The Koran is the most religious book ...

[Barman]

Please consider the following sentences,

1)The Koran is the most religious book of the Musalmans.

2) It was revealed to Muhammad.

3) He is the Prophet of Islam.

If I combine the above sentences into a single one by using noun in apposition, is the following sentence grammatically correct?

1) The Koran, the most religious book of the Musalmans, was revealed to Muhammad who is the Prophet of Islam.

 

[Rover_KE]

Please note that I have changed your thread title.

Extract from the Posting Guidelines:

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'

 

[Rollercoaster1]

3) He is the Prophet of Islam.

You must add 'last' before the word 'prophet'.

 

[teechar]

You must add 'last' before the word 'prophet'.

Let's not turn this into a religious discussion. That sentence is okay as it stands from an English language perspective.

 

[jutfrank]

You must add 'last' before the word 'prophet'.

Let's not turn this into a religious discussion. That sentence is okay as it stands from an English language perspective.

I assume Rollercoaster was merely thinking about the use of the definite article the, which suggests there is only one prophet. Adding Last would be one way to fix that.

(But yes, let's not turn this into a religious discussion.)

 

[teechar]

the use of the definite article the, which suggests there is only one prophet.

It needn't suggest that at all. "Prophet" is a singular noun and so it requires an article.

 

[teechar]

I disagree. "The" can suggest, for example, that he is the main prophet.

 

[PeterCW]

Re: Joining of sentences

The word 'Muselman' is considered derogatory.

It is also an archaic term that I would be suprised to see in anything written since the First World War.

 

[jutfrank]

It needn't suggest that at all. "Prophet" is a singular noun and so it requires an article.

I don't follow. I didn't mean there was a problem with the article, but rather that the definite article alone presumes there's only one prophet, which is not the case. My point was that I think that's what Rollercoaster meant by suggesting Last, which would be a good correction.

 

[probus]

Re: Joining of sentences

It is also an archaic term that I would be suprised to see in anything written since the First World War.

I was not aware that anybody considered musalman or mussalman derogatory. It is often used in India today in a purely neutral way, simply a fact that applies to some people. My experience in India bears out the dictionary research I've done today: mussalman is just a variant spelling of muslim.

 

[Rover_KE]

Whilst thanking probus for making a fair point, I can't help feeling, purely from a language standpoint, that in modern English we should recommend only the use of Muslim (which, like Christian, Hindu and Sikh, should always be capitalised).

 

[teechar]

I don't follow.

See my subsequent post.

I didn't mean there was a problem with the article,

We're in agreement about that.

but rather that the definite article alone presumes there's only one prophet,

Not necessarily. Consider for example:
He's the advocate of climate change.
Other factors can be relevant: context, intonation, etc.

My point was that I think that's what Rollercoaster meant by suggesting Last

Perhaps, or maybe he was stating a particular doctrine.

 

[teechar]

My initial reaction to that is that the writer has made a mistake. The suggestion is that there is only one advocate of climate change.

A: Who's that man on the telly?
B: He's been in the news lately. He's the advocate of climate change.

The person needn't be the only advocate. He could be, for example, a prominent one, or one who has been getting much media attention lately.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Re: Joining of sentences

The word 'Muselman' is considered derogatory.
I think you want 'revered' or some similar word rather than 'religious'

Revered is good. I also like holy."

I've never heard "Muselman." Where is it used?

 

[probus]

Re: Joining of sentences

[I

I've never heard "Muselman." Where is it used?

India for sure, and probably also elsewhere in the subcontinent, i.e. Pakistan, Bangla Desh, and Sri Lanka.

 

[probus]

Whilst thanking probus for making a fair point, I can't help feeling, purely from a language standpoint, that in modern English we should recommend only the use of Muslim (which, like Christian, Hindu and Sikh, should always be capitalised).

No argument there. I always use Muslim myself, except when I'm in India, in which case "When in Rome ..." applies.

 

[Rollercoaster1]

Re: Joining of sentences

I was not aware that anybody considered musalman or mussalman derogatory. It is often used in India today in a purely neutral way, simply a fact that applies to some people. My experience in India bears out the dictionary research I've done today: mussalman is just a variant spelling of muslim.

'Musalman' or 'Mussalman' is an Urdu word. Not only I but many who when speaking English would never say either of them.

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Joining of sentences

'Musalman' or 'Mussalman' is an Urdu word. Not only I but many [STRIKE]who[/STRIKE] people, when speaking English, would never say either of them.

See above.

 

[probus]

Re: Joining of sentences

'Musalman' or 'Mussalman' is an Urdu word. Not only I but many who when speaking English would never say either of them.

That makes sense. The Indians who taught it to me were Muslims from Uttar Pradesh. They used the word when speaking English, but I'd have to say their English was not very good. Obviously they did not consider it pejorative, since they used it of themselves.

 

[Skrej]

'Sacred' would be another good option to replace 'religious'.