News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

Ramadhan inevitably a proper noun?

Started by Timur, July 09, 2015, 06:29:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

runninglikezebras

Quote from: uq on July 23, 2015, 02:41:54 PM
There are several instances of a proper noun being not fully inflected in the Quran, such as makkah in 48:24, ādam in 2:34, yūsuf in 12:7, and in 4:163 there are 4 instances ibrāhīm, ismā'īl, isḥāq, and ya'qūb.

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 48:24 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.

QuoteIn 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 μπλε ble (from French bleu), the Italian word computer, and the Russian words кенгуру, kenguru (kangaroo) and пальто, 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

[url="http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/"]http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/[/url] - [url="http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/"]http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/[/url]

Wakas

peace rlz,

Quote from: runninglikezebras on July 24, 2015, 11:13:04 AM
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 48:24 can't be explained etymologically with Arabic.

I recommend reading the links in my previous post, and:

Quote= 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. 48:24

Source  ##  http://ejtaal.net/aa/#q=mkk




All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. [url="http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/"]My articles[/url]

[url="//www.studyquran.org"]www.studyQuran.org[/url]

runninglikezebras

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.



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 14:37 and 3:96

Peace
[url="http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/"]http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/[/url] - [url="http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/"]http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/[/url]

uq

Quote from: runninglikezebras on July 24, 2015, 11:13:04 AM
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.

If I am guilty of deceit, then I ask God to purify my heart of deceit.

If I am not guilty of deceit, then I beg the pardon of all forum members for what may have been perceived as deceit.

My reference to a noun's being barred from full inflection was made because in Classical Arabic syntax, being barred from full inflection can indicate one of nine things; one of which is the quality of being a proper noun.

There are instances in the Classical Arabic tongue where a noun is barred from full inflection while not being a borrowed foreign word, e.g. usāmah (a proper noun for the genus of lions), ḥamzah (a proper noun for the genus of lions), fāṭimah (a proper noun for a female human derived from فطم), umar (a proper noun for a male human derived from عمر), ḥanẓalah (a proper noun for a male human derived from the name of a tree), and salmā (a proper noun for a female human derived from سلم); all these words take neither tanwīn nor kasrah for they are proper nouns.

Said nouns were termed by the early Grammarians as "coined" (مُرْتَجَلٌ) because they are derived from triliteral roots but their forms and meanings are irregular, and so to indicate their irregular derivation, they are debarred from full inflection.

Similarly, "ramaḍān" is a proper noun debarred from full inflection derived from the root رمض.

With regard to the etymology of "ramaḍān", I have no issue with the use of etymology to gain a greater understanding of the origin of words, though I do not grant etymology an estate within the domain of syntax.

The reader is best referred to primary sources. Please see the following for a Grammarian's perspective on proper nouns:

Wright's Arabic Grammar, volume 1, pages 234-246.
Howell's Arabic Grammar, volume 1, pages 5-18.
uq

runninglikezebras

Quote from: uq on July 26, 2015, 01:19:31 PM
There are instances in the Classical Arabic tongue where a noun is barred from full inflection while not being a borrowed foreign word, e.g. usāmah (a proper noun for the genus of lions), ḥamzah (a proper noun for the genus of lions), fāṭimah (a proper noun for a female human derived from فطم), umar (a proper noun for a male human derived from عمر), ḥanẓalah (a proper noun for a male human derived from the name of a tree), and salmā (a proper noun for a female human derived from سلم); all these words take neither tanwīn nor kasrah for they are proper nouns.

These exceptions support your thesis way better.  I do think you should take etymology into account before analyzing syntax.  Foreign origin of words often lead to exceptions to syntax that have no other meaning than the misunderstanding of the person writing them and not recognizing them properly.  As such one has to be careful to make conclusions from the inflection of them.  A good example is the import of the word Iblis, in the case of iblis the import occurred through a channel that did not understand the 'di' part of the original diabolos to be meaningful and thus suppressed it.

ps: at this moment of writing I haven't crosschecked the etymology of any of the words you quoted, I will try to do so and if I find what you say is not valid I will get back to you.  At first glance they look valid but not-quranic.

Peace
[url="http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/"]http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/[/url] - [url="http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/"]http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/[/url]

runninglikezebras

@uq do you have any Quranic examples of non-borrowed words that support your thesis?

You have to understand the only valid proof of what you are saying will be examples of other proper nouns inside Quran (not borrowed) that show the same symptom.

Peace
[url="http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/"]http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/[/url] - [url="http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/"]http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/[/url]

runninglikezebras

I'd say using Quranic examples to demonstrate your case is pretty fundamental, uq.  You say these are the rules of grammar of Classical Arabic.  If this Classical Arabic truly is the grammar of Quran one should use quranic words to prove their rules of grammar are quranically sound.

The examples you gave are as far as I know, non-quranic.  I'm still expecting some case study of yours using quranic arabic words (not borrowed) that proves your thesis.

What about this verse:

2:183 O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous

To me this confirms the tradition of fasting was known to the Jews. 

Peace
[url="http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/"]http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/[/url] - [url="http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/"]http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/[/url]

357




2:183 O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous


O you who have believed, decreed upon you is  "saum" AS IT WAS DECREED UPON THOSE BEFORE YOU that you may become righteous

So it was decreed on ALL those before us right?

In china japan canada in the jungles ...e.t.c where have they all gone if they where those who where fasting..............or can it be something else good,kind people are doing all over the globe???

just thinking with an open mind.

  :peace:

runninglikezebras

Crosschecking the occurrences of qablikum http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qbl#(2:183:12), one will notice this is most of the time used to refer to those before Muhammad who were given the Scripture.

So, no in my opinion this is not ALL those before us, it refers to those to whom "saum" was decreed.  These are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael etc.

Eg see http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=5#(5:5:1):

"those who were given the Book before you"

alladhīna ūtū l-kitāba min qablikum

I think it's obvious this excludes people in china, japan, canada, the jungles etc.  At least as far as I'm aware there were no Jews there in that time.

Peace
[url="http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/"]http://legrandsecretdelislam.com/[/url] - [url="http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/"]http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/[/url]

huruf

But surely people all over the world did fast and did so for religious reasons and for God's sake, also they did rceive revelations. So Qablikum may refer to those mentionned int he Qur'an because they were indeed en some way of the same tradition as those who are addressed certainly not because they were the only ones who received scriptures or did fast, who are all over the world and the Qur'an in no uncertain terms says have received their messengers and warners.

If it is said qablicum it is because they do know by themselves thorugh their own traditions, but not because God did not address or enjoin saawm to others.

Salaam