Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Religion
Reply to "Why Muslims Don't Believe in Concept of Trinity"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Those are the short vowel markings, and yes, sometimes it is not obvious. But in the Persian hand the dots that distinguish one consonant from another are also missing. For example, the letters for s and sh are alike, except sh has three dots above it. The letters for b, t, and th are also the same, except that b has one dot above, t has two dots above, and th has three dots above The dots are missing in the Persian hand. But why are you talking about the Persian translation when its clear that in translations, some meaning will be lost? Also, b has the dot below. Nun has the dot above. The diacritical marks may be missing in Perisan but I think you need the dots even in Persian. I may be wrong, not sure. Perisan hand may use a substitute such as a dash in place, maybe their short hand version, but strange that they would omit the dots in formal writing. [b]So you see the letter for s or sh and the letter for b, t, and th and no short vowel. In English, that could be sob, sat, set, sit, sot, Seth, scythe, shat, shit, or shot. [/b] Arabic words typically have three root consonants, so the possibilities could be even greater. More consonants have the same shape then the ones I listed. The letters for j, h, kh have the same shape, as do the letters for d and th (a lighter th than previously listed) and r and z. And so on for a number of other consonants in the alphabet. There is nothing obvious about what the words are when written in the Persian hand--it is really more an aide de memoire. The person writing it down could perhaps use his memory to reconstruct and there would be some context, but when faced with lines of this there is a huge amount of inferring one would have to do in reconstructing. To think it was reconstructed exactly as it was recited is fantasy. [/quote][/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics