Rhetorical Analysis of Surah An Naba of the English Translated Version by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the Quran is a man, and all its teaching is to give guidance to human beings on the right path. It is impossible to get real guidance without understanding the message of Allah existing in its rich text. The Quran is the richest and authentic book regarding its style, and it is abundant with rhetorical devices and other forms of language and literature. No book can even compete with the Quran with its choice of words and rhetorical devices. This present study attempts to throw light on some of the rhetorical devices employed in Surah An Naba, the 78th Surah of the Quran of the English translated version by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. This study aims to determine the rhetorical devices used in its English translation, so understand the real and true lessons lying between the texts. For this purpose, the major rhetorical devices as persuasive words. Amplification, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, parallelism, etc. were found. This study is qualitative. A content analysis technique is used to complete the objective of the study. The analysed data and findings are presented in the descriptive form. This study further recommends the researchers to research the other Surah of the Quran as well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".