the “disbelievers” (really kuffar) of the Arabs are in doubt about

It isn’t the existence of God, needless to say

Sorry I haven’t checked blue sky for a long time, even though I was intending to “move” here permanently & leave twitter behind

Anyway, to your question

If you have a specific verse in mind let me know, otherwise it is generally the Hereafter, resurrection, reward/punishment that the+

the “forgetful” (or was it “the forgotten”?) respectively

There’s also of course the whole trend of
واضربوهن
being construed to mean “leave them” or “go on strike” or even “strike for them an example (a mathal)

I’ll come back with some examples of the crudeness that I’m thinking of a the arguments around them. Many are just too “ethereal” for me to remember the leaps in logic. Right now I only recall an example of someone saying that “rijal” doesn’t mean men nor “nisa” women but rather forerunners …

in terms of a fundamentals. What comes first? A root meaning for a combination of letters or the words. Originally it seems to me that the first words using a tri-root would have come first & it is thus the early words/usage that impart meaning to root letters rather than root letters to the words

Thanks for this, and yes I certainly agree that it is fundamentally legitimate. Perhaps I should have given examples, bc what I had in mind is instances where far too much “heavy lifting” is being given and then an almost arbitrary very specific meaning to a word is concluded

I was also thinking…

It’s this concept that some have that they can derive the meaning of an Arabic word (Quranic or otherwise) from the “root letters/word” alone, coupled with some understanding of morphology it seems

What would you say to that?