🔁antigrams

Note: Not being fluent in Arabic may pose a challenge in fully comprehending the content of this study. I have made efforts to provide translations, but it may still be challenging to grasp the nuances without some familiarity with Arabic. Nevertheless, I will continue to work towards minimizing this language barrier in future content.

Intro:

Antigrams are words that when their letters are rearranged form antonyms or words with opposite meanings. Some antigrams within the Arabic language are particularly intriguing because the rearrangement of letters is not arbitrary; instead, it involves reversing some or all of the letters within the word. This specific type of antigram is of particular interest to us. It suggests that when the letters of a word are reversed, the word's meaning is also "reversed".

To further illustrate this concept, let's delve into a hypothetical scenario. Imagine a word, "ABC," with the assigned meaning of "to join" Now, if we rearrange some of the letters, we form "BAC," and its meaning shifts to "to part," which is the complete opposite. In both "ABC" and "BAC," the letter "C" appears at the end, playing a neutral role. Now, let's consider a similar case with a three-letter word, like "XYZ," meaning "to fill." When we reverse it to "ZYX," the meaning changes to "to empty." Here again, "XYZ" and "ZYX" are not only opposites in meaning but also in the arrangement of their letters. This is a feature unlikely to be found in natural languages. However, it's highly plausible for individuals intentionally designing a language to incorporate such precise patterns.

Now let's explore a real-world example. For this illustration, we'll delve into the Arabic roots فرق (frq) and رفق (rfq). The expected outcome is that these two words exhibit opposite meanings, considering the letter ق (q) is neutral in this context. Upon consulting multiple dictionaries, it becomes evident that the root "frq" and its derivatives primarily revolve around the meaning of "to part" something from another, This root and its derived forms are frequently used to describe actions related to parting, separation, or distinguishing one thing from another. On the contrary, the root "rfq" presents the complete opposite. This root and its derived forms primarily center around the meaning of "to join" something to another, They are typically employed to convey concepts of joining, accompanying, or partnering things together.

As a general rule of thumb, a root is typically as abstract as possible, while the derivations are less abstract and build upon that root. This pattern is common in Semitic languages, where the root embodies a general meaning, and the derived words become more specific, based on the foundation of that root meaning.

Now, dictionaries do indeed assign a multitude of other meanings to these roots, but these less common interpretations clearly deviate from the prevalent tendency. These deviations are likely the result of semantic changes over time or people conflating these words with similar terms in local dialects or even other languages. In the past, it was common for people to adopt multiple dialects for ease of communication with various regions and tribes. Additionally, the religious doctrines that became widespread in the region are likely to have influenced individuals to attribute meanings they were religiously taught.

The religious doctrines that gained prominence after the 7th century heavily rely on Hadith literature, which consists of sayings attributed to the author of the Quran, compiled more than 200 years after their supposed death date. To avoid getting lost in history, it can be succinctly stated that these dictionaries are heavily influenced by hearsay. Consequently, these dictionaries contain content that lacks a solid basis and is primarily present due to cultural influences. Navigating these dictionaries can be quite challenging as a result.

Despite the unreliability of the dictionaries, the discovery of two opposite tendencies for both roots, فرق (frq) and رفق (rfq), suggests that traces of their original meanings still endure. While these dictionaries may obscure some obsolete interpretations and likely lack a comprehensive understanding of these terms and others, they serve as a reasonable starting point due to the absence of alternatives. However, it's crucial to approach them with a critical mindset, taking into account their flawed background and questionable foundations.

Diving deeper into the roots فرق (frq) and رفق (rfq), we uncover even more remarkable findings. These two roots exhibit clear-cut opposite meanings in their derivatives. Two commonly used words in Arabic, even to this day, are "رافق" (rāfq) and "فارق" (fārq). Any Arabic speaker can undoubtedly confirm that these words are indeed opposites, with "rāfq" meaning to accompany something and "fārq" signifying departure from something. Interestingly, the addition of the letter ا (ā) hasn't affected the opposition of these two roots. To illustrate this we are going to use an image, imagine the letters "ر-ا-ف-ق" (r-ā-f-q) in a triangular arrangement, starting from the letter ر (r) and reading from right to left gives you the word "رافق" (rāfq), while starting from the letter ف (f) and reading from left to right yields the word "فارق" (fārq). Here, we can notice that two letters don't change their position: ا (ā) and ق (q), indicating their neutrality in this order-to-meaning relationship.

