"We" vs God Alone

progod

Peace,

Samia,

Here's a little test for you. This has worked on other Non-Maghribi Arabs so I'm sure it will work on you. I hope you haven't conversed with any morroccans cause then this will kill it.

Basically if i said kaayin daabbah tabghee akal, could you tell me what Kaayin and tabghee are and to what Classical words they relate to?

Most non-Maghribi Arabs will hear kaayin and tabghee from a Morrocan and say that is not Arabic. So my question to you is are they Arabic words? And how can I accept testimony from someone who claims to know Arabic and even Fushaa at that and cannot tell me where these simple words come from or what they mean? One of them is even in the Quran!! But if I used it with an non-Maghribi "Arabic" speaker they would look at me confoundedly and say that I was making up words.

Godbless,
Anwar

Mazhar

Dear Anwar,

I don't feel shy in 100% agreeing with you that I could not understand what you said, it seemed to me Spanish and I don't know that. But my little intellect keeps me bothering to understand the concept "Quran is in Classical Arabic" and Quran says about its own language that it is Arabi Mubeen. Should I take the meanings of the word "Mubeen" as "classical" and now try to find a teacher to make me understand "Classical Arabic" and how would I judge/evaluate his credentials {that he is a classical Arab} in the days of what you call MSA or something like that?

Hitherto I had the satisfaction that whenever I will be in trouble about grammer etc Sister Samia will take care of that aspect and rescue me, but now you have classified her as perhaps TV/MSA Arab, I feel disturbed.

Samia

Salaam Samia,

You said
First it is your opinion that pre-Islamic poetry is forged. If you put the Quran to the same test you could essentially say it was forged too.

Salaam Anwar

Thanks for the compliment!! It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many brave scholars, the most famous is Dr. Taha Hussein whose PhD thesis was on this claimed pre-islamic poetry, and the research took him to an unexpected result (for him). Many studies followed his and no one, to date, could respectfully challenge him (without accusing him of blasphemy) and that his next step would be to claim the quraan was forged! Do I read a similar hadith-defenders-mindset??

I have given sources to you before and you choose to not to accept and forget.

What sources and about what? Don't tell me the one about "inqatal"!!

Also as I have explained over and over again, you don't know what Classical Arabic is. You think that it is the language spoken on the news. That is not Classical Arabic. That is MSA; whether you want to accept that term or not. Classical Arabic was revised in the 1900's and turned into MSA, where the use of maa is looked down upon because it is used so much in dialects as well as other words and uses, some used in dialect some not. You are not reading Classical Arabic grammar books you are reading MSA grammar books. As I have stated to you over and over again both are called Fushaa mistakenly.

Please leave me aside and be professional. Tell me the difference between MSA and classical Arabic, especially grammar-wise, and show us why you believe the quraan is in classical Arabic - and how you respond to what some believe as grammatical errors in the quraan, or its non respect of the classical rules about the dual (both characteristics of the spoken language, not the classical one).

Consider the use of expressions that mean (may God bless him and save him) sallaa allahu &alaihi was sallam or dumtum bikhairin, These are expressions that have no grammatical explaination in MSA and you will not find them in MSA grammar books which you are mistaking for Classical Arabic grammar books.

What? If anyone understands this paragraph, please tell me, honestly (not the part that I mistake grammatical MSA books for classical grammar ones though).
Progod, you think there is a difference in these grammars. Well not as much as the difference between the grammar of the quraan and any grammar of a written Arabic, whether it is MSA or classical.

Just to cut it short, I went through all the mu3alaqat (so claimed pre-quraanic poetry) and here are a few lines from the first three ones (they are seven poems, for those who do not know)
Imri?ul Qais

Zuhair ibnu abi Salma

( ...)
Tarfa Ibnul 3abd

( &#1583
( &#1609
((

http//www.khayma.com/almoudaress/moualakat/index.htm

NONE of them used "maa did not" to negate a present verb in the past. They only used "lam". The lines in brakets (4) have, in two, negation with maa which comes with a special oath (le3amreka I swear by your life) in two different poems. The other two are negation in the present (does not/do not). "maa = did not" is a spoken characteristic, not a classical one, and you confirm that, don't you, progod?

I provided the link for you to verify for yourself, and to find if there are any "maa" used to mean "did not".

