Questions on the Moosi'oon of Soorat al-Zaariyaat
Denis Giron
al-Zaariyaat has once again popped up on the net, this time in some
posts on MENJ's forum. I have been taking part in the thread and
arguing that it is not referring to the expansion of the universe, and
one response to my claims involved a copy and paste job of an SRI post
by akhoona Yusuf B. Gursey. The relevant posts on MENJ's forum are
these:
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=3318&highlight=#3318
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=3357&highlight=#3357
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=3371&highlight=#3371
Now, up front I will concede that I am not fluent in Arabic. My
knowledge of Arabic up to this point has been wholly self-taught, from
inferring things from dictionaries while using my knowledge of another
"Semitic" language (Hebrew) as a base, thus I may have bad habits or
misconceptions coming in. Because of this I thought I'd raise my
objections to this interpretation of Soorat al-Zaariyaat, and see how
correct or incorrect I am (I'll guage such by the responses I get).
The relevant passages reads "wa innaa lamoosi'oona" (al-Zaariyaat
51:47). First I want to raise one (admittedly weak) question (which I
made in the post above, and now I think I may regret). Take note of
this post I wrote that takes a look at an old manuscript of Soorat
al-Fatihah:
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=19889#19889
[your browser needs unicode support to see the Arabic]
In there it is shown how certain old Qur'ans have instances where the
alif that begins the definite article of a word gets (accidentally?)
tacked on to the end of the previous word. Exempli gratia (as given in
the post above), the alif in "al-Rahman" is attached to "Allaah" in
"Bismillaah." I want to ask, is it grammatically possible for the alif
to be attached at the beginning of the last word, rather at the end of
"inna"? In other words, would it still make sense if it were written
"inna al-moosi'oona," id est spelled alif-nun [space]
alif-lam-mim-waw-seen-ayin-waw-nun [AN ALMWS'WN rather than ANA
LMWS'WN]? Would that change the context of the verse? The meaning?
Anyway, that is preliminary, and weak (and maybe downright irrelevant)
by my own admission. Let's get to the meat of "wa innaa lamoosi'oona"
in Soorat al-Zaariyaat. The key word here is "moosi'oon". Is this not
the plural of the active participle of awsa'a (waw-seen-ayin root),
for expand, affluent, influential, rich, wealthy, et cetera? What I
mean is, isn't this a noun (like Mushrik, Mulhid, Muslim, Mujahid,
Muhajir) in the plural? If this is really just the plural of Moosi'i
(they way Mushrikoon would be the plural of Mushrik), then this is
referring to the speakers (the "we"), not the universe!
The only other time I know of this conjugation of the waw-seen-ayin
root appearing in the Qur'an (correct me if I'm wrong), is in Soorat
al-Baqarah 2:236. It is in the singular (moosi'i), and reads "alaa
al-Moosi'i qadaruhu," roughly "to the rich according to his means."
What is being expanded by that Moosi'i? Nothing, the word means rich,
affluent, influential.
Now, in the context of the verse in Soorat al-Zaariyaat, I would
imagine that it simply means "we have the ability to build/expand".
The translations of Hilaalee-Khan and Ahmed Ali both don't hessitate
to move in the direction of the Scientific Hermeneutic approach
whnever possible, and even they refrained from translating the verse
along the lines of "we are expanding it [the heavens]". Hilaalee Khan
translated "innaa lamoosi'oona" as "verily, We are able to extend the
vastness of space," and Ahmed Ali rendered it "We are the Lord of
power and expanse" (though 'Lord' [Rabb] does not appear in the
Arabic, I think the point is still clear here).
I think in light of this, H.E. was at least partially right when he
said last July that it is the miracle of reinterpretation when people
find the verse saying the universe is expanding. So, in short, despite
errors in the Arabic I may have made, does not the point still stand
that the very notion of "expand" is a reference to the speaker, not
as-Samma'a [the heavens]?
-Denis Giron
Yusuf B Gursey
<<
"And the sky we have built with power and we are expanding (it)"
>>
later:
<<
"Wa Inna mose'oon" literaly means: "Wa": And, "Inna": We are,
"mose'oon": expanding (it).
