# محق / انمحق



## lena55313

Hi, what is the difference between these two verbs? 
It is written in my study book that verbs of the 7th form have the Passive voice meaning of the 1-st form verbs. 
But if so, the Passive of the 7th form should have the same meaning with the Active of the 1-st form, and vice versa, the Pasive of the 1-st form should have the same meaning with the Active of the 7th form. 
I didn't find a lot of examples, but this one, I think, could be suitable for illustration of my question.
 مَحَقَ - to efface
اِنْمَحَقَ - to be or become effaced
Which of the verbs would you apply to say: The cultural differences between urban and rural were effaced 10 years ago. 
And in the Active voice: She effaced her memories.


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> It is written in my study book that verbs of the 7th form have the Passive voice meaning of the 1-st form verbs.





> But if so, the Passive of the 7th form should have the same meaning with the Active of the 1-st form, and vice versa,
> the Pasive of the 1-st form should have the same meaning *with the 7th form. *


this is called فِعْل المُطَاوَعَة (affectedness and anti-causitive)
The verbs of the 7th form are intransitive verbs so there is no passive form.
As your book says "verbs of the 7th form have the Passive voice meaning of the 1-st form verbs" but not the opposite.
There is no اُنْمُحِقَ 


> I didn't find a lot of examples, but this one, I think, could be suitable for illustration of my question.
> مَحَقَ - to efface
> اِنْمَحَقَ - to be or become effaced
> Which of the verbs would you apply to say: The cultural differences between urban and rural were effaced 10 years ago.
> And in the Active voice: She effaced her memories.


The cultural differences between urban and rural were effaced 10 years ago: مُحِقَت / انْمَحَقَت
She effaced her memories: مَحَقَت

Another verb is كَسَرَ (broke)
He broke the glass: هو كَسَرَ الكُوب
The glass was broken : كُسِرَ الكوب / اِنْكَسَرَ الكوب

The difference is in إعراب.


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> The verbs of the 7th form are intransitive verbs so there is no passive form.


But they do have Passive. Can you check, please, this web-site with the verb انمحق and the Wright, v.1, p 301 Table III, Derived forms of the strong verb. Or maybe they have the Passive only in the Classical Arabic and not in the MSA?

The glass was broken : كُسِرَ الكوب / اِنْكَسَرَ الكوب 
Oh, thank you for your example. 
Do you feel any differences between them. Sorry, I always try to find difference between the synonims, because of my firm conviction that there was no need to invent two separate words with the exactly same meaning. ))) The difference should be, even too slight.


----------



## Ghabi

Generally, inkasara is more like "it has become broken" (you don't care or you don't know who has broken it, or perhaps it's become so naturally), while kusira is like "it has been broken" (by someone not mentioned).


----------



## lena55313

Thank you, Ghaby
Have you ever heard about the 7-th form Passive in  MSA? 
And what is the اُنْكُسِرَ in Classical Arabic?


----------



## Ghabi

It's not a matter of MSA vs classical Arabic. It's just that the internal passive (fu3ila) and the infa3ala form are incompatible in terms of semantics. A building either "collapsed" (inhaarat) or "was torn down" (hudimat). You don't really need a third option.

If there were a transitive infa3ala verb with an active sense, then in theory you could make it passive (*unfu3ila). You can try to find one.


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> But they do have Passive. Can you check, please, this web-site with the verb انمحق


I think it's a mistake.
 I also checked the verb قام which is intransitive and I found that the passive form is for the verb أقام not قام
قام is intransitive but أقام is transitive.


> the Wright, v.1, p 301 Table III, Derived forms of the strong verb. Or maybe they have the Passive only in the Classical Arabic and not in the MSA?


OK, I read it but I didn't hear انْقُتِل before.  
As I know, the verbs(انفعل) which are أفعال مطاوعة are intransitive.


----------



## analeeh

It's true that these verbs are more likely to exist in theory than in practice, but let's not forget the fact we can passivise non-direct objects too, meaning that (in theory at least) any verb that can take a prepositional complement could be passive, including intransitive ones - بيت نُنام فيه for example.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ghabi said:


> If there were a transitive infa3ala verb with an active sense, then in theory you could make it passive (*unfu3ila). You can try to find one.


I agree.
If the verb is doubly transitive, you can get the انفعل then convert it to the passive.
But it would be strange. I don't think someone would use it.


analeeh said:


> including intransitive ones - بيت نُنام فيه for example.


This is the verb أنام not نام.
أنام is transitive.


----------



## analeeh

I don't think it is. That would mean something different. It's parallel to the colloquial construction _beet byinnaam fii_ which is unambiguously passive, or to the structure قلم يُكتَب به which although transitive its نائب فاعل is not originally an object but a prepositional structure.


----------



## Sun-Shine

analeeh said:


> It's parallel to the colloquial construction _beet byinnaam fii_ which is unambiguously passive, or to the structure قلم يُكتَب به which although transitive its نائب فاعل is not originally an object but a prepositional structure.


OK, I don't object to the structure. 
 I just said that نُنَام is from the verb أنام which is transitive.


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> I also checked the verb قام which is intransitive and I found that the passive form is for the verb أقام not قام


The web-site showes the passive form أُقِيمَ   for the 4-th form and قِيمَfor the 1-st form in the past. In the present it shows the same passive form يُقامُ for both. But these two forms, the 1-st and the 4-th have the same passive formula in the present. It is يُفْعَلُ 
I think, there is no mistake on the site. Probably, you did't mark harakat when made the request. The web-site requires to put them.


----------



## Abu Talha

analeeh said:


> It's true that these verbs are more likely to exist in theory than in practice, but let's not forget the fact we can passivise non-direct objects too, meaning that (in theory at least) any verb that can take a prepositional complement could be passive, including intransitive ones - بيت نُنام فيه for example.


I think I agree (if we’re talking about the same thing 

For example جيء بشيء  means “the thing was brought”. 

Similarly I can see انتُقِلَ being possible.

انتقل إلى مكان he moved to a place
انتُقل إلى المكان The place was moved towards


It may sound weird by itself but it may be possible in the right context.


----------



## Sadda7

Abu Talha said:


> انتُقل إلى المكان The place was moved towards


I think this is incorrect, since the verbs of the 7th form have no passive and are intransitive.

Some people here are confused between the 7th and the 8th, انفعل and افتعل, in the 7th (انفعل):
انكَشَف = passive of كَشَفَ
انكَسَر = passive of كَسَرَ
انتَقَل = passive of نَقَلَ

The verb in the 7th form have a passive voice meaning of the 1st form, so no need to passive switch it.

But a verb in the 8th like انتَخَبَ that is transitive can be in the passive voice: انتُخِب.




Abu Talha said:


> It may sound weird by itself but it may be possible in the right context.


It actually sound normal but is not correct.


----------



## lena55313

Sadda7 said:


> I think this is incorrect, since the verbs of the 7th form have no passive and are intransitive.


Can you, please, give a proof, because in the Wright's Grammar it is written that they do have Passive.


lena55313 said:


> the Wright, v.1, p 301 Table III, Derived forms of the strong verb.


----------



## Ghabi

lena55313 said:


> Can you, please, give a proof


The burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid. If you find an example of the usage, you should share it, and we'd be happy to learn that.


----------



## Abu Talha

Here is an example of انْطُلِقَ


> عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ كُنْتُ أَبِيتُ فِي الْمَسْجِدِ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِي أَهْلٌ فَرَأَيْتُ فِي الْمَنَامِ كَأَنَّمَا انْطُلِقَ بِي إِلَى بِئْرٍ ...


Source: Hadith - The Book of the Merits of the Companions - Sahih Muslim -     Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

I've found multiple examples of انطُلق بـ and انصُرف بـ.

Although, to be fair, these all seem to me to fall under the same class as جيء بشيء.

It would be interesting to see if this phenomenon exists with other prepositions and with verbs more general than the verbs of coming and going. (Because with these verbs you can easily add a بـ in the active voice and make it almost transitive in meaning: "to bring something" or "to take something to". And thus it would be easier to make passive.)

So it would be interesting to see something like انكُسر في البيت "[Something] was broken in the house".

EDIT: I also found in لسان العرب:


> وانْقُطِعَ به، فهو مُنْقَطَعٌ به إِذا عجز عن سفره من نَفَقَةٍ ذهبت، أَو قامَت عليه راحِلَتُه، أَو أَتاه أَمر لا يقدر على أَن يتحرك معه، وقيل: هو إِذا كان مسافراً فأُبْدِعَ به وعَطِبَت راحلته وذَهَبَ زادُه وماله.



Still not the completely general case though.


----------



## Mahaodeh

lena55313 said:


> But they do have Passive. Can you check, please, this web-site with the verb انمحق and the Wright, v.1, p 301 Table III, Derived forms of the strong verb.


I agree with the opinion that says that intransitive verbs can theoretically have a passive. However, I'd like to point out that in this particular web site the passive voice is added automatically by the software of the website. This is as per the developers of the site. So there wasn't a particular person or group of people that thought about the matter and decided to add a theoretical passive voice to this verb or any other; the software just added one using the algorithm designed by the developers as it would all other verbs.



lena55313 said:


> Do you feel any differences between them.


As a native speaker: yes, and it's like Ghabi explained. انمحق gives no indication of any unmentioned doer of the action in the verb: for all we know it just happned naturally or the object did it to itself. In the case of مُحِقَ it clearly implies that there was a doer, and we just didn't mention them.


analeeh said:


> including intransitive ones - بيت نُنام فيه for example.


But couldn't نُنَامُ also be the passive voice present tense of أَنَمْنَا? I'm not disagreeing with the idea that there could be a theoretical passive voice but I'm saying that this doesn't mean that all intransitive verbs have theorectical passives.


Abu Talha said:


> Still not the completely general case though.


This is my point. All the examples given are specific cases that can not be seen as a general rule. I would say that a passive voice for an intransitive verb would be سماعي and only looked at in specific cases.


----------

