FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
CAN WE DO THE APPLE_PIE HERE?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:45 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"

Hello Ahmed,

You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".

You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"

Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.

ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.

Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.

Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.


Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood.


Hello baal

Again mister manipulater,

Mohammed and Ahmed are nouns to only mean human names

what you are taling about is Mahmoud, which is a human name and another Ism Sifah to indicate someone that is praised

please dismiss yourself

[Sifa - Adjective] is NOT the only form of meaningful Arabic. Claiming that "Mohammad is NOT a Sifa therefore it has no utilization in Arabic" is a Fallacy. First it has a meaning other then being a Sifa. Second, it CAN be used as a Sifa in the right context.


Now which part of this sentence did you miss:
"Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually."

You claiming that Mo-hammad is only a noun is directly implying that the word is not an Arabic word, just an Arabic name.

Easy on the manipulation there Ahmed, your conscience will cause you more trouble sleeping a night.


Last edited by Baal on Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BMZ, you too keep telling me what I already know.  I've known for decades that the verb "to be" is NOT A COMPLETE VERB IN ANY LANGUAGE EVER INVENTED.  Every language has alternate verbs it uses to establish a complete idea.  Duh.

I'm not parrotting anything, and I don't claim or need to say that Qu'ran teaches that Jesus Christ is God.  I don't believe in the Qu'ran, it's no support for anything divine.  It ridicules God Himself, doesn't even deem God worthy of being paid for sin, so all I need to figure out is if it's human, or demonic in its origin.  Is+lam means it is NOT from God, period.

You seem to think I need to support Apple Pie or he me. He and I do not agree either, and it doesn't matter.  I'm asking a grammar question, that's all.  I don't care what the answer is, I just want to know what it is.  And you and Ahmed are most unhelpful, because every question seems to threaten you both.  So you resort to chicanery.  

Never mind.  I finally got what I needed from Apple Pie, ex-jinni and now from All-Brains (whose understanding I value the most).

For the last time, the question is a technical one, has to do with conditional clauses and the meaning of "if and it's true" being discerned by which grammatical devices.  It is NOT about what "kana" even means.  I knew that, just as anyone knows.  It's EASY.

But since you and Ahmed STILL do not read I cannot go on with you.  You don't know how silly it makes you both look that you don't even read the questions posed, and post irrelevancies in reply.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baal wrote:
Quote:
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"

Hello Ahmed,

You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".

You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"

Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.

ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.

Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.

Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.


Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood.


This is really helpful, Baal.  Thank you.

All-Brains, do you have any remarks on the morphological comments made here by Baal?  Thanks in advance!
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

brainout wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"

Hello Ahmed,

You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".

You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"

Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.

ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.

Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.

Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.


Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood.


This is really helpful, Baal.  Thank you.

All-Brains, do you have any remarks on the morphological comments made here by Baal?  Thanks in advance!

I noticed a typo: The last word "Met-Sharrak" should have read "Met-Hammad"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baal wrote:
brainout wrote:
Agreed, Pazuzu.  You put it well!

We Christians tend to make that same error.  Basically if we see the text of the 'other side' agreeing with our own, we call it "valid", and if it doesn't, then the other side is wrong.

The deeper issue is WHOSE CHARACTER is displayed in the text.  That's what I'm testing for.  Because, agreement can be had from either a demon writer or a Divine writer -- or, a human who had his facts straight.  So agreement tells me nothing.  It's the character of the author of the book, which is determinative.

I submit you can tell character of the author from a large piece of writing.  And it's a kind of autograph, really.

We have to teach people at an early age that a valid argument is just an argument that does not contain fallacies. That a valid argument can still be True or False. Validating an argument before accepting it or refuting it is a minimum before a person can go around claiming to have a free will.


Agreed, Baal.  And always keep questionning the premise, even when you're sure you've got the right answer, for there will always be details and dimensions of it, yet to revise or learn. Smile
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:34 am    Post subject: Sounds familiar… Reply with quote

Baal wrote:
You claiming that Mo-hammad is only a noun is directly implying that the word is not an Arabic word, just an Arabic name.

Easy on the manipulation there Ahmed, your conscience will cause you more trouble sleeping a night.

Coming from a muslim and South Asian background this sounds VERY familiar to me. I have grown up getting taught ridiculous things like this by folks. For example, the name ‘A’ishah (however you want to transliterate it into English) means ‘alive’ in ‘Arabi. Yet people kept telling me it simply meant ‘Prophet’s wife’. I exposed the absurdity of this when someone told me that Khadijah (Muhammad’s first wife, and many years his senior) also meant prophet’s wife! Ridiculous…
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, but in defense (lol I can't believe I'm doing this) to make a name out of a participle, verb+implied noun, is a very common practice in the Hebrew names of the Bible.  It's done by concatenation.  Ezekiel, Dawid, especially blatant sentences like Methusaleh -- these are all doctrinal statements, given as names to people.  A reminder.

Even YH+WH is a concatenation of two verbs, to make God's Most Holy Name which no Jew will pronounce  -- so they say, "Adonai" (-oi, today).

So wouldn't that be a similar Arabic practice?
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baal -- I'm still thinking over your morphologizing post reply to Ahmed.  In Qu'ranic Arabic, I take it an adjective can be used as a substantive?  If "yes", must the adjective be restricted to plural or verbal forms/meanings in order to become a substantive?  Or are the rules more complex than that? Thanks.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AhmedBahgat
Golden Member
Golden Member


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 671


Location: Australia
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"

Hello Ahmed,

You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".

You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"

Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.

ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.

Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.

Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.


Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood.


Hello baal

Again mister manipulater,

Mohammed and Ahmed are nouns to only mean human names

what you are taling about is Mahmoud, which is a human name and another Ism Sifah to indicate someone that is praised

please dismiss yourself

[Sifa - Adjective] is NOT the only form of meaningful Arabic. Claiming that "Mohammad is NOT a Sifa therefore it has no utilization in Arabic" is a Fallacy. First it has a meaning other then being a Sifa. Second, it CAN be used as a Sifa in the right context.


Now which part of this sentence did you miss:
"Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually."

You claiming that Mo-hammad is only a noun is directly implying that the word is not an Arabic word, just an Arabic name.

Easy on the manipulation there Ahmed, your conscience will cause you more trouble sleeping a night.



why don't you put it both words in a common sentecne you freak where the words don't mean human names

btw, be careful with the tashkil as I will hold it against you, fool
_________________
And say: Truth has arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is bound to perish.
[The Quran ; 17:81]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AhmedBahgat wrote:
 
why don't you put it both words in a common sentecne you freak where the words don't mean human names

btw, be careful with the tashkil as I will hold it against you, fool


Salaams, bro

It is a good thing you warned Baal on tashkeel. That would be a torture for Baal, bro!

Now Baal will be contacting Applie_Pie or would be googling for Tashkeel or Tashkil. lol! I guess he  will now come up with Mu-hamidah. lol!

Cheers, mate
BMZ


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum