# مضاف - مضاف إليه



## linguist786

Just to clear this up:

What I understand by this "muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi" is that you use it to show possession (basically, like the genitive in languages like German, for example)

The rule is:

The first word (the muDaaf ilayhi) does not have the article in front of it (al-). The second word DOES have one (the muDaaf) Also, the muDaaf ilayhi must have a dhamma on the last letter, and the muDaaf must have a kasra. So, for example:

"the door of the house" - baab *u*l bayt*i*
"the man's chicken" - dajaajat *u*r-rajul*i*
"the women's book" - kitaab *u*n-nisaa'*i*

Is my explanation right? Is there anything to add there?

Also, a question. What if you want to say something like:

"The imaam of Jeddah came to the mosque of Madinah"? 

It would be a normal active sentence, but would the "mosque of Madinah" be a muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi construction? The reason I ask is because a "hurfe jar" (preposition) is being used here and I know that after a preposition, the noun ends in "i" (eg - fil-masjidi - in the mosque). I know the "imaam of Jeddah" is muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi - this would be "imaam uj-jiddati", right?

Can somebody translate that sentence please? My attempt would be: 

(came?) imaam uj-jiddati fi 'l-masjidi 'l-madinati

(normally, "the mosque of Madinah" would be "masjid ul madinati", right) but what about after a prepostition? - that is my question.


----------



## abusaf

"The imaam of Jeddah came to the mosque of Madinah"?

جاء إمام جدة إلى مسجد المدينة
Jaa' Imaamu Jaddati ilaa masjiid il-madiinati


----------



## linguist786

Excellent, thanks!
so "ilaa" is a preposition meaning "to", right?
I understand now that the muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi doesn't change even after a preposition - thanks!


----------



## abusaf

But it does change..

Masjid ul-Medinati

ilaaa Masjid il-Medinati

So both nouns become Majroor


----------



## elroy

Answers below.  I hope they help clarify things. 



			
				linguist786 said:
			
		

> What I understand by this "muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi" is that you use it to show possession yes, among other things (basically, like the genitive in languages like German, for example yes)
> 
> The first word (the muDaaf ilayhi) does not have the article in front of it (al-). Right. The second word DOES have one (the muDaaf) Not always. Also, the muDaaf ilayhi must have a dhamma on the last letter, No, it can get any ending, depending on its function in the sentence and the muDaaf must have a kasra. Yes, if it's singular or "broken plural."  There are different markers for dual and masculine or feminine plural. So, for example:
> 
> "the door of the house" - baab *u*l bayt*i* baabu 'l-bayti
> "the man's chicken" - dajaajat *u*r-rajul*i* dajaajatu 'r-rajuli
> "the women's book" - kitaab *u*n-nisaa'*i* kitaabu 'n-nisaa2i
> The "u" belongs to the first word, and as I said above, it does not have to be a "u."
> 
> "The imaam of Jeddah came to the mosque of Madinah"?
> Jaa2a imaamu Jaddata ilaa masjidi l-madiinati.
> Proper nouns get a *fat7a* when they are in the "majruur" case. I went with an "i" for "Madiina(t)" because that also means "city."
> 
> It would be a normal active sentence, but would the "mosque of Madinah" be a muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi construction? Yes. The reason I ask is because a "hurfe jar" (preposition) is being used here and I know that after a preposition, the noun ends in "i" (eg - fil-masjidi - in the mosque). I know the "imaam of Jeddah" is muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi - this would be "imaam uj-jiddati", right? The first word takes whatever ending corresponds to its function in the sentence.  The second word is always majruura.
> 
> (normally, "the mosque of Madinah" would be "masjid ul madinati", right) but what about after a prepostition? - that is my question. You are under the false impression that the "default marker" is "u."  That is simply not true, although we do use "u" if the phrase is not part of a sentence (if it's the title of a book, for example.)


----------



## Josh_

linguist786 said:
			
		

> The first word (the muDaaf ilayhi) does not have the article in front of it (al-). The second word DOES have one (the muDaaf) Also, the muDaaf ilayhi must have a dhamma on the last letter, and the muDaaf must have a kasra. So, for example:


You're confusing them again.  I'm surprised elroy didn't catch that.  Remember my little memory trick:

muDaaf = *one* word = *first* term of an iDaafa
muDaaf ilayhi = *two* words = *second* term of an iDaafa


----------



## elroy

Good catch, Josh.  I managed to overlook the mix-up and answered the question and answered Linguist's questions based on what he meant.


----------



## linguist786

Thank you so so much people!!
You people answer questions in a brilliant way!

