# Haal/relative sentences



## Qureshpor

*aKhadzti_lbintu minnii Khubz-an ta'kuluhu 'alaa_lfaur
*
The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.

The girl took some bread from me which she eats immediately

Is the above sentence "Haal" or "Indefinite relative"?

*aKhadzti_lbintu minnii Khubz-an akalathu 'alaa_lfaur*

The girl took some bread from me which she ate immediately

What is the difference in the two Arabic setences?


----------



## rayloom

It's a khabar of a fi3l shuruu3.

Check this link here

Neither a Haal nor an "indefinite relative" (not sure what that is, can you mention the Arabic term for it?).


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> It's a khabar of a fi3l shuruu3.
> 
> Check this link here
> 
> Neither a Haal nor an "indefinite relative" (not sure what that is, can you mention the Arabic term for it?).



A relative which does not have alladzii etc. A relative clause following an indefinite noun whereas a definite noun will have alladzii etc.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

rayloom said:


> It's a khabar of a fi3l shuruu3.
> 
> Check this link here
> 
> Neither a Haal nor an "indefinite relative" (not sure what that is, can you mention the Arabic term for it?).



He means an "indefinite relative clause," or جملة صفة.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> *aKhadzti_lbintu minnii Khubz-an ta'kuluhu 'alaa_lfaur
> *
> The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.
> 
> The girl took some bread from me which she eats immediately
> 
> Is the above sentence "Haal" or "Indefinite relative"?
> 
> *aKhadzti_lbintu minnii Khubz-an akalathu 'alaa_lfaur*
> 
> The girl took some bread from me which she ate immediately
> 
> What is the difference in the two Arabic setences?



The correct translation for the first sentence is:

The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.

The second translation does not make sense in English. The grammatical structure used in this sentence is of course, الحال.

There is no difference in the basic meaning of the two sentences, only stylistic nuance.


----------



## Qureshpor

lukebeadgcf said:


> The correct translation for the first sentence is:
> 
> The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.
> 
> The second translation does not make sense in English. The grammatical structure used in this sentence is of course, الحال.
> 
> There is no difference in the basic meaning of the two sentences, only stylistic nuance.



The second translation assumes that the Arabic sentence incorporates an indefinite relative clause (Sifah). So, really the question is, "How does one differentiate between a sifah and a Haal in this kind of sentence?


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> The second translation assumes that the Arabic sentence incorporates an indefinite relative clause (Sifah). So, really the question is, "How does one differentiate between a sifah and a Haal in this kind of sentence?



A حال is not formed with the past tense unless it is in the pluperfect such as:

جئن إلى الحفلة وقد لسبن أفضل ملابسهن They (f.) came to the party having already put on their best clothes.


----------



## Qureshpor

lukebeadgcf said:


> A حال is not formed with the past tense unless it is in the pluperfect such as:
> 
> جئن إلى الحفلة وقد لسبن أفضل ملابسهن They (f.) came to the party having already put on their best clothes.



Sorry, I should have been more specific. I am talking about the first Arabic setence.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> Sorry, I should have been more specific. I am talking about the first Arabic setence.



Because if you interpret the first sentence as containing an indefinite relative clause, it doesn't make sense. Just like the sentence:

The girl took some bread from me which she eats immediately.

does not make sense. But if you frame the action of eating into the past by connecting it with the first verb (الحال) then it makes perfect sense:

The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.


----------



## Qureshpor

lukebeadgcf said:


> Because if you interpret the first sentence as containing an indefinite relative clause, it doesn't make sense. Just like the sentence:
> 
> The girl took some bread from me which she eats immediately.
> 
> does not make sense. But if you frame the action of eating into the past by connecting it with the first verb (الحال) then it makes perfect sense:
> 
> The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.



OK, we won't argue over the accuracy/inaccuracy of the English sentence, otherwise we might end up having a "Cross Atlantic" war


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> OK, we won't argue over the accuracy/inaccuracy of the English sentence, otherwise we might end up having a "Cross Atlantic" war



Okay, I wasn't taking into consideration the differences between our two languages. In Arabic though, in order for a relative clause to work here, it must be in the past tense to agree with the tense of the main verb in the sentence.


