# Persian : مجدول کمنداندازی



## calame

Hello,

I am working on a catalogue of ancient manuscripts, and the description of the first page start with these words :   مجدول کمنداندازی زرین است
I didn't find the first two words in english-persian distionary, but it is also used on this description of a Quran in Malek Museum (http://malekmuseum.org/artifact/1393.04.00032/000/قرآن+مجید#) (it is not the manuscript I study). I suppose it is a form of illumination, am I right ?

Thak you by advance for your help !


----------



## fdb

In the Malek manuscript this refers to the gilded border surrounding the text on each page. In Arabic this is called jadwal جدول .


----------



## CyrusSH

That is *majdul*, not _mojadval_, according to my dictionary it means "wreathy".


----------



## fdb

So what does it mean in this context?


----------



## CyrusSH

It says "جلد لاکی و دارای نقش گل و بوته و آستر قرمز مجدول است." It talks about the cover of the book and says its lining is wreathy.


----------



## colognial

Hi, calame. I gather, from my 'research', that a 'jadval' or 'majdul' is the black, golden, or other colour line drawn on the margin of a page, along the edges, to enclose the writings in the middle. A 'kamand', by contrast, is the margin that is drawn along the 3 sides of the page which are away from the spine, so as to create a larger rectangle that encloses two pages facing each other. Does this answer what you are asking about?


----------



## fdb

colognial said:


> Hi, calame. I gather, from my 'research', that a 'jadval' or 'majdul' is the black, golden, or other colour line drawn on the margin of a page, along the edges, to enclose the writings in the middle. A 'kamand', by contrast, is the margin that is drawn along the 3 sides of the page which are away from the spine, so as to create a larger rectangle that encloses two pages facing each other. Does this answer what you are asking about?




Yes, this is basically correct. But I think that مجدول is not majdūl (passive participle of jadala ‘to plait a rope’) but mujadwal (passive participle of jadwala ‘to divide (a page) into columns’, denominative from jadwal ‘ditch, furrow’, then ‘column of a table’). jadwal is the inner border around the text and kamand the outer border at the edge of the page, as colognial quite rightly says.


----------



## colognial

It is possible, fdb, that you're quite right. I'm only pronouncing the word مجدول the way it's easier pronounced in Persian. (Majdawal is just a bit too awkward to say quickly!) It's a privilege indeed to know the rules of Arabic grammar, because then you are able to work out how the word must be pronounced just by knowing those rules, so that you're not at the mercy of the diacritic marks, which may or may not be there to guide you.

Thanks for correcting me.

So, I have a couple of questions now. Is the right word in the context of book binding مَجدَوَل or مُجدَوَل? Also, since 'majdul' is a passive participle derived from the infinitive for 'to plait a rope', am I right to conclude that 'majdul' is an adjective for any piece of rope [which is] plaited? And, is this word ever used for other plaited objects, e.g. hair?


----------



## calame

Thank you all for your answers ! I think it fits with the meaning of fdb and colognial, ie. the fine line which encircle the text and separate it from the margin. 

No idea for your pronounciation question, sorry !


----------



## fdb

colognial said:


> am I right to conclude that 'majdul' is an adjective for any piece of rope [which is] plaited? And, is this word ever used for other plaited objects, e.g. hair?



Yes, it can mean "plaited, twisted, braided..."


----------



## cherine

Hi,

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I just saw this today while searching for something else and thought I'd reply to Colognial's question:


colognial said:


> Is the right word in the context of book binding مَجدَوَل or مُجدَوَل?


It is مُجَدْوَل mujad-wal.
For "braided", the diacritics are مَجْدُول maj-duul.


----------



## colognial

Oh! Mujadwal! Finally! I kept on thinking 'mujdawal' and it made me uneasy. No wonder! Sorry, because this was written out plainly for me to see before and I stupidly failed to see it! Thank you so much!


----------



## cherine

You're most welcome. And don't worry, diacritics are always confusing for the non-initiated.


----------



## colognial

Except that I'm supposed to be well steeped in the diacritics! We do have them in Persian, and enough coaching is received by us in Iran while we're at school to enable us at least to read the Quran. But the rules of derivation (of Arabic words from their root string of letters, e.g. how _estantaaj_ derives from, I believe, _ntj_, or _mojadwal_ from _jdwl_) are important to learn, too, or at least to develop a feel for. Our literature is full of such words, words that are becoming or have already become obscure, which is a shame.


----------



## eskandar

colognial said:


> But the rules of derivation (of Arabic words from their root string of letters, e.g. how _estantaaj_ derives from, I believe, _ntj_, or _mojadwal_ from _jdwl_) are important to learn, too, or at least to develop a feel for.


I quite agree with you. Just wanted to point out that the root for _mojadval_ is _jdl_ - the و is not part of the root.


----------



## colognial

Many thanks, eskandar.


----------



## fdb

cherine said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry to revive an old thread, but I just saw this today while searching for something else and thought I'd reply to Colognial's question:
> 
> It is مُجَدْوَل mujad-wal.
> For "braided", the diacritics are مَجْدُول maj-duul.



Is this different from what I wrote in no. 7?


----------



## colognial

No, fdb. You were right all the time. This is what I meant in my Post No. 12 when I said, in response to cherine, that the correct pronunciations had already been given to us once before. 

My mistake was, I misread your 'mujadwal' as 'mujdawal' and kept on thinking that 'mujdawal' somehow didn't feel right.

I suspect cherine must have realized and wished to remove my mis-perception.


----------



## cherine

fdb said:


> Is this different from what I wrote in no. 7?


No, it isn't. I was simply answering colognial's question which came after your post and that was left unanswered.


----------



## fdb

No problem.


----------

