# هو يكتب، يكتب هو (emphasis توكيد)



## Qureshpor

Could you please tell me the difference in emphasis achieved in the following simple sentences.

1) yaktabu (He is writing/He wites)...neutral sentence


2) huwa yaktabu


3) yaktabu huwa

What is the additional effect achieved with 2 &3?


----------



## Josh_

As you noted adding the pronoun before the conjugated verb just emphasizes who is doing the action of the verb; specifying one person as opposed to others.

As for the placement of the pronoun after the verb I'd almost think that that is more emphatic than placing it before since, if a pronoun were going to be placed at all to emphasize the verb one would most likely expect it to come before the verb. However, that just might just a little L1 inrterference on my part, that is, I might be letting the fact that in English (my native language) pronouns come before the verb, influence my understanding of Arabic.

Also, of the times I can recall hearing examples, by native speakers, of a pronoun used with a verb for emphatic purposes from, it has almost always been used after the verb, and there was a rising intonation of voice on the pronoun indicating emphasis:

la, la! ma-katabitsh il-gawaab _hiyya_, katab-u _huwwa_! 
(Using Egytptian Arabic as I have never heard this type of structure said in MSA.)

Hopefully you get what I mean. If I could attach an audio file I would, but I don't know how.


----------



## Qureshpor

Would it be correct to say therefore that the degree of emphasis increases from 1-3?


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> Would it be correct to say therefore that the degree of emphasis increases from 1-3?



I'm not sure, but I guess I'm leaning towards that statement.


----------



## Josh_

I'm not sure either.  It is hard to say.  That seems like it might be the case in Egyptian (judging from my experience), but my evidence is anecdotal.

The situation may differ from dialect to dialect.

I also am not sure about MSA


----------



## Serafín33

Well, cross-linguistically there's a good tendency that information towards the end of the sentence is both new to the listener and generally with greater emphasis than the rest, so I'd also tend to think that 3.) is the one with greater emphasis on the subject.

(But this is only a tendency, and there's other things involved in this way of thinking. Does your listener know he is writing already? Does your listener know it was him, but didn't know what he was doing? Or maybe the whole thing is new to your listener. (—yi3mil 2eeh? —huwwa yiktib) Maybe you're even emphasizing a part of the sentence already (—_yiktib_ huwwa? —_yiktib_ huwwa!)... All of this could affect the "emphasization" of a word.)


----------



## Qureshpor

Gratitude is due to you all for your time and effort.


----------



## Ustaath

It is not easy to answer this question as mentioned before - 
there is no rule as to which sentence gives more emphases standing on its own, however we can generalize loosely and say :

Sentence 3 can be used to be poetic - i.e for stylistic reasons

Sentence 3 can also be emphasizing the verb since it comes first


----------



## Qureshpor

Just continuing with this thread, and comparing what I have been asking with what is on page 6 of this link دروس في اللغة العربية ~ التوابع.....

Is it not true to say that the ھو in کتب ھو is التّوکید pronoun. If this is the case, then is there any difference in the degree of emphasis obtained between:

کتب ھو and ھو کتب?

In other words, which ھو imparts more emphasis? Is it possible to differentiate the two when translating in English?


----------



## cherine

Here's how I see this (confirmations and/or corrections are welcome):

هو كتب is a nominal sentence where هو is a مبتدأ and كتب is a جملة فعلية (من الفعل كتب والفاعل ضمير مستتر تقديره هو) في محل رفع خير , so no emphasis here.
كتب هو here we have a verb كتب and its subject is a ضمير مستتر تقديره هو, then we have a second huwa that works as a توكيد لفظي. So كتب هو is the structure that has emphasis.

As for the translation, maybe:
هو كتب he wrote
كتب هو he is the one who wrote. Or: it's him who wrote.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you cherine for the clarification.

In کتب of ھو کتب, there is still ضمير مستتر تقديره هو, is n't there? So, in theory for ھو کتب don't we get , "He, he wrote". So, don't the two "hes" end up in some form of emphasis?


----------



## cherine

As far as I know, a توكيد comes after the مُؤَكَّد not before it. This is why كتب هو is the sentence with emphasis not هو كتب. But even if we consider the two pronouns in هو كتب as emphasis, it doesn't feel as "emphatic" as كتب هو which follows the rule of forming التوكيد.

But like I said, if someone has a more accurate understanding or correction of my posts, I'd be glad to learn it as well.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you cherine. Much appreciated.


----------



## cherine

You're welcome.


----------



## Sun-Shine

cherine said:


> هو كتب is a nominal sentence where هو is a مبتدأ and كتب is a جملة فعلية (من الفعل كتب والفاعل ضمير مستتر تقديره هو) في محل رفع خير , so no emphasis here.


