# في جوف ذلك البيت رخامة طويلة مجوفة شبه التي ﺗﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ العامة البيلة



## dgwp

I am struggling to understand the exact role of شبه in the following sentence, which relates to a description of the interior of the Great Pyramid:

في جوف ذلك البيت رخامة طويلة مـجوفة شبه التي ﺗﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ العامة البيلة

I am unsure whether we have شَبَهُ , i.e. it is the first word of a relative clause modifying the indefinite noun preceding it, or شَبَهَ , i.e. it is the first word of a circumstantial accusative expression.

I'm also not 100% sure what التي refers to - I presume it refers to an unnamed thing that the people equate with البيلة (a trough, from the Spanish "pila"), or does it refer back to رخامة ?


----------



## elroy

It's شِبْه, meaning "like" or "akin to."  التي = "that which"

_akin to what commoners call a _بيلة


----------



## dgwp

I see. So is it placed in apposition to the following (and hence is in the nominative case)?
*رخامة طويلة مـجوفة*


----------



## cherine

Hi,

I'm a bit confused by this شِبه. To my knowledge, the word shibh means that something is almost something, e.g. شِبْه مُوَصِّل  = semi-conductor. In EA, we have this word, and another pronunciation/word shabah شَبَه to indicate the similarity. But I don't think it works in fuS7a.
Could this be a typo for تُشْبِه?



dgwp said:


> في جوف ذلك البيت رخامة طويلة مـجوفة شبه التي ﺗﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ العامة البيلة
> [...]
> I'm also not 100% sure what التي refers to - I presume it refers to an unnamed thing that the people equate with البيلة (a trough, from the Spanish "pila"), or does it refer back to رخامة ?


You can read the sentence like this:
في جَوْفِ ذلك البيتِ (تُوجَدُ) رخامةٌ طويلةٌ مُجَوَّفةٌ (ت)شبه تلك (الرخامة) التي تُسَمِّيها العامةُ البيلةَ

I hope this makes the reading and the meaning easier and clearer.

P.S. It never hurts to give us the title of the book and name of author, hopefully also the page number. The more context and background information you provide, the better it is for you and us.


----------



## elroy

Hi Cherine,

Almaany gives both meanings:

الشِّبْهُ : المِثْلُ والجمع : أَشباهٌ
الشِّبْهُ : قريب من ، يوجد شِبه كساد في السّوق​


----------



## fdb

cherine said:


> P.S. It never hurts to give us the title of the book and name of author, hopefully also the page number. The more context and background information you provide, the better it is for you and us.


 
I agree completely. This one is from the Riḥla of Ibn Jubayr.

أمراء وأسرى وخواتين


----------



## dgwp

The source is The Travels of Ibn Jubayr (Wright and de Goeje 1907), page 53. I have given the word exactly as it appears in that text.


----------



## cherine

elroy said:


> الشِّبْهُ : المِثْلُ والجمع : أَشباهٌ
> ​


​That's good to know. Thanks!
Thanks, FDB and DGWP for giving the source.


----------



## dgwp

So, is it shibhu or shibha? (I am thinking the latter...)


----------



## Ghabi

It's shibhu.


----------



## elroy

Hi Ghabi,


Ghabi said:


> It's shibhu.


 Is it a نعت?


----------



## Ghabi

شبه is used appositionally ("a thing which resembles ..."), like نحو، مثل، غير. But it's less troublesome than the latter group, which can be used adverbially (na7wa, mithla, ghayra) and may cause confusion.


----------



## elroy

Thanks!  So what would the إعراب be in Arabic?


----------



## Ghabi

It's basically what Cherine writes above: في جَوْفِ ذلك البيتِ رخامةٌ طويلةٌ مُجَوَّفةٌ شِبْهُ التي تُسَمِّيها العامّةُ البيلةَ. To be really literal perhaps we can say: "Inside that house is a long, hollow [block of] marble, a resembler of that which the common people call a 'biila'".


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> Is it a نعت?





elroy said:


> Thanks! So what would the إعراب be in Arabic?


It can't be a نعت since شبه is definite while رخامة is indefinite. It must be a بدل من رخامة.


----------



## elroy

@Ghabi, I'm sorry, what I mean is, is it a نعت or something else?

(I've noticed many non-native speakers use the term إعراب to mean تشكيل (inflection).  Native speakers use the term إعراب to mean a thorough explanation of a word's grammatical function, including but not limited to its تشكيل.  For example, the إعراب of البيتِ in our sentence would be اسم مجرور وعلامة جره الكسرة الظاهرة على آخره.)


Matat said:


> It can't be a نعت since شبه is definite while رخامة is indefinite.


 What about something like تعرفت على رجل أزرق العينين?  رجل is indefinite and أزرق is definite, but أزرق is a نعت, isn't it?


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> What about something like تعرفت على رجل أزرق العينين? رجل is indefinite and أزرق is definite, but أزرق is a نعت, isn't it?


No, I don't believe so. I don't think one can use أزق العينين as an idaafah (explanation in next paragraph), but if we change the sentence to تعرفت على رجل حسن الخلق, then I believe حسن الخلق would be a بدل, not a نعت. Notice that حسن is describing الخلق, not رجل. Even if your sentence is correct, we similarly notice that أزرق is not describing رجل.

As to why I don't think أزرق العينين is correct, when using an إضافة لفظية, we should be able to visualize the meaning in a verbal sentence. For حسن الخلق, this is understood to mean يحسن حلقه. This can't be done with أزرق العينين, so I don't believe you can use this idaafa. The wording of the sentence would have to change to something like تعرفت على رجل عيناه زرقاوان in order for it to be correct.


----------



## elroy

I don't want to discuss the grammaticality of my example sentence, since that would be off-topic here, so I'll focus on the topic under discussion.


Matat said:


> if we change the sentence to تعرفت على رجل حسن الخلق, then I believe حسن الخلق would be a بدل, not a نعت.


 Do you have any evidence for this?  How do we determine if something is a نعت or a بدل?


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> Do you have any evidence for this? How do we determine if something is a نعت or a بدل?


I think the evidence that it's not a نعت are in the rules of the نعت itself. A نعت matches المنعوت in definiteness, gender, and number unless that particular نعت has exclusive properties (e.g. works as both a masculine and feminine adjective).


> *النعت* :  تابع يُذكر لبيان صفة المنعوت الذي يسبقه ويتبعه في إعرابه - *كما يوافقه في تعريفه أو تنكيره*- وفي إفراده أو تثنيته أو جمعه - وفي تذكيره أو تأنيثه.



That being said, there may be more lax i3raabs which may describe شبه here as a نعت, but it is better, given the difference of definiteness, to call it a بدل. Either way, it wouldn't change the overall meaning.


----------



## cherine

What I would like to ask here, is why do you say that شبه is definite?


----------



## elroy

I think it's definite by إضافة: شبه التي


----------



## fdb

elroy said:


> I think it's definite by إضافة: شبه التي



yes.


----------



## Matat

cherine said:


> What I would like to ask here, is why do you say that شبه is definite?


Yes, it is معرف بالإضافة, that's why شبه would be a بدل and not a نعت.


elroy said:


> What about something like تعرفت على رجل أزرق العينين?





Matat said:


> but if we change the sentence to تعرفت على رجل حسن الخلق, then I believe حسن الخلق would be a بدل, not a نعت.


I just remembered something. As an إضافة لفظية, the definiteness of this type of idaafah is not determined by the idaafah itself, but by the addition of الـ on the first word. So حسن الخلق is actually indefinite and it would be a نعت of رجل. Had we changed رجل to الرجل, then we would change حسن الخلق to الحسن الخلق and say تعرفت على الرجل الحسن الخلق. This is different than what we have with شبه where شبه التي is an إضافة معنوية, so its definiteness is not determined by adding الـ to شبه since that's impossible for this kind of idaafah. Rather, it would be definite purely by the fact that it's an idaafah.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Just asking a couple of questions here:


Matat said:


> It can't be a نعت since شبه is definite while رخامة is indefinite. It must be a بدل من رخامة.


Couldn't it be نعت جملة based on the rule الجمل وأشباهها بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال. We could consider it a جملة as شبه could be considered صفة مشبّهة بالفعل since what is meant by it is شبيهة?


elroy said:


> What about something like تعرفت على رجل أزرق العينين?


Could this be considered عطف بيان?
This came to my mind because I wasn't satisfied with it being بدل as it can not replace the original not even partially, it only describes the original. Of course your later answer of اضافة لفظية makes the most sense to me; but I would still like to know whether عطف بيان is possible or not.


----------



## Matat

Mahaodeh said:


> Couldn't it be نعت جملة based on the rule الجمل وأشباهها بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال. We could consider it a جملة as شبه could be considered صفة مشبّهة بالفعل since what is meant by it is شبيهة?


In order for it to be a نعت الجملة, we'd need شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة to be a جملة. This is not a جملة since it lacks a خبر.


Mahaodeh said:


> Could this be considered عطف بيان?


عطف البيان is mostly just a specific kind of بدل. Some don't use the terminology عطف البيان and simply describe what some may call an عطف البيان as a بدل. For تعرفت على رجل حسن الخلق, I think حسن الخلق can only be a نعت after thinking through it. I have also discussed above my issues with أزرق العينين in the sentence you quoted, so I don't think we can give it a proper i3raab, but if we were, I would also say it's a نعت.


----------



## Abbe

As Mahaodeh pointed out it can't be a badal. 

Even if we would consider شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة  a نعت جملة (since it's possible to use a shibh jumla as a نعت For example رأيت رجلا في الدار where we can say وشبه الجملة من الجار والمجرور في محل نصب نعت للرجل

There are still two problems here. The first is that شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة is not a shibh jumla and the second is that we still don't have an إعراب for the individual word shibh before using the whole phrase as a نعت.


----------



## Matat

Why couldn't it be a بدل? If we take out رخامة and its adjectives:
في جوف ذلك البيت شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة
which is still a complete sentence with the same meaning despite becoming more ambiguous.


----------



## Abbe

I think it's because the badal and the mabdul has to be the same thing (or refer to a part of the thing etc) but in this case it is something similar to something else and I don't think it works.  

في جوف ذلك البيت شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة
This is not a complete sentence unless we add شيء before shibh


----------



## Matat

Abbe said:


> I think it's because the badal and the mabdul has to be the same thing (or refer to a part of the thing etc) but in this case it is something similar to something else and I don't think it works.


They are in fact referring to the same exact thing. We are not comparing object 1 to a similar object 2. Both رخامة and شبه التي...ـ are the same object 1. The similar object 2 here is التي, not شبه التي.


Abbe said:


> This is not a complete sentence unless we add شيء before shibh


It is complete purely with respect to Arabic grammar. شبه would be the مبتدأ of the sentence. Consider the following verse in the Quran:
وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ
Quraan 2:228

This is a complete sentence where مثل is the مبتدأ. With respect to the sentence discussed, شيء is not necessary in the Arabic sentence. If translating into English, we'd have to probably put the word "something" in order for it to make sense, but the Arabic sentence would not require this. The sentence
في جوف ذلك البيت شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة
is understood as:
"Inside that house is (something) that resembles what the common people call a 'biila'"


----------



## cherine

Sorry, Matat, but your sentence doesn't make sense and it is incomplete.


----------



## Matat

Cherine, what makes you say so? The shortened sentence may not be eloquent. It may be very ambiguous and unclear. Without more context, it may be hard to understand and may not make full sense. However, it is certainly complete and makes sense on a superficial level. It has a مبتدأ and خبر and in fact, follows a similar construction to the Quraanic verse I posted. Like the Quraanic verse, it has a جار ومجرور مقدمان متعلقان بخبر محذوف and a مبتدأ مؤخر. It uses a مبتدأ which is synonymous to the مبتدأ used in the Quraanic verse, which also happens to be in idaafah to an اسم موصول.

Remember, this shortened sentence is purely theoretical to show that a بدل works in meaning. It is by no means a suggested edit to the original sentence.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I have to agree with cherine on this one. If one says: في جوف ذلك البيت رخامة شبه التي ﺗﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ العامة البيلة, the sentence makes sense, but if we delete رخامة the sentence في جوف ذلك البيت شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة would be incomplete and not clear, what exactly is it that is 'similar to what the common people call biila'? It would be similar to saying في جوف ذلك البيت طويلة مـجوفة. Up to my understanding, it can not be a بدل unless it can replace المبدل منه. It's not the same as وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ . I may not be able to argue grammatically, but I can definitely argue in terms of meaning and I know that in terms of meaning the latter is clear while what you suggest is not - there is definitely something missing.



Matat said:


> The shortened sentence may not be eloquent. It may be very ambiguous and unclear. Without more context, it may be hard to understand and may not make full sense.


Herein lies the problem - especially the last part about not making full sense. For a sentence to be complete, it should fully make sense. You may not be able to know the details or specifics but you can make sense out of it. وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ is clearly understood in a general sense (their duties are equal to their rights or something of the sort) although you don't really know the context or specifics unless you read the aya before it. In out case, even in the English translation, you yourself felt the need to add (something) because the sentence would not make sense otherwise:


Matat said:


> "Inside that house is (something) that resembles what the common people call a 'biila'"


----------



## Matat

Mahaodeh said:


> In out case, even in the English translation, you yourself felt the need to add (something) because the sentence would not make sense otherwise:


The English translation is irrelevant. We can translate the sentence in multiple ways. Another way to translate it, without an addition of "something":
وفي جوف ذلك البيت شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة
*"Inside that house is that which resembles what the common people call a 'biila'".*
It's unclear what exactly we're talking about that is resembling what the common people call a 'biila', but the sentence is definitely complete and makes sense on a superficial level.
The same can stated for the Quraanic verse. If you look at different translations of the verse, you'll see "obligations" and "rights" inserted in as well. But, it can also be translated without any insertions as.
ولهن مثل الذي عليهن بالمعروف
*"And for them is like that which is upon them, according to what is reasonable".*
The verse is just as unclear as the sentence without more context


Mahaodeh said:


> what exactly is it that is 'similar to what the common people call biila'?


That's not important to the sentence making sense and being complete. A similar question can be asked of the Quraanic verse (What is it that they have for them which is like that which is upon them?). This is what I meant by its eloquence. It is rare to see شبه used as something other than a بدل to something else, so by shortening the sentence, this is being confused as being a grammatically deficient sentence. The sentence is not eloquent, but it's also not grammatically deficient either. It is a sentence which has all its elements there. I was hoping that it would help show people why شبه must be a بدل, but it seems people are completely missing my point and reading too much into it.


Mahaodeh said:


> It would be similar to saying في جوف ذلك البيت طويلة مـجوفة.


No, it's not. طويلة مجوفة are, in terms of their grammar, adjectives which describe the object and not the object itself. We clearly notice that these are singular feminine adjectives describing a singular feminine noun which is missing. They clearly don't make sense here and that's why they are نعت's in the original sentence and not بدل's.
شبه التي in the sentence and مثل الذي in the Quraanic verse, on the other hand, are not adjectives in terms of their grammar.


Mahaodeh said:


> You may not be able to know the details or specifics but you can make sense out of it.


Sure. And you can do that with both the verse and the sentence.


Mahaodeh said:


> I know that in terms of meaning the latter is clear while what you suggest is not - there is definitely something missing.





Mahaodeh said:


> You may not be able to know the details or specifics but you can make sense out of it. وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ is clearly understood in a general sense (their duties are equal to their rights or something of the sort) although you don't really know the context or specifics unless you read the aya before it.


How would the Quraanic verse be more clear than the sentence we are talking about? You are inferring that it is duties and rights, but it doesn't have to be. It is still an inference. The same thing would be applied to the shortened sentence.
.


----------



## cherine

I'm not good with long arguments, but I'll reply to this one anyway:

It is not the same because لك and عليك are commonly used for dues/rights and duties, even in colloquial Arabic.
Saying في البيت شبه is correct only on a very superficial level مبتدأ مؤخر وخبر -شبه جملة- مقدم. But the sentence does not make sense.


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> Saying في البيت شبه is correct only on a very superficial level مبتدأ مؤخر وخبر -شبه جملة- مقدم.


I don't think it's correct at all.
I recall a rule: meaning guides إعراب; in this case there is something missing in the meaning. In the end, when we say في البيت رخامة طويلة, how did we know that طويلة is not a بدل? Basically because of the meaning - it is not another name for رخامة or part of it, it's a description. Badal and na3t act in the same way grammatically, but they have distinct meanings in the sentence. 



Matat said:


> How would the Quraanic verse be more clear than the sentence we are talking about?



You would not normally say something like that without a noun before شبه or مثل. These words compare between two things, and you don't have two things in our case - you have only one. In the case of لهنّ مثل الذي عليهنّ, the comparison is between لهنّ and عليهنّ; in the case of في البيت رخامة شبه التي يسميها العامة البيلة the comparison is between رخامة and التي يسميها العامة البيلة; but in the case of في البيت شبه التي يسميها العامة بيلة, the comparison is not complete; it doesn't tell us what we are comparing with. Also, the sentences are not the same in another sense: in لهنّ مثل الذي عليهنّ, the clause مثل الذي عليهنّ is replacing a خبر, it would work in the same way if we said: لهنّ حقٌّ. In the case of our sentence it is not, the خبر is رخامة that is described as being tall, hollow, and similar to what the common people call biila. It's obviously a description. It may not fall neatly into any of the categories of na3t but it gives such a meaning.



elroy said:


> What about something like تعرفت على رجل أزرق العينين? رجل is indefinite and أزرق is definite, but أزرق is a نعت, isn't it?



By the way, while trying to find an answer for شبه, I found the answer to the above sentence. It is not a نعت, it is صفة مشبهة. The same goes for رجل حسن الوجه. In this case يجوز نصب معمولها على التشبيه بالمفعول ويجوز جرّ معمولها على الإضافة.


----------



## Matat

Mahaodeh said:


> By the way, while trying to find an answer for شبه, I found the answer to the above sentence. It is not a نعت, it is صفة مشبهة.


صفة مشبهة is not an i3raab; it is a description of a set of nouns/adjectives. It's like طويلة in our sentence. It's an اسم فاعل of طال and its i3raab is that it's a نعت. You would not say that it's one and not the other. It is both an اسم فاعل and a نعت.

A صفة مشبهة is usually used as a نعت.



Mahaodeh said:


> In the case of لهنّ مثل الذي عليهنّ, the comparison is between لهنّ and عليهنّ


No. مثل and شبه do not compare prepositions; they compare nouns. The comparison in the verse is between الذي عليهن and حق (or something along those lines). You have to figure out that the comparison involves حق through some other means since it's not written. Similarly, in the shortened sentence في البيت شبهُ التي تسميها العامة البيلة, the comparison in between التي تسميها العامة البيلة and رخامة. You have to figure out the comparison involves رخامة through some other means since it's not written. The point is, it's fine that رخامة and حق are not written. These do not make the sentence incomplete or nonsensical.



Mahaodeh said:


> Also, the sentences are not the same in another sense: in لهنّ مثل الذي عليهنّ, the clause مثل الذي عليهنّ is replacing a خبر, it would work in the same way if we said: لهنّ حقٌّ. In the case of our sentence it is not, the خبر is رخامة that is described as being tall, hollow, and similar to what the common people call biila. It's obviously a description. It may not fall neatly into any of the categories of na3t but it gives such a meaning.


مثل الذي عليهن is not replacing the خبر; it is the مبتدأ. You're right that it works the same way if we said لهن حق. So does our sentence. رخامة is not the خبر, but the مبتدأ. Just as we can say لهن مثل الذي عليهن works similar to لهن حق, so can we say في البيت شبهُ التي تسميها العامة البيلة works similar to في البيت رخامة.



Mahaodeh said:


> It's obviously a description. It may not fall neatly into any of the categories of na3t but it gives such a meaning.


I have not found a convincing reason why it's a na3t and not a badal. The more I discuss it, the more convinced I am it's a badal.



cherine said:


> It is not the same because لك and عليك are commonly used for dues/rights and duties


They don't necessitate that meaning though. It could mean this, but it could mean something else. We can declare the same thing that the verse only makes sense on a very superficial level and that without more context, we can't make sense of it.



cherine said:


> Saying في البيت شبه is correct only on a very superficial level مبتدأ مؤخر وخبر -شبه جملة- مقدم. But the sentence does not make sense.


I'd like an argument against it. A simple declaration that it does not make sense is not sufficient.


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> I'd like a better argument against it than a simple declaration that it does not make sense.


 Have you ever heard of the syntax-semantics interface?  Or Chomsky's famous sentence _Colorless green ideas sleep furiously_?  Just because a sentence is syntactically well-formed according to the formal rules of a language, doesn't make it acceptable.  Semantics and other considerations influence what sentences are idiomatic and/or meaningful.

Language does not exist in a vacuum, and we cannot limit our analysis to theoretical considerations that run counter to actual language use.  Your mastery of the minutiae of MSA grammar is astonishing; it's a shame you often dismiss usage-based native-speaker input because it doesn't conform with your theoretical notions of what _should_ be acceptable.  Although MSA is no one's native language, educated, well-read native speakers of Arabic - like cherine and Mahaodeh - have strong intuitions about what sentences are idiomatic and meaningful, and their "simple declarations" that a sentence does not make sense carry a great deal of weight.  Non-native speakers, even the most advanced among them, are rarely able to rival the reliability of educated native speakers' judgments; it would behoove the former to humbly take the latter's judgments seriously.

