Qur'an | Word by Word | Audio | Prayer Times
__ Sign In

Verse (56:18), Word 2 - Quranic Grammar


The second word of verse (56:18) is divided into 2 morphological segments. A conjunction and noun. The prefixed conjunction wa is usually translated as "and". The noun is masculine plural and is in the accusative case (منصوب).

Chapter (56) sūrat l-wāqiʿah (The Event)

and jugs
CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)
N – accusative masculine plural noun
الواو عاطفة
اسم منصوب

Verse (56:18)

The analysis above refers to the eighteenth verse of chapter 56 (sūrat l-wāqiʿah):

Sahih International: With vessels, pitchers and a cup [of wine] from a flowing spring -

See Also

4 messages

Mazhar A. Nurani

2nd May, 2011

The Root is notindicated. It is from "ب ر ق", broken plural, [pattern أَفَاْعِيْل Methods].

In consideration of the fact that hard drinks are being served therefrom, instead of "jugs" more specific word "flagons" may be used.

I think the Root is not indicated because of the controversy of its origin.


You might find this similarity between "flagons" and "ب ر ق", interesting;

http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English Tafsir e Haqeeqat/06. Book-6 Quran Described by Quran/02. A Istabraq and Abareeq/2. a Abareeq flagons.htm


2nd May, 2011

Salam Mazhar.

Yes the origin for this word is possibly a bit controversial. There are in general two schools of thoughts. Either this word is Arabic in origin, with the root ba-ra-qa. The other possibility is that the word is a borrowing from Persian, and so has no Arabic root as it falls outside of the Arabic root system. The primary reference for roots for this website is Badawi and Haleem's Dictionary of Quranic Usage, which lists this word without a root, as a separate entry in the dictionary.

I'm not saying either opinion is more or less correct than the other, I'm trying to stay neutral. I can accept that both of these two opinions are mentioned as both correct in different dictionaries and in different historical sources. However, we have chosen Badawi and Haleem's dictionary as the primary reference for roots for consistency:


With regards to translation, flagons sounds like a good translation - this is in fact the translation suggested by Badawi and Haleem.

Abdul Rahman

2nd May, 2011

This noun is in the "GENITIVE" rather than accusative by operation of the harf jar "bi" (56:18:1) and the conjunction "wa", but the sign of its being genitive is "fatha" rather than "kasra" because of its measure maFaa3eeL which is "mamnu3 min al-Sarf". In some grammar books this is called a diptote. Like the proper nouns, Yusuf, Ibrahim, Maryam etc which have only two forms, ending in dhammah in the nominative and fatha in the genitive and accusative.


3rd May, 2011

Salam Abdul Rahman,

Yes, this is indeed genitive - thanks for pointing this out. Inshallah this will be corrected.


-- Kais

You can sign in to add a message if this information could be improved or requires discussion.

Language Research Group
University of Leeds