# ما كان يفعل / لم يكن يفعل / كان لا يفعل (past continuous/progressive, past habitual)



## Qureshpor

What is the difference between:

maa kaana yaf'alu (he was not doing etc)

&

kaana laa yaf'alu?

Are they both correct?


----------



## shafaq

They are both correct but may differ in meaning:
maa kaana yaf'alu : s/he never became doing/acting (in broad or a definite time).
kaana laa yaf'alu   : s/he was not doing/acting (in a definite time)


----------



## Qureshpor

shafaq said:


> They are both correct but may differ in meaning:
> maa kaana yaf'alu : s/he never became doing/acting (in broad or a definite time).
> kaana laa yaf'alu   : s/he was not doing/acting (in a definite time)



Apologies but "yaf'alu" is he and not she.

Secondly could you please or anyone else provide suitable examples so that the difference between the two sentences can be captured.


----------



## Mahaodeh

QURESHPOR said:


> What is the difference between:
> 
> maa kaana yaf'alu (he was not doing etc)
> 
> &
> 
> kaana laa yaf'alu?
> 
> Are they both correct?



Yes, they are both correct.

The first one is negating kaana, the second is negating yaf3alu. The difference is very subtle in terms of overall meaning though and in most (maybe even all) contexts you can just use them interchangeably (as well as with kaana ma yaf3alu).

You can sort of say that:

kaana la yaf3alu = he used to not do.
ma kaana yaf3alu = he didn't used to do - or: he didn't _usually_ do.

Ex.:
kaana la yas2alu 3an shay2in = he used to not ask about anything.
ma kaana yas2alu 3an shay2in = he didn't ask about anything.

Personally, I don't really find that the overall meaning differs, only the meanings of small details that don't affect what you want to say altogether.


----------



## Flash88

I'm also confused about something similar.

What's the difference between:

لعبت كرة السلة

كنت العب كرة السلة

I always get confused between the two.


----------



## clevermizo

Flash88 said:


> I'm also confused about something similar.
> 
> What's the difference between:
> 
> لعبت كرة السلة



I played in the past. Fairly unmarked, but refers to a discrete incident or incidents of playing. For example, "Yesterday, I played basketball."



> كنت العب كرة السلة


I used to play (habitually, regularly) in the past (but perhaps no longer). For example, "When I was young, I used to play basketball every week with my friends."

Also, contextually it could be "I was playing".


----------



## Flash88

clevermizo said:


> I played in the past. Fairly unmarked, but refers to a discrete incident or incidents of playing. For example, "Yesterday, I played basketball."
> 
> I used to play (habitually, regularly) in the past (but perhaps no longer). For example, "When I was young, I used to play basketball every week with my friends."
> 
> Also, contextually it could be "I was playing".


Much thanks!


----------



## lena55313

Can I bump the topic? I think my question fits to it. 
How to express the negation of the Past Continuous meaning? How to say, for example: when I got into the room *the boy was not writing*? I want to emphasise that the boy was doing something else but not writing, and that it was a process but not a completed action. 
I have three variants, which of them is right in this context?
ما كان يكتبُ الولد
كان لا يكتبُ الولد
لم يكتبْ الولد
Are there any other ways to express both, the tense and the aspect?


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> when I got into the room *the boy was not writing*?



عندما دخلت الغرفة،* لم يكن الولد يكتبُ/ ما كان الولد يكتبُ*

لم يكتب الولد : The boy didn't write.


----------



## cherine

I would say لم يكن الولد يكتبُ. You can also use ما كان الولد يكتبُ but using ما فعل is less common in modern fuS7a than لم يفعل.

لم يكتب الولد means that the boy didn't write. It doesn't express the continuous.