Agree.



cherine said:


> كتب هو here we have a verb كتب and its subject is a ضمير مستتر تقديره هو, then we have a second huwa that works as a توكيد لفظي. So كتب هو is the structure that has emphasis.


لست متأكدة إذا ما كان يلزم ذكر المؤكَّد قبل الفعل أم لا مثل: وليد كتب هو الدرس
 ،حيث "هو" توكيد
أما إن قلنا "كتب هو الدرس" فلا أدري إن كان "هو" توكيد أم لا ، حيث أن الضمير في حالة "كتب الدرس" هو ضمير 
مستتر جوازًا وليس وجوبًا ، أما في حالة الفعل الأمر مثل "اكتب" أو الفعل المضارع "نكتب" فإن الضمير بعدهما يكون توكيد
"اكتب أنت" /" نكتب نحن"


----------



## Qureshpor

Can we have your response in English please, if possible at all.


----------



## Sun-Shine

I'm not sure if the emphasized word must be mentioned before the verb or not as:
"*وليد* كتب هو الدرس "
Here, "هو" is توكيد
but if we say كتب هو الدرس without وليد mentioned before then I'm not sure if "هو" is توكيد or not in this case.
On the other hand, in the imperative as "اكتب"
or the present with we as "نكتب" , the pronoun after them is ,of course, توكيد:
"اكتب أنت" / "نكتب نحن"


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you for the English translation. Please take a look at page 6 of the link provided in post 9 where we have a similar example to کتب ھو, i.e حضر ھو under the heading of توكيد الضمائر المتصلة والمستترة.

Secondly, I don't understand why the pronoun after the imperative and present tense is accepted as providing emphasis but not when a pronoun follows the past tense as in کتب ھو.


----------



## Sun-Shine

I saw it and if you noticed,the examples were:
*"عليٌّ* ، اعترف هو بخطئه" 
*"سهادُ* ، تقودُ هي السيارةَ"
The emphasized word was mentioned before the verb.

الضمير المستتر has two types:
ضمير مستتر وجوبًا (obligatory)
and ضمير مستتر جوازًا (not obligatory)

وجوبًا means that you can't replace the pronoun with a noun as:
اكتب الدرس and "نلعب الكرة"
We can't say "اكتب وليد الدرس" 
Or نكتب الكاتبون" الدرس" 
So, the subject of "اكتب الدرس" and "نكتب الدرس" is 
"ضمير مستتر تقديره "نحن"/"أنت
Then if we put the pronoun then it is توكيد
"نكتب نحن"  and "اكتب أنت"

جوازًا means that we can replace the pronoun with a noun as: "يلعب الكرة"
We can say "يلعب وليد الكرة"
so the subject is "وليد" and we can replace it with "هو"
So, if we put the pronoun "هو" ,it's like we just replaced the noun وليد ,the subject, with the pronoun.
Then ,is "هو" a subject or توكيد ?
Really, I don't know.


----------



## Qureshpor

Summarising the two latest responses.

@cherine

In کتب ھو, emphasis provided by ھو is greater than the emphasis (if any) provided by ھو in ھو کتب since the latter is a nominal sentence and التوکید pronoun must follow the verb.

@sun_shine 331995

She is not certain if کتب ھو on its own imparts the التّوکید. In her view کتب ھو needs to have an agent/subject before the verb, e.g ولید کتب ھو الدّرسَ

Any further views please on whether

a) کتب ھو is an example of a pronoun used to impart التّوکید and

b) The above is more emphatic than ھو کتب

I have been told that ھو کتب indicates greater emphasis compared with کتب ھو . I am confused and I need a bit of clarity please.

My own understanding so far is that:

کتب means "He wrote" and no more!

ھو کتب implies "He wrote" (and not she/they/I/We etc)

کتب ھو "*He* wrote".


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> As far as I know, a توكيد comes after the مُؤَكَّد not before it. This is why كتب هو is the sentence with emphasis not هو كتب. But even if we consider the two pronouns in هو كتب as emphasis, it doesn't feel as "emphatic" as كتب هو which follows the rule of forming التوكيد.
> 
> But like I said, if someone has a more accurate understanding or correction of my posts, I'd be glad to learn it as well.


Cherine, I believe your explanation is absolutely correct. Examples 1, 7 and 8 are on the same lines as کتب ھو in the link below which has further explanation below the examples for توكيد الضمير المتصل والمستتر بالضمائر المنفصلة.

ص390 - كتاب النحو الواضح في قواعد اللغة العربية - توكيد الضمير المتصل والمستتر - المكتبة الشاملة الحديثة

Thank you once again. It's all clear now.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Thank you for sharing this link.
I want to indicate something:
I didn't mean that كتب هو is a sentence with no emphasis at all.
I was talking about the إعراب of the pronoun هو if it's توكيد or فاعل.


