You will be cultured once you worked through the list

My current project is listening to all the albums listed on this list titled Best Jazz Albums: 50 Essentials You Need to Hear.

And once you are done with the jazz albums can head on to the Guardian and read Tom Service's 50 Greatest Symphonies.

And if you still have time left over then you should Anton Chekhov's 201 Short Stories

And if you really need a walk then take a walk through Online Collections from Around the World through Google Arts & Culture.

Lousy architecture

Looking at the comments on this site one can conclude that Malaysians have poor and unrefined tastes maybe because the museums and art galleries are sparsely visited, music and art education is neglected, and thus they can't tell Bach from a dog's bark. Most of the houses are not in harmony with the neighbouring houses and stick out like sore thumbs. They maximized the built-up area at the expense of the garden so there is a loss balance between the amount of concrete and surrounding greens.

Image from http://www.wright-house.com/frank-lloyd-wright/fallingwater-pictures/falling-water-fall-house.html

Fallingwater will is a classic of architecture and a Mecca for lovers of architecture because it has all the factors mentioned above namely balance and harmony. In terms of harmony it would that the house is part of the rocks which make up the waterfall the paint also suggest it part of the waterfall. A Malaysian architect would have used neon pink because it is the colour that was going on sale. Lastly in terms of balance most of the greens around the water are preserved and the house fits unobtrusively into the natural environment. Most of the houses in the above site are of no cultural, architectural, and aesthetic value and merit and therefore will be demolished when the new owners find them old-fashioned but hopefully to be replaced with something better because by then Malaysia has done something it is level aesthetic and cultural appreciation.

Church in the time of COVID-19

So my church, Full Gospel Assembly, has moved online in keeping the Movement Control Order. Please do visit.

Just before the service I was reminded of a statement that my friend Pastor Lee Yew Meng from People's Park Baptist Church made about with Online Services broadcasted everywhere some people have not supported the services of their local church and this reminded me of the attitude of some Christians in Malaysia who approach God like they approach their studies where their main goal to get the most head knowledge of everything by going to the best teachers and best tuition and cram centres. However we need to understand that Christianity if relational and experiential.

The role of the local church is not to give us the most entertaining praise and worship with the most talented musicians and best sound system with the most eloquent and erudite sermons that answers all questions but it is to help us build relationships, learn to serve, learn to share the Word, learn to deal with unlovable people, and only then we can grow and level up.

For me these are the levels of the Christian faith:
Level 1: attend church regularly
Level 2: attend prayer meeting and/or cell group
Level 3A: lead Bible study/cell group/serve in church ministry
Level 3B: Ministry outside church (hospital visitation, short-term missions)
Level 4A: Full-time/ Long-term missions
Level 4B: Mass evangelization (Reinhard Boinke)
Level 5: Martyrdom

Most committed Christians are stuck in Level 2, majority of church-goers are stuck in level 1 that is why they feel stagnant because they are not growing. You won't grow by listening to the best sermons but you grow and level up by getting involve in your local church and serve!

If I were the Foreign Affairs Minister

If I were the Foreign Affairs Minister of Malaysia,

I would be working to organize the conference of the Malayo-Polynesian Organizations in the world. You can build networks that will influence the politics of New Zealand, the South Pacific, Taiwan, Africa via Madagascar, and the United States of America via Hawaii.

If you finance and help indigenous Hawaiians to the two Senate seats for Hawaii you actually will gain two votes in the US Senate.

Image from https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherineparkermagyar/2020/12/29/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-hawaiian-islands/#276fd5d8597b

And with the thousands of excess doctors the Ministry of Health cannot afford to hire, the Foreign Ministry should hire them and use them for diplomatic purposes. For example, we can send 100 of them to Samoa and this will increase the number of physicians in their country by 100% and with this you already have a close friend and extra vote in the United Nations. Repeat this for the two scores of Island Nations and you easily have two scores of votes in the UN. It is win-win, you solve the excess doctors problem and you make a lot of friends!