----------



## Qureshpor

Other examples of this type..

دعوت أصدقايي  كلهم  إلى وليمة[ أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما

_*I invited all my friends to a party [I was holding] at my parents' house but only two persons attended whom I hardly knew!

*_و علم أن السارق تقطع يده و أن الكاذب يلعنه الله و يعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار

_*and he knew that a thief's hand is cut and that Allah curses the liar and he will punish him on the day of judgement, [casting him] into the fire.

*_نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء

_*Mecca in its early days grew around the Well of Zamzam, as its inhabitants drank  its water*_ (?)


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> Other examples of this type..
> 
> دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
> 
> _*I invited all my friends to a party [I was holding] at my parents' house but only two persons attended whom I hardly knew!
> 
> *_و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
> 
> _*and he knew that a thief's hand is cut and that Allah curses the liar and he will punish him on the day of judgement, [casting him] into the fire.
> 
> *_نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئر زمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
> 
> _*Mecca in its early days grew around the Well of Zamzam, as its inhabitants drank  its water*_ (?)



It seems to me that the second is الحال and the other two are صفة, although I don't really understand the last one.


----------



## Ustaath

Question : if the last sentence implied شاربين wouldn't that make it a حال ?


----------



## Qureshpor

lukebeadgcf said:


> It seems to me that the second is الحال and the other two are صفة, although I don't really understand the last one.




دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما

_*I invited all my friends to a party [I was holding] at my parents' house but only two persons attended whom I hardly knew!

Do you agree with the translation? Literally it would be...a party which I am holding... but as the context from the first verb is in the past, I have translated as "..I was holding".

*_نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئر زمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء

*I have mistyped the last word. It should have "hi" attached to it to give the meaning "its water". Again, literally it could be translated as:

Mecca grew, when it grew for the first time, at the Well of Zamzam; its inhabitants drinking its water.

I have had serious problems with finding a suitable English translation too.
* 
_*Mecca in its early days grew around the Well of Zamzam, as its inhabitants drank  its water*_ (?)

*What the writer is essentially saying is..

Mecca from the very early days has sprung up around the Well of Zamzam, its water  providing the inhabitants the all important lifeline.
*


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> _*
> 
> *_نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئر زمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
> 
> *I have mistyped the last word. It should have "hi" attached to it to give the meaning "its water". Again, literally it could be translated as:
> 
> Mecca grew, when it grew for the first time, at the Well of Zamzam; its inhabitants drinking its water.
> 
> I have had serious problems with finding a suitable English translation too.
> *
> _*Mecca in its early days grew around the Well of Zamzam, as its inhabitants drank  its water*_ (?)
> 
> *What the writer is essentially saying is..
> 
> Mecca from the very early days has sprung up around the Well of Zamzam, its water  providing the inhabitants the all important lifeline.
> *




I actually believe it should be مائها, since بئر is usually feminine. Of course, بئر has been somewhat unsure of its gender over time, so depending on the context, it could be مائه. Also, the ه could be referring to زمزم instead of بئر. In any case, I've changed my mind about it being صفة. Now it makes more sense as الحال. I would translate it:

نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئر زمزم يشرب سكانها من مائها

Mecca originally sprung up around around the Well of Zamzam, its population drinking from its water.

Hope that helps.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
> 
> _*I invited all my friends to a party [I was holding] at my parents' house but only two persons attended whom I hardly knew!
> 
> Do you agree with the translation? Literally it would be...a party which I am holding... but as the context from the first verb is in the past, I have translated as "..I was holding".*_



At first glance, this seemed like جلمة صفة, but now I'm thinking its الحال as well. I decided that after seeing لم يحضر. It cannot be a relative clause because the tenses would not be concordant. It is الحال (I think), but that translation would still be, "... party I was holding."

Sorry, I will try to stop being so indecisive.


----------



## Ustaath

It helped me


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ustaath said:


> It helped me



Glad to hear it!


