# شيء / حاجة



## Bruss04

I am wondering about the usages of these 2 words, and from what I've gathered they're not interchangeable, so when would you use either? I am not sure if different dialects matter. And also the relation between "Sheyy" and the negative "Sh" suffix, like: Madert-ish
Could someone explain this to me. I hope I made some sense


----------



## cherine

Hi Bruss,

First, there's no relation between "sheyy" and the "sh" used in negation in some dialects.
As for the difference between sheyy شيء and 7aaja/7aaga حاجة , it's a dialectal or regional difference, as far as I know.
For example, in Egypt, we say حاجة (thing, something) but we don't use sheyy, although in some places in Egypt, shee2 is used. And it remained in some fixed expressions like ربنا قادر على كل شيء rabbena aader 3ala koll(2) shee2. (ee pronounced almost like the "a" in made)


----------



## Finland

Hello!



cherine said:


> First, there's no relation between "sheyy" and the "sh" used in negation in some dialects.


 
Are you quite sure about this? I don't have any reference literature at hand, but the standard etymological explanation I've always heard for the sh-negation is that it comes from the word شيء.

I hope someone finds credible information on the etymology of the sh found in negations!

Cheers,
S


----------



## Xence

Oh, there are too many references on the subject. For example here (pages 114, 115, 116). And I am sure cherine will change her mind after reading the Wikipedia article about Egyptian Arabic. 


> One characteristic of Egyptian syntax which it shares with other North African varieties as well as some southern Levantine dialect areas is in the two-part negative verbal circumfix /ma-...-ʃ(i)/
> 
> 
> Past: /ˈkatab/ "he wrote" /ma-katab-ʃ(i)/ "he didn't write" ماكتبشِ
> 
> 
> Present: /ˈjik-tib/ "he writes" /ma-bjik-tib-ʃ(i)/ "he doesn't write" مابيكتبشِ
> /ma-/ comes from the Classical Arabic negator /ma:/. /-ʃ(i)/ is a development of Classical /ʃayʔ/ "thing". The development of a circumfix is similar to the French circumfix _ne ... pas_, where _ne_ comes from Latin _non_ "not" and _pas_ comes from Latin _passus_ "step".


----------



## WadiH

Finland said:


> Are you quite sure about this? I don't have any reference literature at hand, but the standard etymological explanation I've always heard for the sh-negation is that it comes from the word شيء.



I am 100% certain that it comes from شي.  We sometimes contract شي at the end of the sentence into ش (not so much among younger people though):

ما عندي شي --> ما عنديش
ماهْنا شي --> ماهْناش
ما عندكم قهوة ولاّ شي --> ما عندكم قهوة ولاّش
etc.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Bruss04 said:


> I am wondering about the usages of these 2 words, and from what I've gathered they're not interchangeable, so when would you use either? I am not sure if different dialects matter.


 
Sometimes it's a dialect thing as Cherine mentioned. However, sometimes both can be used in the same dialect and in this case they are not interchangable. I'm not sure which dialects exactly but I've often used (and heard people use) Haaja with the classical meaning of "need" while shee retains the meaning of "thing". Example:

ما في \ ماكو حاجة أروح = there is no _need_ for me to go
ما عندي شي = I have nothing


----------



## clevermizo

I would say that ـــش negation is most certainly _etymologically_ descended from شيء. However, it has found a new grammatical niche as a negative particle in dialects that use it. I wonder if in the regions in Egypt where they do use شيء or in Palestinian where they have ـش negation and use the word إشي or شي as "thing" if you can say ما علمتش شي or ما عملتش إشي, etc.

The point is that saying شيء after ـــــش is not redundant in my opinion, because although they are the same word etymologically, nowadays in many dialects they simply have different meanings, as one means "thing" and the other is a grammatical particle.

Whether or not one dialect uses شيء or حاجة to mean "thing" has simply to do with the history and idiosyncracies of that dialect, and I don't think it has anything to do with whether they use ـــــش to negate verbs.


----------



## Josh_

We briefly discussed the connection between negating particle ش and شيء in this thread here.


----------



## Bruss04

Thanks everyone for your responses, so what I would like to ask then is if I wanted to say "I am not doing anything" is it or is it not necessary to add "sheyy" or "haaja" or any other word to the construction in light of the whole '-Sh coming from Sheyy thing'

So if "Mandiirish" is "I am not doing" how would you say "I am not doing anything" .. again I am not sure how much dialects matter here, as I suppose there are different expressions..


----------



## Mahaodeh

You have to use shee or Haaja because the use of -sh in negation has become independent of the word shee and no longer means "thing", at least not in the dialects I'm familiar with.


----------



## Bruss04

Mahaodeh said:


> You have to use shee or Haaja because the use of -sh in negation has become independent of the word shee and no longer means "thing", at least not in the dialects I'm familiar with.



Thanks, Mahaodeh


----------



## Xence

Bruss04 said:


> So if "Mandiirish" is "I am not doing" how would you say "I am not doing anything" .. again I am not sure how much dialects matter here, as I suppose there are different expressions..


Well, getting back to Algerian, the problem is solved thanks to a magical word : *waalu *والو (which is most likely an alteration of و + لو (شيء)ا ). So, if you have to say _I do nothing_, you simply say _ma ndiir waalu_. With this word, there is no need to add the _-sh_ particle.




			
				clevermizo said:
			
		

> nowadays in many dialects they simply have different meanings, as one means "thing" and the other is a grammatical particle.


You have a good point here. We may call this process a grammaticalization. I don't know if شي is redundant after the ش as a negative particle in Levantine dialects (perhaps elroy could help here), but the author of the book I have mentioned above (*Arabic grammar and linguistics,* By Y_asir Suleiman_) seems to say that the word شيء from which stems the _-sh_ suffix hasn't originally the same meaning as the شيء (object) we use nowadays. He gives many examples from the Quran.
In this case, even if the word شيء is used after ش, the redundancy discussion is irrelevant.


----------



## cherine

As Mizo says, the current usage or meaning of the negation ش has nothing to do with شيء regardless of the etymology. And that's what I meant by my post.
If we're speaking of etymology, that's something, but speaking of the meaning and the usage is different.
So, for example in the Egyptian dialect, we say ما عملتش حاجة and the ش in  ما عملتش doesn't mean we can drop the word حاجة .


----------



## elroy

cherine said:


> So, for example in the Egyptian dialect, we say ما عملتش حاجة and the ش in  ما عملتش doesn't mean we can drop the word حاجة .


 It's the same in Palestinian Arabic, except that we say إشي  (_ishi_) for "thing."

"I did not do anything" = ما عملتش إشي


----------



## WadiH

As a rule of thumb, you can always use حاجة in place of شيء, but you can't always use شيء in place of حاجة.  This is because حاجة still retains other senses (e.g. "need," "errand," "task," etc.).



Xence said:


> Well, getting back to Algerian, the problem is solved thanks to a magical word : *waalu *والو (which is most likely an alteration of و + لو (شيء)ا ). So, if you have to say _I do nothing_, you simply say _ma ndiir waalu_. With this word, there is no need to add the _-sh_ particle.



Couldn't it originally be ولا شيء? (in Iraqi Arabic, ولاّ < وإلاّ has become لو).



> By Y_asir Suleiman_[/SIZE]) seems to say that the word شيء from which stems the _-sh_ suffix hasn't originally the same meaning as the شيء (object) we use nowadays. He gives many examples from the Quran.



What other meaning did it have then?


----------



## Xence

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Couldn't it originally be ولا شيء? (in Iraqi Arabic, ولاّ < وإلاّ has become لو).


That's possible. I have thought of this too, but I personally think it's less probable than ولو شيء . By the way, وإلاّ is said in Algerian ولاّ .



> What other meaning did it have then?


The author, referring to some other authorities, notices that in some Quranic verses, the word _shay_' is used to express a total negation. It appears in 31 occurrences as an element of the structure [Neg + Verb + shay'an].
For example in the verse (X-44): إن الله لا يظلم الناس شيئا , the author explains that شيئا doesn't "_constitute an object complement of the verb, but rather emphasizes the totality of negation ("at all", "whatsoever", and likewise)_" (p. 114)


----------



## Mahaodeh

Xence said:


> The author, referring to some other autorities, notices that in some Quranic verses, the word _shay_' is used to express a total negation. It appears in 31 occurrences as an element of the structure [Neg + Verb + shay'an].
> For example in the verse (X-44): إن الله لا يظلم الناس شيئا , the author explains that شيئا doesn't "_constitute an object complement of the verb, but rather emphasizes the totality of negation ("at all", "whatsoever", and likewise)_" (p. 114)


 
I don't totally agree. It is in fact an object gramatically (مفعول به للفعل يظلم) and يظلم can have an object (فعل لازم ومتعد حسب الجملة); you can say, as an example: ظلمه حقَّه (in this case it has مفعولين not only one) or, more clearly ظلمَ عَمرٌ زَيْدًا حَقَّهُ; personally, I understand say' in the aya as "anything". Another aya says إن الله لا يَظْلِمُ مِثْقالَ ذَرَّةٍ; so why is مثقال ذرة here an object and شيئا not?


----------



## juventino

Bruss04 said:


> Thanks everyone for your responses, so what I would like to ask then is if I wanted to say "I am not doing anything" is it or is it not necessary to add "sheyy" or "haaja" or any other word to the construction in light of the whole '-Sh coming from Sheyy thing'
> 
> So if "Mandiirish" is "I am not doing" how would you say "I am not doing anything" .. again I am not sure how much dialects matter here, as I suppose there are different expressions..



Well for the Libyan dialect  its as follows:

If you're trying to say "I am not doing anything", you could say either: 

i) mandiiresh 7aaja (= maa ndiir-sh 7aaja)

ii) mandiiresh shey

And also:

madiirtesh 7aaja/shey means "I did not do anything" (past tense)

_7aaja_ or _shey_ (which differ among regional Libyan dialects, i.e. gharbawi and shargawi) where most gharbawi use _shey_ and most shargawi use _7aaja_ yet the two are interchangable and understood in general.


----------



## Bruss04

juventino said:


> Well for the Libyan dialect  its as follows:
> 
> If you're trying to say "I am not doing anything", you could say either:
> 
> i) mandiiresh 7aaja (= maa ndiir-sh 7aaja)
> 
> ii) mandiiresh shey
> 
> And also:
> 
> madiirtesh 7aaja/shey means "I did not do anything" (past tense)
> 
> _7aaja_ or _shey_ (which differ among regional Libyan dialects, i.e. gharbawi and shargawi) where most gharbawi use _shey_ and most shargawi use _7aaja_ yet the two are interchangable and understood in general.



Thanks a lot Juventino, appreciate it


----------



## juventino

> _7aaja_ or _shey_ (which differ among regional Libyan dialects, i.e. gharbawi and shargawi) where most gharbawi use _shey_ and most shargawi use _7aaja_ yet the two are interchangable and understood in general.


Little correction, last time I was in Libya I heard 7aaja alot in the West too so in general the two are interchangable and widely understood.

Your welcome Bruss04


----------



## Xence

Mahaodeh said:


> I don't totally agree. It is in fact an object gramatically (مفعول به للفعل يظلم) and يظلم can have an object (فعل لازم ومتعد حسب الجملة); you can say, as an example: ظلمه حقَّه (in this case it has مفعولين not only one) or, more clearly ظلمَ عَمرٌ زَيْدًا حَقَّهُ; personally, I understand say' in the aya as "anything". Another aya says إن الله لا يَظْلِمُ مِثْقالَ ذَرَّةٍ; so why is مثقال ذرة here an object and شيئا not?