As for your long lecture on creole, how is the spoken arabic a creole? Is the MSA a creole too? How are Arabs able to listen to the radio, read papers and even communicate with each other? We have a real Arabic creole in the southern sudan known as "the Arabic of Juba".Learn about it if you do not know it, and you will understand what an arabic creole is...not even compared to the maghreb arabic.

Samia

Peace,

Samia,

Here's a little test for you. This has worked on other Non-Maghribi Arabs so I'm sure it will work on you. I hope you haven't conversed with any morroccans cause then this will kill it.

Well, your test is killed then. I understand Moroccan. Moreover, the verb "abghi I want/request; root Baa Ghain Yaa" is not specific to the moroccan dialect, and it is also a "written" word, so all Arabs understand it. All Arabs knwo, and use, the expression (laa yanbaghi lahu an yaf3ala kaza he is not supposed to do such and such). kaa'in (am,is, are; being) is classical/MSA/spoken word. Its usage as an auxiliary verb is the effect of French grammar on Moroccan dialect.

progod

Peace Samia (Mazhar, I'll respond to you later),

Before I make anymore comments let me get one thing clear, so there is not confusion, and then I will give you all the responses you want.

You said

NONE of them used "maa did not" to negate a present verb in the past. They only used "lam". The lines in brakets (4) have, in two, negation with maa which comes with a special oath (le3amreka I swear by your life) in two different poems. The other two are negation in the present (does not/do not). "maa = did not" is a spoken characteristic, not a classical one, and you confirm that, don't you, progod?

I swore we were talking about maa in PRESENT TENSE (i.e. maa adree or maa tanqusu as in the passages you gave me), and that you were saying that maa used to negate PRESENT TENSE is not used in written Arabic and is only used in spoken Arabic. So what are you saying? Are you saying now that maa in the past tense is not used in written Arabic and only in spoken (dialectical) Arabic? As in MAA kataba and MAA takallama ?

Godbless,
Anwar

Samia

Salaam Anwar

Even if it is about "maa + present tense", this, as I said in that thread, is the way colloquial negates the present tense too (not with laa). So it is not a prove that the quraan is in classical Arabic.

progod

Peace Samia,

(note for those who do not know imperfect = peresent and perfect= past)

That wasn't exactly an answer. But I expected that so let me just keep it short because it seems that you are easily confused (and very defensive) about what I say to you

In Classical Arabic you can negate in present tense with 'laa', 'maa' and 'in' (MSA doesn't use the last one). (you proved that in your quotes of pre-Islamic poetry, even though you somehow thought that that was going to work in your favor. Go figure?).
In MSA you can only negate present tense with laa except for the examples that have been cemented in MSA literature and are remnants from Classical Arabic. Two of these are maa adree and maa yazaalu. This rule of only using laa for imperfect tense in MSA is an invented rule for Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), showing how Classical Arabic is not MSA. Other examples include things like the use of idhin like yawma idhin, as well as forms like talladhhaa (tafa&&alu) (a Classical Arabic variant of form V of ladhaa i.e. tatalladhaa. This also happens with tadhakkaru for tatadhakaru. The perfect form is Ifa&&ala or Ifa&&alla = tafa&&ala), as well as kidh-dhaab a Classical Arabic variant of tak-dheeb not used in MSA.
In dialect you negate present tense (and past tense) only with maa and not laa. This is a remnant of Classical Arabic (which I also call Old Arabic). MSA gravitated to laa in present (and kept maa and lam for past tense) and the spoken dialects gravitated to maa only (for present and past), but Classical Arabic as we see in Pre-islamic poetry, the Hadeeths and the Quran use both.
By your post I guess you realized that you are just confused and decided to cover you behind. Listen, if you are just confused just say so and I will try to help you understand, but don't go grabbing at straws because you are confused or getting defensive then confounding the issue because you want to "show me". You just make yourself sound bad. I think anyone who knows even basic Arabic (not dialects) knows that past tense negation can be maa fa&ala or lam yaf&al interchangeably. Again the dialects' use of maa is a remnant of Old Arabic which uses maa to negate nouns, perfect and imperfect verbs. (laa is used also in imperfect and in perfect when preceded by wa or fa and 'in' is used with imperfect and perfect verbs).

I'll stop now. You have said so much that if I go on I am afraid that you will start confusing things. We will go with this for now. And when I'm clear on whether you understand and accept what I am saying or misunderstand and reject it then I will make good on the Arabic dialects= Arabic creoles topic.

Godbless,
Anwar

ehawk35

Hi Progod
You are right."maa" is used with past and present tenses in classical arabic both aspects (spoken and written).

