# لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ، ولا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,

 لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ، ولا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ

How would you translate this sentence (see the context below)? Why is the verb يَكُونَ in subjunctive mode (mansuub) ? 
For me the sentence "ولا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ" is a jumlah haaliyyah" (the waw is a waw-l-haal)...

Merci.

PS : In French I would translate like this : 
_Il ne conviendrait pas que nous (nous) mangions les gâteaux de la fête *sans* qu'elle en ait une part.

_


> (١) كَعْكُ «أُمِّ لَيْلَى»
> 
> «أُمُّ لَيْلَى» مِنْ عادَتِهاَ أَنْ تَعْمَلَ كَعْكًا بِمُناسَبةِ الْعِيدِ السَّعِيدِ. قَرُبَ مَوْعِدُ الْعِيدِ، عَمِلَتِ الْكَعْكَ.
> 
> «أُمُّ لَيْلَى» فَكَّرَتْ فيِ والِدَتِها: جَدَّةِ «لَيْلَى».
> 
> جَدَّةُ «لَيْلَى» سَيِّدَةٌ عَجُوزٌ تُقِيمُ مَعَ ابْنِها الْكَبِيرِ فِي بَيْتٍ بَعِيدٍ.
> 
> «أُمُّ لَيْلَى» قالَتْ: «والِدَتِي كَبِيرَةُ السِّنِّ، لَا تسْتَطِيعُ زِيارَتَنا، لِتَذُوقَ كَعْكَنا، لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ، ولا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ.
> 
> لا بُدَّ أَنْ أُرْسِلَ إلَيهْا مِنَ الْكَعْكِ الَّذِي عَمِلْناهُ، لِتَأْكُلَ مِنْهُ: هِيَ، وَأَخِي الَّذِي يَعِيشُ مَعَها فِي بَيْتٍ واحِدٍ.
> 
> «أُمُّ لَيْلَى» لا تُرِيدُ أَنْ تَتْرُكَ بَيْتَها، وتَذْهَبَ إِلَى بَيْتِ والِدَتِها؛ لِأَنَّها لَمْ تَسْتَأْذِنْ زَوْجَها فِي الْخُرُوجِ وَهُوَ غائِبٌ.
> 
> «أَبُو لَيْلَى» خَرَجَ إِلَى عَمَلِهِ صَباحًا، ولا يَعُودُ إِلّا مَساءً.
> 
> «أُمُّ لَيْلَى» لا تُحِبُّ أَنْ تَنْتَظِرَ حَتَّى يَحْضُرَ زَوْجُها «أَبُو لَيْلَى»، وتَسْتَأْذِنَهُ فِي الذَّهابِ إِلَى بَيْتِ والِدَتِها فِى الْغَدِ.
> 
> إِنَّها تُرِيدُ إِرْسالَ الْكَعْكِ إِلَى والِدَتِها الْيَوْمَ، وَهُوَ طازَجٌ.
> 
> ماذا تَصْنَعُ «أُمُّ لَيْلَى»؟


----------



## Kuzit

The translation but not litrary but as I got it : its not proper for ''Om layla''>(the mother of Layla) and her family '' to eat from the Eid Cakes''>(the cakes of the feast) without sending some of it to her mother '' the grandmother of her daughter layla.
*******
About what you said about grammar so am not good at our grammar for sorry


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you for your translation. This is also how I understood the sentence.


----------



## Sun-Shine

يكونَ is mansoub because it's معطوف على نأكل
أن نأكلَ و لا يكونَ


----------



## Ibn Nacer

sun_shine 331995 said:


> يكونَ is mansoub because it's معطوف على نأكل
> أن نأكلَ و لا يكونَ


Thank you. Ok so in this case the particle wâw is not a "واو الحال" but it is a "واو العطف"... But according to the meaning I find that using a واو الحال is better, what do you think ?

Is it possible and correct that the verb يَكُون  is marfuu' and as a consequence that the particle waw is a "واو الحال" ?

Merci.


----------



## Sun-Shine

It's not واو الحال .
It's واو العطف or واو الاستئناف.
If it's واو الاستئناف then the verb is (مرفوع (يَكُونُ


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Yes, but if you had read the sentence without the vowels would you have read "يَكُونَ" or "يَكُونُ "?

For you it not possible and not correct that the verb يَكُون  is marfuu' and as a consequence that the particle waw is a "واو الحال" ?

I have often seen this type of sentence (with واو الحال + negation) and this waw is sometimes (often ?) translated as "without" as I did in French and as *Kuzit *did in English.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes, but if you had read the sentence without the vowels would you have read "يَكُونَ" or "يَكُونُ "?


Because I have seen the vowels it's difficult to imagine how I would have read it without the vowels.
But I think I would have read it يكونُ .



> For you it not possible and not correct that the verb يَكُون  is marfuu' and as a consequence that the particle waw is a "واو الحال" ?


It's not واو الحال
I have a doubt: Is it واو الاستئناف then the verb يكونُ is marfuu
Or واو العطف and the verb يكونَ is mansoub


----------



## Hemza

Ibn Nacer said:


> In French I would translate like this :
> _Il ne conviendrait pas que nous (nous) mangions les gâteaux de la fête *sans* qu'elle en ait une part._



Il serait inconvenant de manger les gâteaux de Pâques sans lui en laisser une part

("il ne conviendrait pas" fait un peu lourd je trouve mais ce n'est que mon avis)


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hemza said:


> Il serait inconvenant de manger les gâteaux de Pâques sans lui en laisser une part
> 
> ("il ne conviendrait pas" fait un peu lourd je trouve mais ce n'est que mon avis)


Merci.

Oui c'est vrai mais j'ai voulu traduire d'une manière littérale, sinon on pourrait aussi dire "il serait inconvenable de...", ou "il ne serait pas convenable..." (qui est encore moins lourd que d'utiliser les mots "inconvenable" ou "inconvenant") .

- Sinon as-tu remarqué le pronom نَحْنُ ? Je pense que c'est mis pour l'emphase, pour insister : "...que nous, nous mangions...".

- Et je vois que tu as aussi traduit avec "sans" ce qui pour moi correspond à une jumlah haaliyyah...  Mais si on considère que le wâw est une conjonction alors on devrait plutôt le traduire par "et" :

_Il ne serait pas convenable que nous, nous mangions les gâteaux de la fête *et *qu'elle n'en ait pas une part._

Je ressens aussi l'envie d'ajouter une emphase :_ *et *qu'elle, elle n'en ait pas une part._

_-_ Autre chose : toi aussi tu as senti qu'il fallait utiliser le conditionnel "Il serait inconvenant" mais en arabe on a "Il est inconvenant..."
Je ne sais pas si il existe un moyen d'exprimer le conditionnel en en arabe ???


----------



## Ibn Nacer

I looked for an answer ... And it seems that this case (الفعل المضارع المنفي بـ"لا") is similar to the case (الفعل المضارع المثبت) we discussed in the other thread : He came riding  - الحال...

*@sun_shine*  :  thanks again !



> ويَدْخُلُ تحتَ هذا أيضاًً المضارِعُ المنفيُّ بلا؛ فعلى هذا تقولُ: (جاءَ زيدٌ ولا يَضْرِبُ عَمْراً) بالواوِ.
> وقد ذَكَرَ المصنِّفُ في غيرِ هذا الكتابِ أنه لا يَجُوزُ اقْتِرَانُهُ بالواوِ؛ كالمضارِعِ المثبَتِ، وأنَّ ما وَرَدَ ممَّا ظاهِرُه ذلك يُؤَوَّلُ على إضمارِ مبتدأٍ؛ كقراءةِ ابنِ ذَكْوَانَ: (فَاسْتَقِيمَا وَلاَ تَتَّبِعَانِ) بتخفيفِ النونِ، والتقديرُ: وأنتما لا تَتَّبِعَانِ، فـ(لا تَتَّبِعَانِ) خبرٌ لمبتدأٍ محذوفٍ.