Edit: Posted at the same time as Sun-shine.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you @sun_shine 331995. You did not mention the difference between:

ما كان الولد يكتبُ 
كان الولد لا يكتبُ


----------



## Sun-Shine

Past continuous:
كان +present
كان and the verb change as the subject change
For negation :
لم+ the verb"يكون" notice that يكون is مجزوم
...،لم يكن، لم تكن
or
ما +كان
...،ما كان ، ما كانت


----------



## Sun-Shine

Qureshpor said:


> @sun_shine 331995. You did not mention the difference between:
> 
> ما كان الولد يكتبُ
> كان الولد لا يكتبُ



Mahaodeh mentioned the difference above.

I don't know if that is similar to English:
I did nothing .
I didn't do anything.

I have written nothing.
I haven't written anything.


----------



## lena55313

Sun_shine, Cherine, thank you!
So all my three variants were wrong)))


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> So all my three variants was wrong


The first two aren't wrong
كان لا يكتب الولد and ما كان يكتب الولد
but I wouldn't use them like that.

لم يكتب is not correct here. It is the negation of the past simple.
كتب |  لم يكتب


----------



## elroy

Qureshpor said:


> ما كان الولد يكتبُ
> كان الولد لا يكتبُ


 The difference for me is the following:

ما كان الولد يكتب / لم يكن الولد يكتب: (1) The boy was not writing. (at a specific time) / (2) The boy didn't use to write. (generally)
كان الولد لا يكتب: (3)They boy used to not write. (generally) 

The difference between (1) and the other two is significant.  The difference between (2) and (3) is arguably a nuance: (2) *negates* the statement "He used to write," while (3) *affirms* the statement "He used to not write."  In (2), "writing" did not use to happen, while in (3), "not writing" used to happen.  It's the same as the difference in English between "didn't use to write" and "used to not write."


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> لم يكتب الولد


What did happen exactly in this case?
1. The boy was writing (the letter) but he haven't finished it.
2. He didn't write (the letter) at all
I'm trying to catch the difference between the aspect and the tense. Because in Russian we have very distinguish marks of the action that is completed and if it is not (wasn't or won't be) completed.


----------



## elroy

لم يكتب الولد الرسالة = The boy *did not write *the letter.


----------



## Qureshpor

elroy said:


> The difference for me is the following:
> 
> ما كان الولد يكتب / لم يكن الولد يكتب: (1) The boy was not writing. (at a specific time) / (2) The boy didn't use to write. (generally)
> كان الولد لا يكتب: (3)They boy used to not write. (generally)
> 
> The difference between (1) and the other two is significant.  The difference between (2) and (3) is arguably a nuance: (2) *negates* the statement "He used to write," while (3) *affirms* the statement "He used to not write."  In (2), "writing" did not use to happen, while in (3), "not writing" used to happen.  It's the same as the difference in English between "didn't use to write" and "used to not write."



Thank you @elroy.  Would I be write in saying that ما كان الولد يكتب / لم يكن الولد يكتب are identical in meaning (in fact in the two meanings they impart)? I personally have had no problem with this. My query has been the difference between:

ما كان الولد يكتب and
كان الولد لا يكتب

You are saying the difference is, as in English, when one says:

He did n't use(d) to write

or, He used not to write (which is a formal style in English). If this is the case, then both:

ما كان الولد يكتب and كان الولد لا يكتب are identical in meaning. Would this be the correct conclusion?

Here are a couple of sentences from قصص النبیین (for children)

و *کان یوسف لا یرید* ان یترک الامراء یاکلون الاموال النّاسِ

و *ما کان یرید* ان یبعد عنہ

Apologies for not being able to type everything correctly with my Urdu keyboard. Is the highlighted part equivalent in meaning?


----------



## elroy

Qureshpor said:


> Would I be write in saying that ما كان الولد يكتب / لم يكن الولد يكتب are identical in meaning (in fact in the two meanings they impart)?


 Yes, but as mentioned previously, ما كان الولد يكتب is not commonly used in MSA.


Qureshpor said:


> You are saying the difference is, as in English, when one says:
> 
> He did n't use(d) to write
> 
> or, He used not to write (which is a formal style in English).