( 1 / 55)
. . . . . " "

. { } " " " ".

Samia

Salaam progod

I admit I can easily be distracted, and you are good in distracting your interlocutor! Just look at the post by ehawk35 who, I believe, thinks that the argument is about the negation in CA.

You are the one confusing things and bringing about Modern Standard Arabic and its modes of negation.

Let's not confuse it further. The issue is Is the quraan's language CA? I say, No. quraan is revealed in a spoken language and you say Yes in classical Arabic. I did not bring up the issue of MSA, you did. So leave MSA out of this.

Your arguments for Quraan revealed in Classical Arabic are

Difference in grammar (e.g usage of maa + present tense) which MSA does not endorse
Other pre Islamic documents (e.g jahili poetry) which agree with the quraan in the language
(If you have any other argument, please bring it and let's discuss it)

My argument for quraan revealed in spoken language (and refuting your points) are

First there is no difference in grammar between MSA and CA (not really an argument for my case but a response to your statement). There IS non respect of grammar in spoken Arabic and in the quraan alike.
Even if MSA does not endorse "maa + present tense", this is of no value since MSA is not part of the comparison. Spoken Arabic uses "maa +present tense" to negate an action in the present time, just like the quraan.
There are no pre-islamic documents to compare the quraan to, or to call them "CA". CA is post quraanic., as well as jahili poetry.
The so-called jahili poetry has nothing in similarities with the language of the quraan vocabulary is not as easy and clear as that of the quraan (a lot of it is not heard of after that), it respects the grammar of the MSA as we know it today (because both are written languages), unlike the quraan, which does not even respect the rule of the dual and treats it like the plural (as in the spoken language).

progod

Peace Samia,

You are the one confusing things and bringing about Modern Standard Arabic and its modes of negation.

This is not confusion, sister. What I am saying is that the grammar that you are pinning onto Classical Arabic is really MSA grammar. You are saying that maa+present tense is not grammatically correct according to Classical Arabic (and then you slipped in maa+past tense as apart of this invalid Classical Arabic grammar, which you now seem repentant about having mentioned), and I have been trying to tell you that it is Maa+present tense (and +past tense) is correct according to Classical Arabic, as you have shown me and everyone else with the Jahileeya poetry that you brought to the table.

Whether these Jahiliya poetries are pre-Islamic or not is a matter of debate (not Taha Hussein's conclusions). Despite that it does represent the Classical Arabic to be found within the Hadeeth and the Quran (grammar-wise not stylistically, each of these seems to have its own separate styles). Your issue of these poetries not using clear language like the Quran has more to do with the popularization of Quranic Arabic and its style and its widespread familiarization (although there is much Quranic Arabic that is considered awkward to anyone not very, very familiar with the Quran or other Old school Arabic writings).

Lastly, what are you defining as spoken language? It seems that you are assuming that Arabic dialects used today = spoken Arabic langauge. This is incorrect.

All languages start off as spoken languages before a writing system is devoloped to make written communication of that spoken langauge possible. (sign language may be the only exception).
Grammar rules and books come about from scrutiny of spoken langauges whereby its rules and patterns are then classified and preserved in books that guide learners about how to use that spoken language. (There are even grammar books on Modern Arabic dialects now, because people want to teach others these spoken dialects).
Grammar is no more than the patterns of speech used by any spoken language. When that grammar is written in books and taught in schools that does not mean that there becomes a difference between spoken and written langauge. All it means it that now people are able to write and teach the spoken langauge.
Classical Arabic(which you want to classify as only written language) was the spoken language of the Arabs of Old (the Hadeethic era, the Quranic era and the pre-Quranic era). People took interest in this language, scrutinized it and classified its methods of speech and communication (grammar) and put it into books and taught it to others.
The dialects spoken now are mistakenly called Arabic, because the people who speak these langauges still identify with the Arab ethnicity of Quranic times. These dialects are the creoles of Arabic with the other langauges used in most "Arabic" countries today before the Arab invasion. These creoles developed out of pidgins between Classical Arabic (which was the spoken language of the Old Arab tribes) and the langauges native to every presently "Arab" country (The list is quite long). It first began to blend with Aramaic dialects in the Iraqi, Jordanian, palestinian and Syrian territories.
It is this merger between Arabic and these other languages that caused "Arabic" to take on its dialectical form which is now the spoken langauge is all "Arabic" speaking countries. Classical Arabic died out as a natively spoken langauge among "Arabs" but survived as a literary langauge due to the importance it had been given because of the Quran's of Classical Arabic and the interest a great number of scholars (independent of course) took in preserving the langauge so that the Quran could be taught and understood (this was impressively mainly carried out by Persians who came from a more scholarly background, due the high level of civilization in the Persian empire.)
So please do not confound these issues of spoken Arabic and written Arabic. Classical Arabic (which you refer to as written Arabic) was the spoken Arabic of the Old Arab tribes from the Peninsula. It underwent a major change in the spoken realm when it started to come into major contact with the Aramaic territories and later with other languages in the now "Arab" countries. These pidgin/creoles had already began with Banoo ghassan in the upper fringe of the peninsula where Classical Arabic speakers were in constant contact with Aramaic speakers. (see a literary history of the Arabic language). Classical Arabic was then studied, classified and preserved through grammar books which put into writing the methods of speech of Classical Arabic and how it was used by the Old Arab tribes. This was done so that Muslims could always access the Quran as well as pre-Islamic poetries and the Hadeeth.

