PDA

View Full Version : Teach me the old English please



Danah
10-22-2009, 09:59 AM
:sl:

I want to learn the old English, the one that Quran and Bible had been translated to not the modern daily one.

Do you have any links for good sites teaching that in an easy way?


Thanks in advance.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
ژاله
10-22-2009, 10:12 AM
may be you would have to read old english novels for that :><:
you mean 'why-hast-thou-forsaken-me; kinda english?
Reply

Danah
10-22-2009, 10:14 AM
Originally Posted by Malaak
may be you would have to read old english novels for that :><:
I am doing something similar

you mean 'why-hast-thou-forsaken-me; kinda english?
exactly!
Reply

Snowflake
10-22-2009, 10:52 AM
:sl: Why ye must learneth the language of olde? :p
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Danah
10-22-2009, 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by Scents of Jannah
:sl: Why ye must learneth the language of olde? :p
because me likes it :p and it will be easy for me to read Quran and Bible English translations :statisfie
Reply

~Raindrop~
10-22-2009, 11:19 AM
^^try shakespeare sis :hmm:
Reply

Hugo
10-22-2009, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by Danah
:sl: I want to learn the old English, the one that Quran and Bible had been translated to not the modern daily one.

Do you have any links for good sites teaching that in an easy way?

Thanks in advance.
You can try these sites:

http://www.biblegateway.com has over 50 Bible translations and in several languages and some are old translation such as the KJV

http://www.searchtruth.com has several Qu'ran translations into English, perhaps the oldest there is that by PickThal. The earliest English translation dates from 1734 by George Sale but it might be hard to get a copy now.

These sites also allow you to search for passages and keywords, If you search in Bible translations or Quran Translation in Wikipedia you will get very good information and lots of references.
Reply

Re.TiReD
10-22-2009, 11:29 AM
Danah, Danah, wherefore art thou Danah? Sweet is thy username, interesting is thy sig...Beneficial are thy posts, thy aspirations they be big...? :hiding: haha epic faceplam moment reading that back.
Reply

Snowflake
10-22-2009, 11:33 AM
^LOL

because me likes it :p and it will be easy for me to read Quran and Bible English translations :statisfie
Won't it take longer? When I read Quran translation in old English it take ages lol.
Reply

Caller الداعي
10-22-2009, 11:47 AM
maybe u should try learning arabic
Reply

Danah
10-22-2009, 01:43 PM
Originally Posted by aisha
^^try shakespeare sis :hmm:
I will try to read some, but in general I don't wanna waste a lot of time on that. If there is a website teaches the basics I will be fine

Originally Posted by Hugo
You can try these sites:

http://www.biblegateway.com has over 50 Bible translations and in several languages and some are old translation such as the KJV

http://www.searchtruth.com has several Qu'ran translations into English, perhaps the oldest there is that by PickThal. The earliest English translation dates from 1734 by George Sale but it might be hard to get a copy now.

These sites also allow you to search for passages and keywords, If you search in Bible translations or Quran Translation in Wikipedia you will get very good information and lots of references.
thanks, but as I said to sis aisha....I only need some few basics then I can go on by myself, its gonna be okay since I already have some knowledge on it.

Originally Posted by Hafsah
Danah, Danah, wherefore art thou Danah? Sweet is thy username, interesting is thy sig...Beneficial are thy posts, thy aspirations they be big...? :hiding: haha epic faceplam moment reading that back.
lol, thanks :statisfie

Originally Posted by Scents of Jannah
Won't it take longer? When I read Quran translation in old English it take ages lol.
Most of the translations around are written in the old English, I have two copies of translations if not more of Quran by different translators and both of them are written in the old one. I only need the basics of the basics nothing much to waste my time on.....I need that time in some other things as you know :p

Originally Posted by caller
maybe u should try learning arabic
I am an Arabic speaker Alhumdulilah.
Reply

Cabdullahi
10-22-2009, 01:51 PM
what you just need is an online glossary of old english thats it.....it will take you five mintues to learn a few words and know their meanings.....
Reply

Danah
10-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by Abdullahii
what you just need is an online glossary of old english thats it.....it will take you five mintues to learn a few words and know their meanings.....
EXACTLY!!
thanks for making it short for me....do you know of any. I did a quick search but didn't find any good ones. Are you aware of any?
Reply

Woodrow
10-22-2009, 02:21 PM
If you go much further back then Shakespearean or Elizabethan English you will run into the early languages that pre-date English such as Saxony, Celtic, Welsh and even old German. English is a fairly new language and is the combination of many languages.

As far as the Qur'an in old English do not trust them as most were fraudelent commissioned by the Pope for the purpose of destroying Islam. There were no valid English language Qur'ans until Pikthal and Ali

For fun you may want to glance at the oldest known writing in what can be called English The epic poem "Beowulf" it is in the earliest known form of English Anglo-Saxo which were the first 2 languages to combine to form what eventually becomes English

Try this site, very few people living today can read the original Anglo-Saxon

http://historymedren.about.com/od/beowulf/p/beowulf.htm
Reply

Danah
10-22-2009, 09:19 PM
^ the link have some interesting things, jazakAllah khair for sharing. The first page of the Beowulf manuscript is strange in itself to me :hmm: totally different way of writing

I have the translation of Yusuf Ali, and another copy printed in King fahad holy Quran printing Complex and both of them are using the same style of English.

I will see if I can find a simple online glossary that can serve the purpose for now
Reply

czgibson
10-25-2009, 03:48 PM
Greetings,

Old English is another name for Anglo-Saxon. That is very different from what you're asking about.

The language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible is known as Early Modern English. Those are the best texts to read in order to get to grips with understanding it. A course on reading Early Modern English would be very likely to include lots of readings from these works.

Don't look on reading Shakespeare as a waste of time. He's commonly acknowledged to be perhaps the greatest writer the world has ever seen.

Peace
Reply

Woodrow
10-25-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

Old English is another name for Anglo-Saxon. That is very different from what you're asking about.

The language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible is known as Early Modern English. Those are the best texts to read in order to get to grips with understanding it. A course on reading Early Modern English would be very likely to include lots of readings from these works.

Don't look on reading Shakespeare as a waste of time. He's commonly acknowledged to be perhaps the greatest writer the world has ever seen.

Peace
Very good CZ.

Now I think I understand what Sister Danah is looking for. Shakespeare is a good source as in his works he probably used the majority of phrases and words in use during that era.

Here is a searchable site of nearly every word Shakespeare used with today's meaning.

http://www.shakespeareswords.com/
Reply

Danah
10-25-2009, 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

Old English is another name for Anglo-Saxon. That is very different from what you're asking about.

The language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible is known as Early Modern English. Those are the best texts to read in order to get to grips with understanding it. A course on reading Early Modern English would be very likely to include lots of readings from these works.
This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for clarifying things up and thanks for making it short. So they are not the same. I always thought that KJ bible was written in the oldest English.