> وأمَّا الفعل المضارع المنفي بـ ( لا ) فقد ذكر النَّاظم في غير هذا الكتاب أنه لا يجوز اقترانه بالواو ، كالمضارع المثبت ، وأنّ ما ورد مَّما ظاهره ذلك يُؤَوَّل على إضمار مبتدأ ،كقراءة ابن ذَكْوَان قوله تعالى  : فَاسْتَقِيما وَلا تَتَّبِعانِّ
> ( بتخفيف النون ) والتقدير : وأنتما لا تتَّبعان ، فـ (لا تتَّبعان) خبر لمبتدأ محذوف .
> 
> وأمَّا الشارح فقد أجاز دخول الواو على المضارع المنفيَّ بـ ( لا ) فتقول : جاء زيد ولا يضربُ عمراً .
> ويمتنع كذلك اقتران الجملة الفعلية بالواو إذا كان المضارع منفيا بـ ( ما ) وقيل : يجوز الوجهان ، نحو : جاء زيدٌ وما يضحك ، وجاء زيدٌ ما يضحك .​




> أمَّا المضارِعُ المنفيُّ فإنْ كان النافِي (لا) أو (ما) فهو كالْمُثْبَتِ في لُزومِ الربْطِ بالضميرِ والتجَرُّدِ عن الواوِ؛ لأن المنفيَّ بهما في تأويلِ اسمِ الفاعلِ المخفوضِ بإضافةِ (غيرٍ) وهو لا تَدْخُلُ عليه الواوُ، نحوُ: جاءَ عبدُ العزيزِ لا يَحمِلُ كتابَه، قالَ تعالى: {وَمَا لَنَا لاَ نُؤْمِنُ بِاللهِ} فجُملةُ (لا نُؤمنُ باللهِ) حالٌ مِن الضميرِ المجرورِ باللامِ، والرابِطُ هو الضميرُ المستَتِرُ (نحن)، ومِثالُ (ما): عَرَفْتُكَ ما تُحِبُّ السهَرَ، قالَ الشاعِرُ:
> عَهِدْتُكَ ما تَصْبُو وفيكَ شَبيبَةٌ = فما لك بعدَ الشَّيْبِ صَبًّا مُتَيَّماً



Sources : وقوع الحال جملة - معهد آفاق التيسير للتعليم عن بعد and الحال5


----------



## Sun-Shine

I don't think it's واو الحال.
Who is صاحب الحال?
لا يكون لها نصيب doesn't explain the 7aal , where is the pronoun which refers to
(صاحب الحال (نحن
Edit : @Ibn Nacer 
Here you are the answer after I asked.
لقد سألت متخصّصًا
The wâw (واو) here is واو المعية so the verb is mansoub.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes, but if you had read the sentence without the vowels would you have read "يَكُونَ" or "يَكُونُ "?


As sun_shine said, it's impossible to know because we've already seen the vowels. However, I could venture a guess: I imagine myself reading it منصوب because the way the sentence is written makes me feel instinctively that it's واو المعية. because what the person is trying to say that 'we are eating' and at the same time 'she is not eating'. Unless I misunderstood the sentence of course!


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> For you it not possible and not correct that the verb يَكُون is marfuu' and as a consequence that the particle waw is a "واو الحال" ?



Even if I did read it marfuu, I would not have considered the waaw to be waaw al haal in any case because the sentence after the waaw does not give the meaning of a haal. The haal describes صاحب الحال while doing the action mentioned or implied in the sentence; in this case it is 'she' that is not eating (حال) but نحن and كعك العيد are the only possible صاحب حال so it simply doesn't work.



Ibn Nacer said:


> I have often seen this type of sentence (with واو الحال + negation) and this waw is sometimes (often ?) translated as "without" as I did in French and as *@Kuzit *did in English.



Are you sure it's the same? Merely being translated using the same word in English (I can't speak for French) is not enough to make such an assumption, don't you think?


----------



## Sun-Shine

Mahaodeh said:


> the way the sentence is written makes me feel instinctively that it's واو المعية


You are right it's واو المعية 


sun_shine 331995 said:


> لقد سألت متخصّصًا
> The wâw (واو) here is واو المعية so the verb is mansoub.





Mahaodeh said:


> Even if I did read it marfuu, I would not have considered the waaw to be waaw al haal in any case because the sentence after the waaw does not give the meaning of a haal. The haal describes صاحب الحال while doing the action mentioned or implied in the sentence; in this case it is 'she' that is not eating (حال) but نحن and كعك العيد are the only possible صاحب حال so it simply doesn't work.


