# Najdi Arabic: ذْبِحْ / نْذِبَحْ (passive)



## Ghabi

Is there any difference of meaning between ذْبِحْ dhbi7 and نْذِبَحْ ndhiba7 when we want to say "he was killed (in the war)" in Najdi? Does the former (the so called "internal passive") has the nuance that "an agent is implied but not stated" (as in the case of fuS7a ... well, at least that's what fuS7a grammar books say)?


----------



## WadiH

I think dhib7/dhbi7 focuses more on the "implied agent" or the act itself so it's kind of like saying "he was assisnated" (وشلون مات فلان؟ والله ذبح).  With andhiba7, you don't really care who killed him but rather you're focusing on the person himself, so it's like saying "he got killed in the war" (سافر فلان للمكان الفلاني وعاش 10 سنين ثمن انذبح في الحرب الفلانية).

But to be honest, I think with some verbs like ذبح, the two forms are almost interchangeable actually.  But with a lot of other verbs they weren't traditionally interchangeable (situation similar to CA).  So, for example, انقلب is not interchangeable with قلب.


----------



## Ghabi

So the "internal passive" is a fully productive pattern in Najdi, or you only use it with some particular verbs?


----------



## WadiH

It's fully productive, but younger generations shy away from it, at least in big cities like Riyadh.  I don't think my younger siblings ever use it (not that they're a representative sample by any means), but I do.

EDIT: Well maybe on second thought, they might use it with some verbs like خذ and جاب.


----------



## ayed

Ghabi said:


> Is there any difference of meaning between ذْبِحْ dhbi7 and نْذِبَحْ ndhiba7 when we want to say "he was killed (in the war)" in Najdi? Does the former (the so called "internal passive") has the nuance that "an agent is implied but not stated" (as in the case of fuS7a ... well, at least that's what fuS7a grammar books say)?


In Badawi, we only use "thibH".
يوم ذبح سالم When Salim was killed


----------



## Ghabi

How about other verbs? Can you think of examples where the "internal passive" and the _infa3ala_ form have different meanings in badawi?


----------



## WadiH

This is a hard question which I've often thought about even before you posted your question.  As is often the case, I instinctively know when to use the passive form vs. the infa3ala form, but I find it difficult to distill the actual rule behind it.

The closest I can come up with is that I think you are supposed to use the passive form when you are dealing with a pure matter of fact (i.e. did something happen or not?  Or, does something happen or doesn't it?).  Infa3ala, on the other hand, is used to express something _about_ an act (i.e. not strictly did/does it happen or not, but rather is it possible to do something?  Is it advisable to do it?  Does it occur frequently? etc.).

For example, if I want to say that a piece of land was sold, I would say:
بيعت الأرض

Or if I want to say that a book is sold at the bookstore, I would say:
يباع في المكتبات

But if I'm frustrated that the piece of land just won't sell no matter how hard I try, I can emphasize that aspect by saying:
ما انباعت الأرض
Or
عيّت تنباع الأرض

Another example: if I want to say that something is wanted I use the passive form بغي:
ما بغي الأكل (i.e. no one was interested in the food)

But if I want to say that the food is terrible and nobody should eat it I would say:
أكلٍ ما ينبغى لو بريال ("food that shouldn't be eaten even for 1 riyal")

A third example: If I want to say that Fulaan the 7araami has not yet been caught by the police, I would say:
ما بعد مسك or ما مسك

But if I want to say that it is impossible for anyone to catch him, I would say:
فلان ما ينمسك لو وش تسوون ("Flaan can't be caught no matter what you do")

-------------------------

Of course, there are instances of انفعل where there just isn't any "agent" other than the verb's subject so it would not make sense to use the passive:

انقشعت البوية ("The paint peeled off").  But if I want to say that someone actually peeled the paint off(i.e. بفعل فاعل), I would say قشعت البوية.
Also, انقلبت بهم السيارة.  Here the implication is that it was an accident.  But if you tell me قلبت السيارة, I would understand from you that the car was just sitting there and that people came and turned it over on purpose.


----------



## Ghabi

That's interesting. Seems that you'd use the _infa3ala_ form in Najdi when you want to say someone/something is "un- .... -able" (the land is unsellable; the food is inedible; the thief is "uncatchable"), right? I think we'd use the internal passive in these cases in fuS7a, would we?


----------



## WadiH

Well, not exactly.  I mean rocks are inedible.  I don't say الحصى ما ينوكل.  I'd say الحصى ما يوكل.  But if I'm having a steak that's very rubbery and hard to chew I might say وش ذا ما ينوكل (but I can also say وش ذا ما يوكل also).

EDIT: Perhaps the rule is that if I'm being prescriptive I would use the internal passive: لا تاكل الصابون الصابون ما يوكل, but if I'm dealing with physical impossibility I have the option of using infa3ala, e.g. الأكل ذا ما ينبلع, at least with some verbs.