Don't look on reading Shakespeare as a waste of time. He's commonly acknowledged to be perhaps the greatest writer the world has ever seen.

Peace
I didn't mean wasting time literally, but more like lengthen the period of learning when I am in a dire need of time to learn some other important things

Thanks for the link


JazakAllah khair for the link Uncle Woodrow


One more request, can anyone please recommend a short good read for Shakespeare?
I want something interesting to get the motivate for reading

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
10-25-2009, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for clarifying things up and thanks for making it short. So they are not the same. I always thought that KJ bible was written in the oldest English.


I didn't mean wasting time literally, but more like lengthen the period of learning when I am in a dire need of time to learn some other important things

Thanks for the link


JazakAllah khair for the link Uncle Woodrow


One more request, can anyone please recommend a short good read for Shakespeare?
I want something interesting to get the motivate for reading

:w:
Here is a link where you can download all of his work in one ebook.

http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=...hakespeare+pdf

However, since this is what seems to be your first exposure to Shakespeare I suggest you first start with:

"Taming of the Shrew"

A fairly short comedy. Reasonably easy reading but still good exposure to the language of the time.

You can download it here:

http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/tam...shrew-pdf.html

You want the top (first) one

The rest of the links give some good commentaries and critiques of it.
Reply

czgibson
10-25-2009, 06:31 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Danah
One more request, can anyone please recommend a short good read for Shakespeare?
I want something interesting to get the motivate for reading
Macbeth is Shakespeare's shortest play, and for the most part its language is very clear for modern readers. It's a tragedy about murder, guilt and evil, and it features ghosts, witches and daggers. It's definitely easier to follow than something like King Lear or Coriolanus, great though those plays are.

For something even shorter, why not try some of Shakespeare's Sonnets? They are a sequence of 154 love poems. Here is Sonnet 18, which is perhaps the most famous:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date;
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
Peace
Reply

Woodrow
10-25-2009, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for clarifying things up and thanks for making it short. So they are not the same. I always thought that KJ bible was written in the oldest English:


For many centuries the common (Lay) Christian had no access to the bible that was reserved for the clergy only and the bibles were usually in either Latin or Greek. The Roman Catholic Church discouraged the reading of any English language bibles until the 1940s. As a Roman Catholic boy I had to learn Latin to read the Bible (Latin Vulgate)

The Earliest known Anglo-Saxon(Old English) Bible is the Wycliffe Bible written in 1380. Few people today know sufficient Anglo-Saxon English to read it. Here is a page from it and before you ask, I can not read it, just a few words.

Reply

czgibson
10-25-2009, 06:38 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Woodrow
The Earliest known Anglo-Saxon Bible is the Wycliffe Bible written in 1380. Few people today know sufficient Anglo-Saxon English to read it. Here is a page from it and before you ask, I can not read it, just a few words.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, and I'm also sorry for correcting Woodrow here when he's clearly trying to help:

That is not Anglo-Saxon, but Middle English, the language of Chaucer. It is much closer to modern English than Anglo-Saxon is. The paragraph beginning with the large letter 'I' is the start of John's Gospel. Look carefully and, despite the unusual spelling, you should be able to make out "In the beginning was the word..."

Peace
Reply

Woodrow
10-25-2009, 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


I'm sorry to be pedantic, and I'm also sorry for correcting Woodrow here when he's clearly trying to help:

That is not Anglo-Saxon, but Middle English, the language of Chaucer. It is much closer to modern English than Anglo-Saxon is. The paragraph beginning with the large letter 'I' is the start of John's Gospel. Look carefully and, despite the unusual spelling, you should be able to make out "In the beginning was the word..."

Peace
I stand corrected. You are right. I should have realized by the Date 1380 it was too recent to be Anglo-Saxon or old English.
Reply

Danah
10-27-2009, 06:04 PM
Thank you two for your clarification and explanation. I downloaded the e-book you uncle Woodrow recommended. Also, I found a good application for ipod touch that have most of Shakespeare's work which is good to read anywhere since I always have it with me. I will go through them whenever I am free.
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2009, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
Thank you two for your clarification and explanation. I downloaded the e-book you uncle Woodrow recommended. Also, I found a good application for ipod touch that have most of Shakespeare's work which is good to read anywhere since I always have it with me. I will go through them whenever I am free.
Your Welcome Ukhti,

Please keep in mind that since you do read Arabic you can read the Real Qur'an no translation are the Qur'an, they can only approximate it, but never contain the real meaning.

Use the translations to get an understanding over why many non-Arabic readers misunderstand the true Qur'an
Reply

Danah
10-27-2009, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Your Welcome Ukhti,

Please keep in mind that since you do read Arabic you can read the Real Qur'an no translation are the Qur'an, they can only approximate it, but never contain the real meaning.

Use the translations to get an understanding over why many non-Arabic readers misunderstand the true Qur'an
100% True!

I only need to read the translations when I am talking to non-Arab people about the Quran, so I gotta have a rigid English to fulfill my need.
Reply

~*Fatima*~
10-27-2009, 07:00 PM
Just wondering but is it? like Hibaro? or something?
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2009, 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by ~*Fatima*~
Just wondering but is it? like Hibaro? or something?
I assume you are speaking about the older English languages. Hibaro (more properly Jibaro refers to the Jivaro, the original people of Puerto Rico)

English is a mixture of languages and continues to adapt words from other languages. As a result it has changed considerably over the years, but it is mostly influenced by Latin and the Early Germanic (Teutonic) languages.
Reply

~*Fatima*~
10-27-2009, 07:32 PM
Oh~ Jazakallah for the Info. Sorry its going off topic but could you tell me more of Puerto Rico People?
Reply

Rasema
10-27-2009, 07:40 PM
:sl:
I really never liked that the Qur'an is in the old English because the Bible is.:embarrass

Its culture.
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2009, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by Rasema
:sl:
I really never liked that the Qur'an is in the old English because the Bible is.:embarrass

Its culture.
I suspect that Ali and Pickthal used Elizabethian English in their translations because it would been seen as being more dignified then the common or vox Populi English used at their era (Late 19th early 20th century), even though it had been many centuries since Elizabethian English had been in daily use.
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2009, 08:15 PM
Originally Posted by ~*Fatima*~
Oh~ Jazakallah for the Info. Sorry its going off topic but could you tell me more of Puerto Rico People?
Very short history of Puerto Rico, it is a Caribbean Island, It was one of the first lands conquered by the Spanish in the early 1500's and was part of what Spain called Hispanola. Today they are a USA Commonwealth with virtually full rights of Statehood. However, the people are very independent and have consistently voted against Statehood. The people did adopt the Spanish language and Catholicism from the Spanish conquistadors but did not inter marry much with the Spanish and are predominantly Native American of Caribbean tribal ancestry. Most Puerto Ricans are fluent in American English and Castillian Spanish.
Reply

~*Fatima*~
10-27-2009, 08:32 PM
I see~ JazakAllah~ Mashallah Bro~ You know a lot. I wish I did too. your like encyclopedia. :}
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2009, 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by ~*Fatima*~
I see~ JazakAllah~ Mashallah Bro~ You know a lot. I wish I did too. your like encyclopedia. :}
At my age I should know something or else I wasted nearly 70 years taking up space. To be honest most people my age know considerably more than I do.
Reply

Khaldun
11-04-2009, 06:36 PM
:sl:

Danah I would not advice you to read the bible. Everything you would need to know is in the Qur'aan.

