T
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
I don’t know Navajo so I’m not sure. It was explained to me by the professor who first told me about it as a matter of analogical extension, e.g., the battery might be conceived of as the “heart” because it powers the car like the heart powers the body, etc.
Well, okay, but my point is that no language is actually pure, in the sense of not having taken on any foreign words or influences. There are, of course, dead languages to which new (foreign or native) terms aren’t added because there’s no one around to need them, but as far as natural spoken living languages are concerned, no language is pure. It’s a matter of degree as to how each preserves assumed (proto)-_____ features (morphology, phonology, etc.), but that certainly doesn’t lead us in the direction of saying “this language is pure because it has preserved X”. By way of illustration from phonology, we can look to the Indo-European set of unvoiced stops, which are provided in the Guide to Appendix I of the 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary as follows:
I.E. → p t k kw (kw = labialized k; the w should be a superscript)
From that set of sounds, the following correspondences have been established (+ = dead language):
Hittite+ → p t k ku
Tocharian+ → p t/c/ts k/ś k/ś
Lithuanian → p t š k
Greek → p t k p/t/k
Latin+ → p t c qu
Old Irish+ → – t c c “–” = p was lost in Old Irish]
Old English+ → f th h hw
There were many more languages in the table, but above is a representative sample of some of the sound changes that occurred in the divergence from (P)I-E in a number of its descendants. It is important to note that Hittite is said to have likely gone extinct by 1100 BC (the last records stop ~ 1200 BC), and Tocharian (a branch with two or three languages, rather than a single language) by 9th century AD, so you can measure a sort of relative rate of change between languages this way, i.e. Hittite had preserved the majority of the I-E sound correspondences, and died out early on, preventing any further changes. Tocharian, which went extinct some several hundred years later, shows considerably more variation (where I-E had t, Tocharian had sometimes t, sometimes c, sometimes ts). And so on and so forth, throughout the ages. The point is: Even at the level of individual sounds (and so certainly at the level of word formation), there is no stability or purity, only differing rates of change. I am not a historical linguist, but if I had to guess I would say that the situation in Icelandic is at least helped by the geography of the place. In the same way that islands produce a baffling array of flora and fauna not found in other environments (e.g., Madagascar), languages that are literally cut off from foreign influence also develop or retain archaic features in surprising ways. It might have also helped that the Icelanders were under Norse and Danish rule for so long. The Scandinavian languages form a dialect continuum similar to any other group of related languages (e.g., the South Slavic dialect continuum in the Balkans), which gives their language an insular quality: Their nearest neighbors are Scandinavians, just like they are, so most of the new words that enter their language would likely enter via Norse or Danish, which share a common origin with Icelandic, meaning that there is less phonological “re-tooling” that needs to happen to create an “Icelandic” form of whatever the word is. So you have loan words that look and behave like native words and might not be obvious to anyone who doesn’t know their history or the mechanisms of borrowing. Wikipedia has an interesting example of one such word:
Sapir and Zuckermann (2008) demonstrate how Icelandic camouflages many English words by means of phonosemantic matching. For example, the Icelandic-looking word eyðni, meaning “AIDS”, is a phonosemantic match of the English acronym AIDS, using the pre-existent Icelandic verb eyða (“to destroy”) and the Icelandic nominal suffix -ni. (source)
Nablais,
I agree with your first post as a Christian. I also believe its through love that we can reach those outside of Christianity. The question is will we also drink his cup (martyrdom) in the process in order for them to see the truth? As for the followers of Islam, how far will they go to reach us?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
I agree with your first post as a Christian. I also believe its through love that we can reach those outside of Christianity. The question is will we also drink his cup (martyrdom) in the process in order for them to see the truth? As for the followers of Islam, how far will they go to reach us?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
N
nablaise
Guest
I think we need to be ready to drink the cup. In today’s Mass we were reminded that who does not pick up his cross is not worthy of Him. We can not reach anyone without taking our cross and embracing it.
