# سوف لا + imperfect



## Tensor78

Hi,

I was reading some MSA recently, and I saw "soufa la + verb in imperfect" (can't remember which verb).

Anyway, the only thing I could think was that this was the future negated without using "lan + subjunctive" and the context made me think that I was right.

So, if I am right about how to interpret the definition, is this considered proper MSA? Is it common? Which is the more common form? Should I imitate this usage? 

Thanks.


----------



## barkoosh

Well, it's MSA if the S stands for "silly". Although some people use it in modern Arabic, it's considered wrong because "sawfa" should only be used with verbs in the affirmative, while you have "lan" which is shorter, easier, more natural, and much much more common.

You'll also come across "sawfa + lan + subjunctive". It's also wrong.


----------



## Tensor78

barkoosh said:


> Well, it's MSA if the S stands for "silly".


 
LOL



barkoosh said:


> Although some people use it in modern Arabic, it's considered wrong because "sawfa" should only be used with verbs in the affirmative, while you have "lan" which is shorter, easier, more natural, and much much more common.
> 
> You'll also come across "sawfa + lan + subjunctive". It's also wrong.



Thanks.


----------



## Qureshpor

barkoosh said:


> Well, it's MSA if the S stands for "silly". Although some people use it in modern Arabic, it's considered wrong because "sawfa" should only be used with verbs in the affirmative, while you have "lan" which is shorter, easier, more natural, and much much more common.
> 
> You'll also come across "sawfa + lan + subjunctive". It's also wrong.


As a matter of interest why do some Arabic grammar book writers include "saufa + laa" if this is considered incorrect. Where do they get this formation from? After all, they are the "scholarly people" in the know.


----------



## HermanTheGerman

AFAIK, many grammarians consider sawfa+la acceptable as an emphatic negation:

E.g. لن أفعل ذلطك = I won't do it. vs. سوف لا أفعل ذلك = I will most definitely not do it.

*@barkoosh:* can you give some examples of grammarians who disapprove of sawfa+la?


----------



## barkoosh

I don't know which grammar books (and grammarians) allow "saufa + laa", but maybe they're just conveying what some modern writers use. However, when I was in school, our grammar books never mentioned it as an alternative to "lan"

There are many grammar books and dictionaries that consider "saufa + laa" incorrect. (Unfortunately I can't state the page numbers. Most of them are electronic files.)

جامع الدروس العربية
ويجبُ التصاقُهما [السين وسوف] بالفعلِ، فلا يجوزُ أن يَفصلَ بَينَهما وبينه شيءٌ....‏
ولا يجوزُ أن يُؤتى بسوفَ و "لا" معاً، ولا بسوفَ و "لن" معاً، فلا يُقالُ "سوفَ لا أفعلُ" ولا "سوف لن أفعلَ" كما يقولُ كثيرٌ من الناسِ، وبينهم جَمهَرةٌ من كتّابِ العصر.‏

معجم الصواب اللغوي
لا تدخل "سوف" إلا على المضارع المثبت، فإذا أريد الدلالة على المستقبل المنفي فالأداة الواجب استخدامها حينئذ هي "لن".‏

النحو الوافي
‫..."السين و سوف... وكلاهما لا يدخل إلا على المضارع المثبت‏""

_webpage_
في "لسان العرب" لابن منظور  [وفي تاج العروس]: "سوف..." قال سيبويه: "سوف أفعل... لا يُفصل بينها وبين "أفعل " لأنها بمنزلة السين في "سيفعل".‏

المنجد في اللغة والأعلام
سوف: حرف استقبال... ولا تُفصل عن الفعل؛ وعليه فإن قولهم "سوف لا يفعل" خطأ والصواب أن يقال "لن يفعل".‏

النحو الأساسي
من الأخطاء الشائعة: (سوف لا يكون هذا، وسوف لا يحدث هذا). والصواب: لن يكون هذا، ولن يحدث هذا، لأن "سوف" لا تدخل على نفي؛ لاختصاصها بالمضارع المثبت. ولهذا يقال: إن نفي سوف يحدث؛ هو: لن يحدث


----------



## Ustaath

granted, poets give themselves liberties and challenge boundaries, but outside the scope of such poetic permutations, it's just plain wrong -


----------



## Qureshpor

Here is an example from "Arabic Simplified: A Practical Grammar" (Upson 1921), page 73

سوف لا تنفعهم آلهتهم 

Their gods (deities) will not benefit them (later on) [his translation]



HermanTheGerman said:


> AFAIK, many grammarians consider sawfa+la acceptable as an emphatic negation:
> 
> E.g. لن أفعل ذلطك = I won't do it. vs. سوف لا أفعل ذلك = I will most definitely not do it.
> 
> *@barkoosh:* can you give some examples of grammarians who disapprove of sawfa+la?