In the image above, we've used the color green for the line near the letter ر (r) and the color red for the line near the letter ف (f). Green represents the "positive" influence on the meaning of the word when we move from ر (r) towards ف (f), while red signifies the "negative" influence when moving from ف (f) towards ر (r). It's important to clarify that in this context, "positive" doesn't imply "good"; instead, "positive" here refers to meanings associated with addition, expansion, stability, or attraction, regardless of the specific subject. Conversely, "negative" indicates meanings linked to subtraction, regression, decay, or aversion. We will continue to explore this directional influence within Arabic roots in upcoming discussions and may expand the list of meanings associated with both "positive" and "negative" categories.

To illustrate this, you can draw a parallel with how "positive" and "negative" are used in mathematics, where positive numbers represent addition, and negative numbers represent subtraction. For example, starting from the letter ر (r), we get the positive meaning in رافق (rāfq), which means "to accompany", involving a form of addition of something to another. However, a phrase can still have a pejorative overall meaning, as in "to accompany the pain." In this context, the word is still considered "positive" despite the pejorative meaning of the phrase because it conveys the meaning of addition, here the addition of "pain" to the actor. Likewise, in the "negative" words category, the word فارق (fārq) is considered "negative" regardless of the overall meaning of the phrase in which it occurs. To draw a similar analogy, we can think of a phrase like "to depart from the pain." While the phrase and the word together convey a good meaning, it doesn't negate the word from being considered "negative" as it signifies a form of subtraction, here the subtraction of "pain" from the actor. This categorization is necessary to define what we mean by opposites, as it helps identify antonyms within Arabic roots. Opposites must belong to distinct categories. While we've introduced these categories based on an initial examination of the two roots and their possible meanings, we will delve deeper into this categorization in our later discussions. For now, we just have to understand the existence of two categories.

So far, this is a rough definition for both categories that could be altered later depending on the findings:

Positive: relates to addition, expansion, stability, or attraction
Negative: relates to subtraction, regression, decay, or aversion

Returning to the roots فرق "frq" and رفق "rfq" we can observe that the letter ق (q), as previously mentioned, plays a neutral role in the current order-to-meaning relationship as its order never changes. Given this, we can assume that it shouldn't impact the logical structure that creates the opposition between the two roots once it's removed.

Removing the letter ق (q) leaves us with two words, فر (fr) and رف (rf), which can also be considered as roots. While most dictionaries tend to favor trilateral roots, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, we will use two letters whenever we encounter a root that ends with two consecutive identical letters.

If we were to follow the usual standard way فر (fr) would be represented as فرر (frr), and رف (rf) would become رفف (rff).

The general meaning of the root فر (frr) is “to escape” from something, while the general meaning of the root رف (rff) is “to settle”, which makes them both opposites, The action of a person settling is the complete opposite of a person who is escaping, The former is attracted to something while the latter is in a state of aversion from something, Now in the dictionaries, it’s pretty easy to see that فر (frr) is indeed related to “to escape” but for the root رف (rff) it might take a bit of digging, we will touch on some derivatives that could assure us if the general meaning we concluded earlier which is “to settle” is the right match.

We are using the term "escape" in a broad sense, which simply denotes "to move away" from something or a situation, without necessarily implying any fear on the part of the subject. We could use the phrase "to move away" instead, but we are seeking a one-word alternative to make the examples easier to illustrate, as will be shown in the following paragraphs.

The first derivative is رفْ (raf) and its plural is رفوف (rufuf) which means a “shelf”, and a shelf is a fixed/settled object for storing or displaying items, we can easily see here that one derivative does indeed lean towards the meaning of “settling”.