How far can they go. I think the best of them can reach as far as Gethsemane. He can not go beyond without ceasing to be Muslim.
The point of meeting (worth the meeting) is Paradise, and we can not reach it without Golgotha.
God bless
S
schaick
Guest
LOL! We have certainly gooten off topic but hey check this out:
Hhttp://www.angelfire.com/rock3/countryboy79/navajo_slang.html
AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome)
Navajo phrase: Naaniih yich’ááh naabaahígíí baah dahoo’aahgo
This is the word literally means, “disease of the disease fighter”. The body’s immune system is called “disease fighter” (naaniih yich’ááh naabaahígíí) in Navajo, so this term describes what is going on at that stage of HIV infection, when the body is no longer able to fight off disease. Scroll down below for another variant, listed as HIV. This is taken from the UNM HSC Center for Development & Disability Website. I included this as a slang phrase because it is not really in use. There’s no real word for AIDS.
Actually maybe the truth about Icelandic is not the purity of it but that it has not** changed ** over the centuries the way english has changed from the old english to todays english and classical arabic to today’s arabic. Making it is easier for an Icelander to read the saga then it is for us to read old english and arabs to read classical arabic.
F
FaithJoy
Guest
You admit they are different readings? You make it sound that the very nature of ancient Arabic is to say many things without being clear. Very convenient. How can you be wrong if you have many meanings?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
The Arabic language is different than Indo-European languages. With the exception of a few words borrowed from other languages (there were some, even in ancient Arabic, that were borrowed or without known roots) most words are based on a three letter root. (There are some words with 4- and 5-letter roots, but most words have three.) Those three letters can be “morphed” into a variety of different forms. The Arabic term for this is صرف (sarf).
Sometimes, the morphology of a word creates some difficulty in speech, so to make things easier on the tongue, Arabs would adapt the pronunciation to make it more smooth and flowing. Different dialects might do this in different ways.
You have, for instance, the word مؤمن, (mu’min) which means a believer. There’s a stop after the “oo” sound because of a letter called hamza, which is part of the root (ء م ن). So some readings will include the stop, but to make it even more smooth, it’s allowed in some readings to omit the stop. مومن (moomin). From the same root is also the word for belief: إمان. (Emaan). But direct from the صرف (sarf) or morphology of the word, you would get the إئمان which is kind of hard to say, so one of the hamzas is dropped.
Another example of a different kind of reading is on the first chapter, where two different readings are allowed for the word ملك–it can be read this way, “malik” or as مالك “maalik” with a longer vowel sound after the “m” letter meem م. The two words are similar, from the same root and even have the same basic meaning, but with subtle differences. They both mean “owner.” But the first, ملك is the word for a king or sovereign, someone who has ownership of a domain or a kingdom. They control what happens in the kingdom on a large scale, but normally a king isn’t familiar with each and every detail of daily life of each person in the kingdom. The word مالك on the other hand refers to the owner of someone who is familiar with all of its intimate details.
In the Qur’an, the word is used to refer to Allah’s dominion of the Day of Judgment. He controls it on a large scale, and also each and every detail. Both meanings are appropriate, and what we get in the Qur’an is actually two different meanings that are both applicable, so the meaning is enhanced by multiple readings.
I think it’s cool.