----------



## Qureshpor

Just a further question on this topic.

We can have:

کتب الرّجلُ The man wrote

کتب الرجلان The two men wrote

کتب الرجال The men wrote

Or we can have:

الرجل کتب

الرجلان کتبا

الرجال کتبوا

For the latter set, we can replace the subject/mubtada with pronound.

ھو کتب

ھما کتبا

ھم کتبوا

My question is this. Can we do the same with the first set? Can we replace the faa3il with pronouns as in:

کتب ھو

کتب ھما

کتب ھم


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> As far as I know, a توكيد comes after the مُؤَكَّد not before it. This is why كتب هو is the sentence with emphasis not هو كتب. But even if we consider the two pronouns in هو كتب as emphasis, it doesn't feel as "emphatic" as كتب هو which follows the rule of forming التوكيد.
> 
> But like I said, if someone has a more accurate understanding or correction of my posts, I'd be glad to learn it as well.


Hi Cherine, here is an example from the Qur'an of هو كتب type of sentence.

قَالُوا أَ*أَنتَ فَعَلْتَ* هَٰذَا بِآلِهَتِنَا يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ

Would you agree there is emphasis on "you"?

A couple of examples of کتب ھو type.

_فَإِذَا* اسْتَوَيْتَ *_*أَنتَ* _وَمَن_ مَّعَكَ عَلَى الْفُلْكِ فَقُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي نَجَّانَا مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ

_*كنت أنت* الرقيب_ عليهم

You have stated there is emphasis in this type of construction.

So we have two situations with the pronoun before and after the verb. Is the emphasis being provided the same or is one more emphatic than the other construction?


----------



## cherine

Hello and sorry for the late reply,


Qureshpor said:


> My question is this. Can we do the same with the first set? Can we replace the faa3il with pronouns as in:
> 
> کتب ھو
> 
> کتب ھما
> 
> کتب ھم


No, we can't. The verb should change to be in accord with الفاعل, so كتبتُ أنا، كتبَ هو، كتبَتْ هي، كتبا هما، كتبوا هم...



Qureshpor said:


> here is an example from the Qur'an of هو كتب type of sentence.
> 
> قَالُوا أَ*أَنتَ فَعَلْتَ* هَٰذَا بِآلِهَتِنَا يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ
> 
> Would you agree there is emphasis on "you"?


We need to wait for the opinion of someone more knowledgeable, but I don't think this is an emphasis because you can't emphasize something that you didn't mention before.
Here's an analysis of a similar structure, in the verse 116 of سورة المائدة (5):

وَإِذْ قَالَ ٱللَّهُ يٰعِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ ٱتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَـٰهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ
from the book الدر المصون of الحلبي:

قوله: {أَأَنتَ قُلتَ} دَخَلَتِ الهمزةُ على المبتدأ لفائدةٍ ذكرها أهل البيان وهو: أن الفعلَ إذا عُلِم وجودُه وشُكَّ في نسبته إلى شخص، أُولِي الاسمُ المشكوكُ في نسبة الفعل إليه للهمزة فيقال: "أأنت ضرب زيداً؟". فَضَرْبُ زيدٍ قد صدر في الوجود وإنما شُكَّ في نسبته إلى المخاطب، وإنْ شُكَّ في اصل وقوع الفعل أُولِي الفعلُ للهمزة فيقال: "أضربْتَ زيداً" لم تَقْطَعْ بوقوعِ الضرب بل شَكَكْتَ فيه، والحاصل: أنَّ الهمزةَ يليها المشكوك فيه،

So yes, it's a kind of emphasis of the meaning: whether we need to emphasize the action or the doer, which information we need to check, and which part is more important. But it's not a grammatical emphasis. ليس توكيدًا لفظيًا ولا معنويًا. At least as far as I understand.


> A couple of examples of کتب ھو type.
> 
> _فَإِذَا* اسْتَوَيْتَ *_*أَنتَ* _وَمَن_ مَّعَكَ عَلَى الْفُلْكِ فَقُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي نَجَّانَا مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ
> 
> _*كنت أنت* الرقيب_ عليهم
> 
> You have stated there is emphasis in this type of construction.
> 
> So we have two situations with the pronoun before and after the verb. Is the emphasis being provided the same or is one more emphatic than the other construction?


Like I said, التوكيد should follow المؤكَّد (the element being emphasized) not precede it. So, yes, we have two different situations.

I hope someone would correct me if I'm mistaken.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you Cherine, for the detailed response. Much appreciated.


