# Past tense



## paieye

How --  if at all --  in conjugating Arabic verbs is the distinction drawn between:

1.   He wrote a book.
2.   He was writing a book.
3.   He has written a book.
4.   He had written a book.


----------



## AndyRoo

paieye said:


> 1. He wrote a book. كتب كتابًا
> 2. He was writing a book. كان يكتب كتابًا
> 3. He has written a book. كتب كتابًا
> 4. He had written a book. قد كتب كتابًا or كتب كتابًا


----------



## paieye

Thank you.

The result, if I understand your message, seems to be that the conjugation does not itself make a  distinction  between 1, 3 and perhaps 4.

If so, how in Arabic is it possible to convey that a past action or state of being has been completed, and is not continuing ?


----------



## ayed

If I were to render: he has written a book, I would say in Aabic :
مازال يؤلف كتاباً in that the word _mazal _connotes that the sentence being spoken of started in the past and still the action being exist. That is, the author started writing the book in the past up till now and may continue for future. A connected action from the past up till now. I may be mistaken.


----------



## clevermizo

paieye said:


> If so, how in Arabic is it possible to convey that a past action or state of being has been completed, and is not continuing ?



1,3 & 4 all convey a completed, non-continuous action. The subtle nuances can be conveyed contextually. The particle قد is often use with the past tense to emphasize the "completedness" of it, and sometimes overlaps with the perfect tenses in European languages, though not always.

كان يكتب implies a habitual or continuous action in the past
كتب implies a completed action in the past.



ayed said:


> If I were to render: he has written a book, I would say in Aabic :
> مازال يؤلف كتاباً in that the word _mazal _connotes that the sentence being spoken of started in the past and still the action being exist. That is, the author started writing the book in the past up till now and may continue for future. A connected action from the past up till now. I may be mistaken.



But "he has written a book" in English implies the state of writing is completed. It just means that it is in close proximity to the present or it implies something experiential ("he has had the experience of writing a book"). Regardless, "he has written a book" does not mean to me "He started writing the book and is continuing to write it." This may be a difference in BE & AE usage, however.


At the end of the day I think it boils down to:

1) use the simple past as the default past tense
2) use the structure كان يفعل to emphasize the continuity of an action in the past
3) use the particle قد with the simple past tense to emphasize the completedness of the action
4) use time adverbials or other context clues to convey other subtleties of relative time information

There are other threads dealing with conveying the compound tenses of European languages in Arabic - feel free to search for them. Translations will have to be context dependent because there is not a 1:1 correlation between verb forms.

Also, the form كان قد كتب can be used to indicate that "he had written (a book, before something else happened)" when coordinating multiple past actions ("pluperfect" in European languages). However you'd never say that all on its own without another past action that follows it. Quite like in English one would not say "He had written a book" all by itself, but perhaps as "He had written a book about bird-watching before writing his most famous book about quantum physics."


----------



## ayed

Clevermizo..thanks very much.

How can one convey مازال يؤلف كتاباً then?


----------



## clevermizo

"He is still writing a book."


----------



## paieye

To me as a beginner in Arabic, it does seem odd that a language that requires so much precision with nouns and adjectives is so uninterested in precise verb-forms.  In the many of the European languages, each component in my 4-part list would have its own form, and its own name --  (1) past historic/aorist, (2) imperfect, (3) perfect and (4) pluperfect.


----------



## rayloom

^The way Arabic grammar is structured, tenses are somehow seen as a function of the equational sentence (probably for their predicative value). And are formed by conjugating verbs using كان (the verb "to be" in Arabic).
True you won't find the western system of classifying tenses in Arabic grammar books, you would find them however in books on Arabic linguistics.

Arabic has 2 aspects: perfect and imperfect.
To express the tense, you have for example:
فعل he did, he has done
كان (قد) فعل he had done
كان يفعل he was doing
كان سيفعل he was going to do.
يفعل he does, he is doing.
سيفعل he will do
سيكون (قد) فعل he will have done
سيكون يفعل he will be doing


لفعل he would've done
لكان فعل he would've done
لكان يفعل he would've been doing
ليفعلـ(ن) he would do

Of course, as in an other thread, using the imperfect as a predicate, usually gives a progressive meaning.

