shadda or madda even bother them except for blind recitation purposes?
To conclude, not only do l struggle to find the "mankind has caused intense suffering" behind ALM based on the explanations above, but I also fail to see how is it possible to explain it using the grammar, which was never around during its relevancy. Again, there is no proof Quran was written at any of the known dialects of pre-Islamic Arabic.
-
For simplicity sake you could sum-up your post in a very short and traditionally common way of explaining they were added so as to make non-natives read the Quran better. And I never buy this explanation since its omits the very purpose of understanding the written text. In my native language I still may struggle understand some of the words without marked vowels in case a text is deceivably formed. Usually it is not a problem though, just as in Arabic, I am sure most vowel diacritics are needed in very limited situations, such as judicial texts.
Secondly, how do traditionalist know the right pronunciation/understanding of the text and a certain way to mark specific words? And example are "two angels of Babylon Harut and Marut". It takes a slight twist of a pen to change the phrase into the angels/kings of Babylon i.e. plural infinitive and since my believes do not have place for hidden beings called angels, I am thus left with only one possible option. My question, however, was, what made them add plural dual in the first place, for example? Obviously to make a mysterious story for future generations to be constantly fascinated by those odd stories in the book. But even if the two angels was true, how do THEY know what sort of grammar rule explains it in a text they
a) could barely understand at the time of its appearance;
b) had no written grammar rules for it at the time of its appearance.
And such are all other places in the Quran including the ILM. If they have no clue what the phrase ALM mean why would shadda or madda even bother them except for blind recitation purposes?
To conclude, not only do l struggle to find the "mankind has caused intense suffering" behind ALM based on the explanations above, but I also fail to see how is it possible to explain it using the grammar, which was never around during its relevancy. Again, there is no proof Quran was written at any of the known dialects of pre-Islamic Arabic.
One needs to understand there several kinds of marks in Quran.
-
Vowel marks have always been there even in the oldest manuscripts. These were in older forms represented as dots. Latter for further clarity the were represented by marks of Fatha, Duma and Kesra as we see these today.
-
Classic Arabic does not always use word order to help identify the Subject and object of a sentence. Subject can come later in sentence. It is recognized by sound pronounced at the last letter of word. This in technical terms is called Tanween. These marks are important to decide syntax of a sentence. Furthermore, there are certain particles that influence the sound of last later or Tanween. For instance "Inna", gives Tanween of Fatha to Subject of its sentence noun instead of usual Tanween of Duma.
-
Then there are marks like, Shadda, representing Dupplication of letters, Madda representing mostly duplication of Alif. Some additional marks are added purely for pronunciation. For example the Shadda placed after "Al" which is present before what are called "Sun" letters purely for pronunciation. For example is pronounced as At-Takasur not Al-Takasur. Here there is no real duplication of any alphabet. Also there are round circles over letters. These are two kinds one is called Sukun, this is only for pronunciation. Whereas, at other places it could represent "end of one word and start of the other". Here it is called Jazem.
-
-
If you guys know English well you will have no problem reading following. This is an example to highlight point I have made above.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
Pceae bnakwa2, you maek a graet pniot, thknas for sahirng. handshake
-
Please try to explore, why these marks were added?
I am not sure, some say the help the non-natives to understand the language but something tells there is more to it.
-
One needs to understand there several kinds of marks in Quran.
- Vowel marks have always been there even in the oldest manuscripts. These were in older forms represented as dots. Latter for further clarity the were represented by marks of Fatha, Duma and Kesra as we see these today.
Yes, the dots, the Judean scholarly tradition. Modern Arabic shapes were introduced far later.
From my observation of birmingham and saana' copies only some pages contained the dots, which means that these early copies were in the process of adjustment but were later abandoned for some reason, perhaps due to the quality of a palimpsest, whereas most of the script remained bare naked, which may only indicate that the original was meant without the dots.
-
Yes, the dots, the Judean scholarly tradition. Modern Arabic shapes were introduced far later.
From my observation of birmingham and saana' copies only some pages contained the dots, which means that these early copies were in the process of adjustment but were later abandoned for some reason, perhaps due to the quality of a palimpsest, whereas most of the script remained bare naked, which may only indicate that the original was meant without the dots.