So en fin

Classical Arabic Written langauge now, spoken language in the past

Arabic dialects Creoles between Classical Arabic and other languages that existed in Now Arabic lands. Spoken language today, non-existent in the past.

Godbless,
Anwar

Samia

Peace Samia,

This is not confusion, sister. What I am saying is that the grammar that you are pinning onto Classical Arabic is really MSA grammar. You are saying that maa+present tense is not grammatically correct according to Classical Arabic (and then you slipped in maa+past tense as apart of this invalid Classical Arabic grammar, which you now seem repentant about having mentioned), and I have been trying to tell you that it is Maa+present tense (and +past tense) is correct according to Classical Arabic, as you have shown me and everyone else with the Jahileeya poetry that you brought to the table.

Where did I say this (underlined)? Actually, I do not differentiate between the grammar rules of MSA and CA as you do. And I said more than once that the difference between them is vocabulary, but neither grammar nor morphology.

Lastly, what are you defining as spoken language? It seems that you are assuming that Arabic dialects used today = spoken Arabic langauge. This is incorrect.

Any langauage on earth has an official, written form and a spoken one.

Grammar is no more than the patterns of speech used by any spoken language. When that grammar is written in books and taught in schools that does not mean that there becomes a difference between spoken and written langauge. All it means it that now people are able to write and teach the spoken langauge.

Not in the case of Arabic. Grammar rules neither reflect the spoken arabic nor the language of the quraan. And here comes the forging of pre-islamic poetry to give them (linguists) credibility as far as meaning of words is concerned to confrom with their/their rulers' understanding/interpretation of the quraan.

Classical Arabic(which you want to classify as only written language) was the spoken language of the Arabs of Old (the Hadeethic era, the Quranic era and the pre-Quranic era). People took interest in this language, scrutinized it and classified its methods of speech and communication (grammar) and put it into books and taught it to others.

There is no evidence of the presence of a pre quraanic Arabic, even if it existed. Each tribe has its own vocab/pronunciation. They were even hostile to each other. No way they would adopt the accent of one tribe.

The dialects spoken now are mistakenly called Arabic, because the people who speak these langauges still identify with the Arab ethnicity of Quranic times. These dialects are the creoles of Arabic with the other langauges used in most "Arabic" countries today before the Arab invasion. These creoles developed out of pidgins between Classical Arabic (which was the spoken language of the Old Arab tribes) and the langauges native to every presently "Arab" country (The list is quite long). It first began to blend with Aramaic dialects in the Iraqi, Jordanian, palestinian and Syrian territories

Then I should say that this ethnicity of Arab people are very smart. ALL of them, at least, understand the written Arabic and the muslim ones even understand hadeeth books and heritage books wthout even going to a school to study CA... !!

It is this merger between Arabic and these other languages that caused "Arabic" to take on its dialectical form which is now the spoken langauge is all "Arabic" speaking countries. Classical Arabic died out as a natively spoken langauge among "Arabs" but survived as a literary langauge due to the importance it had been given because of the Quran's of Classical Arabic and the interest a great number of scholars (independent of course) took in preserving the langauge so that the Quran could be taught and understood (this was impressively mainly carried out by Persians who came from a more scholarly background, due the high level of civilization in the Persian empire.)