Agree.


sun_shine 331995 said:


> لا يكون لها نصيب doesn't explain the 7aal , where is the pronoun which refers to
> (صاحب الحال (نحن


----------



## analeeh

The automatic reading seems to be أن نأكل... وألّا يكون... but with the _2an _not repeated. This was my automatic reading of it too. 'It's not appropriate for us to eat and for them not to have any of it.


----------



## Sun-Shine

analeeh said:


> The automatic reading seems to be أن نأكل... وألّا يكون...


In this case الواو is حرف عطف
(عطف اسم على اسم (المصدر المؤول


----------



## Hemza

Ibn Nacer said:


> Merci.
> Oui c'est vrai mais j'ai voulu traduire d'une manière littérale, sinon on pourrait aussi dire "il serait inconvenable de...", ou "il ne serait pas convenable..." (qui est encore moins lourd que d'utiliser les mots "inconvenable" ou "inconvenant") .





> - Sinon as-tu remarqué le pronom نَحْنُ ? Je pense que c'est mis pour l'emphase, pour insister : "...que nous, nous mangions...".


Oui, c'est peut être pour l'emphase comme tu dis.


> - Et je vois que tu as aussi traduit avec "sans" ce qui pour moi correspond à une jumlah haaliyyah...  Mais si on considère que le wâw est une conjonction alors on devrait plutôt le traduire par "et" :



Je crois inutile de s'attacher à conserver à tout prix la syntaxe de la langue à traduire voilà pourquoi j'ai opté pour "sans.



> _Il ne serait pas convenable que nous, nous mangions les gâteaux de la fête *et *qu'elle n'en ait pas une part._
> Je ressens aussi l'envie d'ajouter une emphase :_ *et *qu'elle, elle n'en ait pas une part._



Tout à fait faisable_._



> Autre chose : toi aussi tu as senti qu'il fallait utiliser le conditionnel "Il serait inconvenant" mais en arabe on a "Il est inconvenant..."
> Je ne sais pas si il existe un moyen d'exprimer le conditionnel en arabe ???



C'est le conditionnel qui m'est venu "naturellement" à l'esprit car j'ai pensé que l'action n'a pas encore eu lieu mais il est possible que celle-ci se soit déroulée, ce qui rendrait l'emploi du conditionnel, erroné et auquel cas, le présent est de rigueur.
En arabe, le conditionnel s'exprime avec قد+فعل مضارع mais je ne sais pas ce contexte le permet comme c'est le cas en français.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

@Hemza : Merci pour les réponses.



sun_shine 331995 said:


> Edit : @Ibn Nacer
> Here you are the answer after I asked.
> لقد سألت متخصّصًا
> 
> The wâw (واو) here is واو المعية so the verb is mansoub.


Thank you very much for asking for an answer.
And indeed this analysis seems to be well suited to the meaning of the sentence. I explain why below ...



sun_shine 331995 said:


> I don't think it's واو الحال.


Ok thank you.

Now, I also think it is not واو الحال. I changed my mind after finding some answers ... I quoted some passages in the message *#11*...

Even if some grammarians think that this type of sentence may be correct (this sentence جاءَ زيدٌ ولا يَضْرِبُ عَمْراً is cited as an example) it seems that the rule is that it is not allowed to use the wâw in this case (...وأمَّا الفعل المضارع المنفي بـ ( لا ) فقد ذكر النَّاظم في غير هذا الكتاب أنه لا يجوز اقترانه بالواو )




sun_shine 331995 said:


> Who is صاحب الحال?
> لا يكون لها نصيب doesn't explain the 7aal , where is the pronoun which refers to
> (صاحب الحال (نحن





Mahaodeh said:


> Even if I did read it marfuu, I would not have considered the waaw to be waaw al haal in any case because the sentence after the waaw does not give the meaning of a haal. The haal describes صاحب الحال while doing the action mentioned or implied in the sentence; in this case it is 'she' that is not eating (حال) but نحن and كعك العيد are the only possible صاحب حال so it simply doesn't work.


Your analysis is relevant and it is very interesting. But I have not changed my mind for this reason (I explained above why I changed my mind).