Why waste your time in a book which states that Prophet Luut got drunk and fornicated with his own daughters? Or a book which says the Prophet Haruun worshipped the cow alongwith the people of Isra'eel [i.e committed shirk]?. A book which says Iblees was an Fallen Angel where as we know there are no such things?

Umar copied part of the Torah in Arabic, brought it to the Prophet , and began to read it to him. As he read, the Prophet’s face changed color. One of the men of the Ansaar said, "Woe to you Ibn Al-Khattaab! Can you not see the face of the Messenger of Allaah?’ Thereupon, the Prophet , said, ‘Do not ask the People of the Book about anything for they will not guide you when they have gone astray. (If you listen to them) You will either disbelieve in what is right or believe in what is false. By Allaah, if Moses had been alive today, he would have been obliged to follow me.’
Reply

Danah
11-04-2009, 06:42 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:

Danah I would not advice you to read the bible. Everything you would need to know is in the Qur'aan.

Why waste your time in a book which states that Prophet Luut got drunk and fornicated with his own daughters? Or a book which says the Prophet Haruun worshipped the cow alongwith the people of Isra'eel [i.e committed shirk]?. A book which says Iblees was an Fallen Angel where as we know there are no such things?

Umar copied part of the Torah in Arabic, brought it to the Prophet , and began to read it to him. As he read, the Prophet’s face changed color. One of the men of the Ansaar said, "Woe to you Ibn Al-Khattaab! Can you not see the face of the Messenger of Allaah?’ Thereupon, the Prophet , said, ‘Do not ask the People of the Book about anything for they will not guide you when they have gone astray. (If you listen to them) You will either disbelieve in what is right or believe in what is false. By Allaah, if Moses had been alive today, he would have been obliged to follow me.’
JazakAllah Kahir brother for your concern. I know that already. I need to know the English that the Quran translated to "which is not the modern daily one we talk these days" so that will help me in terms of Dawah and such.
Alhumdulilah I can read the Quran in Arabic, but since English is not my first language, so I kinda need to improve it to understand the old terms when I am explaining to someone the Quran versus.

I really appreciate your advice and post.
Reply

Woodrow
11-04-2009, 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
JazakAllah Kahir brother for your concern. I know that already. I need to know the English that the Quran translated to "which is not the modern daily one we talk these days" so that will help me in terms of Dawah and such.
Alhumdulilah I can read the Quran in Arabic, but since English is not my first language, so I kinda need to improve it to understand the old terms when I am explaining to someone the Quran versus.

I really appreciate your advice and post.
Before you get too wrapped up in old English. Remember that any translations are not the Qur'an. If you are going to use an English translation for any purpose use one in Modern English. The ones in old English can be very questionable as some were written in that manner by Non_Muslims for the purpose of misleading people.

Besides there never was a translation from Arabic to Old English at the time English speaking people actually spoke old English.The only Qur'an translations I know of for which Elizabethan English is used are the ones by Ali and Pickthal.

But, for Da'wah to English speaking people any translation in modern English is the better choice.
Reply

Danah
11-04-2009, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Before you get too wrapped up in old English. Remember that any translations are not the Qur'an. If you are going to use an English translation for any purpose use one in Modern English. The ones in old English can be very questionable as some were written in that manner by Non_Muslims for the purpose of misleading people.

Besides there never was a translation from Arabic to Old English at the time English speaking people actually spoke old English.The only Qur'an translations I know of for which Elizabethan English is used are the ones by Ali and Pickthal.
Yeah true, they can do anything to mislead people.
The only two copies I have in home are Yusuf Ali, and a copy printed in King Fahad holy Quran printing Complex in Macca which I don't think that anyone can question them.

But, for Da'wah to English speaking people any translation in modern English is the better choice.
I am not aware of any modern English Translations of Quran. Can you tell me of any Uncle jazakAllah khair?
Reply

Hugo
11-04-2009, 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:Danah I would not advice you to read the bible. Everything you would need to know is in the Qur'aan.

Why waste your time in a book which states that Prophet Luut got drunk and fornicated with his own daughters? Or a book which says the Prophet Haruun worshipped the cow alongwith the people of Isra'eel [i.e committed shirk]?. A book which says Iblees was an Fallen Angel where as we know there are no such things?

Umar copied part of the Torah in Arabic, brought it to the Prophet , and began to read it to him. As he read, the Prophet’s face changed color. One of the men of the Ansaar said, "Woe to you Ibn Al-Khattaab! Can you not see the face of the Messenger of Allaah?’ Thereupon, the Prophet , said, ‘Do not ask the People of the Book about anything for they will not guide you when they have gone astray. (If you listen to them) You will either disbelieve in what is right or believe in what is false. By Allaah, if Moses had been alive today, he would have been obliged to follow me.’
What you say of the Bible is mostly true except Aaron did not worship a cow but he made an image because the people forced him into it. However, you did not state with any clarity which hadith this was so may I remind you of what the Qu'ran says as that is a first authority and I think they imply that Prophet Mohammed accepted the existing holy books

Q:4:163 "We have sent thee inspiration, as we sent it to Noah and the messenger's after him: we sent Inspiration to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon and to David we gave the Psalms.

Q:10:94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed Unto thee, then ask those Who have been reading the Book before thee.

In passing I might add that if you ignore the Bible you ignore the 10 commandments, the sermon on the mount, Psalm 23 and so much more which are unquestionably good and on which Muslims and Christians would find no disagreement.
Reply

Hugo
11-04-2009, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
Yeah true, they can do anything to mislead people.
The only two copies I have in home are Yusuf Ali, and a copy printed in King Fahad holy Quran printing Complex in Macca which I don't think that anyone can question them.

I am not aware of any modern English Translations of Quran. Can you tell me of any Uncle jazakAllah khair?
I think Woodrow's comments that some translators did it to mislead is utterly preposterous. In some cases the translators converted to Islam after doing the work so his claim is groundless.

I think you will also find if you search for comments by Uthmann in this board that there are questions over Yusuf Ali and particularly his footnotes and even the Fahad translation has some questionably insertions - for example, if my memory serves me it adds in brackets in one place [guns and tanks] and that cannot possibly help in understanding.

