# سمحت السلطات القطرية ببناء أول كنيسة



## dgwp

Could someone perhaps help me with a translation of the following sentence:

سمحت السلطات القطرية ببناء أول كنيسة على أراضيها منهية بذلك نصف قرن من ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب طقوس العبادة سراً.

So far, I have something like: "The Qatari Sultan has given permission for the construction of the first church on sacred ground(???)..."

Many thanks

David


----------



## elroy

The Qatari Sultan authorities has have given permission for (or "authorized") the construction of the first church on sacred ground(???)... a church on their soil for the first time, thereby putting an end to half a century of religious ceremonies performed in secret by thousands of foreign workers.


----------



## dgwp

Thank you very much Elroy. Looks like I was read what I thought was written (_sulTaan_), rather than what was actually there (suluTaat)!! 

Best wishes

David


----------



## dgwp

Can I just check the vowelling of the word with the meaning "putting an end to"? Is it the active participle (_munhiya_) of the verb _'anhaa_?


----------



## elroy

Yup.


----------



## dgwp

Thanks! Does the feminine ending of _munhiya_ refer to "authorities" (inanimate plural) or "church"?

David


----------



## elroy

To "authorities."


----------



## dgwp

Thanks again. One thing that seems strange to my untrained eye is the word order at the end of the sentence - if the expression _mumaarasa Tuquus al-3ibaada_ ("the performance of religious ceremonies") is an _'iDaafa_, then I'm not sure why it is split by an adverbial accusative _aalaaf al-3amaal al-'ajaanib_ ("by thousands of foreign workers")? Have I understood the grammatical structure correctly?

David


----------



## elroy

Not quite, although I'm not entirely sure how that last part parses (or even if it's officially grammatically correct). I can tell you, though, that ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب طقوس العبادة سراً sounded absolutely fine to me when I read the sentence, and I probably wouldn't have noticed anything unusual about it had you not pointed it out.

The إضافة construction is ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب, and طقوس العبادة seems to be functioning as an object of ممارسة (سراً is an adverbial). What's unclear to me is whether it's grammatically acceptable for ممارسة to take an object this way, considering that technically there is not a فاعل (the agent in this case, آلاف العمال الأجانب, is grammatically a مضاف إليه).

Hopefully someone else will come along and enlighten us.  What I can tell you is that adding لـ would yield a structure that is definitely grammatically correct:

ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب لطقوس العبادة سراً

In that case, لطقوس العبادة would simply be a prepositional phrase (جار ومجرور).

By the way, the pronunciation of عمال is _3ummaal_.


----------



## cherine

Here's what I found in my grammar book, I hope you won't need a translation 

يعمل المصدر عمل فعله؛ أي أنه يرفع فاعلاً أو ينصب مفعولاً به.
يكثر أن يُضاف المصدر إلى فاعله، ويأتي بعده المفعول به منصوبًا.​
I guess in this sentence
سمحت السلطات القطرية ببناء أول كنيسة على أراضيها منهية بذلك نصف قرن من ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب طقوس العبادة سراً.​the maSdar (mumaarasa) is acting as a verb. The word "aalaafi" is the faa3il, and it's parced like this (also from the book):
فاعل للمصدر مجرور لفظًا ومرفوع محلاً which means something like: it's taking a kasra and it's considered marfuu3 (Am I making sense? )
And then the word Tuquusa is a مفعول به للمصدر منصوب بالفتحة



elroy said:


> What I can tell you is that adding لـ would yield a structure that is definitely grammatically correct:
> 
> ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب لطقوس العبادة سراً
> 
> In that case, لطقوس العبادة would simply be a prepositional phrase (جار ومجرور).


This is correct, but the structure would still be correct without the laam.