Also regarding the present perfect in English vs. the past tense, usually the past requires the indication of a point in time in the past (i.e. needs context). If you examine for example French, French also has what meets a present perfect in English, the pasée composée, however in contrast, the pasée composée doesn't require a point in time in the past, in regards to English, it's used for both the past and the present perfect. Whereas the simple past in French is rarely used outside of literary writings, and can be used in the same manner as the pasée composée.
The idea is that even when you have tenses, context is still important.


----------



## Tracer

paieye said:


> To me as a beginner in Arabic, it does seem odd that a language that requires so much precision with nouns and adjectives is so uninterested in precise verb-forms.  In the many of the European languages, each component in my 4-part list would have its own form, and its own name --  (1) past historic/aorist, (2) imperfect, (3) perfect and (4) pluperfect.



1.  That’s because generally speaking, Indo-European languages are “tense-laden” (heavy with tenses) and require a very precise indication of when an action occurs.  It’s simply an important element in IE languages, not so much in Semitic.  Arabic speakers learning English, for example, usually have an awful time learning the difference between the simple past and the present perfect (I saw/I’ve seen) and exactly when you should use one and not the other (and why it’s not only important but crucial to get them right).

2.   Having said that, Arabic has no problem indicating whether an action is finished or is still going on.  It’s just done in a different way than through the use of tenses.  Also the spoken colloquials have developed systems of time indication more in line with IE tenses, although in Arabic, these aren’t really “tenses”. (Which is one reason I’ve always been a proponent of learning MSA and a dialect at the same time).

The actual situation, of course, is much more complicated than I’ve indicated.  After all, in English, you can use the present continuous tense to indicate the future (!).  

a. “Will you give a presentation at the lecture tomorrow?”
b.  “Yes.  *I’m giving a talk* on the environment”

In spoken Gulf Arabic, you can say:

*Waynak?*  This can mean, depending on context:  *Where were you*? (simple past) _*Where have you been*?_ (simple present perfect) and _*Where are you*?_ (simple present).  

Both speakers (English-Arabic) would know exactly what was meant....even though English would use tenses, while Arabic wouldn't.

*(*_*Therefore, you can say that in this sense, Arabic is easier than English).
*
(Just saw RAYLOOM's posting which explains this "tense" phenomenon more precisely than mine ).
_


----------



## paieye

Thank you, and my apology for not answering before.  By the way, does your Latin tag not need a plural verb ?  Just a thought...


----------



## إسكندراني

paieye said:


> 1.   He wrote a book.
> 2.   He was writing a book.
> 3.   He has written a book.
> 4.   He had written a book.


Apologies if the same suggestions  have been made (I didn't spot an exact set I agree with); this  is what I would say naturally:
كتب كتابًا
كان يكتب كتابًا
قد كتب كتابًا
كان قد كتب كتابًا
 The distinction between these - for me - is clear.


----------



## paieye

I understand that, if I say in Arabic 'In 1978, Tom was writing a book,'  I am to adopt AndyRoo's Formula 2.

What, though, if I say 'When I walked into the library, Tom was writing a book'  ?  Am I still to use Formula 2 ?


----------



## cherine

Yes.
عندما دخلت المكتبة، كان توم يكتب/يؤلف كتابًا.


----------



## paieye

Many thanks.


----------



## Ali Smith

I might add that الفعل الماضي can sometimes refer to the present, at least in classical Arabic (I don't know about MSA). For instance,

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ
Except for those who believe and do righteous deeds and advise each other to truth and advise each other to patience.

I wonder if there's a way to tell whether a فعل ماضي is being used to mean the past or the present.


----------



## WadiH

Ali Smith said:


> I might add that الفعل الماضي can sometimes refer to the present, at least in classical Arabic (I don't know about MSA). For instance,
> 
> إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ
> Except for those who believe and do righteous deeds and advise each other to truth and advise each other to patience.
> 
> I wonder if there's a way to tell whether a فعل ماضي is being used to mean the past or the present.



I would say it's meant to indicate that that the deeds have been perfected (regardless of time) (isn't that why they call it a 'perfect' tense?).


----------

