لسانك لا تذكر به عورة امرئ Ùكلك عـورات وللــناس ألـســــــن وعينك إن أبدت إليك مساويا من الناس قل يا عين للناس أعين In light of above-written arabic verses, I shall urge this discussion no farther. I think I naturally become infuriated when someone "gratitiously" castigates my writing. Dear Danger write as you see fit and let whomsoever wants to write refined theirs. Mea culpa for any incisive remarks. With Salaams PK

Og_moti: Needs must you generalize, Og moti? It was Dangerous who started this whole cavilling contest, it was "Dangerous" who did the "copy and post" from Arabic forums, it was Dangerous who disagrees for no apparent reason; I am not "Dangerous". I thought you should have been able to diffrentiate as much. Alas! I suspect you are no different from him as you make equally glittering generalities. :rolleyes: You see, I know that I am correct, but I endlessly circle these forums like a shark in the hope of gobbling up another hapless somali. This site is indeed a good fishing spot; I have confessedly succumbed to the temptation. With Salaams PK P.S. I did not speak ill of the use of the arabic language by anyone on this forum. I merely asked the quibbler to explain what he was quibbling over. As you can see, he presented a very good explication; viz., "cut and paste" job and "your arabic is weak". I never made such allegations.

NGONGE: Many thanks old chap for the much requiste lucid elucidation. Prithee, is not the parsing performed therein (the link) the self-same parsing that Dangerous provided herein? I shan't make any suppostions as to the truth of this seemingly disingenuous duplicity; be that as it may, I must own that it contains that all- too- familiar malodor that is the onslaught on intellectual property. So I must say: Ùيا لله العجب! ولله ÙÙŠ خلقه شؤون Ùيا لله عجبا! ولله ÙÙŠ خلقه شؤون Ùيا للعجب! ولله ÙÙŠ خلقه شؤون With Salaams PK

Originally posted by Aeryn Sun: I have always been an elite. I find Mutakalim's sardonic posts delightful! Find you my posts "sardonic"? :eek:

Great poem. This is "al-fanaa" or annihilation; at this level of the spiritual journey, there is nothing but He. Alas! this incommunicable and intimate proximity to the Beloved is something I have for so long desired. With Salaams Philosopher-King

الحمد لله الذي عاÙاني مما ابتلاء بها

OG_Girl Good. I think that this misunderstanding has been mended. And yes, I believe we have doctrinal similarites. With Salaams PK

Saxib your english explanation of your arabic parcing skills is just another ruse aimed at proofing me wrong Do you think that I explained my "parsing" (icraab) in english? :eek: Do you even know what you are talking about? I have never explained my parsing in english. If you think the allusions to syntax and semantics was an explanation of my arabic parsing, then there is , indeed, a language barrier; namely, you do not understand english. :rolleyes: Please do not "construe" (not constute, Good Danger) this as an insult; you may not be proficient in the English language, but I am most sure that you are an adept person in other feilds. You are protracting this dialogue unnecessarily, dear Danger. When you say of a sentence or phrase that it is "bad grammer", you have to refer to the rules of "syntax". I am not interested in the parsing of your phrase, rather I am interested as to why you think that the grammer of MY phrase is unsound. For the quintillionth time, what is exactly wrong with the "grammer" of my phrase. Why do you think that writing "al-cajb" is gramatically wrong in this phrase. Refer to the arabic books of grammer, and then tell me, Dear Danger, why it must be written "cajaban". That is the only difference between my phrase and your phrase. You see, Danger, there is nothing wrong with writing "al-cajab" (in this context) from a grammatical stand point. If you think otherwise, then explain your thinking. and even if you werent wrong, tell me why in hell do you avoid writing your arguments in Arabic? So you think I might be right. Now, why do you think I might be right, Dear Danger. Uh, let me hazard a guess, you know not why I am wrong and you know not why I am right; I suspected as much. I thought it would take me a fortnight to convince you of this fact. If you are not well versed in Arabic Grammer, then you should not critque the writing of others. Do not digress from the subject, Dear Danger, for it matters not what language I choose to explain that the phrase penned herein suffers not from any grammatical greif. P.S. I am tired. Tired because I have expalined many a time that my grammer is "good". Good Danger does not apprehend what it means to say that the grammer of a certain phrase is healthy. Healthy he is not for he has made many a disparaging remark. Remark, O Arabic Readers and Writers, on the unjustifiablity of his remarks! With Salaams PK

Yes. Ramadan Kariim to all. May He bestow upon us the many bounties that He gives in the month of Ramadan.