----------



## Qureshpor

lukebeadgcf said:


> At first glance, this seemed like جلمة صفة, but now I'm thinking its الحال as well. I decided that after seeing لم يحضر. It cannot be a relative clause because the tenses would not be concordant. It is الحال (I think), but that translation would still be, "... party I was holding."
> 
> Sorry, I will try to stop being so indecisive.



_*If I am totally honest, I am still not completely satisfied with the structure and meaning of this sentence. Still seems more of a sifah than Haal.*_


----------



## Ustaath

could it be a حال implying
  لم يكن حاضرا الا شخصان
followed by a صفة
غريبان


----------



## rayloom

> دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
> 
> _*I invited all my friends to a party [I was holding] at my parents' house but only two persons attended whom I hardly knew!
> 
> *_و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
> 
> 
> _*and he knew that a thief's hand is cut and that Allah curses the  liar and he will punish him on the day of judgement, [casting him] into  the fire.
> 
> *_نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئر زمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
> 
> _*Mecca in its early days grew around the Well of Zamzam, as its inhabitants drank  its water*_ (?)


دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
أقيمها is a Sifah of waliima


و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
يدخله badal jumlah بدل جملة to a conjuction معطوف predicate يعذبه

نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
يشرب سكانها is a 7aal jumlah. No need for a waw 7aal because there is a pronoun (-haa) refers back to صاحب الحال.


----------



## rayloom

Ustaath said:


> could it be a حال implying
> لم يكن حاضرا الا شخصان
> followed by a صفة
> غريبان



The faa in front of lam is استئنافية, not a conjunction.
It starts a new syntax, albeit related.

حاضرا is a predicate of kaana
شخصان is the subject of kaana, the istithnaa2 here is negative and lacks the mustathna minhu, thus the nominative case of شخصان

If you add غريبان  then it's a Sifah of the subject of kaana شخصان


----------



## Ustaath

A rayloom: Je vous remercie pour vos contributions, now it makes more sense -


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
> أقيمها is a Sifah of waliima
> 
> 
> و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
> يدخله badal jumlah بدل جملة to a conjuction معطوف predicate يعذبه
> 
> نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
> يشرب سكانها is a 7aal jumlah. No need for a waw 7aal because there is a pronoun (-haa) refers back to صاحب الحال.



Would you be kind enough to provide me with an apt English translation of each sentence, please.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

rayloom said:


> دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
> أقيمها is a Sifah of waliima



But if it is a صفة, the tenses are not concordant. Can it be صفة and حال at the same time?


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> It's a khabar of a fi3l shuruu3.
> 
> Check this link here
> 
> Neither a Haal nor an "indefinite relative" (not sure what that is, can you mention the Arabic term for it?).



_*Surely you don't mean:

The girl began to eat some bread from me immediately?!
*_


----------



## rayloom

QURESHPOR said:


> Would you be kind enough to provide me with an apt English translation of each sentence, please.



Do you mean of the syntactic analysis?

أقيمها is a Sifah of waliima
English: Adjective of waliimah

 badal jumlah بدل جملة to a conjuction معطوف predicate 
English: Apposition (phrasal) ultimately to a predicate.

7aal jumlah. No need for a waw 7aal because there is a pronoun (-haa) refers back to صاحب الحال
English: It's an adverb (phrasal),...etc




> But if it is a صفة, the tenses are not concordant. Can it be صفة and حال at the same time?


The answer is actually grammatical and literary.

Grammatically أقيمها occuring as a Sifah of waliima, doesn't have to be concordant with the tenses of other verbs in the syntax.
You can say:
دعوتهم لوليمة أقمتها
دعوتهم لوليمة أقيمها
دعوتهم لوليمة سأقيمها

سأدعوهم لوليمة أقمتها
سأدعوهم لوليمة أقيمها
سأدعوهم لوليمة سأقيمها

Logically, since this was all in the past and is actually finished, as also appears from the following phrase, you'd expect it to be 
دعوتهم لوليمة أقمتهما فلم يحضر إلا شخصان
However, this is a literary style. Not sure if it was intended or not, it's not wrong, but has it's limits logically of course! And here it doesn't sound nor appear wrong in Arabic.
In English, you'd expect the past perfect to be used in the sentence, in Arabic no.
I invited them to a feast I had prepared...etc.


As for it being a 7aal, it has to describe the action of صاحب الحال doing the verb da3awtu to be considered a 7aal
دعوت أصدقائي كلهم وأنا أجهز الطعام لوليمة أقيمها
Here أقيمها remains the adjective of waliimah, وأنا أجهز الطعام is a 7aal.


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> Do you mean of the syntactic analysis?
> 
> أقيمها is a Sifah of waliima
> English: Adjective of waliimah
> 
> badal jumlah بدل جملة to a conjuction معطوف predicate
> English: Apposition (phrasal) ultimately to a predicate.
> 
> 7aal jumlah. No need for a waw 7aal because there is a pronoun (-haa) refers back to صاحب الحال
> English: It's an adverb (phrasal),...etc
> 
> 
> The answer is actually grammatical and literary.
> 
> Grammatically أقيمها occuring as a Sifah of waliima, doesn't have to be concordant with the tenses of other verbs in the syntax.
> You can say:
> دعوتهم لوليمة أقمتها
> دعوتهم لوليمة أقيمها
> دعوتهم لوليمة سأقيمها
> 
> سأدعوهم لوليمة أقمتها
> سأدعوهم لوليمة أقيمها
> سأدعوهم لوليمة سأقيمها
> 
> Logically, since this was all in the past and is actually finished, as also appears from the following phrase, you'd expect it to be
> دعوتهم لوليمة أقمتهما فلم يحضر إلا شخصان
> However, this is a literary style. Not sure if it was intended or not, it's not wrong, but has it's limits logically of course! And here it doesn't sound nor appear wrong in Arabic.
> In English, you'd expect the past perfect to be used in the sentence, in Arabic no.
> I invited them to a feast I had prepared...etc.
> 
> 
> As for it being a 7aal, it has to describe the action of صاحب الحال doing the verb da3awtu to be considered a 7aal
> دعوت أصدقائي كلهم وأنا أجهز الطعام لوليمة أقيمها
> Here أقيمها remains the adjective of waliimah, وأنا أجهز الطعام is a 7aal.



_*Sir, your scholarly explanations are much appreciated! If I may continue to test your patience...

How would you translate the three Arabic questions I posted?
*_


----------



## rayloom

QURESHPOR said:


> _*Sir, your scholarly explanations are much appreciated! If I may continue to test your patience...
> 
> How would you translate the three Arabic questions I posted?
> *_



Actually I'm going out in a bit, then returning home to sleep afterwards!
So unfortunately this is the last question I'll be answering tonight.

My translations:
دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
I invited all my friends to a feast I'm preparing in my parents house, but none showed up except for 2 persons I barely knew.
(Actually my memory is failing me with أقيم with this sense here, can't find the corresponding English word!)

و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
And he knew that the theif's hand is severed, and that the liar, God  damns him, and punishes him in the hereafter; He (God) throws him into  hell.

نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
Makkah arose when it first arose, at the well of zamzam, its inhabitants drinking from its water.


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> Actually I'm going out in a bit, then returning home to sleep afterwards!
> So unfortunately this is the last question I'll be answering tonight.
> 
> My translations:
> دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما
> I invited all my friends to a feast I'm preparing in my parents house, but none showed up except for 2 persons I barely knew.
> (Actually my memory is failing me with أقيم with this sense here, can't find the corresponding English word!)
> 
> و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
> And he knew that the theif's hand is severed, and that the liar, God  damns him, and punishes him in the hereafter; He (God) throws him into  hell.
> 
> نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من ماء
> Makkah arose when it first arose, at the well of zamzam, its inhabitants drinking from its water.



Thank you and I hope you managed to get some pleasant sleep! 

For sentence 1
دعوت أصدقائي  كلهم  إلى وليمة [أقيمها] في دار أبوي فلم يحضر إلا شخصان ما كدت أعرفهما

You have translated [أقيمها] as " I am preparing" which provides a present/future meaning. However, the invitation was in the *past* and no one* came *to it except two strangers.

How about:

I invited all of my friends to a banquet (which) *I was holding* at my parents' house but nobody attended except two persons whom I hardly knew.

