# فمن تبع هداي فلا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون



## Ander

I am much puzzled by verse 2:38 from the Quran.

It says in Arabic "...he who follows my way no fear (shall be) on them and they shall not grieve".

How come the third person singular becomes third person plural in the same sentence, in other words how is it that "he" becomes "them"?


----------



## jdibrahim

Maybe because man (a question word or a realtive pronoun) is number and gender (although masculine in form and followed by the masculine relative pronoun ?al-ladhi) indifferent.


----------



## mrbilal87

I'm not sure about in Arabic, but in English, switching third person singular and the third person plural is a common error that the mind usually compensates for. Could that be what's happening here?


----------



## Abu Rashid

I think this is a case of the first time a verb is used when referring to a group it is placed in the singular form.

eg. ذهب الطلاب إلى المدرسة as you can see the verb is singular but the subject is plural.

Btw here is the Arabic text (to save others having to go and search for it, as I had to).

قُلْنَا             اهْبِطُواْ             مِنْهَا             جَمِيعاً             فَإِمَّا             يَأْتِيَنَّكُم             مِّنِّي             هُدًى             فَمَن             تَبِعَ             هُدَايَ             فَلاَ             خَوْفٌ             عَلَيْهِمْ             وَلاَ هُمْ             يَحْزَنُونَ


----------



## jdibrahim

mrbilal87 said:


> I'm not sure about in Arabic, but in English, switching third person singular and the third person plural is a common error that the mind usually compensates for. Could that be what's happening here?



Maybe you are right although Arabs would find it difficult to accept an error in Quran. What do you mean by "the mind usually compensates for" as in English? Can you give an example please? Thanks
Jamshid


----------



## jdibrahim

Abu Rashid said:


> I think this is a case of the first time a verb is used when referring to a group it is placed in the singular form.
> 
> eg. ذهب الطلاب إلى المدرسة as you can see the verb is singular but the subject is plural.



No this is different. What you refer to is a verbal sentence which means no congruence is necessary in number.


----------



## Ander

Another thing is that French and German translators of the Quran "correct" it by translating Arabic "man" (=he who) by plural "those who".

The three English translators Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir  follow exactly the Quran and translate "man" by singular whosoever, whoso or whoever, as if they were aware that there is no rule in Arabic which allows to put singular "man" with plural "-him/-hum" and the verb in the plural too.

But if such a rule exists in Arabic, why do not those three renowned translators know about it?


----------



## jdibrahim

I don't think man is singular because there is no plural form. It is number indifferent as I said earlier. The problem is the verb taba3a is singular but 3alayhim is plural. It should have read 3alayhi instead but maybe there is somehing here beyond my knowledge.
Jamshid


----------



## Ander

Abu Rashid said:


> Btw here is the Arabic text (to save others having to go and search for it, as I had to).



Sorry Abu Rashid for the trouble. I always imagine that Arab Muslims have a Quran at hand and just have to reach for it. So I thought the verse number would suffice.
Don't you think that if I had given the Arabic text some would have checked in their Quran anyway? That's what I would have done, just to be sure. 
And it's only a few clicks on the keyboard to have the verse in Arabic on your screen.


----------



## mrbilal87

jdibrahim said:


> Maybe you are right although Arabs would find it difficult to accept an error in Quran. What do you mean by "the mind usually compensates for" as in English? Can you give an example please? Thanks
> Jamshid


 
I meant that there are some errors we make in English that are so common they go unnoticed, and the mind compensates for the error. So the sentence "...*he* who follows my way no fear (shall be) on *them* and *they* shall not grieve," although grammatically incorrect in English, would be perfectly understood because our minds naturally assume that _them _and _they_ refer to _he._

I'm not sure if the Arabic use of the plural in this fashion is correct. It's incorrect in English but few people know it, many people make the mistake, and most people know what is meant.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Ander,



> I always imagine that Arab Muslims have a Quran at hand and just have to reach for it. So I thought the verse number would suffice.
> Don't you think that if I had given the Arabic text some would have checked in their Quran anyway?