This is an inversed logic. The language of the quraan stood as reference and created a language for Arabs, not the other way round, and the spoken arabic is the legitmate product of the quraan, not the classical Arabic which was created by some wishful thinking gurus to persuade the people that they cannot understand the quraan (case of jews rings a bell?!). Tens of times I hear from ordinary folks (in Egypt, the Sudan and else where) that they discovered that the quraan was very easy to read, nowhere to be compared with heritage books or hadith. Because it relates more to the spoken patterns than this forged CA.

So please do not confound these issues of spoken Arabic and written Arabic. Classical Arabic (which you refer to as written Arabic) was the spoken Arabic of the Old Arab tribes from the Peninsula. It underwent a major change in the spoken realm when it started to come into major contact with the Aramaic territories and later with other languages in the now "Arab" countries. These pidgin/creoles had already began with Banoo ghassan in the upper fringe of the peninsula where Classical Arabic speakers were in constant contact with Aramaic speakers. (see a literary history of the Arabic language). Classical Arabic was then studied, classified and preserved through grammar books which put into writing the methods of speech of Classical Arabic and how it was used by the Old Arab tribes. This was done so that Muslims could always access the Quran as well as pre-Islamic poetries and the Hadeeth.

You are contradicting yourself here. According to you, CA, which "was the spoken language of the Arabs of Old (the Hadeethic era, the Quranic era ..", was already mixed with other languages. The CA we have today is supposed to be "a pure" Arabic language. Arabs were alaways in contact with other people the Romans, the Abyssinians, the Persains... and were even involved with their politics and had opinions about it. The Arabs the quraan tells us about are much different from the isolated, primitive tribes spoken of in history books. Their language was always mixed with other languages and as not the neo CA we know today.

Classical Arabic Written langauge now, spoken language in the past

Where is the MSA?
Arabic like any other language has a written and a spoken form, period. It evolves like any other language.

Arabic dialects Creoles between Classical Arabic and other languages that existed in Now Arabic lands. Spoken language today, non-existent in the past.

If CA was the spoken language of old and the written of today, and according to you, the quraan is in CA, why doesn't the quraan respect the rules of grammar, and even morphology, set by Arab linguists? Or rather, why didn't CA linguists tailored CA graamar according to the quraan's language?

ehawk35

Dear Samia
It is very strange you are talking about the language of the quran when your knowledge about arabic is reflected in one of your post

Salaam POF

"Rijaal" does not primarily mean "men". It means those who seek; on foot. It could be "men" or "women". Also, "nisaa'" is not the plural of "imra'a" but the plural of "nas' " the delayed; remainder, left behind. We find both meanings in the quraan.

And there is post in reponse to it

Whenever "Rajulun" is in the meaning of "sex" of human beings it is always "man" never "woman"
In fact 'rijaal' (when it is plural of "rajulun= man&quot does mean "men" primarily

" .

( 11 / 265)
( )

/
( )

You are confusing this "rijaal" when it becomes plural of "raajilun" which means "pedestrian" then no doubt it is used for "men" or woman" commonly.But then it does not mean "woman" but " pedestrian"
This is the meaning of "pedestrian" which is given in your quoted verse
2227
(2227) and make a proclamation to the people to come to you for Hajj from far and near, on foot and on lean *46 camels

022.027
YUSUFALI "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways;
PICKTHAL And proclaim unto mankind the pilgrimage. They will come unto thee on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every deep ravine,
SHAKIR And proclaim among men the Pilgrimage they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel, coming from every remote path,

This word "rijaalan" in this verse is not in the meaning of" sex" rather in the meaning of "state" of their coming i.e on foot.

You also said

Quote

Also, "nisaa'" is not the plural of "imra'a" but the plural of "nas' "

I do not know your source of information;
"Nisaa" is the plural of "imra3atun"

/
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( 3 / 480)
.
( 15 / 321)
( )
( 1 / 8621)
( ) ( )
Your whole concept is revolving aroung the verse
4127

No doubt the question is about "Nisaa" and its answer is expanded.
The reason is "Kuffar" used not give inheritance to women,orphans and Younger ones.It is the reason answer is expanded collectively because of similar treatment carried out in case of inheritance by Kuffaar.
It does not mean at all the word "nisaa" itself contain all those meanings.
Because in that all other verses which contain this word will be compromised in case of meaning.

