tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
I tried to paste but couldn't. How can I paste images here? Please PM me. Thanks.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arabic - Proof of it Being the Original Language
- Thread starter tariqkhwaja
- Start date
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Can anyone help me here? Pasting images on threads how? I am too lazy to send PMs to the admins.
herushura
Active Member
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Yeah but I have a PDF document to paste from. I tried moving image from Word but that doesn't seem to work.
kai
ragamuffin
Worshipper
Active Member
If it's already online, you could post a link to it. Otherwise, you could publish it elsewhere (like a blog) yourself, and then link to it.
It is possible to capture a picture from a PDF document and host it somewhere like 2and.net or photobucket.com, too.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
I gave the link to the PDF in an earlier post. In any case thanks a lot Luis. I should have it posted by tomorrow night (about 24 hours from now).
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Oh comon I didn't know you have to join photobucket to upload. This will have to wait another 24 hours. Again please go to pages 14 of the link I gave earlier (I can't find the link either now).
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
YOU ALL OWE ME. To think I joined a photo sharing website for this. Tch.
In any case:
In any case:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
For one, why do we owe you? You're the one who has something to prove. It only reflects badly on you if you don't support your claims.
Now, as to what you posted, as I already said, how do you figure that means that all of the roots came from Arabic? How do you figure that it wasn't just a case of Arabic getting its roots from the same mother language(s) as Latin and Russian and the others? You can show the similarities between several different languages' words for different things, but that doesn't mean other languages got their words from Arabic. In fact, it's infinitely more likely that they all got their roots from another language.
Now, as to what you posted, as I already said, how do you figure that means that all of the roots came from Arabic? How do you figure that it wasn't just a case of Arabic getting its roots from the same mother language(s) as Latin and Russian and the others? You can show the similarities between several different languages' words for different things, but that doesn't mean other languages got their words from Arabic. In fact, it's infinitely more likely that they all got their roots from another language.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
erm ... I was kidding. I don't like using emoticons but that backfires at times.
Yeah sure. One step at a time Mball. Glad you have nothing to say against this peace of evidence. More will come until denying the thesis statement becomes unscientific.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I didn't think we needed to establish that there are similarities and commonalities between languages. I thought that was common knowledge. Obviously, many languages share some roots and similar words and constructions. That shouldn't be news. Your job is not to show that. It is to show that those common roots and similar words are because all other languages got them from Arabic, and disprove the idea that Arabic, along with all other languages, got those roots from a mother language.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Which is why, MBall I started by presenting the groups of languages that philologists HAVE NOT been able to work out a connection between. I am claiming that the connection all of them have failed to work out can be worked out if Arabic is placed as the missing link. And I started with the last post of the previous page different translations of "run" to start pointing towards that conclusion.
Worshipper
Active Member
I think what mball's saying here is that you could show tens of thousands of similarities like these and it still wouldn't prove your point.
Let me give you an example to show that it wouldn't prove your point. It's the same example mball has been using.
Let's say there exist 50,000 sets of similarities like this set for 'run'. And let's say they're all from basic vocabulary, too, like run is and not like, say, chloroplast. That many similarities would account for pretty much all the working lexicon of most languages.
Let's also say that Arabic is like a linguistic sponge, absorbing up words in every language it encounters. Arabic speakers have sailed far over the years. They've been major players in world trade and civilization for many centuries. I wouldn't doubt it a bit if Arabs even had contact with Australia and America before Europeans did. They might have met just about every major ethnic group in the world by the beginning of the modern age. They might have encountered every major language in the world.
Now if Arabic is a linguistic sponge, as it were, soaking up all these words from all these languages, then that would explain every single element in each of those 50,000 sets pretty nicely. We wouldn't need to say that Arabic was the source of all languages, just that it had borrowed from all languages.
Incidentally, that would also explain why Arabic has such a spectacularly large lexicon, just as English has a large lexicon among the European languages because it has borrowed so much from foreign sources. Since the lexicon of Arabic dwarfs that of English, it would not be tough to believe that Arabic has borrowed on a scale that far outpaces English's borrowing.
So if you keep providing data like the data you've provided so far, you won't prove your point, since either your conclusion or this other conclusion would be equally supported by the data. Actually, this other conclusion would end up being better supported because it would explain more data than your conclusion would.