You make too many assumptions about Arab Muslims, also many Arab speakers here are not even Muslims anyway. Also note that most Muslims don't know verses by number normally. I for instance know that verse quite well, but I don't know it's number, hence the reason I had to look it up. However if you had've just posted the text, I would've known straight away, and no need would've existed to look it up.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi all

This verse is not problematic at all since in Arabic, a word can be considered from the point of view of form or from the point of view of meaning. There are numerous verses in the Qur'an where sometimes the form is considered and sometimes the meaning and sometimes both the form and meaning. Here let me give you examples from what comes to mind from what I can remember the Quran:

ومن الناس من يقول آمنا بالله وباليوم الآخر وما هم بمؤمنين

ومن يفعل ذلك فأولئك هم الخاسرون

ومن تاب وآمن وعمل عملا صالحا فأولئك يبدل الله سيئاتهم حسنات

My personal favourite one to quote is:

ومنهم من يستمع إليك and ومنهم من يستمعون إليك (in the first verse the form is considered and hence the singular form of the pronoun, and in the second verse the meaning is considered and hence the plural form of the pronoun).

This switch between form and meaning is very common with the words بعض and كل in Arabic.

The closest English example that I can think of is the now common usage of the word "one" referred to with plural pronominal forms, e.g. "Anyone who comes late will have money deducted from his/their salary".

The meaning as opposed to form is often considered in situations such as all-women gatherings, in which the speaker might say: "Anyone who does not comply with the rules will have her/their membership revoked".

Other examples in English are words like: government, team, etc. which can be used as singular or plural depending on what goes on in your mind.

I don't wish to compare Arabic grammar with English grammar because in the final analysis we are dealing with two different languages to which different rules apply. I only wish to point out how there might be parallels in other grammars, and that the phenomenon is not restricted to one language.

Incidentally, Ander's example is by no means an isolated one for there are several such examples in the Qur'an.


Finally, Arabic grammar textbooks devide relative pronouns into two categories: النص (also called المختص ) and المشترك . In the first category there must be agreement in gender and number, whereas in the second category such agreement is optional. The following set of examples comes from a classical grammar textbook entitled متممة الآجرومية :

(يعجبني من جاءك ومن جاءتك ومن جاءاك ومن جاءتاك ومن جاءوك ومن جئنك ). 

Observe how the personal pronoun referring to the relative pronoun (من) changes gender and number.

I hope this clarifies the issue.


----------



## jdibrahim

mrbilal87 said:


> I meant that there are some errors we make in English that are so common they go unnoticed, and the mind compensates for the error. So the sentence "...*he* who follows my way no fear (shall be) on *them* and *they* shall not grieve," although grammatically incorrect in English, would be perfectly understood because our minds naturally assume that _them _and _they_ refer to _he._
> 
> I'm not sure if the Arabic use of the plural in this fashion is correct. It's incorrect in English but few people know it, many people make the mistake, and most people know what is meant.



Thanks mrbilal. I believe you are right. Sometimes we try to find different explanations but the matter can be really a simple error.
Best
Jamshid


----------



## jdibrahim

Ander said:


> Another thing is that French and German translators of the Quran "correct" it by translating Arabic "man" (=he who) by plural "those who".
> 
> The three English translators Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir  follow exactly the Quran and translate "man" by singular whosoever, whoso or whoever, as if they were aware that there is no rule in Arabic which allows to put singular "man" with plural "-him/-hum" and the verb in the plural too.
> 
> But if such a rule exists in Arabic, why do not those three renowned translators know about it?



I don't know about these renowned translaters you mention. What we need is a scientific discussion of this issue. I am personally sceptical about some translations because they approach Quran as if it was written yesterday ignoring the time difference and language change  as if Arabic was a dead language. I will consult what some orientalists have got to say and if I find anything I will let you know. Abu Rashid's explanations are not relevant here in spite of his kind efforts. The only convincing possible explanation was provided by mrbilal so far. As he/she said it goes unnoticed because it is not ambiguous.