If it is about study then I found Dawood very good and if you use one of the online Qu'ran search sites you can quickly compare readings and check on Arabic words etc try http://www.searchtruth.com/. You could contact Gossomer Skye as I am sure she will have further insights and information on this.

What you need to understand is that whether you are reading it in English or Arabic work is requited to understand meaning. Remember the Arabic words used have meanings that are 6th century flavoured and to properly understand them you need a suitable lexicon not a modern Arabic dictionary.
Reply

Woodrow
11-04-2009, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
Yeah true, they can do anything to mislead people.
The only two copies I have in home are Yusuf Ali, and a copy printed in King Fahad holy Quran printing Complex in Macca which I don't think that anyone can question them.



I am not aware of any modern English Translations of Quran. Can you tell me of any Uncle jazakAllah khair?
A very good one is:



Saudi-endorsed Translations

The Noble Qur'an in the English Language. By Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

Now the most widely disseminated Qur'an in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the English-speaking world, this new translation[41] is meant to replace the Yusuf 'Ali edition and comes with a seal of approval from both the University of Medina and the Saudi Dar al-Ifta.[42]

You can read it on line here:

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm
Reply

Woodrow
11-04-2009, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I think Woodrow's comments that some translators did it to mislead is utterly preposterous. In some cases the translators converted to Islam after doing the work so his claim is groundless.
Early Translations

The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled. He, therefore, based his interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15]

Most eighteenth and nineteenth century translations were undertaken by authors without strong background in Islam. As they were goaded by the urge to answer Christian polemic, their forgettable works do not reflect any intellectual depth; as such, copies are extremely rare. Among the best known, albeit pejorative, English-language analyses of Islam during this time were those by Christian authors such as George Sale, John Rodwell (1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905).[16] Of these, Sale was probably the most important because he wrote a detailed critique about earlier translations.[17] His work became the standard reference for all English readers until almost the end of the nineteenth century.[18] However, his work was limited by his lack of access to public libraries forcing him to rely only upon material in his personal collection.[19] While Sale gave the impression that he based his translation on the Arabic text, others have suggested that he relied on an earlier Latin translation.[20] Sale did not insert verse numbers into his work, nor did he insert footnotes or other explanations. The result, therefore, is a work that is extremely difficult to comprehend.

SOURCE:http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing...s-of-the-quran
Reply

Hugo
11-04-2009, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Before you get too wrapped up in old English. Remember that any translations are not the Qur'an. If you are going to use an English translation for any purpose use one in Modern English. The ones in old English can be very questionable as some were written in that manner by Non_Muslims for the purpose of misleading people.

Besides there never was a translation from Arabic to Old English at the time English speaking people actually spoke old English.The only Qur'an translations I know of for which Elizabethan English is used are the ones by Ali and Pickthal.

But, for Da'wah to English speaking people any translation in modern English is the better choice.
This is not quite correct as there are English translations going back to the 17 century. The important thing to rememberer is that scholarship has moved on since then and now there are a number of excellent lexicons in both Arabic and English so modern translations should be much more accurate
Reply

cat eyes
11-04-2009, 08:20 PM
don't know if its the same thing have you tried watching that romeo and juliet movie after watching it a hundred times i was able to talk in old English lol my Engish teacher was absolutely awsum in talking in old English
Reply

Khaldun
11-04-2009, 08:57 PM
:sl:

I realise I have side tracked in this thread. But to make things clear we do not reject the bible nor the torah, however since they have been altered through time and state things that are regarded as blasphemus in Islaam we reject the corrupt portions of it.

In short whatever is in accordance with the Qur'aan we accept and whatever is against the Qur'aan we reject. Since the Qur'aan is the last of the heavenly books and is unaltered we judge by it.
Reply

Supreme
11-05-2009, 12:57 PM
Hah, my favourite Bible vesion (KJV) is in middle English (old English is basically French and German in some sort of strange union), as is my Quran copy.

Thee- You/r
mammon- money
talents- money of the time
unto- to

That's all I can think of right now. It shouldn't be very hard to any native English speaker.
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2009, 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by cat eyes
don't know if its the same thing have you tried watching that romeo and juliet movie after watching it a hundred times i was able to talk in old English lol my Engish teacher was absolutely awsum in talking in old English
In all likelihood the people in those days never said thee or thou. While that was written with the letter thorn, thorn was pronounced as both th and Y by the 1600 it was pronounced only as y and eventually was replaced by the Y so the actual pronunciation would have not been thee and thou, but yee and you. Many other things happen in the pronunciation as we do not know precisely how some of the Archaic letters were pronounced. But in all likelihood the middle age English was pronounced much like todays words except with a Scottish Accent. they were not pronounced as we try to pronounce them based on the old alphabet. If you find any Middle English texts and use the modern alphabet instead of the archaic one, the pronunciations will be found to be like today's English.
Reply

Hugo
11-05-2009, 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Early Translations
The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled. He, therefore, based his interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15]....
The article you cited is worthy of a good read but to my mind you have been very selective in choosing passages from it and one wonders if you are forcing the point to the place where it deliberately misleads - I will select just a few sections to show this but I urge anyone who wants to get a fuller picture to read the whole article.

By the ninth century, this began to change. Muslim jurists, increasingly opposed to reliance upon Jewish lore, created new sayings from the Prophet and his companions that contradicted the original allowances. In one of these apocryphal traditions, Muhammad's face changes color when he sees his follower Umar reading the Torah. Muhammad declares that had Moses been their contemporary, he, too, would have followed the Muslim prophet. An alternate version claims that the Prophet asked Umar, "Do you wish to rush to perdition as did the Jews and Christians? I have brought you white and clean hadiths."Despite the unreliability of this hadith, it has evolved into a position that any Muslim who questions it could be accused of heresy.
The 1955 translation of Arthur Arberry (1905-69) was the first English translation by a bona fide scholar of Arabic and Islam. A Cambridge University graduate, he spent several years in the Middle East perfecting his Arabic and Persian language skills.... His title, The Koran Interpreted, acknowledged the orthodox Muslim view that the Qu'ran cannot be translated, but only interpreted. He rendered the Qur'an into understandable English and separated text from tradition. The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around.
Among those Qur'an translations which found Saudi favor and, therefore, wide distribution, was the Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali (1872-1952) rendition that, from its first appearance in 1934 until very recently, was the most popular English version among Muslims. While not an Islamic scholar in any formal sense, Yusuf 'Ali, an Indian civil servant, had studied classics at Cambridge University, ...... He sought to convey the music and richness of the Arabic with poetic English versification. While his rendering of the text is not bad, there are serious problems in his copious footnotes; in many cases, he reproduces the exegetical material from medieval texts without making any effort at contextualization. Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf 'Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews.
Now the most widely disseminated Qur'an in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the English-speaking world, this new translation by al-Hilali and Khan and is meant to replace the Yusuf 'Ali edition and comes with a seal of approval from both the University of Medina and the Saudi Dar al-Ifta. Whereas most other translators have tried to render the Qur'an applicable to a modern readership, this Saudi-financed venture tries to impose the commentaries of Tabari (d. 923 C.E.), Qurtubi (d. 1273 C.E.), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1372 C.E.), medievalists who knew nothing of modern concepts of pluralism. The numerous interpolations make this translation particularly problematic, ...