In the hopes that you would accept the legitimacy of educated native speakers' judgments, I will add that I, too, find the sentence you have constructed - في جوف ذلك البيت شبه التي تسميها العامة البيلة - unacceptable and unidiomatic.  I would be very surprised if even one educated native speaker of Arabic disagreed.  I'm afraid I don't think there's much more we can say than "We simply don't say it that way in Arabic."


----------



## Matat

I don't think syntax-semantics interface is applicable here and I feel like this sentence is correct, but I won't push this any further. It is not my intention to discredit anyone or hurt anyone's feelings. I'll accept that you guys don't find the sentence to make sense and we'll leave it at that.


----------



## Abbe

No need to apologize. The original question was about grammar and you have argued for your position quite convincingly. I understand that some people find your example difficult to understand but I don’t think it’s ok to say that it’s unidiomatic and unacceptable without providing a satisfying explanation. Cherine and Mahaodeh have made several attempts to explain why they feel that sentence is wrong. Why don’t we keep on trying to understand? This is a forum where we can discuss language related issues and personally I don’t think it’s fair to try to end a discussion alluding to the fact that native speakers know best. Of course they know Arabic better than non-native speakers but we are here to learn.


----------



## elroy

elroy said:


> I'm afraid I don't think there's much more we can say than "We simply don't say it that way in Arabic."


 This was my "explanation."


----------



## Qureshpor

I am assuming that we have come to some sort of conclusion concerning this sentence, especially the function of شبهُ along with التي تُسَمِّيها العامةُ
في جَوْفِ ذلك البيتِ رخامةٌ طويلةٌ مُجَوَّفةٌ شبهُ التي تُسَمِّيها العامةُ البيلةَ
Would it be correct to say that شبهُ is مضاف and التي تُسَمِّيها العامةُ is مضاف علیہ?
So, the translation could be something on the lines of:

Within that house is a long, hollow piece of marble, the like of which the ordinary people call the biilah.


----------



## dgwp

Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but I've encountered another sentence of this exact same type (using شِبْهُ) while working through part of _Al-Mostatraf_ (Chapter 59), and thought it may be of interest:

اَلْعُرُّ دَاءٌ يُصِيبُ ٱلْإِبِلَ شِبْهُ ٱلْـجَرَبِ


----------



## ayed

dgwp said:


> في جوف ذلك البيت رخامة طويلة مـجوفة شبه التي ﺗﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ العامة البيلة


Inside that house is a long hollow marble similar to so called " pila"


----------



## Matat

Sorry to revive this, but it appears @Abbe has actually answered my contention here, so you all were right: شبه can be a نعت (though I wouldn't necessarily deny my original argument it can be a بدل, but I'll concede given this new information, describing it as a نعت is better).


Abbe said:


> الأسماء الموغلة في الإبهام: يذكر النحاة أن ثمة أسماء موغلة في التنكير لا تتعرف بالإضافة إلى المعرفة، نحو غير ومثل وشبه وسوى، فقولك (مررت برجل غيرك) (غير) فيه نكرة، وكذلك: مررت برجل مثلك وشبهك، مثل وشبه فيه نكرتان وإن كانتا مضافتين إلى معرفة بدليل، إنك وصفت بهما النكرة قال تعالى: {أم لهم إله غير الله} [الطور: 43]، وقال: {حتى تنكج زوجا غيره} [البقرة: 230]، وقال: {وإن تتولوا يستبدل قوما غيركم} [محمد: 38]، وقال:{بدلناهم جلودا غيرها} [النساء: 56]، فـ (غير) في هذه كلها نكرة لأنها وصفت بها النكرة، وكذلك (مثل) في نحو قولك (مررت برجل مثلك) ومررت برجل مثل الأسد.






elroy said:


> What about something like تعرفت على رجل أزرق العينين? رجل is indefinite and أزرق is definite, but أزرق is a نعت, isn't it?





Matat said:


> As to why I don't think أزرق العينين is correct, when using an إضافة لفظية, we should be able to visualize the meaning in a verbal sentence. For حسن الخلق, this is understood to mean يحسن حلقه. This can't be done with أزرق العينين, so I don't believe you can use this idaafa. The wording of the sentence would have to change to something like تعرفت على رجل عيناه زرقاوان in order for it to be correct.


@elroy, you were right here also (أزرق العينين works according to proper grammar).


----------