Sister Amy,
It all seems quite complex. That might make it difficult for the young to understand. Unless they’re just encouraged to memorize it first then allow its true meaning to unfold over time. That sounds eloquent and beautiful. Yet, to me at least, I don’t believe its what Jesus would mean when he said for us to be like little children. I believe the complexity of the Koran is part of the trap it sets. Oh I think its either angelic (Lucifer is an Angel afterall and who else would want to deny the power of Jesus Christ at whose name all knees will bend in heaven, on earth or, under the earth) or cobbled together by an enslaved rabbi, for I don’t think Mohammed could have come up with it on his own and he was illerate so clearly he didn’t write it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
It all seems quite complex. That might make it difficult for the young to understand. Unless they’re just encouraged to memorize it first then allow its true meaning to unfold over time. That sounds eloquent and beautiful. Yet, to me at least, I don’t believe its what Jesus would mean when he said for us to be like little children. I believe the complexity of the Koran is part of the trap it sets. Oh I think its either angelic (Lucifer is an Angel afterall and who else would want to deny the power of Jesus Christ at whose name all knees will bend in heaven, on earth or, under the earth) or cobbled together by an enslaved rabbi, for I don’t think Mohammed could have come up with it on his own and he was illerate so clearly he didn’t write it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
As a child I was made to memorize tons of Bible verses. I didn’t understand them at the time, rather it was useful later on. Muslim children memorize the Qur’an, not because they are able to understand it, but because they have an incredible ability to absorb information. If a person knows the Qur’an, and reads it regularly, they’re more likely to be able to benefit from it as they develop.
Usually people will learn just one reading of the Qur’an and not learn the others until they have memorized entirely or have at least gone through the entire Qur’an with a teacher (reciting each page) and been approved in their recitation. I was hesitant to give the above explanation because it’s complicated for someone to whom Arabic is entirely foreign. But it’s simple to understand for students of the language.
D
dzheremi
Guest
It’s not really that complex, is it? I dunno. I think it’s neat. Wouldn’t we all like to do that (in technical linguistics talk, its called “elision”…a little fact to impress your teachers with, Sister Amy 
) with difficult to pronounce words in our own language? Of course, we already do. I don’t have the data on hand, but I would guess that more dialects of American English drop the “r” from “February” than retain it…
The rest of that stuff is just how Semitic languages work.
Of course, since we’re talking about somebody’s religion in connection with a particular language, it takes on religious significance in defense of that. For instance, there are differences in the pronunciation of East and West Syriac (I don’t have any of my books in front of me, but I know it’s relatively minor and predictable on a phonological level; where one has “o”, the other will have “a” – cf. “Qurbono” vs. “Qurbana”), but I’ve never heard of any Christian imparting any religious significance to that.
) with difficult to pronounce words in our own language? Of course, we already do. I don’t have the data on hand, but I would guess that more dialects of American English drop the “r” from “February” than retain it…The rest of that stuff is just how Semitic languages work.
Of course, since we’re talking about somebody’s religion in connection with a particular language, it takes on religious significance in defense of that. For instance, there are differences in the pronunciation of East and West Syriac (I don’t have any of my books in front of me, but I know it’s relatively minor and predictable on a phonological level; where one has “o”, the other will have “a” – cf. “Qurbono” vs. “Qurbana”), but I’ve never heard of any Christian imparting any religious significance to that.
S
schaick
Guest
I have read about the idea that the Quran was written from a aramaic-syriac position-using the very same letters. Very interesting some scholars say the Quran actually has complete thoughts and makes more sense when read this way.
The theory is because the didtrical points weren’t used until much later- the message was changed over time.
Did I ask- has anyone figured out the meaning of the initial letters?
What are your thoughts on the Satanic verses that were removed from the Quran, that Ibn Ishaq mentions in the biography about Muhammad?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I read somewhere that the earth is flat. What are your thoughts on that?
F
FaithJoy
Guest
Is this what we are speaking of? muhammadanism.org/Quran/SatanicVerses.htm
J
josesiem
Guest
I was long captivated by Islam and Muhammad, so much so that I wanted to convert.
To make a long story short, I didn’t because of the law that apostates must be killed and the general picture of Muhammad that emerge from the ahadith: a nasty brutish fellow, who killed people at a whim.
Oh yeah, the sura about Abu Lahab and his wife going to hell – I simply can’t imagine God saying such a vindictive thing while making a lame pun at the same time.
Muhammad was an enigma to me – perhaps I gave him too much credit, since I read all of the biographies from Muslims and the Sufi perspective, in general. How could this man who spent nights in prayer, who seemed so sincere, and who became so successful – how could this happen?