From the beginning, the Hilali and Muhsin Khan translation reads more like a supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture. In the first sura, for example, verses which are universally accepted as, "Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored, not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray" become, "Guide us to the Straight Way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)."What is particularly egregious about this interpolation is that it is followed by an extremely long footnote to justify its hate based on traditions from medieval texts.

Contemporary political disputes also pollute the translation, marring what should be a reflection of timeless religion. Whereas the Qur'an reports Moses's address to the Israelites as "O my people! Enter the Holy Land that God has assigned unto you,"this Saudi version twists the verse with modern politics, writing, "O my people! Enter the holy land (Palestine)."

The appendix includes a polemical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad, reporting that the former had no claim to divinity. From a Muslim perspective, what Jesus did or did not do should be drawn from the Qur'anic text, not an appendix, ..... this Saudi-sponsored effort, undertaken before 9-11, is a serious liability for American Muslims in particular, it still remains present in Sunni mosques, probably because of its free distribution by the Saudi government.
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2009, 07:11 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
The article you cited is worthy of a good read but to my mind you have been very selective in choosing passages from it and one wonders if you are forcing the point to the place where it deliberately misleads - I will select just a few sections to show this but I urge anyone who wants to get a fuller picture to read the whole article.

True, I was deliberatly selective. My original post was in reference to the early translations in Old English. That is the era the paragraph refers to. I never did mention anyplace that any of the modern translations were deliberatly erroneous.
Reply

Hugo
11-05-2009, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
True, I was deliberatly selective. My original post was in reference to the early translations in Old English. That is the era the paragraph refers to. I never did mention anyplace that any of the modern translations were deliberatly erroneous.
Fair enough but what you must now I think agree from the same article that some modern translations are also seriously flawed notably those by Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali and that of al-Hilali and Khan.

Translation is a difficult business because you are dealing not with modern Arabic but and Arabic as it would have been understood in the 6th century. To do this one needs a special form of dictionary called a lexicon which takes each word and explains its meaning by citing examples of its use as found not just in the Qu'ran but elsewhere in any document that is of the same period. The Qu'ran also contains many derived words for example from Syriac and so on so to be able to absorb all this requires many many years of painstaking study of language and one does not have to be a Muslim to do that but just an honest and hard working scholar.

There is nothing special about the words used in the Qu'ran because if they were is some way special no one at the time would have been able to understand what was being said. Then Qu'ran in Arabic contains 2,822 different words although 582 words cover 80% of what is said. Since English has over a million different words there is no reason at all why a diligent, skilful and unbiased scholar or group of scholars should not make a translation that is a faithful as is possible to the original Arabic assisted by the various lexicons.
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2009, 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Fair enough but what you must now I think agree from the same article that some modern translations are also seriously flawed notably those by Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali and that of al-Hilali and Khan.

Translation is a difficult business because you are dealing not with modern Arabic but and Arabic as it would have been understood in the 6th century. To do this one needs a special form of dictionary called a lexicon which takes each word and explains its meaning by citing examples of its use as found not just in the Qu'ran but elsewhere in any document that is of the same period. The Qu'ran also contains many derived words for example from Syriac and so on so to be able to absorb all this requires many many years of painstaking study of language and one does not have to be a Muslim to do that but just an honest and hard working scholar.

There is nothing special about the words used in the Qu'ran because if they were is some way special no one at the time would have been able to understand what was being said. Then Qu'ran in Arabic contains 2,822 different words although 582 words cover 80% of what is said. Since English has over a million different words there is no reason at all why a diligent, skilful and unbiased scholar or group of scholars should not make a translation that is a faithful as is possible to the original Arabic assisted by the various lexicons.
I can not find anything there to take issue with except this:
There is nothing special about the words used in the Qu'ran
But that is not debatable, just my opinion.

But regarding the last paragraph, the major difficulty is many Arabic words have no English counter part, and that makes a word for word translation impossible.
Reply

Hugo
11-05-2009, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I can not find anything there to take issue with except this:

But that is not debatable, just my opinion.

But regarding the last paragraph, the major difficulty is many Arabic words have no English counter part, and that makes a word for word translation impossible.
If by this you mean there are words in the Qu'ran that cannot be understood by anyone then we agree, there a few of those. If you think beyond that the the words are special I would be interested to know what you might mean, not as a debate but as information.

Of course I agree that word for word translation is not always possible or even desirable because languages often differ in constructions. But we still have the fact that one has to put your self into 6th century Arabic to get a 'true' reading and so logically I would say that a sound English translation is by far to be preferred if one wants understanding as it is obvious that the vast majority cannot hope to learn 6th century Arabic. I don't know where you live but if you go to the Middle East one can hardly find two Arabs who speak the same dialect - I exaggerate of course but you get my meaning.

Just as a little aside, I once heard Jewish scholars talking about the KJV and they though that the 23 Psalm was if anything better in English than in Hebrew.

Peace and Blessings
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2009, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
If by this you mean there are words in the Qu'ran that cannot be understood by anyone then we agree, there a few of those. If you think beyond that the the words are special I would be interested to know what you might mean, not as a debate but as information.
I see each word as being special as each came from Allaah(swt). But, in addition. Each word is unique for the Tajweed pronunciation.
Reply

Hugo
11-06-2009, 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I see each word as being special as each came from Allaah(swt). But, in addition. Each word is unique for the Tajweed pronunciation.
We may be talking about different things here - if you wish to learn to pronounce the words of the Qu'ran that is fine but I was talking about what words mean. Now of course the last words say my father said to me are precious but they are nevertheless just ordinary words, with ordinary everyday meanings and the same goes for the Qu'ran or any other book - this was my point.

What we need from scripture is to hear what God is saying not invest the thing with some mystical or magic properties because as a Christian for example we say God's word is living and alive, written not in a book but on our hearts and minds - would you not agree with that for the Qu'ran?
Reply

Woodrow
11-06-2009, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
We may be talking about different things here - if you wish to learn to pronounce the words of the Qu'ran that is fine but I was talking about what words mean. Now of course the last words say my father said to me are precious but they are nevertheless just ordinary words, with ordinary everyday meanings and the same goes for the Qu'ran or any other book - this was my point.