>>
here "expanding" is causative and transitive (i.e. causing expansion, not
undergoing expansion).
this is a *possible* and *very literal* interpretation / translation of
the passage, it's not the only one, nor did I say that it is neccessarily
what was intended. it has other meanings as well.
I hope to respond to D. Giron's post in more detail later.
Yusuf B Gursey
: 51:47). First I want to raise one (admittedly weak) question (which I
fine, I will get back to your main point later.
: made in the post above, and now I think I may regret). Take note of
: this post I wrote that takes a look at an old manuscript of Soorat
: al-Fatihah:
: http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=19889#19889
: [your browser needs unicode support to see the Arabic]
: In there it is shown how certain old Qur'ans have instances where the
: alif that begins the definite article of a word gets (accidentally?)
: tacked on to the end of the previous word. Exempli gratia (as given in
: the post above), the alif in "al-Rahman" is attached to "Allaah" in
: "Bismillaah." I want to ask, is it grammatically possible for the alif
this is an orthographic feature, not one of speech.
: to be attached at the beginning of the last word, rather at the end of
this seems to be a an old orthographic device to indicate the waSla: where
the hamza dissapears, the alif looses its vowel, and the preceding vowel
makes a syllable with the following lam (which may be assimmliated with
the following consonant. these alif's have no phonetic value in this
position (context position), they are written to show the grammatic
feature of the definite article. waSla also occurs in certain other words.
borrowing a term from french grammar, one can refer to it as "liaison".
what you bring up is interesting. it is not a feature present when the
orthography got standardized to its current form. of course, decorative
calligraphy takes liberties to make its own unusual ways of attachmenting.
I will have to look through facsimiles of old manuscripts.
: "inna"? In other words, would it still make sense if it were written
: "inna al-moosi'oona," id est spelled alif-nun [space]
: alif-lam-mim-waw-seen-ayin-waw-nun [AN ALMWS'WN rather than ANA
: LMWS'WN]? Would that change the context of the verse? The meaning?
no. in << inna: la-mu:si3u:n(a) >> there is no "liaison", no definite
article.
Denis Giron
> : "inna"? In other words, would it still make sense if it were written
> : "inna al-moosi'oona," id est spelled alif-nun [space]
> : alif-lam-mim-waw-seen-ayin-waw-nun [AN ALMWS'WN rather than ANA
> : LMWS'WN]? Would that change the context of the verse? The meaning?
>
> no. in << inna: la-mu:si3u:n(a) >> there is no "liaison", no definite
> article.
You lost me. Do you mean there is no definite article in the actualy
Arabic? that I know already. What I mean is, would it be grammatically
possible to write it this alternative way. Now, I am not worried about
the meaning being retained; rather if the Arabic is rewritten in the
way I mentioned above (regardless of whether the meaning is retained),
would the sentence be sensible, or would it be nonsense? I didn't
understand what you meant in your short answer.
Regarding the actualt Arabic...
> here "expanding" is causative and transitive (i.e. causing
> expansion, not undergoing expansion).
> this is a *possible* and *very literal* interpretation /
> translation of the passage, it's not the only one, nor did I
> say that it is neccessarily what was intended. it has other
> meanings as well.
And what makes it this way? Is it the initial lam in "lamoosi'oona"?
Or is it the conjugation of awsa'a in a specific active-participle
plural ("moosi'oon" rather than "moosi'een")?
Another question: if I said "we are Mushrikoon," would that not be
analogous? And if so, in what sense would it be comparable? As in "we
are associating"? Along the same lines, if "we are Muslimoon" is
analogous, would it mean "we are submitting"? Of course the key
antecedent is *IF* these examples are analogous. If they are not
analogous, please explain where I am mistaken.
As for the issue of other possible translations, could you elaborate
here? How else might the verse be understood? Furthermore, how do we
determine what the verse might have neccessarily intended?
> I hope to respond to D. Giron's post in more detail later.
I look forward to that! Thanks for what we have so far; I hope my
questions above further elucidate where I'm at.
-Denis Giron
Yusuf B Gursey
: I think in light of this, H.E. was at least partially right when he
: said last July that it is the miracle of reinterpretation when people
at any rate, there is no stretching of the literal meaning in saying so.
H.E. had implied that Moataz was reworking the sentence, which he was not.
he was using a very basic meaning of it.
: find the verse saying the universe is expanding. So, in short, despite
: errors in the Arabic I may have made, does not the point still stand
: that the very notion of "expand" is a reference to the speaker, not
: as-Samma'a [the heavens]?
this last point is false. the verb is transitive and causitive (although
in the meaning "being rich" the action is usually forgotten). it is
sometimes a difficulty in translating into english because english
frequently does not use a marker to distinguish transitive and
intransitive forms of the verb. clearly an expansion or "making ample" is
being done or has been done.
Yusuf B Gursey
Denis Giron <kaa...@godisdead.com> wrote:
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
:> : "inna"? In other words, would it still make sense if it were written
:> : "inna al-moosi'oona," id est spelled alif-nun [space]
:> : alif-lam-mim-waw-seen-ayin-waw-nun [AN ALMWS'WN rather than ANA
:> : LMWS'WN]? Would that change the context of the verse? The meaning?
:>
:> no. in << inna: la-mu:si3u:n(a) >> there is no "liaison", no definite
:> article.
: You lost me. Do you mean there is no definite article in the actualy
: Arabic? that I know already. What I mean is, would it be grammatically
the old orthographic convention seems to apply to the alif of the definite
article or other waSla's.
: possible to write it this alternative way. Now, I am not worried about
: the meaning being retained; rather if the Arabic is rewritten in the
: way I mentioned above (regardless of whether the meaning is retained),
: would the sentence be sensible, or would it be nonsense? I didn't
well, yes. 'inna makes the subject into the accusative (inna: is a
contraction of 'innana: -na: is the pronoun "we" in the accuastive). in
your example, there is no noun in the accusative, hence no subject, hence
no sentence.
: understand what you meant in your short answer.
: Regarding the actualt Arabic...
:> here "expanding" is causative and transitive (i.e. causing
:> expansion, not undergoing expansion).
:> this is a *possible* and *very literal* interpretation /
:> translation of the passage, it's not the only one, nor did I
:> say that it is neccessarily what was intended. it has other
:> meanings as well.
: And what makes it this way? Is it the initial lam in "lamoosi'oona"?
no, that's just for additional emphasis and is not translatable. 'inna
is usually translated as "verily" following the tradition of translating
biblical hebrew.
: Or is it the conjugation of awsa'a in a specific active-participle
: plural ("moosi'oon" rather than "moosi'een")?
two meanings are possible: either expanding (something) physically or
expanding (something) in terms of goods and opportunities., i.e. making
ample. also it is not clear whether the act is completed or ongoing. in
current spoken arabic it would more normally refer to an ongoing act, but
this reference is also possible in classical arabic. another possible
interpretation is a general statement of the power of God (as in some
translations of the passage). nevertheless, Moataz Emam's is translation
is perfectly valid.
: Another question: if I said "we are Mushrikoon," would that not be
which is associating partners (with God)
: analogous? And if so, in what sense would it be comparable? As in "we
: are associating"? Along the same lines, if "we are Muslimoon" is
: analogous, would it mean "we are submitting"? Of course the key
yes, but it is etymologically from sala:m "peace", i.e. making peace.
: antecedent is *IF* these examples are analogous. If they are not
: analogous, please explain where I am mistaken.
these two verbs, and especially their participles have been used too much
in their specialized meaning, the actions behind them are usually not
thought of. mu:si3 also has a specialized meaning of being rich
(presumabely because the rich have the means to make things ample), but
this does not fit the context in this particular instance.
: As for the issue of other possible translations, could you elaborate
: here? How else might the verse be understood? Furthermore, how do we
: determine what the verse might have neccessarily intended?
:> I hope to respond to D. Giron's post in more detail later.
: I look forward to that! Thanks for what we have so far; I hope my
this is basically the gist of what I have to say, I had intended my
previous post to focus on the orthographical conventions you mentioned, so
my additional comments on your first post will be shorter.
BTW where did you find the texts with the now unusual orthographic
conventions? do you have a reference? it is interesting in its own right.
: questions above further elucidate where I'm at.
: -Denis Giron
Denis Giron
> ...
This is an interesting thread. I still have some more questions, as
for me personally, it is not 100% clear. This is not, however, only
for Yusuf B. Gursey. Anyone and everyone is invited to take part. :)
> 'inna makes the subject into the accusative (inna: is a
> contraction of 'innana: -na: is the pronoun "we" in the accuastive).
Okay, so I have another question then. The question involves Arabic,
which unfortunately cannot be posted to SRI, so I have posted the
relevant Arabic to a post in another forum (in both gif and unicode
format):
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=3526#3526
There I give four sentences in Arabic, and they are:
Innaa anahnu al-Mushrikoona
"Certainly, we are the polytheists/idolaters (those who associate
partners with God)"
Innaa anahnu al-Moosi'oona
"Certainly, we are the rich/afluent/influential/enrichers (wideners?
expanders?)"
Innaa anahnu al-Muslimoona
"Certainly, we are the Muslims (those who submit to God)"
Innaa anahnu al-Mulhidoona
"Certainly, we are the Atheists."
I still am not clear if these sentences are at least analogous to one
another. Does the word moosi'oona imply the action being performed
right now because of the conjugation, and if so, how would that relate
to the examples given above? Would you translate the second sentence
(Innaa anahnu al-Moosi'oona) as "certainly, we are expanding
[something]"? And if so, how does that apply to the first sentence,
(Innaa anahnu al-Mushrikoona)? Would translate that as roughly "we are
associating partners with God right at this moment"? Or would it be
"we are those who associate parters with God" (similar to the way
Hilaalee-Khan translated the verse in Soorat al-Zaariyaat.
> two meanings are possible: either expanding (something) physically or
> expanding (something) in terms of goods and opportunities., i.e. making
> ample. also it is not clear whether the act is completed or ongoing.
If it is not clear if the act is completed or ongoing, that seems
curious. Is this because Moosi means simply one who expands or
enriches, though not necessarily one who is in the process of
enriching/expanding right at this moment? I still am not clear if this
is not analogous to the word "Mushrik" (sam conjugation, only of the
shin-raa-kaf verb-root, rather than waw-seen-ayin), which is what I
asked in a previous post. A Mushrik is one who associates partners
with God, worships, idols, et cetera. If I am a Mushrik, does it mean
I am associating partners with God right at this very moment? Am I
worshipping and idol right at this moment (even though I am banging
away at a keyboard)? Or am I right that this active participle
conjugation of the verb (whether plural or singular) simply refers to
an individual (or individuals) who do that sort of thing (whether it
was in the past, or right now)? If I am right, this further explains
why you wrote "it is not clear whether the act is completed or
ongoing," and the modern interpretation drawn out by the scientific
hermeneutic approach, though not absolutely wrong, is not as clear and
distinct as others would like us to believe.
This lack of clarity, I think, explains why so many translations
failed to capture the interpretation borne by the scientific
hermeneutic approach. A German translation I found rendered "innaa
laMoosi'oona" as "Unsere Krafte sind wahrlich gewaltig" ("our forces
are indeed enormous"). A Spanish translation I found rendered it
"ciertamente, asignamos un vasto espacio" ("certainly, we assigned a
vast space"). H.E. noted how Yusuf Ali rendered it "for it is We Who
create the vastness of pace," Shakir wrote "most surely We are the
makers of things ample," and Pickthal translated it as "We it is Who
make the vast extent (thereof)." In my post from January 8th I noted
the following: The translations of Hilaalee-Khan and Ahmed Ali both
don't hessitate to move in the direction of the Scientific Hermeneutic
approach whnever possible, and even they refrained from translating
the verse along the lines of "we are expanding it [the heavens]".
Hilaalee Khan translated "innaa lamoosi'oona" as "verily, We are able
to extend the vastness of space," and Ahmed Ali rendered it "We are
the Lord of power and expanse" (though 'Lord' [Rabb] does not appear
in the Arabic, I think the point is still clear here). However, both
Rashad Khalifa (whose translation is often sober) and one recent
French translation have taken the Scientific Hermeneutic approach.