One more question - can somebody explain to me what you mean by "majroor"? And also, since I was wrong about the preposition thing (it's not always "masjidul madinati") can somebody explain (by giving examples of sentences) when it would be different?

Thanks again!!
Your help is really appreciated.


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> One more question - can somebody explain to me what you mean by "majroor"?


The simplest definition I can say about the majroor is that the word takes *kasra* (in the singular form, and the feminine plural form) or a *yaa2* in the dual and masculine plural forms.



> And also, since I was wrong about the preposition thing (it's not always "masjidul madinati") can somebody explain (by giving examples of sentences) when it would be different?


The preposition befor the word masjid makes it masjid*i*, but if the word "masjid" comes in the begining of a sentence, it will be a مبتدأ , hence مرفوع (i.e. takes a damma) masjid*u*. If it is an object of a verb, it becomes mansoob (i.e. takes a fat7a) : ra2aytu masjid*a* 'lmadinati.

Notice that the word madina مدينة take a kasra "madinat*i*" مدينةِbecause it's always (in this structure) a mudaaf ilayhi (i.e. added to another word), but if this word comes in the begining of a sentence, it's a mubtada2 (=begining) and becomes marfoo3 : مدينةُ madinat*u*.

I hope I'm not taking you into circles, if I confused you please let me know.


----------



## linguist786

cherine said:
			
		

> The preposition befor the word masjid makes it masjid*i*, but if the word "masjid" comes in the begining of a sentence, it will be a مبتدأ , hence مرفوع (i.e. takes a damma) masjid*u*. If it is an object of a verb, it becomes mansoob (i.e. takes a fat7a) : ra2aytu masjid*a* 'lmadinati.
> 
> Notice that the word madina مدينة take a kasra "madinat*i*" مدينةِbecause it's always (in this structure) a mudaaf ilayhi (i.e. added to another word), but if this word comes in the begining of a sentence, it's a mubtada2 (=begining) and becomes marfoo3 : مدينةُ madinat*u*.
> 
> I hope I'm not taking you into circles, if I confused you please let me know.


No no, I totally understand! Well, this is what I understand of it anyway:

Normally, on it's own, it would be "masujid*u*l madinat*i*" but in this construction, since there is a hurfe jar (preposition), it changes it to "masjid*i*l madinati"

Now I understand what you said about whether its marfoo3 or mansoob - marfoo3 means it'll have an "u" and mansoob will mean it'll have an "a" (normally)

BUT: In the sentence I gave, "the mosque of Madinah" was the object of the sentence, wasn't it? So I was using a preposition with the _object_ of the sentence - which changed it to "madinat*i*". No what if I was using a preposition with the _subject_ of the sentence? (the marfoo3)





			
				cherine said:
			
		

> Notice that the word madina مدينة take a kasra "madinat*i*" مدينةِbecause it's always (in this structure) a mudaaf ilayhi (i.e. added to another word), but if this word comes in the begining of a sentence, it's a mubtada2 (=begining) and becomes marfoo3 : مدينةُ madinat*u*.


Even in a muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi construction? Remember I want to say "the mosque of Madinah" - now if that is used at the beginning (=marfoo3) would it not still be "masjid*u*l madinat*i*"?


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> No what if I was using a preposition with the _subject_ of the sentence? (the marfoo3)Even in a muDaaf muDaaf ilayhi construction? Remember I want to say "the mosque of Madinah" - now if that is used at the beginning (=marfoo3) would it not still be "masjid*u*l madinat*i*"?


If you add a preposition before the mubtada2, it will no longer be a mubtada2 (logical, no?  )
Example :
Masjidu 'l-madinati kabirun. مسجدُ المدينةِ كبيرٌ
The Madina's mosque is big
fi masjidi 'l-madinati, sallayna 'l-fajra في مسجدِ المدينةِ، صلينا الفجرَ
Once, I've put a preposition before the word "masjid", it was no longer a mubtada2, nor marfuu2, it became majroor because of the preposition preceding it.

So, in an iDafa إضافة (which is composed of two parts: مضاف-مضاف إليه) the second part : المضاف إليه is *always* majruur, but the first part المضاف varies according to its position in the sentence.


----------



## linguist786

ahh!! Totally understand now!
Arabic is the coolest language! lol
I'm really loving it all.

Another question. Would it make any difference in the Arabic if you were to say: "In *a* mosque of Madinah" (as opposed to: "In *the* mosque of Madinah")


----------



## cherine

Yes, *a* mosque of Madinah is any of the many mosques existing there, while *the* mosque.. is one particular mosque (like the biggest mosque, for example). In this context, it's the Prophet's mosque.
The first sentence can be translated as في مسجدٍ بالمدينة  , and we can also say: في أحد مساجد المدينة which is literally : in one of the Madina's mosques. 
The second sentence is : في مسجد المدينة .