What we need from scripture is to hear what God is saying not invest the thing with some mystical or magic properties because as a Christian for example we say God's word is living and alive, written not in a book but on our hearts and minds - would you not agree with that for the Qu'ran?
I like your last paragraph very much. Especially :"God's word is living and alive, written not in a book but on our hearts and minds" to me that emphasizes the reason for the desire of being Hafiz. (Memorizing the entire Qur'an)

Of course memorizing it is just part, it is essential to live the words also.
Reply

Khaldun
11-06-2009, 05:13 PM
:sl:

What makes the Qur'aan a linguistic master piece? And what was the reason why the non muslims of old said it was magic?

It is not only about the syntax or the carefully selected words [diction] but rather the Qur'aan as a whole, and unfortunatly this is what will lost in translation. For an example one verse from the Qur'aan might put across a very vivid imagery for an arabic reader whereas the english translation is very dull. This is why a non arab just looks at the Qur'aan as any other book yet does not realise that its language can not be copied nor repeated.

An example of where the Arabic eloquence is lost in translation is verse 19:4. In it, the Prophet Zakariyyah is praying to Allah to bless him with a child, and describes his old age:

قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي وَهَنَ الْعَظْمُ مِنِّي وَاشْتَعَلَ الرَّأْسُ شَيْبًا
He prayed: "O my Lord! Feeble have become my bones, and my head glistens with grey hair.

The Arabic of the last portion of the verse is: 'ishtha'ala ar-ra'su shayba'. This phrase, despite its conciseness (only three words), is indicative of the eloquence of the Qur'aan, and az-Zamakhsharee is able to extract no less than five examples of the usage of various types of Arabic eloquence (some of which cannot even be explained in English!) For an example, the primary meaning of the verb 'ishtha'ala' which is used in the verse is to express the sparks that are emitted by a fire. Therefore, Zakariyyah is comparing the whiteness of his hair to the sparks that emit from a fire, an example of one type of metaphor.

Also, the verse translates as '...(my) head sparks..', thus attributing the sparking effect, not to the hair where it occurs, but to the place and origin of that hair (the head), thus accentuating the severity of his old age. This phrase also gives the impression that the sparks are occuring from many places, thus indicating that, not only is his hairs white, but these white streaks are to be found all over his head. In essence, the phrase of only three words conveys the image of Zakariyyah's old age in such graphic detail that the English equivalent would require a few paragraphs of text! Of course, all such eloquence is completely lost in translation.
[Exctract from Yasir Qadhi's An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan]
Reply

Hugo
11-06-2009, 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:What makes the Qur'aan a linguistic master piece? And what was the reason why the non muslims of old said it was magic?

It is not only about the syntax or the carefully selected words [diction] but rather the Qur'aan as a whole, and unfortunatly this is what will lost in translation. For an example one verse from the Qur'aan might put across a very vivid imagery for an arabic reader whereas the english translation is very dull. This is why a non arab just looks at the Qur'aan as any other book yet does not realise that its language can not be copied nor repeated.

An example of where the Arabic eloquence is lost in translation is verse 19:4. In it, the Prophet Zakariyyah is praying to Allah to bless him with a child, and describes his old age:

قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي وَهَنَ الْعَظْمُ مِنِّي وَاشْتَعَلَ الرَّأْسُ شَيْبًا
He prayed: "O my Lord! Feeble have become my bones, and my head glistens with grey hair.

The Arabic of the last portion of the verse is: 'ishtha'ala ar-ra'su shayba'. This phrase, despite its conciseness (only three words), is indicative of the eloquence of the Qur'aan, and az-Zamakhsharee is able to extract no less than five examples of the usage of various types of Arabic eloquence (some of which cannot even be explained in English!) For an example, the primary meaning of the verb 'ishtha'ala' which is used in the verse is to express the sparks that are emitted by a fire. Therefore, Zakariyyah is comparing the whiteness of his hair to the sparks that emit from a fire, an example of one type of metaphor.

Also, the verse translates as '...(my) head sparks..', thus attributing the sparking effect, not to the hair where it occurs, but to the place and origin of that hair (the head), thus accentuating the severity of his old age. This phrase also gives the impression that the sparks are occuring from many places, thus indicating that, not only is his hairs white, but these white streaks are to be found all over his head. In essence, the phrase of only three words conveys the image of Zakariyyah's old age in such graphic detail that the English equivalent would require a few paragraphs of text! Of course, all such eloquence is completely lost in translation.
[Exctract from Yasir Qadhi's An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan]
No one disputes what you say but what you are missing is that it took an expert to uncover the meaning here and he did that by knowing what the words would meant 14 centuries ago. How did he know that these words convey all that you say - he would not have got it by just looking at the Qu'ran he would have looked at many examples of its use from the time found in lexicons etc.

You cannot simply assume that any would see this fuller meaning simply because it might be in the Arabic. That is why we have hundreds of commentaries and here you in effect used one of them; you did not write this yourself did you.

So when I study the Qu'ran I do it in English and use commentaries to see what a verse might mean - just like you and every scholar who ever lived no matter what Qu'ran they use will do the same. It is just if I may say so ridiculous to ask everyone to learn 6th century Arabic. I have already shown that English has enough words to provide as good a translation as is possible and that coupled with a good commentary is in my view 99% adequate.

Any writing can be hard to understand - "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" wrote Shakespeare so what does he mean? or Socrates wrote "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy. The words here are easy but you try to explain what they mean if you can?

Every one who reads ancient literature has difficulty scholar or not. I have for Bible study a Greek and Hebrew lexicon and use Lanes lexicon for Qu'ranic Arabic. The point perhaps is that God wants us to spend effort on understanding and applying scripture and he is not going to insist we all learn Arabic, Greek and Hebrew to do it - can you see my point?
Reply

Khaldun
11-06-2009, 05:49 PM
:sl:

What you have to keep in mind is that arabic is not like latin or other ancient langauges. It is very much alive and the arabic that was spoken by the Messenger and his companions is preserved until this day. And it does not need a rosetta stone etc. We speak it every day, in the shops at school etc.

What is ridiculus is for you to think that by not learning 6th century arabic you will be able to understand the Qur'aan in English. It is like studying Shakespear in Chinese and claim to understand it fully.

I am sorry for hijacking sister Danah's thread, I will end it here. But please feel free to pm me or make another thread.
Reply

Hugo
11-06-2009, 05:59 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:

What you have to keep in mind is that arabic is not like latin or other ancient langauges. It is very much alive and the arabic that was spoken by the Messenger and his companions is preserved until this day. And it does not need a rosetta stone etc. We speak it every day, in the shops at school etc.

What is ridiculus is for you to think that by not learning 6th century arabic you will be able to understand the Qur'aan in English. It is like studying Shakespear in Chinese and claim to understand it fully.

I am sorry for hijacking sister Danah's thread, I will end it here. But please feel free to pm me or make another thread.
There is no need to pm anyone, you have added valuable comment and that is enough.

