# ذات ليلة



## Student4Life

The meaning normally given for ذات ليلة is 'one night'
ذات shows possession - so how do we end up with this meaning here?
Thanks for your help


----------



## إسكندراني

It's just standalone.
ذهبت ذات يوم لصديقى


----------



## Student4Life

sorry, I didn't understand what you mean by standalone?


----------



## إسكندراني

Student4Life said:


> sorry, I didn't understand what you mean by standalone?


(ذات يوم) in Arabic is equivalent to (one day) in English as a construction.
And there is no reason to assume English would follow Arabic exactly in this regard, since 'one' here means 'some unspecified' and is hence not _literally_ correct, rather it is something like a figure of speech.

By the way, في ذات اليوم means 'on that same day'.


----------



## Student4Life

Oh ok, I understand what you mean now - thanks


----------



## AndyRoo

al-Munjid says:

لقيته ذاتَ يوم أي لقيته لُقيةً ذات يوم فتكون ذات صفة قامت مقام الموصوف المحذوف فنصبت على المفعولية المطلقة

So I think (others might correct me) it's saying ذات is an adjective describing a noun [here=لُقية] which has now disappeared, as below:

I met him [a meeting] belonging to a day.


----------



## Student4Life

Something new I just learnt there then - I thought it was Mafool Fihi due to Yawm OR Laylah


----------



## إسكندراني

AndyRoo said:


> al-Munjid says:
> 
> لقيته ذاتَ يوم أي لقيته لُقيةً ذات يوم فتكون ذات صفة قامت مقام الموصوف المحذوف فنصبت على المفعولية المطلقة
> 
> So I think (others might correct me) it's saying ذات is an adjective describing a noun [here=لُقية] which has now disappeared, as below:
> 
> I met him [a meeting] belonging to a day.


Maybe that's the underlying original reason but in everyday usage we don't consider it that deeply!


----------



## Student4Life

is it possible for it to be Mafool Fihi?


----------



## AndyRoo

From al-Munjid, it seems to be a maf`uul muTlaq, rather than a maf`uul bihi [not sure if these are mutually exclusive though].


----------



## Student4Life

Sorry, I meant Mafool Feehi - not Bihi - because it refers to time.


----------



## AndyRoo

Sorry my mistake. Anyway, it still stands what I said: this is (according to al-Munjid) a maf`uul muTlaq, not a maf`uul fihi or bihi.


----------



## Student4Life

Thanks - based on this then, is Zaat or Zoo always used as Siffah for Mafool Mutlaq?


----------



## AndyRoo

No, I think only ذات is treated so, and then only when it is in a time expression like ذات يوم .

BTW I'm no expert on grammar, so I hope someone can help.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Student4Life said:


> Thanks - based on this then, is Zaat or Zoo always used as Siffah for Mafool Mutlaq?



Of course not, it depends on the sentence. If you say: رأيتُ ذات الرداء الأحمر, then it's مفعول به; if you say: جاء ذو القبعّة, then it's فاعل and so on.


----------



## rayloom

Student4Life said:


> is it possible for it to be Mafool Fihi?



Yeah...It's more straightforward (and better in my opinion) to consider it a Zarf (maf3uul fihi).

The thing is, ذات in itself isn't a Zarf, that's why in such a situation  you'd find grammatical attempts trying to explain why it's in the  accusative.
And that doesn't only occur with ذات, it's similar with other words  which have come to be used as "locatives" in Arabic (like أثناء, طوال،  can't remember others at the moment).
Some consider them to be:
نائب مفعول مطلق, some say they منصوبة على نزع الخافض.
I think it's only complicating a simple thing!


----------



## Student4Life

Thanks for the reply


----------