Please see also.. (!!!)

سوف لن تسافر سلمي غدا 

http://arabic.tripod.com/Negation5.htm


----------



## cherine

سوف لن sounds strange _and_ redundant.

As for the first sentence سوف لا تنفعهم , could you please tell us how the author of the book explains it?


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> سوف لن sounds strange _and_ redundant.
> 
> As for the first sentence سوف لا تنفعهم , could you please tell us how the author of the book explains it?


There is no explanation as such Cherine, in the book. In fact, I could see only one example of this usage in the book. However, I have seen this construction in other books written in English on Arabic grammar. I cited this merely by way of an example.


----------



## إسكندراني

Have you ever seen such a construction in non-western grammar books, or in use?


----------



## cherine

QURESHPOR said:


> There is no explanation as such Cherine, in the book.


Ok, let me rephrase it: the example follows what kind of rule? Was the author saying something like: "we can use سوف لا like this example:...", or "we can't use سوف لا like in this example..."?


----------



## Qureshpor

إسكندراني said:


> Have you ever seen such a construction in non-western grammar books, or in use?


The link that I have provided in post 8 refers to Arabic online teaching. This has been prepared by an Arab, I believe. His name is Hāni Deek. This has both saufa+laa as well as saufa+lan

I don't possess Arabic grammar books written by Arabs in Arabic. I probably would think of  having them and using them if I felt my Arabic was good enough to understand them. And if my Arabic was that good, I would n't need to use any books on Arabic grammar in English!  Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I found the below article concerning this very topic. I believe the author's verdict is that both saufa+laa and saufa+lan are wrong!

http://www.atida.org/forums/showthread.php?p=39017

I find it incredible how authors would incorporate this kind of thing in their works without any sound basis. This would amount to pure invention.


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> Ok, let me rephrase it: the example follows what kind of rule? Was the author saying something like: "we can use سوف لا like this example:...", or "we can't use سوف لا like in this example..."?


Cherine, I understood your question the first time. This example is included in an exercise at the end of a chapter. The sentence and its translation is provided. There is no explanation or comment at all. If I come across any more examples of saufa+laa (or indeed sauf + lan) in my readings, I shall report back into this thread.


----------



## إسكندراني

OK; let me illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Googling this expression returns questions on forums (including this one), websites with Arabic versions that seem to be automated translations, and a lot of what can fairly be called كلام ركيك. Such a construction is simply not correct to use today. It does not appear in the Qur'an either as far as I'm aware. Did it exist classically? I have no idea


----------



## Qureshpor

إسكندراني said:


> OK; let me illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Googling this expression returns questions on forums (including this one), websites with Arabic versions that seem to be automated translations, and a lot of what can fairly be called كلام ركيك. Such a construction is simply not correct to use today. It does not appear in the Qur'an either as far as I'm aware. Did it exist classically? I have no idea


The only problem is that the example I cited is given in a book published in 1921, long before people got involved in "kalaam rakiik"


----------



## Ghabi

Qureshpor said:


> If I come across any more examples of saufa+laa (or indeed sauf + lan) in my readings, I shall report back into this thread.


I was taking a look at Kahlil Gibran's early work دمعة وابتسامة the other day and there's an example of the usage "sawfa+laa" in the preface:

[Gibran's friends is trying to persuade him to publish the prose poems in book form but the author would rather not, regarding that as a mere piece of juvenilia: he's too macho now to be associated with that weepy stuff!]

عندما طلبنا إلى جبران جمع «دمعة وابتسامة» ونشرها في كتاب، أجابنا ببيت من أحد موشحاته قائلًا:

ذاك عهد من حياتي قد مضي *** بين تشبيب وشكوى ونواح​
فقلنا له «ذاك عهد من حياتك قد مضى، ولكنه لم يزل حاضرًا في حياة محبيك ومريديك».

فأجابنا «إن الشاب الذي كتب قد ترنَّم بأغنية علوية قبل أن يموت».

قلنا له: «وعلينا أن نحفظ تلك الأغنية كي لا تتلاعب بها أيدي الضياع».