To prove your point, you've got to go further with each set and show how the words in each language developed from their Arabic source. Those developments need to be consistent across all words within each daughter language, too.
Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.
Let me give you an example to show that it wouldn't prove your point. It's the same example mball has been using.
Let's say there exist 50,000 sets of similarities like this set for 'run'. And let's say they're all from basic vocabulary, too, like run is and not like, say, chloroplast. That many similarities would account for pretty much all the working lexicon of most languages.
Let's also say that Arabic is like a linguistic sponge, absorbing up words in every language it encounters. Arabic speakers have sailed far over the years. They've been major players in world trade and civilization for many centuries. I wouldn't doubt it a bit if Arabs even had contact with Australia and America before Europeans did. They might have met just about every major ethnic group in the world by the beginning of the modern age. They might have encountered every major language in the world.
Now if Arabic is a linguistic sponge, as it were, soaking up all these words from all these languages, then that would explain every single element in each of those 50,000 sets pretty nicely. We wouldn't need to say that Arabic was the source of all languages, just that it had borrowed from all languages.
Incidentally, that would also explain why Arabic has such a spectacularly large lexicon, just as English has a large lexicon among the European languages because it has borrowed so much from foreign sources. Since the lexicon of Arabic dwarfs that of English, it would not be tough to believe that Arabic has borrowed on a scale that far outpaces English's borrowing.
So if you keep providing data like the data you've provided so far, you won't prove your point, since either your conclusion or this other conclusion would be equally supported by the data. Actually, this other conclusion would end up being better supported because it would explain more data than your conclusion would.
To prove your point, you've got to go further with each set and show how the words in each language developed from their Arabic source. Those developments need to be consistent across all words within each daughter language, too.
Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Yes I need to show development as well I agree. As I stated: one step at a time.
But having said that all the travelling and communication that happened took place after the Quran was revealed. Do you agree with that? If so then by inference if I use words in the Quran it would establish that the words I am using existed in Arabic long before the world advanced in transportation and communication as it has today (i.e. 1400 years ago). Classical Arabic taught at schools throughout the Arab world and is the official language of most Arab countries is what I am referring to. The Quran is in that classical Arabic.
That said, I need to confirm whether the Arabic synonyms for 'run' presented above are all in the Quran or not. If so then I believe this is a strong support in favor of my argument because the state of Arabic 1400 years ago was quite pure unlike the state of many languages is today. What do you think?
But having said that all the travelling and communication that happened took place after the Quran was revealed. Do you agree with that? If so then by inference if I use words in the Quran it would establish that the words I am using existed in Arabic long before the world advanced in transportation and communication as it has today (i.e. 1400 years ago). Classical Arabic taught at schools throughout the Arab world and is the official language of most Arab countries is what I am referring to. The Quran is in that classical Arabic.
That said, I need to confirm whether the Arabic synonyms for 'run' presented above are all in the Quran or not. If so then I believe this is a strong support in favor of my argument because the state of Arabic 1400 years ago was quite pure unlike the state of many languages is today. What do you think?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
What do you mean "Arabic 1400 years ago was quite pure unlike the state of many languages is today"?
Worshipper
Active Member
I wouldn't agree with that, actually. No question that Muhammad's teachings did wonders for the Arab people (and others who accepted his teachings) as far as their cultural advancement is concerned, but the Arabs had been sitting right on top of the crossroads of the world for centuries by the time Gabriel first came to Muhammad. Virtually all overland trade among Europe, Asia, and Africa went through Arabia. So I'm inclined to believe that Arabic would have had an unusually high degree of contact with other languages from a very early date.
That said, it would still be a good idea to date these lexical items. If they occur in the Qur'an, that gives a solid benchmark for knowing their age.
gnostic
The Lost One
worshipper said:
kai said:
Darkwater said:
The Normans were of Scandinavian origin, when Rollo led Norse Vikings and occupied the Frankish territory, in what we now call Normandy. The then French king, allowed Rollo and his men to stay as long as they accept his kingship in 911. So the Normans were given land, which became duchy. Despite this, Normandy was almost entirely independent kingdom, such was the strength of their army.
As to the language, the Normans spoke French but with Norman dialect. It was these Normans that entered and conquered England.