----------



## cherine

jdibrahim said:


> Maybe because man (a question word or a realtive pronoun) is number and gender (...) indifferent.


You gave the answer and then doubted it yourself?



jdibrahim said:


> Maybe you are right although Arabs would find it difficult to accept an error in Quran.


Please, let's not mix between Arabs and Muslims. Not all Arabs are Muslims, nor all are all Muslims Arabs.


Ander said:


> Sorry Abu Rashid for the trouble. I always imagine that Arab Muslims have a Quran at hand and just have to reach for it. So I thought the verse number would suffice.


You're right about this Ander. Though it never hurts to put the text anyway 


Abu Rashid said:


> You make too many assumptions about Arab Muslims, also many Arab speakers here are not even Muslims anyway. Also note that most Muslims don't know verses by number normally. I for instance know that verse quite well, but I don't know it's number, hence the reason I had to look it up.


You're right that we usually don't know the surats and verses by numbers, but it still not difficult to find the text we're looking for.
And it's true that every Muslim should have a muS7af at hand. Besides, Ander wasn't speaking about Arabs in general, he said "Arab Muslims".



Abu Bishr said:


> This verse is not problematic at all since in Arabic, a word can be considered from the point of view of form or from the point of view of meaning.
> [...]
> Finally, Arabic grammar textbooks devide relative pronouns into two categories: النص (also called المختص ) and المشترك . In the first category there must be agreement in gender and number, whereas in the second category such agreement is optional. The following set of examples comes from a classical grammar textbook entitled متممة الآجرومية :
> 
> (يعجبني من جاءك ومن جاءتك ومن جاءاك ومن جاءتاك ومن جاءوك ومن جئنك ).
> 
> Observe how the personal pronoun referring to the relative pronoun (من) changes gender and number.
> 
> I hope this clarifies the issue.


It's clear for me, though unfortunately it doesn't seem to be clear to others.
Allow me to re-use your words.
It seems that all the Arabic speakers who contributed to this thread don't find any thing ambiguous in the verse, so maybe this should be into consideration.
If we put aside the translations (let's not forget that there is no perfect translation of the Qur'an), the answer lies in the الاسم الموصول : man من .
This ism refers to both singular and plural, feminine and masculine.
The plural here simply means that "those who follow... are" because the text is about all the followers, who won't have any fear or worries.
In another verse, there's the verse (20:123)
ومن اتبع هداي فلا يضل ولا يشقى 
where the same relative pronoun refers to singular: each an every follower won't suffer.
It's simply a matter of connotation.


----------



## jdibrahim

Cherine wrote....

I agree there is a difference between Arabs and Muslims. I was speaking in general but I don't agree with your assumption I am not an Arabic speaker (my name is just like your name not of Arab origin but it is only a name. Arabic is not a dead language.  In addition the Arabic you speak in May  2007 is different from the Arabic of the 7th century. Don't you agree?


----------



## Abu Bishr

jdibrahim said:


> I don't know about these renowned translaters you mention. What we need is a scientific discussion of this issue. I am personally sceptical about some translations because they approach Quran as if it was written yesterday ignoring the time difference and language change as if Arabic was a dead language. I will consult what some orientalists have got to say and if I find anything I will let you know. Abu Rashid's explanations are not relevant here in spite of his kind efforts. The only convincing possible explanation was provided by mrbilal so far. As he/she said it goes unnoticed because it is not ambiguous.