On a final note, I wonder if we take this route how we should treat
the next verse (Soorat al-Zaariyaat 51:48). Though the conjugation is
slightly different, I wonder about the word maahidoon(a). Does it too
mean that the earth is being spread out as we speak? If so, in what
sense? If not, why the difference in approach?
> BTW where did you find the texts with the now unusual orthographic
> conventions? do you have a reference? it is interesting in its own right.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the Gold Koran? That
used to be the property of John Hopkins' University, though now it has
been reunited with another portion of the same Qur'an in Turkey.
Information (as well as photos of the first 18 Soorats) can be seen
here:
-Denis Giron
Yusuf B Gursey
Denis Giron <kaa...@godisdead.com> wrote:
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:<H8HzA...@world.std.com>...
:> ...
: ...
:> 'inna makes the subject into the accusative (inna: is a
:> contraction of 'innana: -na: is the pronoun "we" in the accuastive).
: http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=3526#3526
: There I give four sentences in Arabic, and they are:
: I still am not clear if these sentences are at least analogous to one
: another. Does the word moosi'oona imply the action being performed
: right now because of the conjugation, and if so, how would that relate
it is not conjugated. it is a participle. participles are verbs as
attributes. they are grammatically like nouns and adjectives. they also
readily pass into substantatives, nouns describing a class of people,
beings or things, in which case they acquire specialized meanings. this is
true of arabic as well as most other languages.
ka:tib is the active participle of kataba (he wrote).
as a participle it denotes one who wrote something and / or continues
writing something, also who is about the to write someting or has the
ability to write something in the future. or all of the ones mentioned.
as a substantitive it denotes a writer (a secretary or scribe or author).
the emphasis is on attribute rather than time of action. but one would
normally use it when there is evidence of the subject's actions from the
present. either something has been written down, the current actions
(something is being writen down) or the ability or demeanor of the
subject. an observation that something is being written down or is just
about to be written down would qualify for the usage of a pariciple, the
attribute of "writting" would be given.
or we would know from some job title that he is a "writer"
(substantivized)
(in arabic IF a participle has a broken plural, then the broken plural
would be used for it in the substantivised sense. for example
otherwise it is "I tell you: he did something" i.e. kataba "he wrote"
"I tell you: he does something" yaktubu "he writes" etc.
the above pertains to arabic, but many languages have similar
structures.
: to the examples given above? Would you translate the second sentence
: (Innaa anahnu al-Moosi'oona) as "certainly, we are expanding
the sentence is ungrammatical and . a- has no meaing here (besides
in the unicode version you wrote lanaHnu which is improper use
of the particle l-). or without 'inna: it would mean "are we
the expanders?". naHnu would not be used immediately after 'inna:,
and in fact normally not used a tall. also youhave a definite
predicate, which in an arabic nominal sentence (one that doesn't
involve a verb) you would avoid unless really neccessary.
: [something]"? And if so, how does that apply to the first sentence,
: (Innaa anahnu al-Mushrikoona)? Would translate that as roughly "we are
: associating partners with God right at this moment"? Or would it be
: "we are those who associate parters with God" (similar to the way
: Hilaalee-Khan translated the verse in Soorat al-Zaariyaat.
the participle you chose for the example has been through use
substantivized and specialized in some context (in this case
religion). so it is a bad example.
:> two meanings are possible: either expanding (something) physically or
:> expanding (something) in terms of goods and opportunities., i.e. making
:> ample. also it is not clear whether the act is completed or ongoing.
: If it is not clear if the act is completed or ongoing, that seems
: curious. Is this because Moosi means simply one who expands or
: enriches, though not necessarily one who is in the process of
as I said. but it does usually involve the present.
: enriching/expanding right at this moment? I still am not clear if this
: is not analogous to the word "Mushrik" (sam conjugation, only of the
: shin-raa-kaf verb-root, rather than waw-seen-ayin), which is what I
: asked in a previous post. A Mushrik is one who associates partners
: with God, worships, idols, et cetera. If I am a Mushrik, does it mean
: I am associating partners with God right at this very moment? Am I
as I said, in this has particular example you usually mean that
you are in a particular category of people.
: worshipping and idol right at this moment (even though I am banging
for this example, banging away at a keyboard at a particular time
is not usually considered enough penance for a lifetime of
idolatery! :)
but if it is used in a secular sense and the partnership in
question is anything or anyone, that would depend on the usage.
but this word has become too much associated with religion.