Sentence 2

و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار

I have no problem with this sentence until I get to [يدخله]! I don't know how exactly to link it to what is before it. Even in your translation, this part does not flow smoothly.

Does this seem OK to you?

And he knew that a thief's hand is cut and that God curses the liar and will punish him on the day of judgement (by) casting him into the fire!

Sentence 3

نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من مائه  

Yes, thank you! I do understand the structure now.

نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم  و  سكانها يشربون من مائه  

=نشأت مكة أول ما نشأت عند بئرزمزم يشرب سكانها من مائه  

Mecca, in its early days, grew around the Zamzam well, as its inhabitants drank from its water


----------



## Qureshpor

Further to my last post, is there a difinitive way to segregate a sifah sentence from a Haal sentence?


----------



## rayloom

QURESHPOR said:


> Sentence 2
> 
> و علم أن السارق تقطع يده وأن الكاذب يلعنه الله ويعذبه يوم الدين [يدخله] النار
> 
> I have no problem with this sentence until I get to [يدخله]! I don't know how exactly to link it to what is before it. Even in your translation, this part does not flow smoothly.
> 
> Does this seem OK to you?
> 
> And he knew that a thief's hand is cut and that God curses the liar and will punish him on the day of judgement (by) casting him into the fire!



It doesn't seem ok, neither in Arabic, nor in English.
I would add a waw in front of يدخله. Just for the flow!

It might be because it's artificial, formed just to make a point in a grammar book.
This is a problem I'm starting to see in some grammar books!




QURESHPOR said:


> Further to my last post, is there a difinitive way to segregate a sifah sentence from a Haal sentence?



Tough question!!

General tip, whenever you're met with a sentence in the middle of the syntax, try to replace that sentence with a single word, and see what happens.
Also you can try to manipulate the sentence.

I guess read more into grammar. Maybe it's time to get an Arabic grammar book. (with you're level, I don't think it's gonna be a tough read, maybe even easier than reading about Arabic grammar in English!)


----------



## Qureshpor

I am surprised that you feel that my English sentence does n't flow.

How about, for the last part...

...God will punish him [casting him] into the fire. 

[يدخله]

Regarding, artificial Arabic sentences, some of these have come from G.M.Wicken's "Arabic Grammar-A First Workbook". Wickens, may God bless his soul, in his introduction says.."Virtually all the Arabic passages, short or long, are real, not made-up material".

As a matter of interest, what Arabic grammar book in English would you recommend?


----------



## rayloom

Not your English translation per se. I meant trying to literally translate it to English (my translation before) wouldn't also flow.
Your translation actually manipulates it changing the meaning a bit.
Onee could simply also say in Arabic:
ويعذبه يوم الدين بإدخاله النار
But that won't be the same thing now would it?

I can recommend an online book called 
الموجز في قواعد اللغة العربية
http://www.islamguiden.com/arabi/

Quite short and not detailed, has loads of examples.
Check it out and read a couple of chapters. And let me know what you think.


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> Not your English translation per se. I meant trying to literally translate it to English (my translation before) wouldn't also flow.
> Your translation actually manipulates it changing the meaning a bit.
> Onee could simply also say in Arabic:
> ويعذبه يوم الدين بإدخاله النار
> But that won't be the same thing now would it?
> 
> I can recommend an online book called
> الموجز في قواعد اللغة العربية
> http://www.islamguiden.com/arabi/
> 
> Quite short and not detailed, has loads of examples.
> Check it out and read a couple of chapters. And let me know what you think.



Thank you, but I did say "in English" An Afghan writing an Arabic grammar book! I should n't be surprised really. Most of the top Arabic, Persian and Urdu grammar books are written by English and German scholars.


----------



## rayloom

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you, but I did say "in English" An Afghan writing an Arabic grammar book! I should n't be surprised really. Most of the top Arabic, Persian and Urdu grammar books are written by English and German scholars.



I haven't actually read an Arabic grammar books written in English to be honest. So I can't really recommend any certain book. 

And if I were you, I'd wait until I actually read an Arabic grammar book (written in Arabic) before making such a claim as yours when it comes to Arabic grammar.


