# خطيبة  /  مخطوبة



## ajamiyya عجمية

From what I have understood, the words خطيبة and مخطوبة both mean "betrothed (female)" in Arabic.

My background dictates that مخطوبة feels correct, while خطيبة, structurally, feels odd.

Has خطيبة displaced مخطوبة as the most common word used to express the idea of "an engaged girl" in MSA?


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

mutalima.majhoola said:


> Has خطيبة displaced مخطوبة as the most common word used to express the idea of "an engaged girl" in MSA?



No.
( خطيبة ) is noun. سوزان خطيبة محمد
( مخطوبة ) is past participle. سوزان مخطوبة لمحمد 

The difference between ( خطيبة ) and ( مخطوبة ) is like the difference between (wife) and (is married)


----------



## analeeh

Hmm, really? Because I had this conversation with someone else and they told me that مخطوبة is more correct and can be used in a sentence like عندي مخطوبة but that خطيبة is a new innovation (derived from خطيب with feminine). I've definitely heard مخطوبة used colloquially as 'fiancée' too. This suggests that it's not only a participle 'has got engaged' (which it can be used as, I agree) but has entered the lexicon as a noun, like كاتب (also originally a participle 'has written' but now complete with a broken plural and a broader meaning 'writer').


----------



## fdb

analeeh said:


> .... like كاتب (also originally a participle 'has written' but now complete with a broken plural and a broader meaning 'writer').



I am not quite sure what you mean by “now”. kātib, plural kuttāb is very widely used in classical Arabic, not for "author" (muʼallif), but for “scribe, secretary”. There is a famous book by Ibn Qutayba called ʼadab al-kuttāb.

Besides, كاتب is a present participle, "writing", not "has written".


----------



## analeeh

No it isn't. كاتب is an active participle - but all (or rather most, with the exception of some verbs of motion etc) participles express a resultative state, i.e. كاتب means 'having written'. By 'now' I mean 'since it became lexicalised', which I appreciate is very broad.


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

--  كاتب (also originally a participle 'has written' but now complete with a broken plural and a broader meaning 'writer').
I agree with you, ( كاتب ) can be used as a noun.
أنا مدرس وأنت طبيب وهو كاتب وهي مهندسة
-------
but ( مخطوبة ) and (خطيبة ) we use it like that:
ذهبت إلى السينما مع خطيبتي أمس
سعد تشاجر مع خطيبته
قابلت خطيبتي في الحديقة
خطيبتي مريضة
خطيبتي سافرت إلى الهند
ذهبت إلى السوق مع أمي وأختي وخطيبتي
عندي خطيبة جميلة
ذهبت إلى السينما مع خطيبتي ومع محمد وزوجته
أختي خطيبة محمد
--------
عندي ثلاث أخوات، الأولى مخطوبة والثانية متزوجة والثالثة غير متزوجة
يجب أن تنسى سوزان لأنها متزوجة وتنسى مريم لأنها مخطوبة ، ليس أمامك إلا فاطمة أو سعاد
أختي مخطوبة لمحمد


----------



## fdb

analeeh said:


> but all (or rather most, with the exception of some verbs of motion etc) participles express a resultative state, i.e. كاتب means 'having written'.



That is nonsense.


----------



## analeeh

Ashraf Mahmoud said:


> --  كاتب (also originally a participle 'has written' but now complete with a broken plural and a broader meaning 'writer').
> I agree with you, ( كاتب ) can be used as a noun.
> أنا مدرس وأنت طبيب وهو كاتب وهي مهندسة
> -------
> but ( مخطوبة ) and (خطيبة ) we use it like that:
> ذهبت إلى السينما مع خطيبتي أمس
> سعد تشاجر مع خطيبته
> قابلت خطيبتي في الحديقة
> خطيبتي مريضة
> خطيبتي سافرت إلى الهند
> ذهبت إلى السوق مع أمي وأختي وخطيبتي
> عندي خطيبة جميلة
> ذهبت إلى السينما مع خطيبتي ومع محمد وزوجته
> أختي خطيبة محمد
> --------
> عندي ثلاث أخوات، الأولى مخطوبة والثانية متزوجة والثالثة غير متزوجة
> يجب أن تنسى سوزان لأنها متزوجة وتنسى مريم لأنها مخطوبة ، ليس أمامك إلا فاطمة أو سعاد
> أختي مخطوبة لمحمد



Interesting! I wonder if using مخطوبتي like this is a Syrian/Levantine thing.