 
Why do you want to consult what some orientalists have to say as if they are _the_ authority on Islam and its sources, and ignore centuries of Islamic scholarship especially the works of renowned exegetes? So you opt for an explanation that is potentially offensive to Muslims at the exclusion of other plausible explanations. If you insist in quoting orientalist literature on Islam, then I'll save you the effort by quoting Wright in his famous "A Grammar of the Arabic Language":

The conjunctive pronouns من and ما are indeclinable, and differ from الذي in never being used adjectively, but always substantively … . The former (من) is used of beings endowed with reason, the latter (ما) of all other objects. [They are either definite (موصول) as الذي, or indefinite (موصوف) , i من signifying in the latter case _one who_, ما _something that_, and may also have a collective meaning _persons who_, _things that_, being nevertheless construed as singulars.] 

See the Section on THE NOUN, Chapter 2. Relative & Interrogative Pronouns, p. 273 point number: 349 .


----------



## Abu Rashid

jdibrahim,



> The only convincing possible explanation was provided by mrbilal so far.



Actually I'd suggest Abu Bishr has pretty much answered this thread, and has given a much more thorough explanation of what's going on here.

cherine,



> You're right that we usually don't know the surats and verses by numbers, but it still not difficult to find the text we're looking for.



Perhaps not difficult, but certainly inconvenient. When one wants to open a discussion about a specific verse and the Arabic grammar involved in it, one would assume quoting the Arabic (rather than the English, which is what he did) would be the appropriate thing to do.



> And it's true that every Muslim should have a muS7af at hand.



Well I actually have about 7 mus7afs within a metre of me, but it's still quicker (and more convenient) to actually google it.



> Besides, Ander wasn't speaking about Arabs in general, he said "Arab Muslims".



He did say Arab Muslims, but I'm assuming he asked the question generally to the forum, not just to the Muslims. And they obviously wouldn't have a mus7af within arms reach, hence my original statement that he should've just quoted the verse (in the language he's enquiring about) to begin with, not that much of an ask really.


----------



## Ander

Thank you all for your contributions. I'll keep in mind that "man" can be both singular or plural in meaning according to the context.

I am still a little bit puzzled by the option taken by Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir to translate "man" by singular "whosoever, whoso or whoever", as if they didn't know the rule. 
All other English, German (except one from the Ahmadis!) and French translators know that they can opt for a plural translation of "man", what they do.


----------



## jdibrahim

Abu Bishr said:


> Why do you want to consult what some orientalists have to say as if they are _the_ authority on Islam and its sources, and ignore centuries of Islamic scholarship especially the works of renowned exegetes? So you opt for an explanation that is potentially offensive to Muslims at the exclusion of other plausible explanations. If you insist in quoting orientalist literature on Islam, then I'll save you the effort by quoting Wright in his famous "A Grammar of the Arabic Language":
> 
> The conjunctive pronouns من and ما are indeclinable, and differ from الذي in never being used adjectively, but always substantively … . The former (من) is used of beings endowed with reason, the latter (ما) of all other objects. [They are either definite (موصول) as الذي, or indefinite (موصوف) , i من signifying in the latter case _one who_, ما _something that_, and may also have a collective meaning _persons who_, _things that_, being nevertheless construed as singulars.]
> 
> See the Section on THE NOUN, Chapter 2. Relative & Interrogative Pronouns, p. 273 point number: 349 .



Thanks Abu Bishr but I am afraid I don't agree:
1. Orientalists are not hostile or offensive to Islam. The only point is they are not emotional but objective.
2. The languages of Quran and MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) are actually only learned at shcool (not native). This means all Arabs speak their own dialects as a native language. We learn MSA when we go to school. To me nationality doesn't guarantee providing the write answers as Cherine claimed.

3. Your quote from Wright is what I meant. It has to do with  man
4. For me it doesn't make a difference who is discussing a topic but I am personally more careful about making any black and white statements. It is indeed a sensitive issue discussing anything related to Quran. I enjoy reading Quran and listening to recitations but I am also interested in analysing it linguistically and reading what other people write independently of their nationality. 
5. MSA now is certainly not the same as the language of Quran that's why I need scientific help to deal with such difficult questions.