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> I haven't actually read an Arabic grammar books written in English to be honest. So I can't really recommend any certain book.
> 
> And if I were you, I'd wait until I actually read an Arabic grammar book (written in Arabic) before making such a claim as yours when it comes to Arabic grammar.



Yes, indeed. Point well made and taken with humility.


----------



## إسكندراني

Qureshpor, سعيد الأفغاني is just his name, apparently he's syrian.
(Just noticed it says so on the original page too, oops!)


----------



## Qureshpor

رأیته و یخرج من البیت

I saw him going out of the house.

This example is found in "A New Approach to Arabic" - by Nacereddine (page 54)

http://anacereddine.com/Arabic_Grammar___Exercises.PDF

Is this example correct? I feel there should be no "و".


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> رأیته و یخرج من البیت
> 
> I saw him going out of the house.
> 
> This example is found in "A New Approach to Arabic" - by Nacereddine (page 54)
> 
> http://anacereddine.com/Arabic_Grammar___Exercises.PDF


رَأيَتُهُ يَخْرُجُ مِنْ اَلْبَيْتِ



Qureshpor said:


> I feel there should be no "و".


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you @Romeel for your response. It is much appreciated.


----------



## mahfuz1966

Qureshpor said:


> *aKhadzti_lbintu minnii Khubz-an ta'kuluhu 'alaa_lfaur*
> 
> The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.
> 
> The girl took some bread from me which she eats immediately
> 
> Is the above sentence "Haal" or "Indefinite relative"?
> 
> *aKhadzti_lbintu minnii Khubz-an akalathu 'alaa_lfaur*
> 
> The girl took some bread from me which she ate immediately
> 
> What is the difference in the two Arabic setences?


أخذت البنت مني خبزا تأكله على الفور
 تأكله حال و ليس مفعول​ *aKhadzti = Took*
is  not from Af3al ashuru3...it need Haal

because: fi3l ashuru3 has differ mean it need object
*aKhadzti = start*

e.g: *aKhadzti tabki = she start crying*


----------



## Qureshpor

mahfuz1966 said:


> أخذت البنت مني خبزا تأكله على الفور
> تأكله حال و ليس مفعول​ *aKhadzti = Took*
> is  not from Af3al ashuru3...it need Haal
> 
> because: fi3l ashuru3 has differ mean it need object
> *aKhadzti = start*
> 
> e.g: *aKhadzti tabki = she start crying*


I thought that for a Haal, the اسم needs to be معروف. But here خبزاً is نکرہ and therefore تأكله is the صفة.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Qureshpor said:


> رأیته و یخرج من البیت
> 
> I saw him going out of the house.
> 
> This example is found in "A New Approach to Arabic" - by Nacereddine (page 54)
> 
> http://anacereddine.com/Arabic_Grammar___Exercises.PDF
> 
> Is this example correct? I feel there should be no "و".


I came across an old discussion, do you remember that : #14 and #15...




Qureshpor said:


> I thought that for a Haal, the اسم needs to be معروف. But here خبزاً is نکرہ and therefore تأكله is the صفة.


If you have patience, there is this long discussion which contains several information and rules: فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

- Otherwise I would also say that the sentence تأكله is adjective of خبزاً, moreover the pronoun ه in تأكله is called الضمير العائد or الضمير الراجع.

- If we consider that the sentence is Haal then I suppose that the sahibul-haal would be the word al-bintu but in this case, I find that there is a synchronization problem as in the example (see :#31, #32, #35 ...) of which I have given the link above :

About the haal, we know : الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل
I think this part : عند وقوع الفعل is one of the important differences between the adjective and the haal.

If we apply this to the sentence it would mean that the two actions ("she took" and "she eats") are performed at the same time ...


----------



## mahfuz1966

Qureshpor said:


> I thought that for a Haal, the اسم needs to be معروف. But here خبزاً is نکرہ and therefore تأكله is the صفة.