> That is nonsense.



I'm afraid it isn't. It's a common misunderstanding, often fuelled by clumsy terminology, that the participles line up with English -ing participles. But they don't.


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

analeeh said:


> Interesting! I wonder if using مخطوبتي like this is a Syrian/Levantine thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid it isn't. It's a common misunderstanding, often fuelled by clumsy terminology,* that the participles line up with English -ing participles. But they don't.*


that's true but they are closer to the English *ing *rather than *having + ing
*


----------



## analeeh

Arabic_Police_999 said:


> that's true but they are closer to the English *ing *rather than *having + ing
> *



Some of them are - ذاهب for example, which is pretty much 'going' - but others definitely aren't, e.g. آكل (which is definitely 'having eaten, not 'eating').


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

analeeh said:


> Some of them are - ذاهب for example, which is pretty much 'going' - *but others definitely aren't*, e.g. آكل (which is definitely 'having eaten, not 'eating').



hmm, no it's not, you can say some are used more in a certain way, 
but you can't say that they have a fixed meaning in term of translation


----------



## analeeh

Well obviously nothing has a 'fixed meaning' in terms of translation - but I can't think of a single instance where آكل indicates a continuous state. Possibly this differs from dialect to dialect, but at least in Levantine, انت آكل؟ is unambiguously 'have you eaten?' If it doesn't express a continuous state, or perhaps the future, I can't think of a case where we could translate it with -ing. Likewise, متزوج does not generally mean 'marrying', but 'having married' or 'married to'.

I can think of one exception which is a (maybe uniquely?) Levantine use where you use the participle emphatically in the negative to say 'I'm definitely not going to...': أنا مو متزوجو! which you could translate as 'I'm not marrying him!' but this doesn't exist in Fusha AFAIK.


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

analeeh said:


> Well obviously nothing has a 'fixed meaning' in terms of translation - but I can't think of a single instance where آكل indicates a continuous state(1). Possibly this differs from dialect to dialect, but at least in Levantine, انت آكل؟ is unambiguously 'have you eaten?' If it doesn't express a continuous state, or perhaps the future(2), I can't think of a case where we could translate it with -ing. Likewise, متزوج does not generally mean 'marrying', but 'having married' or 'married to(3)'.
> 
> I can think of one exception which is a (maybe uniquely?) Levantine use where you use the participle emphatically in the negative to say 'I'm definitely not going to...': أنا مو متزوجو! which you could translate as 'I'm not marrying him!' but this doesn't exist in Fusha AFAIK(4).



1, all grammarians agreed that اسم الفاعل could be used in the past, present and future
"having married" is a perfect participle that refers to two actions, between them a gap of time, 
اسم الفاعل can be always used without another verb, and that does not give the meaning having done(perfect participle)
َزيدٌ آكلُُ الطعام  here it could have the meaning of Zaid is eating the food

2_ if you used it as a *verb+ no تنوين + noun* it could refers to the past, you can say having done
if you used it as a *verb+ تنوين + noun* it could refer to the present(continuous) or future
زيدُُ آكلُ الطعامِ (past) note the Kasarah on الطعام
زيد آكلُُ الطعامَ (present) note the Fathah on الطعام

3_again, it depends on the context, it could be ing(present), future, or past, 

4_"this doesn't exist in Fusha"  many grammar books discuss how إسم الفاعل is used sometimes to express an action that's happening right now


----------



## Drink

Arabic participles can be used as both adjectives and nouns.