----------



## Ander

Abu Rashid said:


> Perhaps not difficult, but certainly inconvenient. When one wants to open a discussion about a specific verse and the Arabic grammar involved in it, one would assume quoting the Arabic (rather than the English, which is what he did) would be the appropriate thing to do.



The English translation you mention was my word for word translation from the Arabic.

I did not give the Arabic text because of the hassle it is for me to transfer it, and because I always google it from its verse numbers to have the exact page and original print of the Quran. 
I assume others do the same which I think is most convenient. By your next quote I see that you also do the same and agree with me. So what's the fuss about? 



> Well I actually have about 7 mus7afs within a metre of me, but it's still quicker (and more convenient) to actually google it.


----------



## Abu Bishr

jdibrahim said:


> 1. Orientalists are not hostile or offensive to Islam.


 
When I said that "you opted for an explanation that is potentially offensive to Muslims ..." my reference was to you opting for mrbilal's explanation even after I've given you a plausible explanation from Arabic sources. As for 'orientalists being or not being hostile or offensive to Islam' that is another issue. The point is that you were ready to go with mrbilal's explanation and were ready to accept that there is a grammatical error in the verse. Where is the objectivity in that? When I gave you a plausible explanation you were only going to accept it if it was going to come from an orientalist. Your methodolgy is fraught with scientific errors as you are not willing to accept views from sources other than Orientalists.


----------



## Saleh Al-Qammaari

Ander said:


> I am much puzzled by verse 2:38 from the Quran.
> 
> It says in Arabic "...he who follows my way no fear (shall be) on them and they shall not grieve".
> 
> How come the third person singular becomes third person plural in the same sentence, in other words how is it that "he" becomes "them"?


 

Hi everybody!! Oh it seems that I am too late; anyway, I’ll post my clarification for this point hoping that it will be clear for all. I supplicate the Almighty Allah to guide us all to the straight path and grant us better understanding of the Glorious Qur’an.​ 


First of all, I do thank you Ander for this question which prompted me to search and for your interest with the Noble and Authentic Book, Qur’an. I’d like here to tell you and all non-Arabic speakers who study these issues to exert their efforts in learning classic Arabic from the well experienced people. For example, we have in Egypt many international authorized centers for teaching Arabic for non-Arabs. The meanings of the Qur’an are better understood with a good background of the Arabic language. Anyway, I asked some experts about your question and they give me the following Arabic feedback. I’ve translated it and inserted the Arabic words in order to give my colleagues a chance to correct me if I am wrong and to learn from them.​ 


جاز عود ضمير الجمع على المفرد حملا على المعنى، لأن المقصود جنس من تبع الهدى - وهذا كثير في القرآن -، ومما يزيده حسنا كون (من) للمذكر والمؤنث إفردا وثنية وجمعا بلفظ واحد​ 



It is valid in Arabic for the plural pronoun to refer to singular considering this reference to refer to the meaning [the content] of the words. The plural pronoun in this verse refers to the category of people who follow the guidance. This usage is common in the Qur’an. The Arabic relative pronoun "*من” *adds fineness to this usage for it is used to express about masculine and feminine whether they are singular, Muthanna [in Arabic, plural number begins from three and onward and there is a stage between the singular and the plural which express about two things, persons, etc.], and plural in one word.​ 

من) في الآية مفرد لفظا جمع معنى ، فـ(من)تستخدم للمفرد وللجمع بهذه الصورة ، وبناء على هذا يجوز أن يعودعليها ضمير مفرد تبعا للفظها أو ضمير جمع تبعا لمعناها فالمعتى (كل من تبع هداي لا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون​ 


According to the literal meaning, من in the verse is a singular word. However, it is a plural word with regard to the content. من, in this usage, is used to express about singular and plural. Accordingly, it is valid for a singular pronoun to refer to it according to its form [or literal meaning] as well as it is valid for a plural pronoun to refer to it according to its meaning [or the content]. Consequently, the meaning of the verse is that all those who follow my guidance, will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.​ 