Anyway, these are just my impressions and they're by no means definitive by any stretch.  Perhaps the rule was different a generation ago and may still be different outside of big cities like Riyadh.  Bear in mind that I don't have to use the infa3ala form: I can still say حاولت أبيع الأرض بس ما بيعت or عيّت تباع.  When I'm trying to tell someone what _should_ be done, I also generally use the internal passive: هذي تودّى هناك, هذي تجاب هنا, هذا يحطّ في الثلاجة, هذا ما يحطّ في السيارة, etc.

I guess you're basically right that in CA you would generally only use the internal passive.  But you could still say حاولت أن أطفئ النار لكنها لم  تنطفئ and you still have the verb ينبغي, e.g. لا ينبغي أن تفعل هذا, so maybe it's not as clear cut as that. (Edit: Also, compare ينقاد v. يقاد.)


----------



## Ghabi

One more question: When you use the internal passive in Najdi, can you use structures like من جانب to indicate the agent, as they often do in modern (translationese?) fuS7a prose?


----------



## WadiH

Nope.


----------



## princeipeazul

Wadi Hanifa said:


> It's fully productive, but younger generations shy away from it, at least in big cities like Riyadh.  I don't think my younger siblings ever use it (not that they're a representative sample by any means), but I do.
> 
> EDIT: Well maybe on second thought, they might use it with some verbs like خذ and جاب.


If the internal passive is rarely used by younger generation, what alternative do they use?

Do you think the disappearance of internal passive in Riyadh is an influence of Gulf Arabic? I've downloaded some Gulf arabic PDF files and none of which mentioned about the internal passive. This is kind of new to me. Although I had read it before in MSA grammar PDF files.


----------



## princeipeazul

Wadi Hanifa said:


> When I'm trying to tell someone what _should_ be done, I also generally use the internal passive: هذي تودّى هناك, هذي تجاب هنا, هذا يحطّ في الثلاجة, هذا ما يحطّ في السيارة, etc.


Does Najdi Arabic's internal passive have the same "voweling system" as Modern standard Arabic?


----------



## WadiH

No the vowels are a bit different:

_fu3il(a)_ > _fi3il_ or _f3il_

When a feminine or plural third person pronoun is attached, the first 'i' drops out:

_fu3ilat_ > _fi3lat
fu3iluu_ > _fi3law
fu3ilna > fi3iln _or _fi3lin _or_ fi3lan _(this is feminine third person plural -- I think these vary by region)

When a first person singular or plural pronoun is attached, the second 'i' drops out:

fu3iltu > f3ilt ***
fu3ilnaa > f3ilnaa (this is first person plural)

A few rules that can help to make sense of these changes:

1) beduoin-type dialects don't like to end on short vowels and always go to what in MSA would be called a 'pausal form'
2) bedouin-type dialects avoid having more than two short vowel segments in a row (or two short vowel segments followed by a long one)
3) as you move north and east in the peninsula, the 'u' vowel becomes rare and is replaced by 'i' or a schwa

Examples:
1) fu3ilna > fu3iln (pausal form) >fi3iln ('u' to 'i')
2) fu3ilat > fu3lat (can't have three short vowel segments in a row) > fi3lat ('u' to 'i')
3) fu3iluu > fu3luu (can't have a long vowel segment after two short ones) > fi3luu ('u' to 'i') > fi3law (I explained the 'uu' to 'aw' rules in another thread)

*** Correction: I think _fi3ilt_ is also possible here.


----------



## WadiH

princeipeazul said:


> If the internal passive is rarely used by younger generation, what alternative do they use?



They use the _infa3al _pattern (similar to other dialects).



princeipeazul said:


> Do you think the disappearance of internal passive in Riyadh is an influence of Gulf Arabic? I've downloaded some Gulf arabic PDF files and none of which mentioned about the internal passive. This is kind of new to me. Although I had read it before in MSA grammar PDF files.



I don't think Gulf Arabic has retained it except in poetry and folk expressions.  It may have existed in previous generations.  I think the speech of Riyadh is influenced by many dialects through migration and mass media, not just Gulf Arabic but also Urban Hijazi and the dialects of Egypt and Syria.


----------



## Derakhshan

Supposedly in older Bahraini speech you could have heard some internal passives such as _yigāl leh_ يقال له "he is called". Of course Bahrain received many migrants from Najd and this was reflected in their speech.

Now only the _infa3al_ pattern is used, I can confirm for all the examples given in this thread.


----------



## WadiH

I suspect many dialects had it until relatively recently and the most common words remained as non-productive fossils like يقال له.


----------



## Hemza

Wadi Hanifa said:


> I suspect many dialects had it until relatively recently and the most common words remained as non-productive fossils like يقال له.


This reminds me that in Morocco and (Western?) Algeria, there is a fixed form used which is وقيل which means "apparently/it seems" the meaning being borrowed from its original meaning as "it is said that".

Interesting thread by the way


----------



## princeipeazul

Derakhshan said:


> Supposedly in older Bahraini speech you could have heard some internal passives such as _yigāl leh_ يقال له "he is called". Of course Bahrain received many migrants from Najd and this was reflected in their speech.
> 
> Now only the _infa3al_ pattern is used, I can confirm for all the examples given in this thread.


How would you say  "يقال له" in contemporary Arabic? is it هو يتسمّى? or ?هو ينقال


----------