على أنت على صواب
ليس حالا و إنما صفة
فالجمل بعد النكرات صفات
شكرا لك و تقبل عذري​


----------



## Ibn Nacer

mahfuz1966 said:


> على أنت على صواب
> ليس حالا و إنما صفة
> فالجمل بعد النكرات صفات
> شكرا لك و تقبل عذري​



In the discussion thread that I quoted in the previous message we discussed this rule (#11) : الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال but there are exceptions, an undefined noun can be a sahibu-l-haal under certain conditions* (#27,#47...).

* however it seems that سيبويه allowed this without condition :



cherine said:


> From the same surat, verse 20: وجاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَقْصَى المَدِينَةِ يَسْعَى.
> Here the sentence يسعى is also an adjective of رجل. And, again, some grammarians say that it can be considered a 7aal:
> قوله: {يَسْعَىٰ}: يجوزُ أَنْ يكونَ صفةً، وأَنْ يكونَ حالاً؛ لأنَّ النكرةَ قد تَخَصَّصَتْ بالوصفِ بقولِه: {مِّنْ أَقْصَى ٱلْمَدِينَةِ} فإن جَعَلتْ "مِنْ أَقْصَى" متعلقاً بـ"جاء" فـ"يَسْعَى" صفةٌ ليس إلاَّ. قاله الزمخشريُّ، بناءً منه على مذهب الجمهورِ وقد تقدَّم/ *أنَّ سيبويه يجيز ذلك مِنْ غيرِ شرطٍ*.
> (source) (In case the link doesn't work, it's الدر المصون، للحلبي).


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> I came across an old discussion, do you remember that : #14 and #15...


Thank you for the reminder @Ibn Nacer. The partial consensus there was that this type of construction was acceptable amongst Classical Arabic grammarians but in the Modern Standard Arabic this is not acceptable. If this is the case, why would in modern times, an Arab writing a grammar book in English, include a sentence such as رأیته و یخرج من البیت?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> In the discussion thread that I quoted in the previous message we discussed this rule (#11) : الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال but there are exceptions, an undefined noun can be a sahibu-l-haal under certain conditions* (#27,#47...).
> 
> * however it seems that سيبويه allowed this without condition :


Thank you @ Ibn Nacer: I know we are splitting hairs when we say تأكله is a صفة and حال.

أخذت البنت مني خبزا تأكله على الفور

أخذت = فاعل

البنت = فاعل

مني = جار مجرور متعلق بفعل أخذت

خبزا = مفعول به = موصوف

تأكله = فعل و فاعل و مفعول = صفة

على الفور = جار مجرور متعلق بفعل تأکل

If تأكله is to be taken as صفة, then the translation can be..

The girl took some bread from me which she ate immediately.

If تأكله is to be taken as حال, then the translation can be..

The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.

I'll personally go for the first option.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Qureshpor said:


> If تأكله is to be taken as صفة, then the translation can be..
> 
> The girl took some bread from me which she ate immediately.
> 
> If تأكله is to be taken as حال, then the translation can be..
> 
> The girl took some bread from me eating it immediately.
> 
> I'll personally go for the first option.



I also prefer the first option.

With haal option, the simultaneity bothers me a little: "She took bread" and at the same time "she ate this bread"?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> In the discussion thread that I quoted in the previous message we discussed this rule (#11) : الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال but there are exceptions, an undefined noun can be a sahibu-l-haal under certain conditions* (#27,#47...).
> 
> * however it seems that سيبويه allowed this without condition :


I've had another look into my notes and it appears there are many situations when the ذوالحال can be indefinite (نکرة).

1. When حال is before ذوالحال

جاءني راکباً رجلاً

2. When ذوالحال is نکرة موصوفة.

جاءھم کتاب من عند الله مصدّقاً لّما معھم

3. When it is a مضاف to a نکرة

جاءنی غلامُ رجل راکباً

4) After حرف نفی and حرف نھی

ما جاءني رجل راکباً

لا یدخل أحد قاعة الامتحان حاملاً حقیبةً

5) After حرف استفھام

ھل أتاک رجل راکباً

6) After و that is followed by a جملة اسمیة

جاءنی ولد و ھو یبکي

7) و صلّی وراہ رجال قیاماً (I haven't got a subtitle written down for this).


----------