No one speaks 6th century Arabic everyday and there are hundreds of dialects. My point was that to understand the Qu'ran in Arabic or English or any language you care to name you MUST appreciate that it is 6th Century Arabic and so the meanings must be ones that would be understood then not now.

There is no logical reason that I should not understand fully what the Qu'ran is saying just because I do it in English aided by commentaries etc in much the same way I can understand any book from any time - this must be true?
Reply

Khaldun
11-06-2009, 06:10 PM
:sl:

I just thought we respect forum rules and respect the sisters thread she made, but ok.

That is where you are wrong I am afraid. A huge amount of people speak the fus-ha arabic (6th century arabic) on a daly basis and I am one of them.

The arabic the Prophet spoke and the arabic I speak is one and the same, word by word. That is what I am trying to put across.

No it must not be true, because to understand a thing on face value and understanding it in depth are two different things. And since you stated that you by studying Qur'aan through the english language would make you understand it 99% I beg to differ.

For an example studying the ancient writings on pyramids will need a person to be familiarsed with the language that was spoken at that time, you do not rely upon translations rather if you are serious then you learn the language of the ancient egyptians, otherwise you will be lost in translation to say the least.
Reply

Danah
11-06-2009, 07:44 PM
^ the thread was already going off topic by some others before your first post brother Khaldun, I appreciate your concern jazakAllah khair.

Originally Posted by Hugo

There is no logical reason that I should not understand fully what the Qu'ran is saying just because I do it in English aided by commentaries etc in much the same way I can understand any book from any time - this must be true?
I am sorry to say that you are missing something here......Reading Quran in Arabic is totally different than reading it in any other language.

If you want to know the real miracle behind the eloquence of Quran you can't get that by reading the translation. How can you do that when one side of the miracle is in the language itself?
The language of the Quran itself was a challenge for the most eloquent Arab tribes on that time, they thought of it as a poem, then as a magic! they couldn't believe that this can be a talk of a man, but it was a revelation from God
Reply

OurIslamic
11-06-2009, 07:56 PM
Read Shakespeare lol.
Reply

Fishman
11-07-2009, 09:05 PM
:sl:
Shakespeare's English isn't actually Old English. Old English was spoken by the Saxons and is like a completely different language.

Middle English is a bit more easy to understand, but is still very different to Shakespeare's writing.
:wa:
Reply

Hugo
11-08-2009, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:I just thought we respect forum rules and respect the sisters thread she made, but ok.

That is where you are wrong I am afraid. A huge amount of people speak the fus-ha arabic (6th century arabic) on a daly basis and I am one of them.

The arabic the Prophet spoke and the arabic I speak is one and the same, word by word. That is what I am trying to put across.

No it must not be true, because to understand a thing on face value and understanding it in depth are two different things. And since you stated that you by studying Qur'aan through the english language would make you understand it 99% I beg to differ.

For an example studying the ancient writings on pyramids will need a person to be familiarsed with the language that was spoken at that time, you do not rely upon translations rather if you are serious then you learn the language of the ancient egyptians, otherwise you will be lost in translation to say the least.
This I find most interesting - just need to be clear are you saying that all Arabs from the middle east all speak the same Arabic in daily living? Now in a sense I understand the same English that Shakespeare spoke and I can read him with understanding but I would like any other English speaker have enormous difficulty speaking it aloud or writing it now because some words are not used any more and some words have meanings which are now obscure plus there have been changes in the underlying rhythms.

Also the colouring of some words have changed so they don't now mean quite the same thing. That is why if we want to get a fuller understanding we have to immerse ourself in Elizabethan culture and writings. In short it seem impossible that in 1400 years the Arabic language has not moved on if you are right.

In your example about the Egyptians you are in fact simply repeating what I said about Arabic that to understand it one has to transport oneself back to the 6th century. For most of us that is impossible.

In short are you arguing that we cannot understand the Qu'ran and therefore cannot understand what God has to say unless we learn 6th Century Arabic?

I just add a final note to say that Muslim scholars themselves are aware of the difficulties and obscurities of the sacred text.

1. It contain a large number of foreign words with new meaning pressed into service.

2. There are a large number of treatise by Muslim philologist and on has the exiting title 'Gharib al-Qu'ran' which can be translated as 'Strange Expressions in the Qu'ran' (Aban b. Taghlib (d758)

3. Muslim exegete's divide Qu'ranic words into 4 classes: Khass - words used in a special sense, Amm - collective or common, Mushtarak - complex words with several meaning and Mu'awwal - words with several meaning all of which are possible so require special explanation.

An interesting example of the last class is the word for slay inhar from the root nahr. Hanifa translates it in Sura 107:2 as 'sacrifice' but Shafi'i says it means 'placing the hands on the breads in prayer'. Hanafi and Shafi'i were leading fiqh scholars so this shows it is not a simple matter to know what is being said.

In the same way sentences (Ibarah) in the Qu'ran are in two classes Zahir meaning obvious and Khafi meaning hidden so again it is not always a simple matter without expert support to know what is being said.
Reply

Khaldun
11-08-2009, 08:23 PM
:sl:

Please qoute me if I said that the whole arabic world speaks one type of arabic.

What I said was that a large portion of us still speak the same arabic the Prophet spoke, word by word. The language is still alive.

First of all do not make assumptions if you do not know a language, the pure form of arabic is still spoken until this day and there is no barrier because of time.


You are going in circles, one time you are agreeing with me then you are saying it is impossible? It is not impossible and that is what makes arabic unique from other dead tongues.

So now you are a scholar of Qur'aanic arabic? Do you even know why the scholars made these books that you refer too? It is not because it is odd words as such, but rather it is the fact that it might only appear one or two times in the entire Qur'aan and thus it is refered to as Ghareeb, it has nothing to do with what you are referring to I am afraid.

And as for the words that you qouted, if it comes as a suprise to you that one word can have more then one meaning without the meanings being contradicting then I suggest you study abit more about languages.
Reply

OurIslamic
11-08-2009, 08:25 PM
Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Shakespeare's English isn't actually Old English. Old English was spoken by the Saxons and is like a completely different language.

Middle English is a bit more easy to understand, but is still very different to Shakespeare's writing.
:wa:
I thought the OP was referring to the type of English which Shakespeare used. Wasn't his early modern english?
Reply

Fishman
11-08-2009, 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by OurIslamic
I thought the OP was referring to the type of English which Shakespeare used. Wasn't his early modern english?
Yeah, Shakespeare spoke Early Modern English, which is not that different to today's speech.
Reply

Hugo
11-08-2009, 09:11 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:Please qoute me if I said that the whole arabic world speaks one type of arabic.

What I said was that a large portion of us still speak the same arabic the Prophet spoke, word by word. The language is still alive.

First of all do not make assumptions if you do not know a language, the pure form of arabic is still spoken until this day and there is no barrier because of time.