The active particple *فاعل* means "*doing*" when used as an adjective, but "*doer*" when used as a noun:
- الرجل *الكاتب* في المكتب هو جدي = The man *writing* in the office is my grandfather. (attributive adjective)
- الرجل *كاتب* في المكتب = The man is *writing* in the office. (predicative adjective)
- هو *كاتب* ممتاز = He is a great *writer*. (noun)

The passive participle *مفعول* means "*done*" when used as an adjective or noun:
- النساء *المخطوبات* يحببن عرسانهن = The *betrothed* women love their grooms. (attributive adjective)
- هي *مخطوبة* الآن = She is *betrothed* now. (predicative adjective)
- هي *مخطوبتي* = She is *my betrothed*. (noun)

Please correct any grammatical mistakes in my Arabic, but I think the essential point should still get across.


----------



## analeeh

Arabic_Police_999 said:


> 1, all grammarians agreed that اسم الفاعل could be used in the past, present and future
> "having married" is a perfect participle that refers to two actions, between them a gap of time,




I don't know what you're talking about here. My point was that متزوج is to تزوج as آكل is to أكل - if you are آكل, that means that you have done the action expressed by أكل. If you are متزوج, that means you have done the action expressed by تزوج. Perhaps this is a difference in dialects/from dialect to fusha, but in the dialect I am familiar with عم باكل and أنا آكل express different states.




> اسم الفاعل can be always used without another verb, and that does not give the meaning having done(perfect participle)
> َزيدٌ آكلُُ الطعام  here it could have the meaning of Zaid is eating the food
> 
> 2_ if you used it as a *verb+ no تنوين + noun* it could refers to the past, you can say having done
> if you used it as a *verb+ تنوين + noun* it could refer to the present(continuous) or future
> زيدُُ آكلُ الطعامِ (past) note the Kasarah on الطعام
> زيد آكلُُ الطعامَ (present) note the Fathah on الطعام
> 
> 3_again, it depends on the context, it could be ing(present), future, or past,



Well, you're a native speaker - but this goes against all my experience and what I've seen mentioned in grammars both of colloquial and modern standard Arabic. I also asked some other native speakers - all Syrian - and they said they'd never encountered the construction with tanwiin + object (I have, but only in grammar classes long ago) and if they saw it they'd interpret it the way I did. They all said آكل could be a present tense - but only when it's آكُل (i.e. 'I am eating'). This leads me to suspect that whilst this might be true of very old Arabic, it's not really a construction used today - often a problem with referring to classical grammarians to discuss what is correct in modern language.



> 4_"this doesn't exist in Fusha" many grammar books discuss how إسم الفاعل is used sometimes to express an action that's happening right now




I was talking about the specific usage انا مو متزوجو which carries specific connotations for which there is no direct equivalent in Fusha, as far as I know. I've never denied there ARE participles which can be translated as present continuous in English - ذاهب or colloquial رايح, or عارف for example, or even لابس (which can also be interpreted as the resultative of لبس in its meaning 'to put on'). But that's not to say all of them can.


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

Drink said:


> Arabic participles can be used as both adjectives and nouns.
> 
> The active particple *فاعل* means "*doing*" when used as an adjective, but "*doer*" when used as a noun(1):
> - الرجل *الكاتب* في المكتب هو جدي = The man *writing* in the office is my grandfather. (attributive adjective)
> - الرجل *كاتب* في المكتب = The man is *writing* in the office. (predicative adjective)
> - هو *كاتب* ممتاز = He is a great *writer*. (noun)
> 
> The passive participle *مفعول* means "*done*" when used as an adjective or noun(2):
> - النساء *المخطوبات* يحببن عرسانهن = The *betrothed* women love their grooms. (attributive adjective)
> - هي *مخطوبة* الآن = She is *betrothed* now. (predicative adjective)
> - هي *مخطوبتي* = She is *my betrothed*. (noun)
> 
> Please correct any grammatical mistakes in my Arabic, but I think the essential point should still get across.



hi, hmm I'm not sure,  I'll try to illustrate what I know
_____أضارب أخوك زميله (no adjective here), it could mean present or future

A_ an action that's happening right now, 
1_ it could mean present continuous by two ways, either it's said as the action is happening no need for دلالة لفظية, and the listener would understand, *أضارب أخوك زميله, is your brother hitting his colleague*
2_ or by using دلالة لفظية when the listener might not understand,  *أضارب أخوك زميله الآن, **is your brother hitting his colleague now*

