Debater Slayer Tutors Godobeyer

[Godobeyer]

Since you are tutoring anyway, mind if I ask you:

What's the difference between "Salam" and "Assalam" as in "Assalamu Aleikum". I'm also assuming that the "u" at the end is for plural?
Also does Mawlid al Nabi mean "birth of prophet"?

Hi Tumah.

Salam is mean : peace.
Al-Salam/asslam mean :the peace.
Al-Salamu Aleikum : peace be upon you.
U ; it's not sign of plural in Arabic.
this the signs of plural in Arabic : http://arabic.tripod.com/Nouns3.htm

Mawlid : mean birth.
Al-Nabi: The Prophet
which refer the birth of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

 

[Godobeyer]

As I understand those posts, @rosends (and he is free to correct me if I'm wrong) is saying that the implementation of Jewish laws or the way in which they are applied can vary depending on time, circumstances, and location. In other words, God's laws (from the member's perspective) don't change with time in and of themselves; only their implementation and circumstances of application do.

By the way, you could have worded your post correctly this way instead:

thanks for clarify it to me,but why they denied when I said,they stopped practice these laws

 

[Tumah]

"Salaam" is "peace"; "assalaam" is "the peace." The As- prefix is the definite article Al, meaning "the." However, because the Seen (Arabic equivalent of S, basically) is a solar letter, Al becomes As- and takes the sound of the letter after it. There are 14 lunar letters that take Al normally, and the rest are solar letters that cause Al to basically be fused into the letter after it. So it's Al-qamar ("the Moon," hence the naming of the letters that take Al as "lunar letters), but Ash-shams (the Sun, hence the naming of the letters that change the sound of Al as "solar letters").

I notice that "al" is often written separately or with a dash. Are al/as meant to be prefixes or separate words as in "al Nabi", should it be "alNabi"?

The standard Islamic greeting is Assalaamu a'laykum, meaning "peace be upon you." The U at the end of Assalaamu is the dhamma, an Arabic diacritic that sounds like an O in English. Since there is no equivalent English diacritic, it is replaced by a U in the anglicized version of the word.

But what is the meaning of the suffix "u"?
Thanks a ton!

 

[Godobeyer]

I notice that "al" is often written separately or with a dash. Are al/as meant to be prefixes or separate words as in "al Nabi", should it be "alNabi"?


But what is the meaning of the suffix "u"?
Thanks a ton!

It's syllabe,"sound" it's change in grammar.

 

[Tumah]

It's syllabe,"sound" it's change in grammar.

I understand that its a sound, I'm asking why is the change made. Why not just assalam instead?

 

[Godobeyer]

I understand that its a sound, I'm asking why is the change made. Why not just assalam instead?

Sorry typo error:
AL ال = "the" in English ,in some cases does not spelled,but it writen Arabic ال, it's just like hiding it by writen just "A" alone,as hiding it's spelling .

 

[Godobeyer]

I understand that its a sound, I'm asking why is the change made. Why not just assalam instead?

do you mean Assalamu instead of assalam?

It's just syllabe following grammar.

 

[Tumah]

do you mean Assalamu instead of assalam?

It's just syllabe following grammar.

Yes, that's what I meant. What's the rule that is changing it?

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes, that's what I meant. What's the rule that is changing it?

"U" add in subject , in nominal sentence, it's rule in grammar, the meaning of Alsalam Alaykom or Alsalamu Alaykom is the same.

check this link , it's explain :
http://arabic.tripod.com/Sentences1.htm

 

[Godobeyer]

hello my friends Debater Slayer ,
LuisDantas

I just want to reply to this post #20

by this way :

Just to let you understand my point,let's suppose Israel is a person.

If a person did and doing bad things against a group of people ,then he suddenlly because of his good deed to someone of them (because the golden goal "enemy of my enemey is my friend") does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he done before ? Why humanitarian is disppear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah by killing the civilians?

Where is the humanitarian in occupating West Bank and make Palestinians like hell everyday ?

 

[Debater Slayer]

thanks for clarify it to me,but why they denied when I said,they stopped practice these laws

I'm not following the thread, so I don't know what the member said after the posts I read to clarify to you. I think it is worth noting that it is against the rules to criticize a member in the third person, so it would be best to leave discussion of what he intended to the exchange between the two of you in the thread where those posts are.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I notice that "al" is often written separately or with a dash. Are al/as meant to be prefixes or separate words as in "al Nabi", should it be "alNabi"?

The definite article Al is often separated by a dash from the word it defines. In English, The is separated by a from what follows it, whereas in Arabic writing Al is joined with the word it defines. In transliteration the dash is often put between the definite article and the defined word, though. So it should be Al-Nabi.

But what is the meaning of the suffix "u"?
Thanks a ton!

This is a very complicated question because it touches on one of the foundations of Arabic grammar, and said foundation has no equivalent whatsoever in English.

In Arabic, any gomla esmeya (nominal sentence, i.e., a sentence that starts with a noun) has a mobtada' and a khabar. The mobtada' is the noun at the beginning of a sentence and is kind of similar to the subject in an English sentence, and the closest thing to khabar I can think of in English is a predicate. Both the mobtada' and khabar are marfoa, meaning that they take the diacritic dhamma, which is represented in transliteration by a U as in assalaamu.