Image from https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionatapp/2020/04/22/new-zealand-will-be-waiting-for-you-when-this-is-all-over/#1ebcf571bc2a

If the have enough doctors like Fiji then Malaysia should open its universities' Masters of Medicine and Masters of Surgery programmes to increase the number of specialists and sub-specialists in all the island nations of the world. They number of 30 independent ones and about 50 islands that are dependency. We are not the best in the world but we can certainly help people who are behind us. Malaysia's HDI is ranked number 61 in the world and we can definitely help Fiji at 98, Maldives at 104, Tonga at 105, Samoa at 111, Marshall Islands at 117, and East Timor at 131. You see if you can do the small things and help the smaller countries you are not yet rich you are not going to handle the bigger things. Instead of trying to get foreign students that are roughly around our HDI we should aim for smaller places like Bhutan, the island nations of the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Caribbean.

Image from https://www.funjet.com/destinations/fiji

In terms of influence we do not have the billions to spend on aid like the US and China but because of the strings that are attached along the aid they come across and bullies. Malaysia with a much smaller budget can make friends and influence people, and by being nice to people I think we can play an out-sized role in world affairs, punch above our weight, and when they are your friends you can sell them palm oil and rubber products.

Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman

Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974. 

Transcribed by Dr. Donald Simanek

Source: Wikimedia Commons

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of it did. 

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world. 

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how much there was. 

At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she quietly appears and settles into the bath with me. 

One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this beautiful nude babe?" I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her, I'm, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?" "Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a massage table nearby. I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of anything like that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel it, "he says. "I feel a kind of dent--is that the pituitary?" I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!" They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "It's reflexology!" I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating. 

That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. 

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to cheek on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress-- in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals. 

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. 

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. 

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. 

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. 

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. 

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with. 

We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't land. 

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. 

Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease. 

But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. 

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. 

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. 

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results. 

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's not giving scientific advice. 

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A. I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control. She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens. 

Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen" he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands. 

All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before. 

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell. 

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell. 

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running. 

I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science. 

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science? This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology. And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent-- not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity. So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

End.

Note: I have highlighted what I feel the most important parts in red for those too lazy to read the whole thing.

What profits a man?

Bukit Damansara, Bukit Bangsar, Bukit Bandaraya, and Bukit Pantai are 4 neighbouring hills, just on the edge of the Kuala Lumpur City Centre, that houses some of the poshest homes and richest families in the Klang Valley but when you drive around at night you see many of the detached houses and bungalows either dark or only one room has light.
Maybe their owners have many big houses elsewhere and they only stay there when they are in Kuala Lumpur. Maybe the old owners have passed away and the children are either trying to sell it to split the money or they are litigating one another to see who owns it. I don't know and I probably will never find out but looking at these lonely empty houses which are worth millions I am reminded of the verse that says "For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26 and "Better is a dry morsel with quietness, Than a house full of feasting with strife," Proverbs 17:1.

What would you give for a happy fulfilling life? Sometimes wealth, power, and achievement are not great as they seemed. What would you rather have? If you can have it, please by all means but if you can only choose one?

Ithar is altruistic

Ithar

• Arabic loan
• Altruistic
• Abu seorang pelajar ithar kerana dia selalu membantu rakan-rakannya yang lemah.
• Keitharan= altruism; Keitharan Danial patut dicontohkan oleh pelajar-pelajar universiti itu.

Itlak

• Arabic loan
• Conclude
• Pengitlakan: conclusion
• Daripada apa yang kita tahu, kita boleh mengitlakkan bahawa Si Donald itu tak bersalah.

Ittifak

• Arabic loan
• Agreement
• Kita perlu ada ittifak daripada semua pihak berkepentingan sebelum kita buat keputusan.

Iyal

• Arabic loan
• Dependents
• Kemalangan dan kematian kedua-dua ibubapanya telah mengiyalkan Amin.