B_ a point in the future where the action is going to be happening
1_ the listener knows definitely that the action did not take place, 
so the perceived meaning would be that the action is going to happen in the future *أضارب أخوك زميله, **is your brother going to hit his colleague*
2_ the speaker have a feeling that the listener might have no clue about anything
so it would be, *أضارب أخوك زميله غدًا, **is your brother going to hit his colleague tomorrow*

____regarding the second part, the examples you gave اسم المفعول is a noun, but it could act as a verb
*أممنوح الطالب جائزة*, here الطالب is the object & جائزة is the subject, it could be present or future it depends in the situation
*is the student getting a prize*


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

analeeh said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here. My point was that متزوج is to تزوج as آكل is to أكل - if you are آكل, that means that you have done the action expressed by(1) أكل. If you are متزوج, that means you have done the action expressed by تزوج. Perhaps this is a difference in dialects/from dialect to fusha, but in the dialect I am familiar with عم باكل and أنا آكل express different(2) states.
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're a native speaker - but this goes against all my experience and what I've seen mentioned in grammars both of colloquial and modern standard Arabic. I also asked some other native speakers - all Syrian - and they said they'd never encountered the construction with tanwiin + object(3) (I have, but only in grammar classes long ago) and if they saw it they'd interpret it the way I did(4). They all said آكل could be a present tense - but only when it's آكُل (i.e. 'I am eating'). This leads me to suspect that whilst this might be true of very old Arabic, it's not really a construction used today(5) - often a problem with referring to classical grammarians to discuss what is correct in modern language(5).
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the specific usage انا مو متزوجو which carries specific connotations for which there is no direct equivalent in Fusha(6), as far as I know. I've never denied there ARE participles which can be translated as present continuous in English - ذاهب or colloquial رايح, or عارف for example, or even لابس (which can also be interpreted as the resultative of لبس in its meaning 'to put on'). But that's not to say all of them can(7).[/COLOR]


1_ hmm, I'll speak from Fusha, not always متزوج means something you done in the past
أنا متزوجُُ ابنتك الآن, *I'm marrying your daughter now*, 
أنا ذاهب إلى المدرسة, *I'm going to school
*they could be in the way you said and the way I said, not only one of them

2_ yes even in my dialect, عم باكل= قاعد آكل

3_ from the quran (*وكلبهم باسطُُ ذراعيه بالوصيد*) here اسم فاعل with tanwen+ subject 
*ما مسافرُُ خالدُُ* tanwen+ object, could mean present or future, *Khalid is not travelling*

4_ hmm, but it doesn't work always I think, perfect particle, is used for two actions that between them there is gap in time
ما مسافرُُ خالدُُ, here مسافر is اسم فاعل how can it be translated as perfect participle here
from Arabic respective when talking about now, the action did not happen
to translate into English I see it closer to *Khalid is not travelling *rather than *Khalid having not traveled *(I'm not a fluent English speaker, but this construction seems nonsense to me)

5_ the corresponding construction is used wildly dialect as in عم باكل= قاعد آكل
the main difference between Modern Arabic and classical Arabic is the absent of حركات beside that all the grammar is identical I think, it's true that some rules are not wildly used but that doesn't mean they are wrong are not used, I encounter these expression in a daily basis I'd say

6_ I couldn't understand this part,  can you expatiate plz

7_from Arabic receptive, all grammar rules that's explained how and when اسم الفاعل acts as verb, there is no rules that says there is an exception for some verbs, 
can you please give an example


----------



## idquod

":من مقالة "تحرير اسم الفاعل من مزاعم المجاراة
فالصيغة الصرفية قد لا تكون كافية بمفردها لأداء المعنى المراد، فهي إذ ذاك في حاجة إلى قرينة لتوضّح ما فيها من غموض وتزيل ما فيها من اشتراك، فصيغة (قاتل) مثلاً مشتركة بين اسم الفاعل والصفة المشبهة، لعدم وجود قرينة تحدّدها، وعندها نحتاج إلى الاستعانة بقرينة تعين في تحديد المراد، تلك القرينة هي التنوين، إذا أُريد الحال أو الاستقبال، 
والإضافة إذا أُريد المضيّ أو الثبوت، أو تقييد الوصف بما يشعر بزمنيته كقولنا: "زيدٌ ضاربُ عمرو أمسِ" ه

http://www.majma.org.jo/majma/index.php/2009-02-10-09-36-00/407-78-4.html

​


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

I agree with analeeh.