----------



## ayed

It should have been as this:
*سمحت السلطات القطرية ببناء أول كنيسة على أراضيها منهية بذلك نصف قرن من ممارسة ثلاثة/أربعة/خمسة عامل أجنبي  طقوس العبادة سراً*


----------



## cherine

ayed said:


> It should have been as this:
> *سمحت السلطات القطرية ببناء أول كنيسة على أراضيها منهية بذلك نصف قرن من ممارسة ثلاثة/أربعة/خمسة عامل أجنبي طقوس العبادة سراً*


Ayed, you should've put more clearly what you mean so as to not confuse the others 

I think you're referring to your suggestion that آلاف should be a تمييز .
In your "should have sentence", it's عاملٍ that is the tamyiiz not the number. No?


----------



## elroy

Thank you, Cherine, for that rule. That clarifies everything. 





cherine said:


> This is correct, but the structure would still be correct without the laam.


 It _sounded_ correct, but I didn't have a rule to justify it. Now I do, thanks to you.


----------



## dgwp

I must admit I'm a bit confused by all this, as I'm not used to Arabic terms for grammatical constructs. 

Am I right in thinking that _mumaarasa_ is a _maSdar_ (of the verb _maarasa_) which takes _Tuquusa_ as a direct object (in the accusative), while the _'iDaafa_ expression _aalaafi_ _al-3ummaali al-'ajaanibi _is the subject that carries out the action _mumaarasa_, but for some reason takes a _kasra_?

Do I have all the vowelling right here?

Many thanks

David


----------



## elroy

dgwp said:


> Am I right in thinking that _mumaarasa_ is a _maSdar_ (of the verb _maarasa_) which takes _Tuquusa_ as a direct object (in the accusative), while the _'iDaafa_ expression _aalaafi_ _al-3ummaali al-'ajaanibi _is the subject that carries out the action _mumaarasa_, but for some reason takes a _kasra_?


 You got it, but it would be best to think of آلاف العمال الأجانب as the "agent" in order to understand its inflection. It is grammatically part of a larger إضافة, in which it is the مضاف إليه:

ممارسة آلاف العمال الأجانب 

I hope that helps clarify things. And yes, your vowelization is correct.


----------



## dgwp

Do you mean that ممارسة or آلاف العمال الأجانب is the مضاف إليه (first part of the _'iDaafa_) here?


----------



## elroy

ممارسة is the مضاف.
آلاف العمال الأجانب (technically just آلاف) is the مضاف إليه.

The مضاف is the first part of an إضافة; the مضاف إليه is the second.


----------



## cherine

dgwp said:


> Am I right in thinking that _mumaarasa_ is a _maSdar_ (of the verb _maarasa_) which takes _Tuquusa_ as a direct object (in the accusative), while the _'iDaafa_ expression _aalaafi_ _al-3ummaali al-'ajaanibi _is the subject that carries out the action _mumaarasa_, but for some reason takes a _kasra_?


Hi David,
Sorry if I confused you with the Arabic terminology, it's that I'm not used to talking about the Arabic grammar in another language.
So... You're right that mumaarasa is a maSdar, and that it's "acting like" a verb.
Now, "_aalaafi_" is taking a kasra and "looks like" a muDaaf ilayh. But in fact it is a faa3il. It just didn't take the Damma like a faa3il should, because this is the case with such structures.



dgwp said:


> Do you mean that ممارسة or آلاف العمال الأجانب is the مضاف إليه (first part of the _'iDaafa_) here?


ممارسة is a مضاف
آلافِ is a فاعل that should have taken a Damma, but in this structure (its following a مصدر acting like a verb, not a "real" verb) makes it take a kasra instead.


----------



## dgwp

Thanks Elroy and Cherine. My confusion seems to have arisen from Buckley's book "Modern Literary Arabic - A Reference Grammar", in which he says that مضاف is the second part of an إضافة while the مضاف إليه is the first. A look at Wright's grammar contradicts this though, and agrees with what you told me.


----------



## cherine

You're welcome, David  I'm glad I could be of any help.


----------