----------



## Ghabi

Qureshpor said:


> A couple of examples of کتب ھو type.
> 
> _فَإِذَا* اسْتَوَيْتَ *_*أَنتَ* _وَمَن_ مَّعَكَ عَلَى الْفُلْكِ فَقُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي نَجَّانَا مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ


It's not about emphasis in this type of sentence. We have two logical subjects here ("you and those with you"), but we can't just say *اسْتَوَيْتَ وَمَن مَّعَكَ. We have to add an "explicit" pronoun (أَنتَ) here; otherwise it sounds wrong. For example, "you and your friends left" would be انطلقت أنت وأصدقاؤك. I hope I'm making sense.


----------



## cherine

I think dropping the pronoun here just gives a slightly different meaning:
انطلقتَ وأصدقاءك you and your friends went. And here the waaw is a واو المعية indicating the you did something _with_ your friends. While انطلقتَ أنت وأصدقاؤك, here it's a واو العطف and the meaning is that both you _and_ your friends left.


----------



## Ghabi

cherine said:


> انطلقتَ وأصدقاءك you and your friends went


I'm really surprised by this, Cherine ... my understanding has always been that an explicit pronoun is obligatory when we have two agents and one of them is a pronoun ...  Just to check my understanding: if one is to translate, for example, "he and his wife died in New York", you find it acceptable to say مات وزوجته في نيويورك?


----------



## cherine

To my ears and eyes used to modern usage, I would find it strange, but I think it's not incorrect.
Does a rule say that we have to use a ضمير منفصل for such structures? I really can't remember.


----------



## Ghabi

I think in modern Arabic واو المعية is only used with a few verbs like اتّفق (do you remember others by the way?), so انطلقتَ وأصدقاءك looks strange to me.

And in classical Arabic, a structure like فعلتُ وعبدُ الله is deemed "ugly" (يقبح). But based on you said above, this may be acceptable in contemporary Arabic?

How do you say in Egyptian, for example (to your brother), "Leave, you and your friends!"? I think you'd add a pronoun?


----------



## cherine

Ghabi said:


> I think in modern Arabic واو المعية is only used with a few verbs like اتّفق (do you remember others by the way?), so انطلقتَ وأصدقاءك looks strange to me.


This actually looks right to me because we can replace the waaw with مع and the meaning would remain the same: انطلقتَ مع أصدقائك.
I went back to my school grammar book (so it's a bit simplified, but I hope it didn't miss something important) it says:

المفعول معه: اسم منصوب يُذكر بعد واو بمعنى (مع) للدلالة على ما فُعل الفعل بمصاحبته، مثل:
استيقظتُ وطلوعَ الفجر، يغني المطربُ وإيقاعَ الموسيقى


Ghabi said:


> And in classical Arabic, a structure like فعلتُ وعبدُ الله is deemed "ugly" (يقبح). But based on you said above, this may be acceptable in contemporary Arabic?


Actually, I don't think واو المعية is used commonly in contemporary Arabic, it's (almost) always مع itself that is used.


Ghabi said:


> How do you say in Egyptian, for example (to your brother), "Leave, you and your friends!"? I think you'd add a pronoun?


Yes, definitely. It's either امشِ انت واصحابك or امشِ مع اصحابك.

And, back to my grammar book, from the chapter about العطف على الضمير there is:

يُعطف [الضمير] على الضمير المتصل المرفوع والمستتر، وحينئذ يُفصل بين المعطوف والمعطوف عليه بضمير منفصل، أو بفاصل ما، مثل قوله تعالي: وقلنا يا آدمُ اسكُنْ أنتَ وزوجُك الجنة
ما أشركنا ولا آباؤنا
أسرعتُ أنا والكشّاف لإنقاذ الغريق
فإذا كان العطف على ضمير متصل محله النصب أو الجر لم يحتج إلى فاصل، مثل: أقدرك وأخاك لأنكما مثال الإخلاص، إنما كان تقديري لك وأخيك لأنكما مثال الإخلاص. ويجوز في حالة الجر إعادة حرف الجر مع المعطوف أو عدم إعادته. مثل: إنما كان تقديري لك ولأخيك لأنكما مثال الإخلاص


----------



## Ghabi

cherine said:


> وقلنا يا آدمُ اسكُنْ أنتَ وزوجُك الجنة


Yeah ... that's why I said the pronoun is obligatory (not for emphasis) in this type of sentence in post#27 ... but I must have expressed myself clumsily ... sorry.


----------



## cherine

No, it's me expressed myself clumsily. I forgot to say that you we were right and that what I found in the book confirms what you said.
Sorry.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ghabi said:


> Yeah ... that's why I said the pronoun is obligatory (not for emphasis) in this type of sentence in post#27 ... but I must have expressed myself clumsily ... sorry.


The following sentence in Linguaphone's "duruusun fi_l3arabiyyah" occurs..

ابعث لکَ سلامی و تحیّتی و ارجو ان تکون والاسرۃ بخیر

I expected انتَ after تکون


----------