There is a notice here that if the translators of the meanings of the Quran do not hit the meaning or fail to convey the proper meaning, this matter does not touch the glory of the Qur'an at all. For the text of the Qur'an is in Arabic, so again, it is better understood in Arabic.​ 


With my best wishes.​


----------



## Ander

crystal clear said:


> First of all, I do thank you Ander for this question which prompted me to search and for your interest with the Noble and Authentic Book, Qur’an....
> 
> Anyway, I asked some experts about your question and they give me the following Arabic feedback.
> 
> ...According to the literal meaning, من in the verse is a singular word. However, it is a plural word with regard to the content.​




Thank you for your research which confirms the conclusion to which I have come over.



> There is a notice here that if the translators of the meanings of the Quran do not hit the meaning or fail to convey the proper meaning, this matter does not touch the glory of the Qur'an at all. For the text of the Qur'an is in Arabic, so again, it is better understood in Arabic.​




I think translations of the Quran are done by people who are much more proficient in Arabic than most of us.

What is actually a translation? It is 
1) what the translator understands of the original text, 
2) his rendering of that understanding in a foreign language.

So I think that good translations give an equal and even sometimes a better understanding than the original Arabic.

Why do I say better? Because different translations of the same text will give you all the shades of meaning that the text may contain and that you may have overlooked.​


----------



## Abu Rashid

Ander,



> did not give the Arabic text because of the hassle it is for me to transfer it



Well it's not that hard to just copy/paste, as I did. Anyway no great transgression, just makes it easier if you do, I don't know why it became such a big issue.

jdibrahim,



> Orientalists are not hostile or offensive to Islam. The only point is they are not emotional but objective.



You've gotta be kidding. They are people who specifically study Islam in order to debunk and discredit it. Yeh very objective viewpoints they have.



> The languages of Quran and MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) are actually only learned at shcool (not native)



The centres of the study of Arabic language are in the Arabic lands, if you want to to try and convince anyway that the greater authorities on Arabic language are actually the non-Arabs in Europe... I think you're going to be wasting your time. But good luck.


----------



## clevermizo

Ander said:


> I am still a little bit puzzled by the option taken by Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir to translate "man" by singular "whosoever, whoso or whoever", as if they didn't know the rule.
> All other English, German (except one from the Ahmadis!) and French translators know that they can opt for a plural translation of "man", what they do.




Just like to point out that "whosoever" or "whoever" can be either refer to singular or plural in English as well, and this usage is normative. There is a tendency to follow it with a singular verb form in agreement, but this does not necessarily reflect the state of its antecedent. From the OED:

_As compound relative, or with correlative in principal clause, which usually follows but occas. precedes; in generalized or indefinite sense: Whatever person or persons; any one who, or any who._

I am not Muslim but apparently I have a mus7af within a meter of me too. "...and whoso follows My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" appears a normative English sentence to me. Older English rhetoric would prefer either the plural throughout or the singular throughout, but I assume Pickthall had no problem with the structure he chose in English, and neither do I. 

Its status as a "correct" or "incorrect" usage in English is difficult for a language without any central standardization authority(ies) and thus no real defining guidelines as to what is correct and not correct, although there are norms and deviations. I'd also like to point out the rise of "they" as a singular, genderless pronoun is becoming very normative outside of America. Unfortunately, within America a lot of people would have us always write the awkward s/he while "they" is common in speech or maybe even always "he".

There is no doubt about Arabic grammar, however, that من governs a singular verb form, but can refer to singular, plural, dual, masculine, feminine in referent (as many have already stated).


----------



## clevermizo

jdibrahim said:


> I don't know about these renowned translaters you mention. What we need is a scientific discussion of this issue. I am personally sceptical about some translations because they approach Quran as if it was written yesterday ignoring the time difference and language change  as if Arabic was a dead language. I will consult what some orientalists have got to say and if I find anything I will let you know. Abu Rashid's explanations are not relevant here in spite of his kind efforts. The only convincing possible explanation was provided by mrbilal so far. As he/she said it goes unnoticed because it is not ambiguous.