If you have read the pages I have mentioned above, Mahaodeh, you should have noticed that the author quotes this aya among others to support exactly the opposite view. 
Anyway, your example doesn't seem relevant to the verse إن الله لا يظلم الناس شيئا simply because شيئا cannot be the object of the ظلم . Personally, I would say it's مفعول مطلق مبهم , in the same way we say, for example, اشتعل الرأس شيباً . And just to confirm, I have looked in مشكل إعراب القرآن where شيئا is analyzed as نائب مفعول مطلق.
Here is the link (Yunus - 44)


----------



## WadiH

Xence said:


> If you have read the pages I have mentioned above, Mahaodeh, you should have noticed that the author quotes this aya among others to support exactly the opposite view.
> Anyway, your example doesn't seem relevant to the verse إن الله لا يظلم الناس شيئا simply because شيئا cannot be the object of the ظلم .



But the same logic would apply to لا يظلم مثقال ذرة, and from what you're saying, it doesn't seem that Yasir Suleiman has identified what this supposed other meaning was.


----------



## Xence

Yes, the same logic is applying to the verses:
إن الله لا يظلم الناس شيئا
إن الله لا يطلم الناس مثقال ذرة
إن الله لا يظلم الناس فتيلا
إن الله لا يظلم الناس نقيرا

What is meant here, according to the author, aren't the objects شيء - فتيل - نقير - مثقال ذرة , but the emphasizing of the total negation. Hence, the author is talking about a *particular status* of _shay'an_ in those 31 Quranic verses mentioned above.
I invite every one to (re)read pages 114, 115, 116.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I don't want to argue about the grammar of the Quran because it's way out of my league. Regarding the semantics though, it is indeed  used to emphasize the negation, this is quite a common way to emphasize negation even in English (ex. "I didn't see a thing", "he doesn't know a thing") and in collequal after the -sh suffix started to be used بعرفش شي - ما قالش شي - ما شفتش شي. That does not mean, however, that the words شيئا، مثقال ذرة، فتيلا، نقيرا do not have their orginal meanings, does it?

I don't know how many scholars have the same opinion of Yasir Sulaiman and how many are against it; but given the information I have right now, it seems to me that Mr. Sulaiman made the conclusion first then tried to support it with examples from the quran.

I'm not saying that it's not the origin of the -sh, what I'm saying is that in the Quran it can still be understood as thing despite the emphasis meant. Actually, the way I understand it is that the emphasis only exists *because *of the meanings given to those words "thing", "weight of atom"...etc.

A better example about شيء meaning something other than "thing" is to say something like كان أطول شيئا من فلان أو كان أسمن شيئا العام الماضي; which became شويّ أو شويّة in collequal (or at least I think it did).


----------



## WadiH

Xence said:


> Yes, the same logic is applying to the verses:
> إن الله لا يظلم الناس شيئا
> إن الله لا يطلم الناس مثقال ذرة
> إن الله لا يظلم الناس فتيلا
> إن الله لا يظلم الناس نقيرا
> 
> What is meant here, according to the author, aren't the objects شيء - فتيل - نقير - مثقال ذرة , but the emphasizing of the total negation. Hence, the author is talking about a *particular status* of _shay'an_ in those 31 Quranic verses mentioned above.
> I invite every one to (re)read pages 114, 115, 116.



Ok, I see what you mean and I agree with this analysis completely.  It certainly is used more like a مفعول مطلق.  However, I don't think it's correct to describe this as a different meaning for شيء.  It seems to me like it had the exact same meaning then as it does now.  I would say instead that شيء (and other words describing quantity) were employed in a certain grammatical structure that was allowed in Quranic times but that fell out of use in later times.


----------