Izhar

• Arabic loan
• Clear
• Menteri itu telah memberi pengizharan (penjelasan) berkenaan dengan tender itu.

Izin=consent

Izzah 

• Arabic loan
• Self-respect
• Seorang wanita patut ada izzah dan yakin pada sendiri.

Izzat

• Arabic loan
• glory, grandeur
• Istana izzat kamu boleh ke kubur?

Jabal

• gunung (Arabic), confiscate (Jakarta)

Jabang

• hand-cannon stand, arquebus fork rest, swivel of hand culverin, cannon gun carriage, the two cheeks holding the trunnion of a cannon.

Jabar

• Omnipotence
• Tuhan Yesus yang jabar selama-lamanya.

Jabat

• Job, occupation, pekerjaan
• Jabatan: adding -an gives the meaning of place where occupation or job is done, confer hentian, kurungan, buaian
• Semasa ekonomi meleset, kadar pengangguran tinggi dan jabat susah dicari.

Jabing

• Telinga jabing: telinga besar
• Menjabing telinga: Menjadikan telinga jabing (besar) dengan menarik telinga

Jabir

• Berjabir-jabir: koyak-koyak
• Selepas tiga minggu merentas hutan segala pakaian sudah berjabir-jabir.

Jadi

• Jadinya: kerana itu
• Dia sudah kehabisan duit jadinya dia balik ke negara asal.
• Jadilah: bersetuju
• Dia jadilah menjual tanah itu setelah diberi tawaran lumayan itu.
• Sejadinya: semula jadi
• Musa textilis menghasilkan sejenis serat sejadinya yang boleh ditenun menjadi kain.
• Sejadi-jadinya
• Dia menjerit sejadi-jadinya semasa cubaan merogol sehingga menarik perhatian jiran tetangga.

Jagal

• Small retail business
• Jagalan: things sold in said small business, low-quality items

Bantai

• main meaning is slaughter for food, second only is hit

Jagat I

• World, Universe
• Sejagat: Universal
• Kesejagatan: universality
• Penyejagatan: universalization

Jagat II

• pigmentation, freckles
• Muka berjagat kerana perit bersawah mencari makan.

Jaguh

• Original meaning is a cock, then it means candidate for a party, then only it is a winner but it can also mean someone renown in a field, a renown person.
• Goliath merupakan jaguh (jagoan) orang Philistine.
• Sebelum jaguh berkokok tiga kali kamu akan menafikan saya.

Jagur

• Large for age; bagur
• Anaknya jagur itu sebab masa hamil perut nampak besar sangat.

Jah

• Glory, grandeur; izzat
• Kejahan Tuhan tak boleh ditandingi.

Jahang I

• Dark red

Jahang II

• coarse language
• menjahang: curse someone, insult someone
• Kacau saya tak apa, tapi kalau mula menjahang saya akan membalas dengan tumbukan.

Jahar

• Arabic loan
• loud, nyaring
• Dengan suara jahar menyahut kekasihnya yang sudah lama tak bertemu.

Jaharu

• Literary term 
• despicable person, rogue

Jahat

• Berjahatkan: slander, libel; fitnah
• Jangan suka berjahatkan orang nanti kena saman.

Jahil

• Ignorant, dangkal

Jahit

• Menjahitkan: sew for someone (because there is no menjahiti), sew something

Jail

• Tali jail=penjail: joran untuk menangkap udang.

Jais

• =kalis
• nothing will leave a mark on it, jais peluru: a bullet will not leave a mark on it

Jaiz

• Allowed but not encouraged.

Jajah=jajap

• =jelajah

Jajat

• Mengejek, mengajuk, tease

Jaka

• Bermain guli

Jakal

• Jackal

Jaki

• Berasa marah, meradang
• Aminah jaki kerana tidak dijemput ke jamuan akhir tahun itu.