فأجابنا «افعلوا ما شئتم، ولكن لا تنسوا أن روح ذلك الشاب قد تقمصت في جسد رجل يحب العزم والقوة مَحَبَّتَهُ للظرف والجمال، ويميل إلى الهدم ميله إلى البناء، فهو صديق الناس وعدوهم في وقت واحد».

فقلنا له «*سوف لا ننسى* وإن حاولنا التناسي ففي «حفار القبور» ما ينبهنا ويذكرنا».

Would the usage (سوف لا ننسى) sound weird to a contemporary reader?


----------



## djara

barkoosh said:


> لا يُقالُ "سوفَ لا أفعلُ" ولا "سوف لن أفعلَ" كما يقولُ كثيرٌ من الناسِ، وبينهم جَمهَرةٌ من كتّابِ العصر.‏


I'm not a grammarian. Therefore I will not say which is wrong and which is correct.
In my opinion, there are two basic attitudes to grammar: 1- describe language *as it is used*; 2-provide inherited rules on how  language* should be used*.
Those who say the use سوفَ لا أفعلُ" "سوف لن أفعلَ" is correct probably belong to the first category because "many people, including present-day authors, are using it" (see the above quotation).
Those who say it is incorrect deny the right for a language to evolve and for its grammar to evolve with usage.
This being said, I personally would use neither  سوفَ لا أفعلُ" "سوف لن أفعلَ; they simply don't sound right to my ear.


----------



## Mahaodeh

djara said:


> This being said, I personally would use neither سوفَ لا أفعلُ" "سوف لن أفعلَ; they simply don't sound right to my ear.


👍 Same here.


----------



## Ali Smith

The construction سوف لا + مضارع may or may not be acceptable in MSA, but it certainly was not acceptable in classical Arabic. Have you ever come across a verse, hadith, or pre-Islamic poem that uses it?

To negate the future you used either لا +مضارع or لن + مضارع.


----------



## Qureshpor

From Modern Literary Arabic - A Reference Grammar" by Ron Buckely, currently a professor at Machester University, England. He has been teaching Arabic since 1990 and this book was published in 2004. In the preface he states that the all the examples are taken from novels written in the last decade or so by Arab writers throughout the Arab world.

"A construction using سوف can be made negative with لا placed between the particle and the verb.

سوف لا تتزوَّجُ She will not marry.

But this is rare in modern literary Arabic." (page 548)


----------



## Sadda7

Qureshpor said:


> Ron Buckely, currently a professor at Machester University, England. He has been teaching Arabic since 1990 and this book was published in 2004


That means nothing in this case, unfortunately 

@barkoosh's answer above is enough, this construction is very recent and _rakik_ as has been said before.


----------



## Qureshpor

Sadda7 said:


> That means nothing in this case, unfortunately
> 
> @barkoosh's answer above is enough, this construction is very recent and _rakik_ as has been said before.


It means a lot. The previous example I gave was from a book published in 1921. This implies that although this construction is not common amongst the best exponents of the language, it is still being used and has been used for over 100 years at the very least. If anyone wishes to deny this when documentary evidence has been provided (and this includes @Ghabi’s post #17), then they are welcome to do so.


----------



## raamez

I never read or heard سوف لا, but I admittedly see سوف لن every now and then in the comments on social media, which is also equally wrong as well.


----------



## Qureshpor

raamez said:


> I never read or heard سوف لا, but I admittedly see سوف لن every now and then in the comments on social media, which is also equally wrong as well.


Arabic Online - Free Comprehensive Resource of Arabic Grammar

Scroll down and you'll find both. The author is an Arab (Hani Deek)

If you paste this sentence in google, you'll see a video where the speaker uses this sentence.

مستشار مسعود بارزاني يوجه رسالة للمكون الشيعي: سوف لا يرحمكم التاريخ

Also, see below

‏⁨حول المفاوضات هنالك سعي سوف لا يتوقف ⁩ | ⁨الجهاد⁩ | 13 آب 1939 | مجموعة الصحافة | المكتبة الوطنيّة الإسرائيليّة


----------



## Mahaodeh

It doesn’t matter if he’s Arab, that doesn’t mean that what he is saying is correct. Frankly I don’t know him nor his qualifications and I didn’t find enough information on his website to be able to find out anything about him, so I don’t see how his word has more weight than the rest of us.

Barkoosh, Cherine, إسكندراني, djara, Sadda7, raamez, and I are all Arab too and we all find it wrong.

Even if it turned out that he does have enough qualifications to give weight to his opinion, he is still going against the majority of opinions - and I don’t mean laypeople’s opinions like mine 😁.