Some time ago I asked myself the same questions as you (I'm glad to discover that I'm not the only one to ask this kind of question), I opened this thread: sâhibu-l-hâl صاحب الحال

Today I think there is no صاحب الحال in this type of sentence but the wâw expresses the simultaneity of two events.



Mahaodeh said:


> As sun_shine said, it's impossible to know because we've already seen the vowels. However, I could venture a guess: I imagine myself reading it منصوب because the way the sentence is written makes me feel instinctively that it's واو المعية. because what the person is trying to say that 'we are eating' and at the same time 'she is not eating'. Unless I misunderstood the sentence of course!


Thank you. It's very interesting, that's also how I understood the sentence.

I felt that the wâw expressed the simultaneity of two events (here one of these events is negative) that's why I thought this wâw was a واو الحال … Because the واو الحال can express the simultaneity of two events... But as we have seen it is not correct...

But there is another "waw" that can express the simultaneity of two events and that's the واو المعية as you said (you and sun_shine). I did not think about this type of wâw...



Mahaodeh said:


> Are you sure it's the same? Merely being translated using the same word in English (I can't speak for French) is not enough to make such an assumption, don't you think?


Yes you are right, this is not a proof. But for example nobody* has translated this particle by "and"... Everyone seems to have felt that this wâw expressed a simultanenity...

I have seen several times the use of the connector "without" to translate the simultaneity of two events when the second is a negative event.

EDIT : except *analeeh*


----------



## Ibn Nacer

analeeh said:


> The automatic reading seems to be أن نأكل... وألّا يكون... but with the _2an _not repeated. This was my automatic reading of it too. 'It's not appropriate for us to eat and for them not to have any of it.


Thank you.
It's not easy to choose between the two analysis but my first reading was that the wâw expressed simultaneity.

Because the fact that Layla and her mother eat the cakes is not in itself a bad thing, it's a bad thing if they eat without the grandmother eating too.

What do you think ?


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> But I have not changed my mind for this reason (I explained above why I changed my mind).



In case of the haal is a جملة فعلية , there should be a connector and it is the pronoun, the واو is not a connector when the haal is جملة فعلية.


----------



## Ghabi

an na2kula ..., a noun phrase, is the subject of the verb yaliiqu. How can a noun phrase have a 7aal?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

sun_shine 331995 said:


> In case of the haal is a جملة فعلية , there should be a connector and it is the pronoun, the واو is not a connector when the haal is جملة فعلية.


I'm not sure what you meant but we can have a wâw al haal followed by lam and in some types of sentences we have only the wâw without a pronoun (because in my opinion there is no saahibu-l-haal, once again I opened this thread :  sâhibu-l-hâl صاحب الحال some time ago, I will posted some sources ...).



Ghabi said:


> an na2kula ..., a noun phrase, is the subject of the verb yaliiqu. How can a noun phrase have a 7aal?


I do not know, it's true that it would be strange ...
I specify in case your message is addressed to me that this is not what I said, here is what I wrote :


Ibn Nacer said:


> For me the sentence "ولا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ" is a jumlah haaliyyah" (the waw is a waw-l-haal)...


----------



## Ghabi

I was referring to this:


Ibn Nacer said:


> Is it possible and correct that the verb يَكُون is marfuu' and as a consequence that the particle waw is a "واو الحال" ?


It can't be yakuunu.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Ghabi said:


> I was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible and correct that the verb يَكُون is marfuu' and as a consequence that the particle waw is a "واو الحال" ?
Click to expand...

But this sentence is a question and I do not understand where you see (in this question) that I say that "an na2kula" would be a haal ???



Ghabi said:


> It can't be yakuunu.


Yes, now I think so too but it was not obvious before having the answers ...

And also read these answers which prove that it is not necessarily a simple question:


sun_shine 331995 said:


> Because I have seen the vowels it's difficult to imagine how I would have read it without the vowels.
> But I think I would have read it *يكونُ* .





