For Azmat Zuberi (Rabina Yu3azim Alihu) and Chutzpah part quatre

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Aug 14, 2006 at 07:38

My Dear Azmat (RYA) do you really know what the word Chutzpah means? May be you need to ask your ignorant Mullah to tell you what it means, more later.

Look: You are debating the grammar of a language that you do not know and you still come back with more silly comments? And the question is why? Is it your ego? And you are using EW Lane's Lexicon for refernece? you are kidding me.

Now you wrote: "because words have a similar root can and sometimes do mean that they have similar meaning"

This sentence alone betrays your total ignorance of the root system in the semitic languages as in Arabic and Syro-Aramaic.

Let me repeat it one more time, in semitic language in general and in the Arabic language in particular many words can have a common root but this is where it ends. The real issue here is how does the word come about? This question was answered by the father of the Arabic language grammar Sibawayhe who established the principle of F3L and based on it we can very much guess what a word would be and the structure of the word and even the proper spelling of the word, by using the F3L mudari3 (singular and m). eg: Yaktub (he writes), Yukatib (he corresponds) (and I'm sure you agree with me that he writes and he corresponds are not the same anymore even if they come from the same root) this would be yaf3ul, yufa3il but notice that the short vowels of damma and kasra make all the difference in the meaning of the words. Also notice that the structure F3L is the same. Now let us move on a a more difficult structure: Yakfur or yaf3ul (he becomes an unbeliever) and kaffara (or he covers) or fa33ala notice the 3 with a shadda and notice the three fathas. Now we have two very different stems from KFR that have nothing in common except in the minds of pakistanis that do not know the Arabic grammar. We call this in the kafir West (and I'm a proud infidel) Form Verb II-VI.

This in not unlike in the english language let us say the root SN: we can have sun and son. The fact that the two words son and sun have a common root does not mean that they share the same meaning or have anything in common.

You arguments so far are bogus. Now if you do not get this you are really beyond help.

Now let me repeat what I said: the words: kafr or village and kafir or unbeliver have nothing in common but a common root, priod may be except in the minds of people like you that do not know Arabic grammar.

Then you wrote something about having connected meaning. I have seen desperate ways to prove the absurd but this must be the winner. And no the root KFR is not _vocalized_ as ka fa ra as you claim. It is kaf, feh, reh

As for your and you must pardon me your silly foray in the Arabic language an Arab would tell you the following:

1. He covered means: Inahu ghatta

2. He hid: inahu ikhtaffa.

3. He buried: inahu daffan.

Nothing to do with the root KFR. So much for chutzpah.

Then the chutzpah continues: you wrote: "but the word kafr or village"

As a matter of fact Arabs use the word Qarya for village more often than kafr are you happy now?

"kafr or village has connected meaning of "being far, being isolated, being small and desloate."

Just amazing. I just did a goggle search and I found a kafr just about 10 miles south of Alexandria Egypt called Kafr al-Dawwar and it has a population of 200,000!! So much for being far, isloated and desolate and so much for your poor command of the arabic language.

Then you wrote: "that is denoted from meaning"

No there is nothing denoted here my good friend Azamt (RYA) except in your mind!

The you wrote: "covered" or Mutaghatii nothing to do with the root KFR, "hidden" or Mukhtafii nothing to do with the root KFR, and then you wrote: "being remote" or ba3iid and nothing to do with KFR.

Look:

1. You know no Arabic.

2. Then you pretend that you know Arabic when you do not I call this chutzpah.

3. And then you still defend the language of Arabian imperialism and the religion that brutalized your ancestors. Shame.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".