Grammar Question

NK

Salam,

Apology if my question not clear to you guys.

The question is regarding and Noun. What are the rules to convert Noun to Noun? .

Thanks,
NK

huruf

Withdrawn

NK

Salam Huruf,

Withdrawn?????. Could you please elaborate more with examples please?

Thanks,
NK

huruf

No, I did not get your question right I guess, but may be you can try with some example because it is hard to see what you exactly want.

Salaam

NK

hahaha sorry, i thought you are telling me rule or method.

Let Mezhar or other members to respond my question. If still things not clear then i will explain .

Mazhar

Salam,

Apology if my question not clear to you guys.

The question is regarding and Noun. What are the rules to convert Noun to Noun? .

Thanks,
NK

Noun = Triptote (experiences all three cases)
Noun = Diptote. (for accusative and genitive case experiences no change - context determines the state)

NK

Thanks Mazhar for your reply. The main purpose for asking the question is Surah al-namal verse 18

Those who thinks that Namal in this verse is the name of the tribe and Namla is the queen, their argument is that due to verb used for Namla which can't be used for animals according to the rules of the grammar. Secondly, all the verbs used in this verse are masculine plural which can be used for animals.

Their opponent strongly argued that due to the structure of the sentence here Namla can't be taken as a human due to the use of triptote noun. According to them if it would have been a tribe then the noun would have been diptote instead of triptote but their opponent argued that it is norm or permissible in the arabic grammar that sometimes diptote can be written as triptote. That is why i asked the question. I hope it make sense.

NK

Sorry i mean masculine plural verbs can't be used for animals . it was a typing mistake.

huruf

How is that that feminine cannot be used for animals if they females?

Salaam

Mazhar

//Those who thinks that Namal in this verse is the name of the tribe and Namla is the queen, their argument is that due to verb used for Namla which can't be used for animals according to the rules of the grammar. //

Where is this rule mentioned?

This verb is used for Inanimate objects also;- Sky and the Earth -pl see 4111

imrankhawaja

Salam,

Apology if my question not clear to you guys.

The question is regarding and Noun. What are the rules to convert Noun to Noun? .

Thanks,
NK

peace NK

more important thing is who set the RULES of grammer ?

as far i concern i beleive things evolved with passage of time and generation after generation things move towards perfection same happen with grammer.

First of all TEXT was already there with the help of that text people start underatanding things and then they cross reff the things and its time taking thing to see whateverrules used by the text.

its hard to explain let say same like space with the passage of time scientists and later generation of scientist explore more things give new names understand and discover new laws then give them official names just install the app skyview u can see where i m comin from.

so my conclusion is its TEXT from where we get our rules not the RULES what we need to apply on text.

God bless us all

NK

I have a humble request if everyone give their interpretation regarding the Chapter 27 verse 18.

good_logic

Peace NK.
Re 2718
1- Literal meaning
When they approached the valley of the ants, one ant said, "O you ants, go into your homes, lest you get crushed by Solomon and his soldiers, without perceiving."*

2- Metaphor You probably know the answer, so I will leave it to you to tell us please. I do not know yet.

3-Lesson to be learned All creatures have an important role in life and should be respected. Look after the humans, the environment and all the animals .
GOD bless you.
Peace.

ibn_a

Salaam,

This might be an interesting explanation

2718 Until when they came to the Valley of An-Naml, a Namlite said,
O ye Naml, enter your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you,
while they know not'.

In Arabia it was not an uncommon practice that tribes were named after
animals and beasts such as Banu Asad, Banu Kalb, Banu Naml, etc. Moreover,
the use of the words Udkhulu (enter) and Masakinakum (your habitations) in
the verse lends powerful support to the view that Naml was a tribe, since the
former verb is used only for rational beings and the latter expression (your
habitations) also has been used in the Quran exclusively for human
habitations (2938; 3226).
Thus Namlah means a person of the tribe of An-Namla Namlite.
The said Namlite was possibly their leader and had ordered the people
to get out of the way of the army of Solomon and enter their houses.

