Dear thirdwind, as I said Shi,ah is what we pronounce in Farsi although its root is Arabic. I had not heard a word as Shiite before. There is not a Shiite in Farsi or even in Arabic ( because Arabic has some similarity with Farsi, Among the most of its alphabets is common with Farsi. Also from the past centuries, some Arabic words have been arrived in Farsi. I have to say Arabic is the most regular language in the world and its grammar rules are very arranged. Due to this fact, the reason that Quran has been sent down by Arabic language is this.)
Good. I am glad you know Persian I sometime think, why the west people don't attempt to learn Farsi and Arabic while the half of the literature treasure of the world is in the middle east, among philosophy, theosophy and excellent poems. However, as I hinted in one of my posts, Shiah is a noun that itself does mean " follower". This noun can be attached to the belief of "Shiah" or "the people that follow the belief" both. So it is not necessary another word is made up that it is unknown for Shiahes.
The issue is that, "Shiah" existed in English language as a well known word since the last centuries while, Shiite is a new made up word and it hasn't any similarity with what people pronounce in the middle east.
Mans, you've been told repeatedly that Shiite has been around since the 1700's. Are you unable to see those posts, or are you ignoring them?
Yes, but "Shiah" is almost the same that people pronounce in Persian and other language in the middle east while Shiite is an unknown and meaningless word for them.
Neither I am unable to see those posts nor am ignoring them, but the discussion is continuing when someone sends a new post. I am saying that " Shiah" is a real word that people use in the middle east and Shiite is an unfamiliar word that they don't know it.
You just said, two or three posts ago: Do you deny that you said it? Do you argue that a word that has been around for more than two hundred years is "new"?
I didn't know that this odd word existed already. I heard it recently. Also I am interested to know is there any document? can do you introduce some references that prove this word existed two hundred years ago?
What I find fascinating is the shape of the word, and it being 'wrong' with Shiite, which seems toe be almost as offensive as the fact the word itself was changed (?bastardised). Arabic spelling is almost artistic, it definitely has a shape to it, I wonder if we aren't getting it because we don't pay attention to word shapes such?
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary has a paragraph of the origin of the word, specifying a use in 1728. The same for the online Dictionary.com dictionary. The same for http://etymology.enacademic.com/ The same for http://www.etymonline.com. I pointed out its age several times. Someone else also pointed it out. Someone pointed to a reference that used it in 1986. I pointed out that it's used by the New York Times, by NPR, by the Library of Congress. If you just Google the word, you'll find it all over the web. But you once again refer to it as "new" and "made up". I don't understand this style of argument, where you make a statement and then utterly ignore the response, restating and restating your statement without ever addressing the fact that it's been disputed. Why even engage in a discussion if you're not going to hear what others are saying?
Just to clarify, I'm fine with the valid arguments for changing to the more authentic word. But a false statement of fact drives me crazy even when it's accompanied by valid statements. For example, imagine that someone told me: "You should only use organic cooking oil. The pesticides used to make conventional cooking oil are bad for the environment, bad for you, and they're purchased from our enemies on Mars." I would agree with the first two statements, but that wouldn't make me OK with the statement about Martians.
@ChickenFreak : I completely agree with your comments on this topic, but was trying to figure out if there's more to the offense, perhaps on a more fundamental level where language meets symbolism. But I got no answer either
I couldn't get my answer. In those websites it only pointed to the meaning of Shiite but I couldn't find the history of this word. Also in Mariam webmaster I couldn't find the paragraph that you hinted. Besides, you hinted : These dates are new and are not counted as the old document. I want to know, when this word was made, so I need an old documentary pointing that hints to a certain date. Of course this is not an argument but I want to be sure this is a word that existed in English about two hundred yeas ago. So there must be an evidence that proof this word has been used in an old article and writing.
It'll take a while. All I'm getting so far are the basic facts about Shi'a Islam. Interesting stuff, but not the actual historical document where the word first appeared. Since the definition has it showing up in the late 1600s/early 1700s, that's the only clue I have to go by. That's a really good historical question. When did the word first appear? I'm considering copying/pasting this thread link over to a history forum I go to and let the historians there pick at the question.
Mans, if you aren't seeing the references to the 1700's on those sites, it's because you aren't looking. I'm sorry, but your obstinance in this is beyond frustrating. There's no point in trying to discuss further, because obviously you won't be happy until everyone agrees with your point of view. Ain't gonna happen.
If this link is allowed, here is the Google ngram viewer result for Shiite, showing it was a term used in books published in the 1800s. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Shiite&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4;,Shiite;,c0;,s0;;Shiite;,c0;;shiite;,c0 If you click on the date ranges underneath the chart you can see extracts from the books to get the context.
We can all argue this until we're blue in the face. It makes little to no difference. The word has history, is in play, in use, and in high frequency in political conversations. The phenomenological cat is out of the syntactic bag. There's no getting it back in. This is the same as the umbrage I take at the phrase "that's gay". I can hate it all I want; it's use is undeniably derogatory, but it's too late. The language - not a person, not the people, but the language itself - has grabbed onto it. It will not let go at my behest, but only if and when it feels like it. I understand why this might hit home for you, but again, this happens all the time in all languages. This is not something unique to the oft maligned Egnlish. This is language evolution. You cannot take it personally. Are Muslims to be offended every time they hear a Spanish person say ojalá, or a Portuguese person say oxalá because it does not exactly represent the Arabic pronunciation ( إن شاء الله ) from which it comes, even though Spanish possesses all of the phonemes necessary to say it as it would be said in Arabic? That's not reasonable.
Every one of the sources documents the first known use. Did you look at even one of them? The fastest way to find many references is to Google definition shiite 1728 And here I'm going to try to give up, because it appears that for whatever reason, you are determined that your belief is true, and facts are irrelevant to you.
I'm learning how to ask specific historical questions! Sometimes I feel like I'm an insult to my own major. Awaiting the responses. The first response I got is that the words "Sunna" and "Shia" both appear in the Quran, but don't refer to the two Islamic sects.
Sorry. The page that you addressed doesn't work for me. This message appeas in Google page : "We're sorry, but this service is not available in your country. That’s all we know." I think that website is filtered in my country
The poster has given me some links I thought I'd share. Worth a look. http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=$yE http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=snn Now I'm getting pumped up. We're solving a historical mystery here!
Well, If you and some others think I am discussing persistently, I end this conversation. As I did do this in one of my previous posts
You have every right to do that, but you should understand that when you: - Make incorrect statements of fact. and - Reject all evidence that they're incorrect. that leaves a lasting negative impression. If you find yourself unable to admit error after you've committed to a statement, it might be better, in the future, to research those statements before you make them.