Jalad

• Algojo, pertanda, pelebaya, executioner

Jalak

• vernacular
• brave person

Jalang

• feral, wild
• Babi yang melarikan dari ladang di Texas lalu menjadi jalang.

Jalangkah

• Flyover, overpass

Jalar

• Creeping

Jali

• Arabic loan
• Enlighten
• Terjali: receive revelation, receive inspiration, enlightenment
• Selepas menghadiri kursus, saya menjadi terjali.

Jalil

• Arabic loan
• The highest
• Hosanna, hosanna kepada yang jalil.

Jalin

• Weave, braid, anyam, kepang
• Rambut jalin: braided hair
• Berjalinkan: weave in

Jalis

• Arabic loan
• Friend

Jalu

• spur of the rooster
• susuh ayam jantan, jangkir
• Maybe we can translate bone spur to jalu tulang

Jalur

• Band

Jamak

• Jamaknya: commonly, usually=lazim=biasa

Jamang, Jejamang

• Forehead band, decorations put on the forehead
• Can be used to translate sweatband into jejamang peluh

Jambang I

• Or jambangan: Vase

Jambang II

• sideburn, mutton chops

Jambar

• Serving, hidangan

Jambu-jambu

• tassel (of spear), forelock, bangs
• jambul, gombak

Jambul

• Forelock, comb (of rooster)

Jamiah

• Association, assembly, organization

Jampuk

• Interject, interpolate, interpose, butt in, heckle
• Mencelah, menyampuk

Jamung

• Torch
• Andang, suluh

Andang-andang

• Mast

Jangak

• =penjangak
• indecent, pervert

Jangat

• Bark (of plants), hide (of animal)
• Peribahasa: Jangat liat (bend but doesn't break) kurang panggang (bakar): Bark that is green doesn't burn: unteachable
• Peribahasa: Tinggal jangat pemalut tulang: Hide wrapping the bones: very thin, skin and bones.

Janggai I

• Fake nails used by dancers
• Maybe used to translate fake nails in general.

Janggai II

• Tall and thin
• Maybe used to translate ectomorph, maybe even cachexia.
• The old man looked cachetic: Lelaki tua itu nampak janggai.

Janggal

• Awkward, dissonant, out-of-place

Jangka

• -meter, jangka galvani: galvanometer

Jangka III

• Hope, motivation, reason

Jangkah

• langkah
• stride

Jangkang

• terjangkang, terkangkang, terkengkang
• menjangkang: ataxic gait

Jangkar I

• Aerial buttress/stilt/prop roots

Jangkar II

• Sauh
• Anchor

Jangkat

• Ford (of a river)

Jangkir

• Jalu, susuh
• Spur

Jangkungan

• Stilts

Jantang

• Berjantang, menjantang
• Obvious veins, can use to translate varicose veins, vascularity (of body building)

Janubi

• Arabic loan
• Selatan
• South

Jara

• gerudi, busar kapas
• drill, cotton gin

Jarah

• barang yang dirampas
• plunder, loot, pillage, ransack
• Tomb raider: penjarah makam

Jaram

• Penjaram, jaraman
• Cold compression pack

Learn Bahasa Terengganu

1. Semalam teringin makan cek komeng bakar tetapi bila sampai kedai sudah abih jual.
cek komeng: babi
abih: habis

2. Nasik dagang hok mung beli tadi ba'a doh.
nasik: nasi
hok: yang
mung: kamu
ba'a: basi
doh: sudah

3. Ikok gok cakak mok, jangang babe sangak.
ikok: ikut
gok: juga, guna seperti 'lah'
cakak: cakap
mok: mak
jangang: jangan
babe: degil
sangak: sangat

4. Nasik ayang hok mok deme masak sangak sedak.

ayang: ayam

deme: kamu

sedak: sedap

Words almost like in BM: abih, nasik, mung, doh, ikok, gok, cakak, mok, jangang, sangak, ayang, sedak
Words that are very different: hok, ba'a, babe, cek komeng, deme