Note that this derivative is not to be conflated with the verb رفّ that has a shada at the end, the "shada" (شَدَّة) is a diacritical mark, often represented as a small "w" shape written above a consonant letter. It indicates that the consonant it marks should be pronounced with an emphasis or a doubling of its sound. while the derivative رفْ has a "sukun" at the end, the "sukun" (سُكُون) is a diacritical mark placed above a letter, typically represented as a small circle, to indicate that the consonant should be pronounced without a following vowel sound.

The second derivative we find in the dictionaries is also an interesting one, الرَّفْرَفةُ al-rafrafah: the movement of a bird's wings while it is in the air without moving from its place.

This derivative also revolves around the meaning of "settlement" as it describes a bird in a state of stillness in the air, which is the complete opposite of a state of "escape" as indicated by the meaning of the root فر (frr).

One more interesting finding is the derivatives of a closely related root to رفف ( rff ), namely رفء ( rf' ). This root only differs in that it ends with a hamza ‘ء’ at end. We will not delve into the general meaning of this root, but what interests us now is its derivatives.

It's also possible that the hamza at the end of "رفء" ( rf' ) is a late addition or related to a dialect that was spoken before, we notice how for example the word "نبي" (nbe) which is usually translated as "prophet" is spelled as "نبيء" (nbe') in some Quran reading traditions. in that case the derivatives of "رفء" ( rf' ) can be considered direct derivatives of "رف" ( rf).

The first derivative we can find in the dictionaries is رفأ ( rf' ) which meaning is closely related to "settling", Below is the description from the dictionary:

"He moored the ship: he brought it near the shore and anchored it there."

the second derivative is "مرفي" ( murfe ) which meaning is also related to settling, Below is the description from the dictionary:

"The moored ships and similar objects: The close to the shore and the anchored there."

It can be easily concluded that the tendencies of both roots that start with رف (rf) revolve around the meanings of settlement, mooring, stillness, and stabilization.

Thus, we can conclude the contrast between فر (rf), which revolves around the meaning of "escaping" and رف (rf), which revolves around the meaning of "settling", The image of an animal escaping a predator is the complete opposite of a ship settling on the shore:

These two states represent opposite ends of a spectrum

State of Escape: When we refer to a person in a state of escape, we are describing someone who is actively trying to leave, flee, or get away from a particular situation, place, or condition. This could be for various reasons, including danger, discomfort, or the desire for change. Such a person may be motivated by a sense of urgency, fear, or the need for self-preservation.

State of Settlement: On the other hand, a person in a state of settlement is someone who has found a place or condition where they feel secure, comfortable, and content. This state often implies stability, a lack of immediate threats, and the presence of basic needs and comforts. Settlement can relate to physical locations, like a home or community, as well as emotional or psychological states of contentment and satisfaction.

Returning to the categories we defined before, the root رفف (rff) belongs to the "positive" words category, as it relates to some form of attraction. Here, we can draw a parallel with a ship seeking a place to settle. On the other hand, the root فرر (frr) belongs to the "negative" words category, as it relates to some form of aversion. In this case, we can draw a parallel with an animal moving away from a source of danger.

Something interesting to study is the effect of the letter ق (q) on the meanings of the roots فرق (frq) and رفق (rfq). We have assumed that the meaning of فرق (frq) is "to part" and that the meaning of فر (fr) is "to escape", Exploring the difference between these meanings should help us understand the role of the letter ق (q). Let's first provide rough definitions of these terms to better see how the presence and absence of this letter affect the words:

To part: This refers to the action of separating, dividing, or breaking away from something or someone, typically involving a connection or relationship being broken or disrupted.
To escape: This involves the act of getting away from a situation, place, or condition, often implying a sense of evasion or avoidance of something undesirable or threatening.

It becomes clear that the main difference between the two is that "to part" has an aspect of a connection being broken, while "to escape" lacks that aspect. We can draw a parallel with an animal escaping a predator. The animal doesn't need to have any preexisting bond with the predator; it can be the first time they've encountered each other. In contrast, when someone parts from their friends or a cake is cut into parts, there is a preexisting emotional or physical condition of unification that is being broken. So far, we can conclude that the letter ق (q) adds that aspect of connection or bond to the root فرق (frq).

