'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎190v] (391/1904)

60
As regards the use of the measure JliaxL^, as synonymous with 1 '■ e
use is quite an ordinary one in these parts, and I can mention many other instances
of the same, such as ("reposing"), -Lc'^xL^ ("continuance ), v-'UaduJ ( oei-ng
ruined"), ("advancing"), Leliu--\ ("remaining ). There is no idea of a
" desire to " here.
Again, you will note that in the letter from my son tsa, dated 7th Moharram,
1325 (20th February, 1907), to Sheikh Sagar occurs the sentence :—
(" Va atluh mm jenahekum almosaadeh fi naqz va istebtal-i-hazehel varaqah. )
(" And 1 heg your Honour for assistance in the breaking up and annulling of this
document.";
This shows that the words and JlkxL/i were used synonymously.
Furthermore, when writing to me on the 23rd Moharram with reference to my
letter to him (dated 8th Zilhejjeh, 1324) enjoining on him the sas > JUaxLJ
Hassan used the same form of words as I had, thus :—
" You particularly wrote about the deed of contract which I executed with
Wonckhaus, the German, for the sale of oxide from Abu Musa Island. ^ I understood
what vou said, namely, that your son Isa was not agreeable to the execution of a docu
ment of this purport for the reason that I had not consulted you and that it was
necessary that the partners should not enter [into transaction] without the knowledge
of the other partners ; that this humble one had entered into this transaction without
consultation,* and that Isa feared that complications would result owing to the
admittance of foreigners [into the concern], and U-'Wl i jjb
(" The annulment of this contract is better than its acceptance.")
Again, in writing to me on 15th Safar, 1325 (30th March, 1907), Hassan suggested
that I had better, if I thought fit, write to the German myself and explain to him
regarding the annulment of the contract. His precise words were ;—
It will be seen that he here used Jlk.- and not JlkxL^. It is clear therefore
that Hassan understood me fully in the sense I intended to convey.
Secondly, the explanation of the use of the spelling is as follows in my
opinion :—•
It is rendering into writing of a colloquial construction of speech. Thus,
in conversation, if referring to a masculine object, such as " zaid," I should not
say <0UliLj, but jjUULLJ, leaving out the " zamah" after the " h," but substi
tuting the "zamah" for "kasrah" after the "t." Similarly, if I were referring to a
feminine object I should not say but substituting the "kasrah"
after the " t" for the feminine pronoun " ha." Likewise, in writing a colloquial
letter I should render the above sounds into writing.
The word or is constantly used, in my parlance, in reference to
a thing in the sense of ally-*.
It is also evident from Hassan Samieh's reply above quoted that he uses it in this
sense;—
("Better than its acceptance," i.e., better than the acceptance of the contract.)
The pronoun is used in the feminine, and could only refer to the contract.
ABDUL LATIF-BIN-ABDURRAHMAN.
March 23, 1911.