"

Samia

Salaam ehawk 35

Dear Samia
It is very strange you are talking about the language of the quran when your knowledge about arabic is reflected in one of your post

And there is post in reponse to it

Whenever "Rajulun" is in the meaning of "sex" of human beings

Yes, whenever it is in the meaning of "sex" of human beings. If not, it is not men. I did not see it as meaning "sex", because that will create many contradictions. There is no harm in choosing the more reasonable meaning if it exists.

As for "nisaa'" how did you search it? Under "imra'a" or under "nas' "? Wasn't there any meaning for this or a plural? Again, as long as another word exists and fits the meaning better, no harm in choosing it.

Maybe it would be better for the discussion if you discuss my choice of a meaning over another, since both meanings exist in the qur'aan.

progod

Peace,

I will only respond to the two comments of worth here which may solve your confusion (you really do just argue to be contrary. It is very disheartening).

Where did I say this (underlined)? Actually, I do not differentiate between the grammar rules of MSA and CA as you do. And I said more than once that the difference between them is vocabulary, but neither grammar nor morphology.

Samia, Go find the very first threads when we began to talk about this. The first thing that i told you was that in CA you can use maa to negate present tense but not in MSA. You claim that there is no difference between CA and MSA and then say that maa is used to negate present tense in all COLLOQUIAL (you call them spoken) Arabics (is mish qwayyis Quranic Arabic as well? As you are implying that dialects and Quranic Arabic are the same). I think you are clear on the fact that it is considered grammatically wrong to write maa yaqoolu (he does not say), instead of laa yaqoolu in written Arabic (i.e. Fushaa. But Samia is referring to MSA when she mentions written Arabic even though she doesn't know it). Samia then says, "AHA look! So how can the Quran be in written Arabic when the grammar says you can't say maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu? But in spoken Arabic (she mean's Arabic dialects) you can! So the Quran was written using spoken Arabic! (still referring to dialect) and not written Arabic!"

But what Samia refuses to understand is that any grammar book that says that you can't say maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu is an MSA grammar book (demonstrating the slight difference in grammar between CA and MSA). If you read a CA grammar book you will see how maa yaqoolu and laa yaqoolu are interchangeable.

Samia also had the audacity to say that you can not use maa for past tense negation (i.e. maa qaala). Ehawk clarified that she was wrong about that. But only Samia remains confused because she cannot stick to one thing. I say present, she says past, I say past and then she says present again. What the HELL is that!!????

As for the dual and plural issue. Samia is again utterly confused and basing her opinion upon her confusion. The Quranic example that uses dual and then refers to it as plural is talking about TWO GROUPS of people. Let's do a little word/logic problem here If I have two groups of 20 per say, how many people do I have in total? 40. So in the case of two groups of 20 I can refer to them as TWO GROUPS or as THEM plural. Let's take it down to two groups of 3 . . . same deal. So if I have fi'ataani, i.e. two groups of people, then I can talk about those two groups in dual or in plural becuase they are two and more than two at the same time. Samia it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

You say that in Classical Arabic you can't use maa to negate present tense or past tense, and since the Quran does this to you it is not in Classical Arabic. Then you say that you are just talking about past tense and that in past tense Classical Arabic you can't use maa (as in maa fa&ala) and you say that only lam can be used (as in lam yaf&al).

I have explicitly explained to you that if you think that you cannot use maa in the above ways in CA it is because you are reading MSA grammar books (MSA does have slightly different grammar than CA), because the CA books are clear on this and you are obviously not reading them.

If CA was the spoken language of old and the written of today, and according to you, the quraan is in CA, why doesn't the quraan respect the rules of grammar, and even morphology, set by Arab linguists? Or rather, why didn't CA linguists tailored CA graamar according to the quraan's language?

It all depends on what Arab linguists you are reading. If you pick up a book and it says that something you see in the Quran is not grammatically correct (i.e. maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu, maa fa&la for lam yaf&al) then you are reading a book by modern Arab linguists addressing the slightly different MSA. CA linguists did not tailor anything. They only wrote down the language use of CA speakers of the Old Arab tribes. Everything you see in the Quran can be explained reading grammar books for CA (Again beware that CA and MSA are both called Fushaa mistakenly, so if you see that they are saying that maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu is incorrect or that maa fa&ala for lam yaf&al is incorrect then you are reading an MSA grammar book). I can show you in Wright's grammar of the Arabic language where maa yaqoolu and maa fa&ala are clearly explained as Classical Arabic and you even proved this by the poetry you posted. Please Samia, wisen up and realize the truth of this matter. Being contrary will only continue to make you look worse and serve to confuse you even more. I am not confusing you, you are confusing yourself.