 

[Debater Slayer]

hello my friends Debater Slayer ,
LuisDantas

I just want to reply to this post #20

by this way :

Just to let you understand my point,let's suppose Israel is a person.

If a person did and doing bad things against a group of people ,then he suddenlly because of his good deed to someone of them (because the golden goal "enemy of my enemey is my friend") does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he done before ? Why humanitarian is disppear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah by killing the civilians?

Where is the humanitarian in occupating West Bank and make Palestinians like hell everyday ?

There are several mistakes in the above post. Again, I'll break it down bit by bit.

Just to let you understand my point,let's suppose Israel is a person.

The first mistake is that you didn't leave a space between the comma and "let's." The second mistake—although this is mainly a personal preference of mine—is that you said "let's suppose Israel is a person." I would write it thus instead: "Let's suppose Israel were a person." This is called the subjunctive mood, and one of its uses is expressing hypothetical or imaginary situations—that is, it is an irrealis mood.

If a person did and doing bad things against a group of people ,then he suddenlly because of his good deed to someone of them (because the golden goal "enemy of my enemey is my friend") does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he done before ? Why humanitarian is disppear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah by killing the civilians?

I don't really understand the above paragraph well as it is currently worded; would you mind rewording it before I can start correcting its grammar?

I can point out a few spelling mistakes, though: it is suddenly, not suddenlly. Also, the correct spellings of two other misspelled words in your post are enemy and disappear.

Where is the humanitarian in occupating West Bank and make Palestinians like hell everyday ?

First, it is occupying, not occupating. The noun is occupation. You should have also said humanitarianism; humanitarian is an adjective, not a noun.

Second, your sentence lacks parallelism: two of its consecutive elements are structured differently. You said make where you should have said making; you first used the gerund and then used a verb instead of a second gerund, which should be making. So the sentence would read like this:

Where is the humanitarianism in occupying the West Bank and making Palestinians' lives hell [there is no need for the word "like" here] every day?"

Also, everyday, as one word, means "typical of ordinary days," as in, "Everyday life is rough for the working class," whereas every day as two words is an adverb, meaning "occurring or continuing on a day-to-day basis." So it is "I go to work every day" but "Work is an everyday activity for me."

By the way, I specifically avoided using the word daily because it can be both an adjective and an adverb depending on how it is used.

I'll correct the remaining mistakes if you rewrite the second paragraph; I need to understand it first before correcting it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me see...

Just to let you understand my point,let's suppose Israel is a person.

If a person did and doing bad things against a group of people ,then he suddenlly because of his good deed to someone of them (because the golden goal "enemy of my enemey is my friend") does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he done before ? Why humanitarian is disppear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah by killing the civilians?

Where is the humanitarian in occupating West Bank and make Palestinians like hell everyday ?

I am not nearly as methodical and accurate as Debater Slayer, so please allow me to try a quick and somewhat rought experiment. I will break up your proposed text into a few color-coded segments and propose adjustements that are also color-coded.

By all means, feel free to correct me in any way you see fit!

Just to let you understand my point, let's suppose Israel is a person.

If a person did and doing bad things against a group of people, then he suddenlly because of his good deed to someone of them (because the golden goal "enemy of my enemey is my friend") does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he done before ? Why humanitarian is disppear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah by killing the civilians?

Where is the humanitarian in occupating West Bank and make Palestinians like hell everyday ?

Right at this moment, I would rewrite it this way (the non-boldened parts are kept as you wrote them):




Just to let you understand my point, let's pretend for a moment that Israel is a person.

If a person did and is still doing bad things against a group of people, then he or she suddenly decides to help a specific subgroup of those people (apparently in order to benefit from their internal conflict, under the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") does give him full recognition as an humanitarian, despite what he had done before ?

Why does that humanitarian drive seems to disappear when war begins against Hamas or Hezbollah and the killing the civilians all of a sudden becomes acceptable?

Where is the humanitarian concern in occupying the West Bank and making Palestinians suffer like hell every day ?

 

[Tumah]

The definite article Al is often separated by a dash from the word it defines. In English, The is separated by a from what follows it, whereas in Arabic writing Al is joined with the word it defines. In transliteration the dash is often put between the definite article and the defined word, though. So it should be Al-Nabi.

Ok, that's what I thought.

This is a very complicated question because it touches on one of the foundations of Arabic grammar, and said foundation has no equivalent whatsoever in English.

In Arabic, any gomla esmeya (nominal sentence, i.e., a sentence that starts with a noun) has a mobtada' and a khabar. The mobtada' is the noun at the beginning of a sentence and is kind of similar to the subject in an English sentence, and the closest thing to khabar I can think of in English is a predicate. Both the mobtada' and khabar are marfoa, meaning that they take the diacritic dhamma, which is represented in transliteration by a U as in assalaamu.

You could have just said something like, "I can tell you, but your brain will probably explode in the process."

I appreciate your time and help.

 

[Godobeyer]

There are several mistakes in the above post. Again, I'll break it down bit by bit.