Hugo - I cannot quote you as saying that the whole Arab world speak the same Arabic and I did not say you did. I asked for clarification - were you saying that every Arab spoke 6th Century Arabic. If there is no barrier because of time then Arabic is like no other language except dead ones and that the way a 6th century Arab would understand a word would be the same as you understand it now.

You are going in circles, one time you are agreeing with me then you are saying it is impossible? It is not impossible and that is what makes arabic unique from other dead tongues.

Hugo - I am looking for clarification so its nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. Everything I have read talks about many different dialects back in the 6th century and now plus the existence of a diglossia or literary and spoken forms. So I find it very surprising that you and many can write and speak lets say easily in the Arabic of the Qu'ran in daily life.

So now you are a scholar of Qur'aanic arabic? Do you even know why the scholars made these books that you refer too? It is not because it is odd words as such, but rather it is the fact that it might only appear one or two times in the entire Qur'aan and thus it is refered to as Ghareeb, it has nothing to do with what you are referring to I am afraid.

Hugo - no I am not a scholar of Qu'ranic Arabic. Of course I know why philologists constructed such books because there was need to standardise the language and enable later scholars to understand more fully what the words and constructs meant because there are difficulties with the Arabic in the Qu'ran just as there would be in any ancient writings - if there were not why would scholars bother to spend years doing this kind of painstaking work. You make no comment on what I said about classification of Qu'ranic words or sentences or the example I gave of the kind of difficulty so I assume - can I assume, you agree?

And as for the words that you qouted, if it comes as a suprise to you that one word can have more then one meaning without the meanings being contradicting then I suggest you study abit more about languages.
It is obvious from you comment that you do not understand the differences between the classifications of Mushtarak and Mu'awwal. It is clear and indeed I think everyone knows that in many languages (including English) the same word can have several different meanings and sometimes as in Arabic opposite meanings and we can make sense of this usually by the context in which they are used. However, in the Qu'ran there are cases where a word has several meaning but its exact meaning in that context is unknown or it is unsure. I am not making this up your own scholars knew all this centuries ago and it is common in probably every language.
Reply

Khaldun
11-10-2009, 04:36 PM
:sl:

I realise where the problem lies now. You are like many other people, knowledgable concerning one language [english] and then now you apply your knowledge of this particular language to arabic which is totally different.

My point still stands, to understand the Qur'aan fully you have to learn the language it was revealed in i.e 6th century arabic.
Reply

Hugo
11-10-2009, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:I realise where the problem lies now. You are like many other people, knowledgable concerning one language [english] and then now you apply your knowledge of this particular language to arabic which is totally different.

My point still stands, to understand the Qur'aan fully you have to learn the language it was revealed in i.e 6th century arabic.
I agree and if you look at my post that is exactly what I have been saying the only difference is that I do it at a distance through lexicons and commentaries. Of course it is different from English which uses for example word order to covey meaning whereas Arabic characteristically does it by word endings. But at the same time Arabic derives from the Semitic family which include Hebrew and Aramaic so because the Bible is so well known there is a sense that we are used to some of the forms and constructions.

However, I come back to my original point that for you an Arabic speaker it is obviously easier to understand but even you have to transport yourself back to the 6th Century to be sure you have understood the words correctly.

Interestingly, many Arabic words and some forms entered European languages because of Muslim conquests in the 10th centuries and Arabic texts on medicine, history, science, language and translations of Greek works circulated widely at that time.

So whilst in some ideal world it would be best to learn 6th century Arabic to understand the Qu'ran it is not a practical solution for the vast majority of people and I cannot see how God would be limited by Arabic or any other language - do you agree or do you see another way forward?
Reply

Khaldun
11-10-2009, 06:13 PM
:sl:

What you seem to have difficulty in grasping is that the 6th century arabic is the arabic I speak today! It is refered to as Fus-ha and has not changed abit through out the ages.

And with all due respect you are only confusing me, in the beginning of your post you say we agree, then you say you cannot see how God could limit Himself to 6th century arabic?
Reply

Hugo
11-10-2009, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:

What you seem to have difficulty in grasping is that the 6th century arabic is the arabic I speak today! It is refered to as Fus-ha and has not changed abit through out the ages.

And with all due respect you are only confusing me, in the beginning of your post you say we agree, then you say you cannot see how God could limit Himself to 6th century arabic?
Of course there is standard Arabic but my point and what I thought I was agreeing to was that the connotations, shades of meaning etc that you need to be aware of are 6th century ones not 21st century ones and its is hard to see that these could be unchanged.

A question - if you stick to just 6th century Arabic then there are 1000s of modern terms that are absent from the language and it would therefore be inadequate if it really has not changed a bit?

A Question - I am not sure whether you are saying that to understand what God is saying is only possible in Arabic - is this your view?
Reply

Khaldun
11-10-2009, 06:46 PM
:sl:

Throughout your posts you have only made assumption after assumption and not brought any evidence. Arabic is not like other languages you have studied so please do not assume things.

Of course there is standard Arabic but my point and what I thought I was agreeing to was that the connotations, shades of meaning etc that you need to be aware of are 6th century ones not 21st century ones and its is hard to see that these could be unchanged.
A question - if you stick to just 6th century Arabic then there are 1000s of modern terms that are absent from the language and it would therefore be inadequate if it really has not changed a bit?
A Question - I am not sure whether you are saying that to understand what God is saying is only possible in Arabic - is this your view?
Assumption after assumption, if you do not have any evidence for whatever it is you are claiming [because quite frankly I am lost since you agree with me yet disagree at the same time] then I will leave the debate here.

May Allah guide us to that which He loves and pleases Him the most.
Reply

Hugo
11-10-2009, 06:57 PM
Originally Posted by Khaldun
:sl:

Throughout your posts you have only made assumption after assumption and not brought any evidence. Arabic is not like other languages you have studied so please do not assume things.

Assumption after assumption, if you do not have any evidence for whatever it is you are claiming [because quite frankly I am lost since you agree with me yet disagree at the same time] then I will leave the debate here.

May Allah guide us to that which He loves and pleases Him the most.
I cannot quite see where I have made any assumptions and mostly I have asked questions. You are doing that it seem - here you say Arabic is not like other languages but it clearly is part of its own family - it as far as I know is not an isolate like for example German?

I can provide all sorts of evidence if you wish to continue but in that case we need I think at this point a new thread - it might be a very useful thread as we all have much to learn and language is such a vital and central part of all our lives - do you want to continue?
Reply

Khaldun
11-10-2009, 07:13 PM
:sl:

You did not ask questions rather you put words in my mouth and only posed them as a question.

Feel free to open a seperate thread if you like, but since you have not studied arabic in any great depth I think any discussion regarding this matter will be futile to say the least.

But me personally I can tell when it is worth discussing a matter and when it is not.

And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace. [Surah Furqaan]
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-01-2015, 06:14 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 05:40 PM
  3. Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-20-2006, 06:17 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!