According to some authorities this valley is situated between Jibrin and
Asqalan which is a town on the sea-coast, twelve miles to the north of Gaz,
near Sinai (Taqwimul-Buldan). Jibrin is a town in the north, situated in the
Vilayah of Damascus. This shows that the Valley of Naml is situated near the
sea-coast, opposite to or near Jerusalem, lying on the route from Damascus to
Hijaz, at a distance of about a hundred miles from it. This part of the country
was, up to the time of Solomon, inhabited by the Arabs and the Midianites.
(See ancient and modern maps of Syria and Palestine).

According to other authorities, however, it is situated in Yemen.
This latter view seems to be more akin to reality. In view of this historical fact,
legends woven round thisvalley are mere conjectures.
The simple fact seems to be that while on a military expedition to Saba,
Solomon might have passed by the valley where the tribe called Naml lived..
It appears that the piety and godliness of Solomons soldiers was famed far and wide.
They would not knowingly harm or injure any people.
This seems to be the implication of the words, while they knew not,
and this is what pleased Solomon as is clear from the next verse.

source
https//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1095&region=E3
https//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1096&region=E3

Allah knows best.

NK

Thanks ibn_a for your reply.

If you can understand Urdu, i am pasting a link for you to study. It refute the theory of Namal as a tribe and Namlite a person of the tribe. The guy analyse the text solely based on grammar and according to his view there is no way in this verse Namal is a tribe and Namlite is a person of its tribe.

https//www.punjnud.com/ViewPage.aspx?BookID=13568&BookPageID=313467&BookTitle=Talib%20Mohsin%20-%20Daleel%20e%20Rah

Thanks
NK

huruf

Thanks ibn_a for your reply.

If you can understand Urdu, i am pasting a link for you to study. It refute the theory of Namal as a tribe and Namlite a person of the tribe. The guy analyse the text solely based on grammar and according to his view there is no way in this verse Namal is a tribe and Namlite is a person of its tribe.

https//www.punjnud.com/ViewPage.aspx?BookID=13568&BookPageID=313467&BookTitle=Talib%20Mohsin%20-%20Daleel%20e%20Rah

Thanks
NK

Could you post briefly the explanation given in that urde site?

It is aleays interesting to have views.

Salaam

ibn_a

Salaam,

Thanks ibn_a for your reply.

If you can understand Urdu, i am pasting a link for you to study. It refute the theory of Namal as a tribe and Namlite a person of the tribe. The guy analyse the text solely based on grammar and according to his view there is no way in this verse Namal is a tribe and Namlite is a person of its tribe.

https//www.punjnud.com/ViewPage.aspx?BookID=13568&BookPageID=313467&BookTitle=Talib%20Mohsin%20-%20Daleel%20e%20Rah

Thanks
NK

Thanks, unfortunately I don't understand Urdu.

Could you post briefly the explanation given in that urde site?

It is aleays interesting to have views.

Salaam

Also interested.

NK

I try to summarise what have been said in the link i had posted earlier, so that you can respond.

According to the author of the article, the word?? in this verse is (I don't know the english translation of &#1587. Then he raised a question that if we accept that ? is the name of the tribe for the sake of argument, can we mention a person of the tribe of as ?????. In his view we can't. It is against the rules of the Arabic language that one mention a member of a tribe without relating to the tribe. For example, one person of Banu Asad is mentioned as "ASADI". Similar way BANU KALB= KALBI etc.
The verb?? has been used for?? and it is a common practice in the classical Arabic literature that the animals had been addressed in the moral stories with verbs?? and . To support his argument he mentioned famous classical Arab literature book? ?. His argument is that because the verb has been used with ant, it would not make it a human being. These verbs can be used for human and non human.
Plural masculine present verbs has been used in the verse and his opponents argued that according to the rules of the Arabic grammar if it would have been non rational being, singular feminine verb would have been used.

His argument is that this rule is not applied on and because Namal is a therefore both masculine and feminine verbs can be used.

I have tried to summarise the important points and i have PM the link to Mazhar who can add more points if i have missed anything. I will add more points during the discussion.

Salam

huruf

Thank you, NK for the explanation. I understand that naml as tribe or people is rejected.

But is something being accepted? I mean what explanation does the site give for the naml?

Thank you.

NK

Huruf,

According to him, Namal means ant and Namlah means female ant. Basically he believe that ant talk just like us.

Salam