 "He used not to write" doesn't sound right to me in English.

It's:

لم يمكن يكتب: He *didn't use to* write.
كان لا يكتب: He *used to not *write.


Qureshpor said:


> ما كان الولد يكتب and كان الولد لا يكتب are identical in meaning. Would this be the correct conclusion?


 As discussed in my last post, "didn't use to write" is not exactly the same as "used to not write," although the difference is arguably a nuance.


Qureshpor said:


> Is the highlighted part equivalent in meaning?


 It's the same nuance: "It was the case that he did not want" vs. "It was not the case that he wanted."


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> The boy was writing (the letter) but he haven't finished it.


If you want to express this meaning ,then use a word to indicate that as
 finish, complete (يُنهِي ، يُكمِل) and negate it.
(الولد لم ينهِ/يكمل كتابة (الخطاب
(الولد لم ينْتَهِ من كتابة (الخطاب
لم ينه الولد كتابة
لم ينته الولد من كتابة


----------



## elroy

The boy was writing the letter (but *had*n't finished it). = كان الولد يكتب الرسالة (ولكنه لم يكن قد انتهى من كتابتها)

The part in parentheses is redundant.  When we use the past progressive, it's implied that the action wasn't completed.


----------



## Qureshpor

elroy said:


> ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
> "He used not to write" doesn't sound right to me in English.


Thank you @elroy for the explanations and clarifications.

"He used not to write" is formal British English and is correct.


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> The boy was writing the letter (but *had*n't finished it). = كان الولد يكتب الرسالة (ولكنه لم يكن قد انتهى من كتابتها)


لكنه لم يكن قد انتهى لا أجدها مناسبة فهي تعني أنه لم ينتهي من الرسالة لذلك كان يكتبها
أي أن الرسالة لم تكن منتهية (الحدث الأول)  لذلك كان يكتبها (الحدث الثاني


----------



## elroy

يبدو أنه حصل التباس، فتفسيرك يطابق "لأنه" وليس "لكنه". ​


----------



## lena55313

elroy said:


> The boy *did not write *the letter.


Can we know from this sentence if the boy 1. started to write and didn't finish his writing or 2. he even didn't start to write.


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> يبدو أنه حصل التباس، فتفسيرك يطابق "لأنه" وليس "لكنه". ​





lena55313 said:


> Can we know from this sentence if the boy 1. started to write and didn't finish his writing or 2. he even didn't start to write.


He didn't start.


----------



## elroy

lena55313 said:


> Can we know from this sentence if the boy 1. started to write and didn't finish his writing or 2. he even didn't start to write.


 Typically 2.


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> If you want to express this meaning


No, I just want to understand what native speakers mean when they say لم يكتب الولد الرسالة
For example, it happened yesterday. What idea is emphasized in the sentence? We remember (it is said in Wright's) that لم+Jussive = always Perfect. And what that Perfect enphasizes in that case,
1. the Aspect (the most imporant is the fact if the action is completed or it is not completed) - does he have now the letter written or he doesn't? May be he began to write the letter but didn't finish it. Or maybe he hadn't even started to write the letter because he hadn't been at home.
2. Or the Tense (the time of action) What did he do yesterday? Did he write any letters? No, yesterday he was not at home and didn't write any letters. The most of importance has the fact that yesterday his activity was not the writing but something else.


----------



## Sun-Shine

لم يكتب الولد الرسالة
1-He hadn't even started to write the letter.

2-If you used the definite "الرسالة " then you are talking about a specific letter, there is a possibility that he wrote other letters.

But if you say "رسالة" or better "أي رسالة"
لم يكتب الولد رسالة/ *لم يكتب الولد أي رسالة*
That means he didn't write any letter.


----------



## lena55313

Elroy, Sun_shine, thank you.


----------



## Sun-Shine

You're welcome.


----------