Mahaodeh said:


> As sun_shine said, it's impossible to know because we've already seen the vowels.





sun_shine 331995 said:


> It's not واو الحال .
> It's واو العطف or واو الاستئناف.
> *If it's واو الاستئناف then the verb is (مرفوع (يَكُونُ*




Have you read this passage that I quoted:
ويَدْخُلُ تحتَ هذا أيضاًً المضارِعُ المنفيُّ بلا؛ فعلى هذا تقولُ: (جاءَ زيدٌ ولا يَضْرِبُ عَمْراً) بالواوِ

But as I said:


Ibn Nacer said:


> Even if some grammarians think that this type of sentence may be correct (this sentence جاءَ زيدٌ ولا يَضْرِبُ عَمْراً is cited as an example) it seems that the rule is that it is not allowed to use the wâw in this case (...وأمَّا الفعل المضارع المنفي بـ ( لا ) فقد ذكر النَّاظم في غير هذا الكتاب أنه لا يجوز اقترانه بالواو )


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> I'm not sure what you meant but we can have a wâw al haal followed by lam and in some types of sentences we have only the wâw without a pronoun


If the haal is جملة فعلية then the connector is not the wâw alone.

Also in this sentence جاء زيد يضحك : the sentence يضحك is جملة حالية and the connector is the omitted pronoun (يضحك (هو
If the sentence is جاء زيد و يضحك some grammarians don't accept this structure but others say that the haal is a nominal sentence which consists of the omitted mubtadaa (جاء زيد و (هو) يضحك) and the khabar (يضحك)


----------



## Ibn Nacer

sun_shine 331995 said:


> If the haal is جملة فعلية then the connector is not the wâw alone.


Ah ok I think I understood this time ... Thank you





sun_shine 331995 said:


> Also in this sentence جاء زيد يضحك : the sentence يضحك is جملة حالية and the connector is the omitted pronoun (يضحك (هو
> If the sentence is جاء زيد و يضحك some grammarians don't accept this structure but others say that the haal is a nominal sentence which consists of the omitted mubtadaa (جاء زيد و (هو) يضحك) and the khabar (يضحك)


Yes I remember this case, we discussed it in the thread: He came riding  - الحال...
And in this present thread I posted some passages about our case, as I said: 


Ibn Nacer said:


> I looked for an answer ... And it seems that this case (الفعل المضارع المنفي بـ"لا") is similar to the case (الفعل المضارع المثبت) we discussed in the other thread : He came riding - الحال...


----------



## Sun-Shine

@Ibn Nacer
Addition: If we say that the waw is واو الحال, then صاحب الحال is the grandmother :
والِدَتِي كَبِيرَةُ السِّنِّ، لَا تسْتَطِيعُ زِيارَتَنا، لِتَذُوقَ كَعْكَنا، لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ، ولا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you, I have to think ... 

But for the moment I discovered a problem, there are conditions to respect for the wâw to be واو المعية : 

The sentence before the waw must be نفيٌ أو طلب...

It is complicated...


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> But for the moment I discovered a problem, there are conditions to respect for the wâw to be واو المعية :
> 
> The sentence before the waw must be نفيٌ أو طلب...


لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ، و لا يَكُونَ لَها


----------



## Ibn Nacer

sun_shine 331995 said:


> لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ، و لا يَكُونَ لَها


Yes, I also thought that, but there is one thing that is problematic: 
what are the two events that take place at the same time?
These are A and B:

A- أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ
B- لا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ

This suits semantically but not grammatically because A must be نفيٌ أو طلب ...

And if we consider that the two events that take place at the same time are:

A- لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ
B- لا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ

So that's ok grammatically but the meaning is not the one we all understood,  As Mahaodeh explained : 



Mahaodeh said:


> ...because what the person is trying to say that '*we are eating*' and *at the same time* '*she is not eating'*.



Ah it's not easy ...


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> A- لا يَلِيقُ أَنْ نَأكُلَ نَحْنُ كَعْكَ الْعِيدِ
> B- لا يَكُونَ لَها نَصِيبٌ مِنْهُ
> ,...the meaning is not the one we all understood.


It is.
(لا يليق أكلنا و (في نفس الوقت) لا نصيب لها (لا تأكل


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you for your patience.
To understand well I looked for other examples of this type of sentence (negation + واو المعية ) but I did not find many.
I have the impression that this type of sentence is rare.


----------