As a side note, different Arabic dialects keep Classical Arabic features in different degrees. Sudanese dialect has more Classical features then other dialects (due to the intensity of Quranic schooling). Iraqi dialect kept the Eeh of Classical Arabic found the Quran (the Sudanese wrongly say Ay), Iraquis, thinking that Old Arabs also spoke their present day dialects, say that this is the Quran speaking like the people, when Arabic dialects didn't exist when the Quran was around and Classical Arabic was the language of the people. Lastly you claim that all Arabs who don't learn CA can still understand it. You are wrong. Most Arabs if they didn't go to secular schools and learn MSA, they were in Quranic schools and learn CA from the Quran and the Hadeeth and have it explained to them in dialect! So you can find a completely uneducated person who can generally understand MSA because they studied CA in religious schools and because dialects are full of MSA and CA expressions pronounced only with a different accent. It was the same for any Spanish speaker in 1300 AD who studied the then Latin Bible with a priest for a while. If that person went to the courts in Rome or spoke to a Roman guard he would generally understand, despite the fact that he speaks a bastardized dialect of Latin (like the Arabic dialects) and not real Latin (like Arabic dialect speakers don't speak real Arabic). Still you can meet people in isolated villages who don't watch TV and don't have Quranic schools that do not understand CA or MSA very well at all.

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

Peace,

I have a friend who studied latin and not knowing a lick of Italian went to Italy and understood pretty much everything everyone was saying there. For a dialect speaker it is not too hard for them to generally understand MSA (CA can create some more difficulties for them). But ask them to speak it and the buck stops there. They are passive bilinguals, my dear. Which was facilitated by their speaking a language derived from real Arabic. You will find that pidgin/creole English speakers can do the same thing. Take any country Jamaican or Geechee speakers and sit them in front of the TV for a while, or just have them study the Bible for a while and they can pick up Standard English relatively easily.

Godbless,
Anwar

ehawk35

Salaam ehawk 35

Yes, whenever it is in the meaning of "sex" of human beings. If not, it is not men. I did not see it as meaning "sex", because that will create many contradictions. There is no harm in choosing the more reasonable meaning if it exists.

As for "nisaa'" how did you search it? Under "imra'a" or under "nas' "? Wasn't there any meaning for this or a plural? Again, as long as another word exists and fits the meaning better, no harm in choosing it.

Maybe it would be better for the discussion if you discuss my choice of a meaning over another, since both meanings exist in the qur'aan.

It means now one has to tell you how to consult an arabic dictionary.What is your source which says that "Nisaa " is "NOT plural " of "imraatun"??

Samia

It means now one has to tell you how to consult an arabic dictionary.What is your source which says that "Nisaa " is "NOT plural " of "imraatun"??

I did not say it is not the plural of "imra'atun". I said it is also the plural of another word, under which you search for the "plural" of imra'atun.

ehawk35

I did not say it is not the plural of "imra'atun". I said it is also the plural of another word, under which you search for the "plural" of imra'atun.

This is very strange my sister.You say one thing and deny right away.This is what Progod is crying for.
Look at your words

Salaam POF

"Rijaal" does not primarily mean "men". It means those who seek; on foot. It could be "men" or "women". Also, "nisaa'" is not the plural of "imra'a" but the plural of "nas' " the delayed; remainder, left behind. We find both meanings in the quraan.

You categorically said that Nisaa is not plural of "imraatun" and now you are denying it.

unknownuser

Salaam Aleikum everybody,

I have a question that I would like all three of you guys to answer for me (ehawk35, Samia and Anwar) if you would be so kind to do so.

In the Arab world, when an important figure such as a president or ruler of an Arab country is giving an "official" address or speech to the people and when Journalists or Politicians are speaking over the Television or radio waves, which grammatical rules or patterns are they utilising to express their ideas? Mind you I am NOT talking about vocabulary, I am inquiring only about the grammatical patterns with which they are conveying their thoughts.

Is it

A). The grammar rules of Spoken Dialects ?

B). The grammar rules of Modern Standard Arabic ?

Or

C). The grammar rules of what is known as Classical Arabic ?

Peace peace ,
Damon.

unknownuser

Actually I have a second question...

When two Arabs from two different countries, each having its own dialect, meet up and conversate which grammatical patterns do they use to express themselves to one another? Again, I am not speaking of words or idioms.