----------



## Qureshpor

Mahaodeh said:


> It doesn’t matter if he’s Arab, that doesn’t mean that what he is saying is correct. Frankly I don’t know him nor his qualifications and I didn’t find enough information on his website to be able to find out anything about him, so I don’t see how his word has more weight than the rest of us.
> 
> Barkoosh, Cherine, إسكندراني, djara, Sadda7, raamez, and I are all Arab too and we all find it wrong.
> 
> Even if it turned out that he does have enough qualifications to give weight to his opinion, he is still going against the majority of opinions - and I don’t mean laypeople’s opinions like mine 😁.


We are not discussing whether this usage is correct or not (or at least I am not). I am providing instances where it has been used and that includes Arab novelists (according to Ron Buckley). The reason why I said "The author is an Arab" is because some people have a fixation on accepting only that is found in grammar books written by Arabs and not by non-Arab grammarians. (By this logic Sibawayh's Al-kitaab should be thrown in the bin along with the works of Hadiith writers such as Bukhari and Muslim and philosophers such as Ghazali, just to name a few.)

In the following book (one of the authors is El-Said Badawi whose credentials are easily checked on the net)

Modern Written Arabic (page 470)

اللغة العربية (Standard Arabic - An elementary -intermediate course - Eckehard Shulz, Gunther Krahl and Wolfgang Reuschel -page 368)

This usage clearly exists in speech and writing for scholars of repute to warrant its inclusion in their bulky grammar books. It appears to have existed for at least a hundred years!


----------



## Sadda7

Qureshpor said:


> Modern Written Arabic (page 470)


He says "Although generally considered ungrammatical, the particle سوف sometimes occurs with لا", then he proceeds to not give something that supports this, and his example is literally a word for word translation of the english wording.

The examples in these books as I've noticed before, seem to be made in English first and then literally translated, or taken from jouranalists or writers, whose writings are mostly just English written in Arabic words.


Qureshpor said:


> By this logic Sibawayh's Al-kitaab should be thrown in the bin


I don't think this is a good analogy.
Arabic usage in the last 100 years or so was heavily affected by the English and French languages, and this has been mentioned in some books and articles (see لسان غصن لبنان by شاكر شقير, he talked about how Arabic was affected by French at his time in the late 19th century, see also تقويم اللسانين).


Qureshpor said:


> It appears to have existed for at least a hundred years!


That's very recent, and grammatical mistakes have also existed for centuries and were made by people who have a better grip on the Arabic language than these late novelists/journalists, and they were still recognized as mistakes by other people.

You're saying that you're just presenting where this usage is found and not talking about it being wrong/right, yet you're appealing to authority with each new reply as if you're implying that it isn't wrong.


----------



## Qureshpor

Sadda7 said:


> He says "Although generally considered ungrammatical, the particle سوف sometimes occurs with لا", then he proceeds to not give something that supports this, and his example is literally a word for word translation of the english wording.
> 
> The examples in these books as I've noticed before, seem to be made in English first and then literally translated, or taken from jouranalists or writers, whose writings are mostly just English written in Arabic words.


The examples given in Ron Buckley's book are taken from eleven Arab novlists of repute and are mentioned in the preface of his book. With regard to Modern Written Arabic, the authors (three of them) state..."all material is post 1990, and as far as possible every item of data in this work has been taken from written, invariably public sources. For practical reasons these are largely Egyptian and Gulfi, with a sprinkling of Lebanese, Syrian, Yemeni, Maghribi and Iraqi texts......". So, the sentences given are not made up sentences but real sentences found in the work of Arab writers.



Sadda7 said:


> You're saying that you're just presenting where this usage is found and not talking about it being wrong/right, yet you're appealing to authority with each new reply as if you're implying that it isn't wrong.


No, there is no intention or implication that this usage is correct and I personally wouldn't use it if I ever become fluent in the language. There is no point providing examples of this usage without citing the source. Otherwise, the first question everyone would ask is, "Where did you get this sentence from?" So, that is why I am providing links to the sources.

In any living language, what is deemed wrong by purists eventually becomes accepted as correct, especially when enough people (especially of repute) begin to use it in their speech and writings. (By the way, similar things are happening within Urdu, for example, where people are absolutely disgusted by such usages. Now, these usages are heard from the mouths of those one wouldn't dream of hearing from!)