Originally posted by OG_Girl: Exactly... I put my comment and deleted cause NO point of it at all....you right Nur would enjoy painting people as a "kuffar"....loooooooooool Salam With all due reverence, I completely disagree with your statement. I did not insinutate what you wrote. My query "where is Nur" was save a geniuine question; he has not been posting of late, hence my query.

Originally posted by Sophist: Sheekhsupeer iyo Kambpirijba adigu qaado, nugaal iidaa aniga. Hear, Hear

I see no point in replying to people who merely cut and paste. The least they can do is paraphrase the author's argument. By the way, where is Nur?

Can you please provide the reference for the article you have posted.

NGONGE: I must own that you have relatively a finer fortitude. Your debators have not a shred of argument and they are not pretending of having one either. Perhaps you derive pleasure from indulging the commoners.

Are there not any doctors of Islam? It seems that very few people study philosophy and theology. Philosophy and Theology are, indeed, the most self-concious of all the discplines. Verily, the study of philosophy is the summum bonum of life.

At the outset of our exchange, Dear Danger, you penned this regarding a phrase I have written: "bad grammer". Grammer and spelling are not related aught, Dear Danger. One could not know the orthography of a phrase yet write a gramatically sound proposition. For example, "i did not slep at al lasst nigght" does indeed violate the rules of orthography but it does not violate the rules of syntax , viz., the rules of grammer. Syntax and spelling are not synonymous, Danger. Your objection, although gratitously unjustified, was over the use of the following phrase and not the parsing of the phrase. Do you now remember, Dear Danger. I was the author of the former phrase and you the latter. Ùيا لله العحب! ولله ÙÙŠ خلقه شؤون Ùيا لله عحبا! ولله ÙÙŠ خلقه شؤون The syntax and semantics of these two phrases are correct. Should you concieve of any possible violations of the rules of "syntax" or the science of semantics, then you ought to expound the defiencey therein, Dear Danger. Let me explicate it to you in a different way. If a proposition does not "breach" the rules of grammer (i.e. syntax) and is not meaningless (i.e. semantics), then the proposition is linguistically healthy. That is to say, it is in accordance with academically accepted methods of writing and/or speaking. What is wrong with the phrase I have utilised, you must needs explain. My patience is wearing thin, Dear Danger, do shew me the light in this ever long labrynith of language. P.S. Do you even follow what I am trying to elucidate. Spelling and Grammer are part of the "mechanics" of a language. Spelling is not Grammer, Dear Danger. I shan't elucidate this to you again! You can not expect to allege that someone is using "bad grammer" without providing minimal substantiation thereof. Should you reply in the same fashion you have done in the last two replies, namely, the dispensing of ad hominimums and the displaying of red herring, I shall not reply to you again. With Salaams PK

Originally posted by SHOOBARO: Ps:boolbaro xaa dhacay sxb? asxantu

Dangerous Let me put the question to you once more, dear Danger. Think you I violated any of the rules of syntax . Surely you must needs concur that from a semantics angle it is entirely valid. Need I expound the meaning of syntax and semantics, dear Danger. Human Language has two aspects, namely, syntax and semantics. Syntax is simply the study of sentence structure (i.e. grammer) whereas semantics is the study of the meaning and uses of words and phrases. You said that I was incorrect "linguistically" but did not provide an explication. Am I flibustering, dear Danger, I think not. Both variations of the phrase are omnipresent in Arabic literature, dear danger. It is perchance "semantics" that you are quibbling over, but that is not a "black or white" area, dear Danger, rather it is a grey area open for interpretation. Grammer deals with syntax not semantics, Danger. For instance, the phrase " Peter jumped over his intestines and then ate the sun with the cup " does not violate the rules of syntax; however, semantically it is fatally flawed. What is ,precisely, wrong with the "syntax" of my phrase, dear Danger. You see, Danger, it is good to correct a person insofar as the correction be adequeately justified. And woe betide he who cavils and quibbles unnecessarily. Enlighten me, dear Danger, I can not do better than be your desciple. If anyone knows, you are he, so I must detain you, good freind. With Salaams P.S. Perhaps we should open a different theard; I do not like to hijack the threads of others.