I'm not sure what you feel the issues are, but Abu Rashid's post is perfectly adequate in answering the issue at hand, namely the status of من despite problems people feel with its translation. Again, Arabic speaking natives have already confirmed throughout this thread as to the grammatical governance and usage of من, as such, I hope we don't have to resort to dealing with any _orientalists_. To me this whole issue seems pretty easily explained, but perhaps not.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> I'm not sure what you feel the issues are, but Abu Rashid's post is perfectly adequate in answering the issue at hand, namely the status of من despite problems people feel with its translation. Again, Arabic speaking natives have already confirmed throughout this thread as to the grammatical governance and usage of من, as such, I hope we don't have to resort to dealing with any _orientalists_. To me this whole issue seems pretty easily explained, but perhaps not.


 
If I were to take a so-called "orientalist" approach to the issue, I would judge the codified grammars against the Quran, and not the Quran against the codified grammars, as the Quran is an older document and thus a more reliable guide to how the language was actually used within its immediate environment.


----------



## mrbilal87

Hello,

Jdibrahim, I commented because I noticed that in English translations of the Qur'an, the 3rd plural with words like _he, ye, whosoever etc._ is maintained, but it only appears ungrammatical in English. Please note that my comments about English grammar were not intended to be comments about Arabic grammar as well. I'm not an expert on Arabic grammar, and I wanted to make it clear that that reasoning should be left to the jurisdiction of those who are more knowlegeable of Arabic grammar. I only intended to shed light on the grammar in an English Qur'an from the perspective of a native speaker of English.

That was before I realized that the original poster was referring to his own personal translation of the Arabic text.

What I've read so far on this thread about the Arabic usage is interesting and I'm definitely learning here.

Cheers!


----------



## Beate

Hello Jdibrahim,

as you are from Germany let me quote what Carl Brockelmann says about it (Carl Brockelmann is the author of the "Arabische Grammatik" which ist THE grammar book for german students who study arabic:

It is about relative clauses:

Die von keinem Nomen abhängigen Relativsätze werden eingeleitet durch das flektierbare und stets determinierte "alladhi" oder durch die an sich determinierten, oder dem Sinne nach indeterminierten, unflektierbaren Pronomina "man" [...]und "ma". 

[...]

Anmerkung a; "man" wird auch bei Fem. und Plur. meist als Singular masc. konstruiert. [...] Vereinzelt kann "man" auch von Tieren gebraucht werden.

I hope this helps you bye Beate


----------



## jdibrahim

Beate said:


> Hello Jdibrahim,
> 
> as you are from Germany let me quote what Carl Brockelmann says about it (Carl Brockelmann is the author of the "Arabische Grammatik" which ist THE grammar book for german students who study arabic:
> 
> It is about relative clauses:
> 
> Anmerkung a; "man" wird auch bei Fem. und Plur. meist als Singular masc. konstruiert. [...] Vereinzelt kann "man" auch von Tieren gebraucht werden.
> 
> I hope this helps you bye Beate



Thanks Beate I know Brockelmann and I already referred to man as number indifferent (if you go back). This is nothing new to me. I am a linguist and what interests me is an objective discussion of a linguistic problem and not missionary work.
Best
Jamshid


----------



## Ander

Beate said:


> "man" wird auch bei Fem. und Plur. meist als Singular masc. konstruiert. [...] Vereinzelt kann "man" auch von Tieren gebraucht werden.



Translation: 
In feminine and plural sentences "man" mostly takes the
singular masculine [...] "man" can occasionally be used also with animals.