Then I found my answer. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. I won’t go into detail here, but after my many years of trying to figure out Muhammad, I believe it’s the best fit. You can find info by googling it.
To make a long story short, I didn’t because of the law that apostates must be killed and the general picture of Muhammad that emerge from the ahadith: a nasty brutish fellow, who killed people at a whim.
Oh yeah, the sura about Abu Lahab and his wife going to hell – I simply can’t imagine God saying such a vindictive thing while making a lame pun at the same time.
Muhammad was an enigma to me – perhaps I gave him too much credit, since I read all of the biographies from Muslims and the Sufi perspective, in general. How could this man who spent nights in prayer, who seemed so sincere, and who became so successful – how could this happen?
Then I found my answer. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. I won’t go into detail here, but after my many years of trying to figure out Muhammad, I believe it’s the best fit. You can find info by googling it.
F
FaithJoy
Guest
God bless you josesiem for allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you to the Truth. I’m sure in Korea it wouldn’t be an easy thing to do.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Are you serious? Mohammad compares the womens life to be as insigificant as Two Goats locking Horns? And his followers rip the pregnant women limb from limb.
Not we can rationalize this any way you would like. But you’ll have to explain to me what the childrens lesson was there?
Not we can rationalize this any way you would like. But you’ll have to explain to me what the childrens lesson was there?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Huh?
T
tomarin
Guest
Just FYI, I think she’s in South Korea which is a free and open society with a pretty large Christian population (by Asian standards at least).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“Asma bint Marwan” is the Quran verse I am referring to. But I also say, while I have read this in the English version and can see the behavior issues. I honestly don’t know if this is actually written in Arabic as such, or if the english version is indictive of the Arabic version.
Anyway…
A Mosque here in the city hit front page news, in the New Haven Register this morning Amy. The interfaith coalition gathered in protest. For the second or third time the Mosque was targeted with graffiti, as were a home and personal vehicle related to this Mosque. Unknown are the specifics as to why just this specific Mosque has been targeted.
A
ADouglass
Guest
Thanks everyone for their contributions to this thread. It has been a real eye-opener. I would like specific explanations on how the following are enhancements of meaning:
“they lied…2:10” and “they were lied to…2:9”
and “he killed … 3:146” and “he was killed … 3.146”
taken from an earlier post:
"Here is an example from 2 different Qurans, the verses for some reason are numbered different. May be the difference between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya qurans:
Hafs -
they lied … 2:10
you (plural) say … 2:140
he gives them … 4:152
we give mercy … 2:58
he killed … 3.146
Warsh -
they were lied to … 2:9
they say … 2:139
we give them … 4:151
he gives mercy … 2:57
he was killed … 3.146"
Okay, here is the only way I could think of to reconcile the meanings: the original promotes a radical collectivistic corruption of a language in which individual terminology is laid aside. In other words, there is no “I”, there is only a “we.” And I thought this was only in the book The Anthem by Ayn Rand, good book btw even though it was written by an anti-self sacrifice atheist.
“they lied…2:10” and “they were lied to…2:9”
and “he killed … 3:146” and “he was killed … 3.146”
taken from an earlier post:
"Here is an example from 2 different Qurans, the verses for some reason are numbered different. May be the difference between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya qurans:
Hafs -
they lied … 2:10
you (plural) say … 2:140
he gives them … 4:152
we give mercy … 2:58
he killed … 3.146
Warsh -
they were lied to … 2:9
they say … 2:139
we give them … 4:151
he gives mercy … 2:57
he was killed … 3.146"
Okay, here is the only way I could think of to reconcile the meanings: the original promotes a radical collectivistic corruption of a language in which individual terminology is laid aside. In other words, there is no “I”, there is only a “we.” And I thought this was only in the book The Anthem by Ayn Rand, good book btw even though it was written by an anti-self sacrifice atheist.
- Status