The points you make are factual and true. These points further assert and support my claim.
Quran's text is not understood at all at present.
The default understanding which is considered by all as Quran is entirely wrong based upon my humble personal language based analysis of few Suras. Hence, there is an utmost need to have honest, sincere and unbiased efforts to re-translate based upon linguistic rules. Preferably a team effort. A creation of an institute purely intended for research and not to establish another authority and hierarchy can be very helpful.
-
The points you make are factual and true. These points further assert and support my claim.
Quran's text is not understood at all at present.
The default understanding which is considered by all as Quran is entirely wrong based upon my humble personal language based analysis of few Suras. Hence, there is an utmost need to have honest, sincere and unbiased efforts to re-translate based upon linguistic rules. Preferably a team effort. A creation of an institute purely intended for research and not to establish another authority and hierarchy can be very helpful.
A few chapters? Which chapters?
-
The points you make are factual and true. These points further assert and support my claim.
Quran's text is not understood at all at present.
If the claim you make is the fact that Quran is not understood, thus the so called Classic Arabic grammar is a way to go, then I can further address that. Namely
-
I failed to see the point you made in your translations so far, as I said before, what was the point of your translation? What do you SEE the Quran teach? To become the leader and control the sheep? To free the slave? To aleviate the mind? To worship? To bring 'good news? This fundamental question has to be answered before any attempts are publically published. Say traditionalists are presentated with the Judean dogma of monotheistic worshipping. This is the purpose for them.
-
I have my own work going on, which starts making sense TO ME, i.e. it satisfies me. But I not at all rely on ANY of the late diacritics, mainly due to their absence in the observable Quranic history + common sense, since I also deal with the Torah and I can see the very same apologetic nonsense from the Torah 'circle' regarding the diacritics.
Combined, these two points of mine may conclude diacritics have nothing in common with understanding the text, nor using the 8th century grammar.
-
-
If the claim you make is the fact that Quran is not understood, thus the so called Classic Arabic grammar is a way to go, then I can further address that. Namely
- I failed to see the point you made in your translations so far, as I said before, what was the point of your translation? What do you SEE the Quran teach? To become the leader and control the sheep? To free the slave? To aleviate the mind? To worship? To bring 'good news? This fundamental question has to be answered before any attempts are publically published. Say traditionalists are presentated with the Judean dogma of monotheistic worshipping. This is the purpose for them.
Here what I understand from Quran's translation regard your questions.
- There is no worship of anything anybody.
- There is no god as described by religions. All religious description of the god or a god are wrong.
- Quran is asking people to adopt a life style of becoming non-worshipers, have extreme concerns for sufferings of the others. Also to alleviate these suffering adopt a way of life to collectively become master of all disciplines of knowledge.
These are very broad principles. If humans would adopt a way of life filled with lasting concern about others sufferings. Questions of slavery,
injustice, dishonesty etc doesn't even arise.Furthermore, that someone gets mistaken about Quran, it is not an Atheistic book in the sense that it is saying there is no origin of everything. In this sense I am a believer in this concept. Because not only I believe there an origin, but I know there is one. This everyone can know and ones doesn't a book to tell this fact or a religion or its hierarchy
-
Here what I understand from Quran's translation regard your questions.
I agree with some points you made, namely the latest part on the atheism. Do you agree that to incorporate the 'lasting concern', the care for one's neighbour so to speak, in one's life, one has to overcome/master/prevail (root r-b-b) his/her own animalistic/innate/natural egocentrism and blindness first?
-
I agree with some points you made, namely the latest part on the atheism. Do you agree that to incorporate the 'lasting concern' in one's life one has to overcome (root tbb) his/her own animalistic/innate/natural egocentrism and blindness first?
Our beliefs have the power of overcoming our behaviors. Beliefs are our thoughts which effect our behavior at individual level. Collective thoughts effect the culture which also dictates our behavior at individual level as well collectively.
-
Furthermore, just believing in the above said principles is not going to produce results. One needs to start acting according to these, which shall produce results confirming the claims of these beliefs. These will provide evidence that these beliefs are truth based and hence the knowledge and not just mere beliefs or opinions.