----------



## Beate

Hello,

the error in my sight seems to be that you decide what is right and what is wrong from an english or german or french or whatsoever point of view.
Someone wrote that in english it is an error to switch from singular to plural and you are asking yourself why translators did choose the plural instead of the singular.
Well, each language has its own rules. You can't say that something arabic is wrong because it would be wrong according to the english grammar. Every language has its pecularities and translating is an art. Every language has its own structures that can't be just transponed to another language. In French you have to put an feminine ending to the perfect participle when the passé composé requires the auxiliary etre. There is however no need to do so in german.

And this seems to be in my sight the error in this discussion. English has its grammar and arabic has its own grammar and what is wrong in english needs not automatically be wrong in arabic.

bye Beate


----------



## Reema

Beate said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> And this seems to be in my sight the error in this discussion. English has its grammar and arabic has its own grammar and what is wrong in english needs not automatically be wrong in arabic.
> 
> bye Beate


 
This sounds very much ture. English grammar can not be applied on Arabic simply because they are very *Different *languages. 
Mann can mean the singular or plural.   If you have solid knowledge of Arabic, you will not see that mistake a mistake at all!  ​


----------



## Ander

Beate said:


> Hello,
> 
> the error in my sight seems to be that you decide what is right and what is wrong from an english or german or french or whatsoever point of view.



Ich heisse Ander, nicht nur Hello!
I did not decide anything. Sorry if I can read French, English, German (and some other languages) which shows me different ways of translating.



> Someone wrote that in english it is an error to switch from singular to plural and you are asking yourself why translators did choose the plural instead of the singular.



Is it forbidden to question things?



> Well, each language has its own rules. You can't say that something arabic is wrong because it would be wrong according to the english grammar.



I never said that. I only wondered why. Is that forbidden too?



> And this seems to be in my sight the error in this discussion. English has its grammar and arabic has its own grammar and what is wrong in english needs not automatically be wrong in arabic.
> 
> bye Beate



That is the conclusion to which we all came, so where do you see an error?


----------



## jdibrahim

Beate said:


> Hello,
> And this seems to be in my sight the error in this discussion. English has its grammar and arabic has its own grammar and what is wrong in english needs not automatically be wrong in arabic.
> 
> bye Beate



We are not comparing languages but talking specifically about the rules of Arabic grammar. Bitte Beate schau genau hin
Jamshid


----------



## Beate

Hello Ander,

I did not write your name because I was not referring to your question but to the whole discussion and especially to the remarks of jdibrahim.

Although all native speakers who are involved in the discussion and all native linguists and all non-arabic linguists state very clearly that "man" has no gender and no number, jdibrahim doesn't stop claiming that the use of "man" in vers 2, 38 is an error because it is an error according to the English grammar.

This approach is absolutely ridiculous and it shows that jdibrahim hasn't yet understood that each language has it own rules.
You can for example say in Arabic:
yaktubu ar-rigalu
In this case the verb is in singular and it is absolutely according to the rules of the arabic grammar 
You can't however say in englisch "writes the men".
jdibrahim claims several times that he wants to put the discussion on an objective and scientific level.
Oh yes please jdibrahim, please join us in our scientific discussion and stop writing nonsense.
And stop making offensive remarks ( like muslims can't accept errors in the Qur'an) that have no basis and stop claiming in an indirect way that arabs or muslims are too "emotional" to analyse the Qur'an. 

The only one who is not objective in this discussion is you.

Bye Beate


----------



## jdibrahim

Beate said:


> The only one who is not objective in this discussion is you.
> 
> Bye Beate


 
Beate Bitte this is what I said from the very beginning: man is gender and number indifferent. Go back and read please. Don't confuse things and don't pass judgement arbitrarly like that. You are being very emotional indeed here just because I said Ander is right about politeness. Where is die deutsche Sachlichkeit? yaktubu ar-rija:lu is a verbal sentence just like the one I referred to in my earlier posts (but you don't read). BTW it is Rija:lu not rigalu unless you are transliterating or using the Egyptian dialect.


----------