----------



## linguist786

Oh I see.. that's interesting. Where does the "bil-" come from?

Can you transribe exactly how each one would be pronounced? The first one would be "fee masjidin bil-madinah", right? I'm guessing the second one would be "fee ahada masaajid al-madinah" and the last one "fee masjidil madinah"

Please confirm - and a thousand thanks again!


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Oh I see.. that's interesting. Where does the "bil-" come from?


It's the preposition "bi" بِ which has several meanings, according to the context.
Here, it means "in" the city (the Madina).



> The first one would be "fee masjidin bil-madinati"


remember that the perposition حرف الجر affects the word following it (notice the word جر and the grammatical "effect" مجرور ).


> I'm guessing the second one would be "fee ahadi masaajida 'l-madinati



also "fee" is a 7arf jarr, so a7adi must be majrur, and "almadinati" is a mudaaf ilayh, don't forget .
"masaajid*a*" is majrur, but it takes a fat7a instead of a kasra, because it's one of those words that are called mamnuu3 min aS-Sarf ممنوع من الصرف (but that's another lesson )


> and the last one "fee masjidil madinati (mudaaf ilayh again  )"


----------



## linguist786

Thanks again!
Very much appreciated!


----------



## Tisia

When I was learning Persian grammar, my teacher defined مضاف-مضاف إليه like this: When two nouns follow each other, and the first noun belongs to the second one, it is called مضاف-مضاف إليه.

Tisia


----------



## linguist786

cherine said:
			
		

> It's the preposition "bi" بِ which has several meanings, according to the context.
> Here, it means "in" the city (the Madina).


Do you use "bi" for all places? (in Madinah, in England, in America, etc)?


			
				Tisia said:
			
		

> When I was learning Persian grammar, my teacher defined مضاف-مضاف إليه like this: When two nouns follow each other, and the first noun belongs to the second one, it is called مضاف-مضاف إليه.


Thanks - that's useful


----------



## abusaf

Actually the word في is more correct to use for "in" . And the preposition بـــ in this context (in), is more colloqiual.


----------



## elroy

abusaf said:
			
		

> Actually the word في is more correct to use for "in" . And the preposition بـــ in this context (in), is more colloqiual.


I agree with this, and would like to add that in some dialects في continues to be used in this context as in MSA.


----------



## aurelien.demarest

Hi guys,

as @analeeh remind me in this topic the المضاف اليه has to be مجرور
Don't you think however that sometimes it can be difficult to understand a sentence?

Look at this one:
آنا أمي باولو

Unless I am mistaken since can mean:
Anna my mom and Paolo
or
Anna is Paolo's mom

How to understand then what the interlocutor wants to say in those circumstances 

Aurélien


----------



## cherine

Bonjour Aurélien,

I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you want to say. Your Arabic sentence is not clear. But I'll work from the English one:
Anna (is) my mom and Paolo آنا أمي أنا وباولو no iDaafa here.
Anna is Paolo's mom آنا أم باولو here we do have an iDaafa, and Paolo is مضاف إليه مجرور but we don't -and can't- have a kasra because the word ends with an "o".


----------



## aurelien.demarest

السلام عليكم يا شيرين

sorry if it was not clear...
In the first sentence I was actually enumerating:
Example: "Who's there? Anna, my mom and Paolo"
If I put a comma it is maybe better understandable however when speaking you can no hear it if I ask:
من هناك؟
آنا أمي باولو

Anyway I thought (by mistake) that this answer آنا أمي باولو could fit to say both "_Anna, my mom and Paolo"_ and "_Anna is Paolo's mom_" but as you just told me that in for the second one Paolo is the مضاف إليه مجرور so now everything is clear 

Thanks for helping.
Aurélien


----------



## cherine

When enumerating, we use الواو. I remember when I was a child and we learned about enumerating in French and the teachers used to compare how in French we just use commas and only one "and/et" at the end of the sentence, while in Arabic we keep repeating و، و، و، و....
So, Anna, my mom and Paolo is آنّا وأمي وباولو. In written MSA, and most probably due to western languages' influence, people use more commas than "waaws", but the واو is still the best tool to use when enumerating, especially if you're not mentioning too many elements.
And, even if you drop the واو and use the commas, we still wouldn't have an iDaafa in this sentence.


----------



## aurelien.demarest

I see, thanks Cherine!


----------