----------



## Sadda7

Qureshpor said:


> what is deemed wrong by purists eventually becomes accepted as correct


Criticising سوف + لن/لا is not done from a puristic POV, the usage seems wrong even to modern Arabs with average knowledge of the language, it seems to have an issue with integral parts of the language, it isn't just a stylistic issue too.

What else are we going to use, just because _novelists _have used?

If you're using _novelists_ because someone deems them an authority, why are you ignoring grammarians or linguists (the authors of the books mentioned by barkoosh above, like عباس حسن and فاضل السامرائي) who are definitely more knowledgeable about Arabic and have stated that that usage is wrong?

Do you think books like "longman dictionary of common errors" are puristic and useless because as the time goes by, maybe those mistakes will not be considered as such anymore?


----------



## Qureshpor

^ @Sadda7 I think we are going round circles. Let me attempt to be as clear as my mental capacity allows.

1. I am not saying a lot of people don't consider this construction to be wrong.

2. I am not ignoring the point of view of the grammarians @barkoosh has quoted. Their views are to be respected.

3. I am merely presenting the reality that is prevalent and to this end, I have quoted:

a) A grammar book of 1921 vintage in which I came across this usage for the first time (not in 1921 )

b) An online Arabic course designed by an Arab (that includes with سوف لا and سوف لن !)

c) A quote from "Modern Literary Arabic - A Reference Grammar" by Professor Ron Buckley whose data consists of 11 novelists of repute of the Arabic language and in their writings he has found the use of سوف لا and for this reason he felt it should be included in his book. He has said this usage is rare.

d) A quote from "Modern Written Arabic - A Comprehensive Grammar" by El-Said Badawi, Michael G Carter and Adrian Gulley (all professors at universities in the Arabic language) These authors state and I quote, "Although generally considered ungrammatical, the particle sawfa سوف sometimes occurs with laa لا". One thing to be noticed is that they say "genenerally" and not "without exception".

e) The net is replete with سوف لا and I have provided a couple of examples from there.


----------



## barkoosh

In order for a new word or construction to be considered correct in Arabic, two criteria have to be met:
1. It has to be commonly used.
2. It has to have some sort of basis in Classical works.

Qureshpor correctly pointed out that "in any living language, what is deemed wrong by purists eventually becomes accepted as correct, especially when enough people (especially of repute) begin to use it in their speech and writings." This corresponds to the first criterion. However, Arabic requires more than that. Is there any reference that justifies, even faintly, this common use? Here's an example.

Everybody uses the word خِصِّيصًا. It's way more common than سوف لا and سوف لن. But this doesn't make it correct, because it doesn't meet the second criterion. خِصِّيصًا requires having the masdar خِصِّيص, which doesn't exist. We have the masdar خِصِّيصَى, and خِصّيصَى (without tanween) should be used instead of خِصِّيصًا. (One can also use خصوصًا.) Of course, people don't care. They're going to keep using خِصِّيصًا even if it doesn't answer the second criterion. However, this doesn't make it "correct" in Arabic. It's خطأ شائع.

Here's another example. The image غصن لبنان2 in Sadda7's post is about the use of إذا in ما أدري إذا. It says that the correct way to say it is: ما أدري هل...‏ or ما أدري أ...‏

However, it's very common to say لا أعرف ما إذا كان سيأتي or لا أعرف إذا أتى or لا أعرف إن كان سيأتي, etc. First criterion is met. What about the second? For years, linguists and Arabic Academies insisted on considering it a grammatical mistake that is the result of literal translation. Again, people didn't care. They kept using it. They liked it better than لا أعرف هل أتى. However, a few years ago, the Arabic Academy of Cairo decided that this modern use of إذا and إن is correct based on some Classical references! It was a "Yay!" moment for the few of us who cared. But most people still didn't care; this changed nothing for them. (PS: I'm sure that the Academy's decision wasn't to the liking of some linguists.)

In conclusion, regarding سوف لا and سوف لن, those who use it will keep using it, even if the second criterion is not met. But who knows? This could change one day with the discovery of some supporting evidence from Classical works!


----------



## Qureshpor

barkoosh said:


> In order for a new word or construction to be considered correct in Arabic, two criteria have to be met:
> 1. It has to be commonly used.
> 2. It has to have some sort of basis in Classical works.


I won't disagree with you if this is gospel  but as you have indicated later, frankley, people don't give a hoot whether anything can be traced back to Classical literature to meet the second criteria or not! I am of the view that given time (and more than likely long after we've gone to meet our maker), if the usage becomes common in all strata of society, it will be accepted by the academies even if nothing is to be found in the works of antiquity!


----------