The first mistake is that you didn't leave a space between the comma and "let's." The second mistake—although this is mainly a personal preference of mine—is that you said "let's suppose Israel is a person." I would write it thus instead: "Let's suppose Israel were a person." This is called the subjunctive mood, and one of its uses is expressing hypothetical or imaginary situations—that is, it is an irrealis mood.

Thanks DS for this help and information,this is definitly will help me, but I have a question why you did not used was instead of were, since Israel is single not plural ?

I don't really understand the above paragraph well as it is currently worded; would you mind rewording it before I can start correcting its grammar?

I posted and edited one before you correct me, I just correct it now,but I think it was very understandabl, but it's still content errors,and I could not edit all of it, because period of editing is end up.

Just to let you understand my point,let's suppose Israel were a person.

I know it's remarkable when someone did and doing many bad things against many people ,then he suddenly because of his 1 good deed to someone of them, does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he did before ? Why your (most of Jews) humanitarianism is disappear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah which cost thousand of the civilians?

Where is the humanitarianism in occupying West Bank and make million of Palestinians live like hell every day ?

Also, everyday, as one word, means "typical of ordinary days," as in, "Everyday life is rough for the working class," whereas every day as two words is an adverb, meaning "occurring or continuing on a day-to-day basis." So it is "I go to work every day" but "Work is an everyday activity for me."

This is first time I know this !
it's confused a bit, but I will try to understand it.

 

[Godobeyer]

Just to let you understand my point, let's pretend for a moment that Israel is a person.

If a person did and is still doing bad things against a group of people, then he or she suddenly decides to help a specific subgroup of those people (apparently in order to benefit from their internal conflict, under the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") does give him full recognition as an humanitarian, despite what he had done before ?

Why does that humanitarian drive seems to disappear when war begins against Hamas or Hezbollah and the killing the civilians all of a sudden becomes acceptable?

Where is the humanitarian concern in occupying the West Bank and making Palestinians suffer like hell every day ?

Thanks for this great effort,I really appreciate it

This is exactly what I tried to say

I just have a question about "making Palestinians suffer like hell every day"

where is wrong in using "make" instead of "making" saying , for exemple "make Palestinians suffer like hell every day"

 

[LuisDantas]

The continuous tense is indicated by the "-ing" sufix and modifies the verb "to make" to give the perception of something that keeps happenning through a period of time.

Without that sufix, "to make" gives no indication of how the action in relation to time. In some situations it is possible or even necessary to transfer that indication of time to a particle such as "Do" or "Did", but I don't think that is grammatically possible in the sentence you and me agreed on, mainly because I know of no such particle for the continuous tense.



Also, please note that I missed a "that" in "does give him full recognition as an humanitarian".

The correct form is "does that give him (or her) full recognition as an humanitarian".

 

[savagewind]

I am sorry. While roving aimlessly around Religious Forums, I thought I noticed that @Debater Slayer is from a non-English speaking country but now I can see he knows English better than most Americans do. So I was just wondering, Debater, if English is your first language, second, or third maybe?

I am getting better with my English (my first and only language) with Grammarly on my computer.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thanks DS for this help and information,this is definitly will help me, but I have a question why you did not used was instead of were, since Israel is single not plural ?

This is called the subjunctive mood. It would be correct to say, "Suppose Israel was," but using were is more formal.

In the subjunctive, even singular nouns take were. This is especially apparent in the common phrase, "If I were you." The subjunctive mood expresses unreal/imaginary situations as well as wishes, as in, "I wish I were a bird."

I posted and edited one before you correct me, I just correct it now,but I think it was very understandabl, but it's still content errors,and I could not edit all of it, because period of editing is end up.

Just to let you understand my point,let's suppose Israel were a person.

I know it's remarkable when someone did and doing many bad things against many people ,then he suddenly because of his 1 good deed to someone of them, does give him the full card in humanitarian , by drop what he did before ? Why your (most of Jews) humanitarianism is disappear when war begin against Hamas or Hezbollah which cost thousand of the civilians?

Where is the humanitarianism in occupying West Bank and make million of Palestinians live like hell every day ?

That's more understandable (there is an E at the end ), but it still has a lot of errors. I'm going to rewrite it from scratch so that you can compare my version to yours and see where the mistakes are.

Just to let you understand my point, let's suppose Israel were a person.

I know it's remarkable when someone has done ["has been doing" would work here as well] many bad things against many people, and then he suddenly, because of one good deed to one of them, gives himself full credit for being humanitarian and turns a blind eye to what he has done before. [There is no need for a question mark at the end of this sentence, as it is all in the indicative mood.] Why does your (most Jews' [pay mind to the possessive apostrophe here; it is crucial to the meaning you are trying to convey]) humanitarianism disappear when war begins against Hamas or Hezbollah which cost thousands of civilians?

This is first time I know this !
it's confused a bit, but I will try to understand it.

The first sentence above should be, "This is the first time I've known this!"

The second sentence should be, "It has confused me a bit [or "it confuses me a bit"/"it confused me a bit," depending on the exact meaning you are trying to convey], but I will try to understand it."