Now, let's do the same for the root رفق (rfq). We have assumed that it means "to join," and for رف (rf), we assumed the meaning of "to settle." We will provide definitions and make the same comparison as earlier:

To join: This encompasses the act of connecting or uniting separate entities, individuals, or elements, often to form a cohesive whole or association. It implies the establishment of a connection, partnership, or relationship between previously distinct components.
To settle: This refers to the action of objects or people coming to rest in a stable or fixed position after moving or being in motion. It implies finding a place where things remain undisturbed or stationary, often suggesting a sense of permanence or stability.

Here also, it becomes clear that the main difference between these two is that "to join" has an aspect of a connection being formed, while "to settle" lacks that aspect. We can draw a parallel with a boat settling on the shore; the boat doesn't form a connection to the shore; it merely uses it as a stop. Later, when the owner of the ship decides to move to another place, there isn't a connection that would be broken. On the other hand, a person joining a sports team or a community is forming a connection and becoming a part of a greater whole. If this person decides one day to leave their current circle, they will cut ties and break the bond or the contract they had. Here, too, we can conclude that the letter ق (q) adds that aspect of connection or bond to the root رفق (rfq).

While it can be argued that a boat settling on the shore is forming a bond since the boat needs to be in direct contact with the shore it's settling on, it's incomparable to the connections being formed by the act of "joining". We can draw a parallel where you can make a rock settle above another rock, but to build a wall, you need to join multiple bricks together and make sure they are glued. The difference here is that "joining" ends up with a form of unification that needs to be untangled afterward to be undone, while "settling" creates a form of attendance that only requires moving away to end.

Now, if our premises are correct, we can call the letter ق (q) the letter of bonding or connection. Its appearance at the end of the combinations of رفق (rfq) and فرق (frq) plays the role of intensifying the meanings we find in the combinations of رف (rf) and فر (fr). We can represent this in a format similar to mathematics:

To escape + a bond = to part

To settle + a bond = to join

It may be argued that not every "parting" entails "escaping," thus our previous equation could be incorrect. We can argue that "escaping" here doesn't necessarily entail the presence of fear; we can draw some parallels from everyday usage: A toxic gas began to escape from the damaged container, No one argues that the gas was in a state of fear, Or when a sheep could escape from the herd just out of curiosity just by wandering away from the herd to explore its surroundings. We can say the sheep left the herd with a degree of freedom or intention. It suggests that the sheep made a deliberate choice to separate itself from the group. The term "to flee" probably has a real entailment of fear, thus we see the word "escape" in its abstract sense as almost equivalent to moving away from something, which doesn't necessarily entail a state of inner fear.

Continuing from the conclusions we made it's important to note the inclusiveness of the more abstract root in relation to the less abstract root, the less abstract root is the root that has extra letters that further add more features to the meaning.

To further explain how this relationship works, Let's take for example the words "location" and "home", the word "location" is more abstract than the word "home", possibly in any phrase we can replace the occurrences of the word "home" with the word "location" without affecting the truthfulness of that phrase but it's going to affect its clearance and it will be less informative, for example, the phrase "I went to their home" can be replaced by "I went to their location" to describe the same event but the latter is less informative, it's not an issue if this information is not critical to the reader and if the writer wants the attention to be directed towards the other pieces of information in the phrase and not the information that would be conveyed when using the word "home".

In the roots we studied so far this leads us to conclude that "to escape" is more encompassing than "to part" If we simply define "to escape" as "to move away" and "to part" as "to break away" which means "parting" consist of "moving away" but also "breaking" a connection in the process, so the phrase "he broke away from his community" can be replaced by "he moved away from his community" without affecting the truthfulness yet the latter being less informative.