In Arabic language ( اسم الفاعل ) for some verbs can not indicate a continuous state, but the perfect state only.

For example:
Whenever I ask my son "Why are you playing? Go and study your lessons."
He replies always " أنا مذاكر دروسي " (he means "I have studied my lessons")

Another Example:
I read a sentence here written by a non native gentleman said:
من فضلكم صححوا  لي أخطائي أنا متعلم
I understood that he wanted to say “Correct my mistakes, I am learning.”
But this Arabic sentence can not be translated like what he had taught.
His Arabic sentence is wrong because it gives me the meaning like that:
“Correct my mistakes, I have learnt. Correct my mistakes, I am a learned person. Correct my mistakes I am an educated person."
I think it is clear that the Arabic sentences is wrong, because ( متعلم ) indicates a perfect state.

More example, what means these sentences:
أنا فاهم - أنا ناجح - أنا فاشل - أنا ساقط - أنا صاحي
all of these indicate a perfect state.


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

Ashraf Mahmoud said:


> I agree with analeeh.
> 
> In Arabic language ( اسم الفاعل ) for some verbs can not indicate a continuous state, but the perfect state only.
> 
> For example:
> Whenever I ask my son "Why are you playing? Go and study your lessons."
> He replies always " أنا مذاكر دروسي " (he means "I have studied my lessons")
> 
> Another Example:
> I read a sentence here written by a non native gentleman said:
> من فضلكم صححوا  لي أخطائي أنا متعلم
> I understood that he wanted to say “Correct my mistakes, I am learning.”
> But this Arabic sentence can not be translated like what he had taught.
> His Arabic sentence is wrong because it gives me the meaning like that:
> “Correct my mistakes, I have learnt. Correct my mistakes, I am a learned person. Correct my mistakes I am an educated person."
> I think it is clear that the Arabic sentences is wrong, *because ( متعلم ) indicates a perfect state.*



hmm, yeah it's true that متعلم here indicate a perfect state, 
but there is no rule that says that some اسم فاعل of some verbs can't be used in present(continuous) or future
there are rules of how it functions as a verb that can be applied to any verb(متصرف) as far as I know
but it's incorrect to say that متعلم can't be used in present or future, as has idquod illustrated 
أنا متعلمُُ الدرسَ غدََا, I think this sentence doesn't indicate a perfect state



> ":من مقالة "تحرير اسم الفاعل من مزاعم المجاراة
> *فالصيغة الصرفية قد لا تكون كافية بمفردها لأداء المعنى المراد*، فهي إذ ذاك في حاجة إلى قرينة لتوضّح ما فيها من غموض وتزيل ما فيها من اشتراك، فصيغة (قاتل) مثلاً مشتركة بين اسم الفاعل والصفة المشبهة، لعدم وجود قرينة تحدّدها، وعندها نحتاج إلى الاستعانة بقرينة تعين في تحديد المراد،* تلك القرينة هي التنوين*، إذا أُريد الحال أو الاستقبال،
> *والإضافة* إذا أُريد المضيّ أو الثبوت، أو تقييد الوصف بما يشعر بزمنيته كقولنا: "زيدٌ ضاربُ عمرو أمسِ" ه
> 
> ​http://www.majma.org.jo/majma/index.php/2009-02-10-09-36-00/407-78-4.html​


----------



## cherine

*Dear all,

Please remember that the thread is about the difference between خطيبة and مخطوبة. So, please focus your discussion and/or explanations on these two words. And feel free to open a new thread for any topic that may be related to but not the same as the one indicated in the title.

Regards,
Cherine
Moderator
*


----------