I must needs confess that oftentimes I am much tempted to respond to some written words ; fortutiously,sometimes I exercise restraint, and woe! on other ocassions I succumb to "myself". I shan't even entertain the idea of responding to the intimations articulated herein lest I be admonished by the "authority" once more.

Nomads I dislike very much offending others; it is perchance the scruplous moral fibres in my body that compel me to edit my posts. In the future, I shall try to be more subtle as I reply. WIth Salaams PK

[qb]Saxib trust me, you dont want to put my Naxo and Sarf skills to test.. besides its obviouse to anyone with a very little Arabic skills that the makeup of your sentense is wrong.. Dangerous: The sentence I utilised does not violate any of the rules of syntax. Also, semantically it is sound and healthy. What do you qualms over? Is is syntax or semantics? Perhaps neither... Although I have studied arabic grammer many moon ago, still I think I can "successfully" attempt the "parsing" اعرابof this phrase Ù: حر٠ابتدا يا: اداة ندا لله: الام حر٠جر. Ùˆ اسم الجلالة مجرور بحر٠الجر Ùˆ علامة جره الكسره الظاهرة على اخره. Ùˆ الجار Ùˆ المجرور ÙÙŠ محل رÙع مبتدأ. العجب: خبر "لله" مرÙوع Ùˆ علامة رÙعه الضمة الظاهرة على اخره. لله: جار Ùˆ مجرور ÙÙŠ: حر٠جر خلقه: خلق مجرور بحر٠الجر. Ùˆ هو مضا٠و الهاء ضمير متصل ÙÙŠ محل جر بالاضاÙØ© شؤون:Perhaps Dangerous can give the parsing of the last word, methinks he is an accomplished grammarian. Dawaco: I have just employed an arabic expression of surprise. Dangerous wants to correct my grammer; unfortunately for him I am familiar with Arabic Grammer. OG Girl: ابو الاسود الدوئلي هو اول من وضع قوانين علم النحو Ùˆ جاء بعده من زادوا على ما قاله, منهم: سيبويه, ابن هشام, الÙراهيدي, ابن خلدون, ابن عقيل... Yes. Abu Aswad is, indeed, cursing from his grave. NGONGE: We shall wait for Dangerous to present his explication. Assuming of course that he knows the science of grammer :rolleyes:

Dangerous Would I see you expound the manner in which my grammer is grieving? Let us see your knowledge of "naxw" and "sarf".

Aduunkaan Cajaaib Badanaa! Eray yar hadaan qoro, afarta gees ayaa laygaga soo weerereyaa. Hadaba in aanu bani adaam ku xadgudubno waa arin uu Eebe nagaga digay; suubanuhuna wuxuu yiri "maalinta qiyaame dulmiga waa dulumaat". Dadyahow, ma ogtihiin, maalin un, waxaad qu hadashaan ama qortaan in la idinku xisaabinayo(waxaad Somalia Online qu qortaan xataa ha ahaado). Qof raacsan diinta nabi Maxammad oo Ilaahay aaminsan maxaad ka rabtaan? I think it points to Dawaco's prudence to write a "disclaimer" at the beginning of this thread. Nothwithstanding, many members choose to ignore this as they commenced to post their ever rancorous remarks. The rationale behind my post is not the eliciting of a firestorm of hostile comments. It is just that I do not "censure" myself as I write; althought from experience, it would be advisable to do so. OG Gal, I find contentment in the fact that some Nomads do not always find my posts "offensive" or percieve an aura of "isla weyni". From all the accusations of arrogance, I was almost led to beleive that I am haughty person. Pheew! With Salaams PK

Edit: Are my posts' distasteful? Well, many senior Nomads think thus, perhaps I have crossed the proverbial line. By God, this is an epiphany! I find myself apologizing ceaslessly; mea culpa once more. With Salaams PK