"He broke away from his community": This suggests a more deliberate and perhaps decisive action. The use of "broke away" implies a significant, intentional departure, possibly involving a rupture or departure that required effort or resolve.
"He moved away from his community": This is a more neutral statement. "Moved away" indicates a physical relocation without necessarily implying a deliberate or forceful departure. It could involve simply moving to a different location without the connotation of breaking ties.

Now in a bigger text, we may deduce the meaning of "parting" in a phrase that uses the sentence "He moved away from his community" if the context gives enough clues but without any clues, no one can tell if moving away indicates breaking ties, a person can physically relocate but still keep a channel of communication and connection to his prior settling place.

According to this "more or less abstract" relationship, we can conclude that any "less abstract" form can be replaced with a "more abstract" form without affecting the truthfulness of the description, For example, any derivative of رفق (rfq) could be replaced with a derivative from رف (rf) but the inverse is not true, Since we can see that "joining" does convey the meaning of "settling", but one can "settle" without the extra aspect of connection-making that "joining" indicates.

Note that It's not out of the realm of possibility that we have stumbled upon inaccuracies and made incorrect definitions for the roots and their derivatives or even the terms we used. Furthermore, it's possible that we have unintentionally practiced confirmation bias. It's true that we look for patterns in dictionaries, which can resemble a form of "cherry-picking" However, we do so not solely to find symmetry but due to our belief that dictionaries are highly defective and inconsistent. These dictionaries were written hundreds of years after the supposed appearance of the Quran. Additionally, dictionaries often provide a multitude of meanings for a word, which may not necessarily be inherent to the nature of the language but rather a result of the dictionaries attempting to encompass every way a word was used over hundreds of years.

If our premises are true and our findings hold, the letter ق (q) likely plays a similar role in other roots, particularly when it appears as the last letter of a root. This is an area we intend to research further. An interesting side note is that the Quran contains a chapter titled ق (Qaf) and starts with that letter, and it begins with the verse [Quran 50:1] "ق وَالْقُرْآنِ الْمَجِيدِ" which is usually translated as "Qaf. By the honored Quran" (we do not think that currently any translation is 100% accurate, just using them for the lack of a better alternative). The traditional narrative doesn't clearly explain the meaning of the initials at the beginning of Quranic chapters. It's worth noting that ق (q) is not the only letter that appears at the beginning of a chapter; some chapters even begin with multiple letters. It's quite unusual that there are no records of the so-called "companions" of the supposed author of the Quran asking him about the meaning of these letters. This absence in historical accounts leads us to conclude that there are missing pieces in the traditional "Islamic" narrative.

There are a couple of possible scenarios. One is that these letters are typographical errors that occurred during the transmission of the text. The other, more logical scenario, is that these letters held known significance and were related to the Quran in some way, possibly signifying a form of linguistic knowledge. The latter scenario seems more plausible because these initials appear not just once or twice but numerous times in the Quran, encompassing a total of 14 different letters. This makes it less likely that they are mere typos. If these initials do indeed point to some form of linguistic knowledge that was known at the time the Quran was written, then the only plausible explanation for this knowledge being lost is that the book was removed from its original context. Those who transmitted it may not have been knowledgeable about its content or may have intentionally disregarded this aspect.

If the initials do indeed hint at a form of linguistic knowledge, then it stands to reason that our research into the nature of the Arabic language, its construction, the influence of letters order on meaning, and the role of each letter as a separate unit may align with and help uncover this lost linguistic knowledge.

A potential solution to avoid inaccuracies and confirmation bias is to research more roots (which is something we are planning to do), maybe then we can let the data "speak for itself", then it would either confirm the primitive conclusions or refute them.

Let's start by exploring two other interesting roots that share two core letters we used earlier mainly ر (r) and ف (f), These roots are غرف ( ghrf ) and فرغ (frgh)

The root غرف ( ghrf ) meaning revolves around the meaning of "to fill", This root and its derivates convey the meaning of filling, scooping, and grasping something.
The root فرغ (frgh) meaning revolves around the meaning of "to empty", This root and its derivatives convey the meanings of emptying, vacating, and clearing something.