: away at a keyboard)? Or am I right that this active participle
: conjugation of the verb (whether plural or singular) simply refers to
: an individual (or individuals) who do that sort of thing (whether it
: was in the past, or right now)? If I am right, this further explains
the participle is not very fixed in its temporal significance, it
very frequently also gets used to designate belonging to categories
(substantivized).
: why you wrote "it is not clear whether the act is completed or
: ongoing," and the modern interpretation drawn out by the scientific
: hermeneutic approach, though not absolutely wrong, is not as clear and
hermeneutic means intepretive. in the case of this ayah, the proximity
to science turns up if you look at it's common literal meaning.
: distinct as others would like us to believe.
it's not unequivocal with respect to time.
: This lack of clarity, I think, explains why so many translations
: failed to capture the interpretation borne by the scientific
: hermeneutic approach.
they are within the range of grammatical usages.
: ...
. However, both
: Rashad Khalifa (whose translation is often sober) and one recent
: French translation have taken the Scientific Hermeneutic approach.
but H. Kassis "A Concordance ot the Qur'an", whose only goal is
to provide with a gloss says (p.1294) "We built it with might,
We extend it wide" which is quite close Emam's translation.
again, this is not interpretive but very literal.
: On a final note, I wonder if we take this route how we should treat
: the next verse (Soorat al-Zaariyaat 51:48). Though the conjugation is
it's not the "conjugation" (there is no conjugated verb but again
a participle). they are participles of different verbal forms
(or "measures").
: slightly different, I wonder about the word maahidoon(a). Does it too
: mean that the earth is being spread out as we speak? If so, in what
: sense? If not, why the difference in approach?
Kassis also translates both verbs (the perfect before and the
following participle) as "We spread it forth". the two verbs
have very close meanings. they also imply "making fit (by
spreading out and smoothing out) for habitation".
:> BTW where did you find the texts with the now unusual orthographic
:> conventions? do you have a reference? it is interesting in its own
:> right.
: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the Gold Koran? That
OK. thanks.
: http://goldkoran.mse.jhu.edu/
Denis Giron
Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<H8vJ4...@world.std.com>...
>
> it is not conjugated. it is a participle.
I knew it was a participle... this error is more due to my abuse of
language. I wrongly assumed any construction of a word from a
cognate/root base is a form of conjugation. My mistake.
> the sentence is ungrammatical and . a- has no meaing here (besides
> in the unicode version you wrote lanaHnu which is improper use
> of the particle l-).
Is the Unicode version wrong? I made a blunder with the gif, and just
copied it and pasted it, changing just the relevant root letters (and
that in turn effected my transliteration - I was thinking in Hebrew),
but are you sure the unicode version is wrong? Are you sure it is
wrong to say "inna lanahnu al-Moosi'oona"? Is it only with this
particular participle, or would it be an abuse no matter what
participle I used? The reason I ask is related to the reason it took
me so long to respond: I wanted to see if I could find an analogous
construction in the Qur'an, and I did, in Soorat as-Saaffaat 37:166.
Is that also an improper use of the participle lam? Or is that
sentence exempt from or immune to whatever error my unicoded senteces
made? If so, why?
> hermeneutic means intepretive.
I know what it means. No reading is ever free of interpretation...
there are no freely uninterpreted statements/facts. There is always an
act of exegesis present, and no act of exegesis is ever innocent. Like
for example, many Christian fundamentalists are accused of taking a
"literalist interpretation" of the Bible. So too with the Qur'an, even
when one claims to be giving the literal meaning, interpretation (and
exegetical bias) is still there.
> : I wonder about the word maahidoon(a). Does it too
> : mean that the earth is being spread out as we speak?
>
> Kassis also translates both verbs (the perfect before and the
> following participle) as "We spread it forth". the two verbs
> have very close meanings. they also imply "making fit (by
> spreading out and smoothing out) for habitation".
So then, it seems we are getting some real fruit from this discussion.
If I interpret the first aya along the lines of "the universe is
expanding right now", yet not the aya that follows it, I think we can
ask why... and this creates more discussion...