One important thing to notice is the relationship between the sub roots رف (rf) and فر (fr) that we studied earlier to the new combinations that include the letter غ (gh).

We can deduce the following:

The root غرف ( ghrf ) can be represented as follows: غ + رف ( gh + rf ), and since we already estimated that رف (rf) general meaning is "to settle" we can deduce that the letter غ (gh) restricts the meaning of "settling" and in this case "to fill" is "content being settled in a new location" thus the letter غ (gh) adds the aspect of "relocating content".
The root فرغ (frgh) can be represented as follows: فر + غ ( fr + gh ), and since we already estimated that فر (fr) general meaning is "to escape" or "to move away" we can deduce that here the letter غ (gh) restricts the meaning of "escaping" and in this case "to empty" is "moving away content to a new location" thus also here the letter غ (gh) adds the aspect of "relocating content".

From these results, we can describe the letter غ (gh) as the content letter regarding its role in the two roots we examined.

Now we need to understand the influence of the order of the letter غ (gh) in the combinations we have seen so far and in other possible combinations of the three letters غ - ف - ر ( gh - f - r ).

To do so we are going to study another combination, mainly the root غفر (ghfr), This root occurs plenty of times in the Quranic text and is commonly understood to refer to the act of "forgiving sins", we can conclude from examining the usage of this root that its meaning relates to the meanings of nullifying, discounting, eliminating.

The root غفر (ghfr) can be represented as follows: غ + فر ( gh + fr ) and since we already estimated that فر (fr) general meaning is "to escape" or "to move away" we can deduce that here the letter غ (gh) restricts the meaning of "escaping" and in this case "to eliminate" is "content is being moved away from existence" thus here the letter غ (gh) adds the aspect of "manipulating content".

There is an interesting comparison to be done here, mainly between the roots فرغ (frgh) and غفر (ghfr), we have both these equations that can illustrate the influence of the order of the letter غ (gh) on both roots:

The root غفر (ghfr): غ + فر ( gh + fr ), the meaning is centered on a content being moved away from existence, thus eliminating and nullifying it, making it non-valued. We notice that in the root غفر (ghfr) the emphasis is on the content, which can make us conclude that starting with غ (gh) makes the latter two letters فر (fr) a process that gets inflicted on the starting غ (gh).
The root فرغ (frgh): فر + غ ( fr + gh ), The meaning is centered on moving away content to a new location, thus shifting and relocating it, making it absent from its current location. We notice that in the root فرغ (frgh) the emphasis is on the move, which makes us conclude that starting with ف (f) makes the latter two letters رغ (rgh) a process that gets inflicted on the starting ف (f).

Now, for the root غفر (ghfr), we already have an estimation of the meaning of the root فر (fr); therefore, we estimate the process is about "to escape" or "to move away." Applying that process to content describes a new meaning of making something "go away," which perfectly aligns with the commonly used meaning when this root is understood as "forgiving sins." It implies making something discounted, eliminated, or simply causing it to "go away" or "move away from existence". Just like the expectation of those who want their sins to be forgiven, They want their sins to "go away", to be nullified as if they don't exist anymore. an interesting segment in the Quran relates to this process:

The sentence "إِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ يُذْهِبْنَ" can be roughly translated as "The good deeds make the bad deeds go away" which we find a good explanation of the meaning of the root غفر (ghfr), It leads us to conclude that in the Quran "forgiveness of sins" is achieved by improving the balance of deeds. This necessitates refraining from bad deeds, acknowledging mistakes, and seeking to make amends through good deeds so that the old bad deeds are discounted from the new balance and thus eliminated.

Now, for the root فرغ (frgh), We do not have an estimation of the meaning of the combination رغ (rgh); therefore we will postpone exploring the dynamics in this current root till we study the root letters in more contexts.

The content we've written thus far may require a review. Like any study, there's room for errors and misunderstandings, especially in linguistic research where one mistake can lead to several others and result in incorrect conclusions.

Previoushypotheses Nextantigrams (part 2)

Last updated 8 months ago