# لم يرزقنا الله مثلكم عيون القطط



## lena55313

Hi, I doubt what case takes the عيون in the sentence .
My guess:
1. لَمْ يَرْزُقْنَا اللهُ مِثْلَكُمْ عُيُونَ الْقِطَطِ - the مِثْلَكُمْ  is an adjective for the عُيُونَ الْقِطَطِ and both take the accusative. What I doubt is if it's possible to place the adjective before the noun.
2.  لَمْ يَرْزُقْنَا اللهُ مِثْلَكُمْ عُيُونِ الْقِطَطِ - the مِثْلَكُمْ عُيُونِ الْقِطَطِ is a long idafa where the عُيُونِ is in the genitive. 
Can anybody help? Thank you in advance.


----------



## elroy

2 is not possible.  -كم cannot be a مضاف.


----------



## lena55313

elroy said:


> -كم cannot be a مضاف.


Thank you for this information. I didn't know it. 
But what is the *مثلكم *in my sentence? 
I found only one example in the Wright's in which the *مثل* is put before the noun: لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ 
And I found this thread where the *مثل *acts like an adjective and is put after its noun. 
And I read in the Wehr dictionary that besides the noun ٌ*مثل *there is a preposition َ*مثل * 
But all these examples don't look exactly like mine.


----------



## Sun-Shine

لَمْ يَرْزُقْنَا اللهُ مِثْلَكُمْ عُيُونَ الْقِطَطِ :
مثلكم is an object
عيون is an adjective(نعت) or substitute (بدل)

لم يرزقنا الله عيون القطط مثلكم:
عيون is an object
مثلكم is a substitute (بدل)


----------



## cherine

I'm not sure about the i3raab of مثلكم, but عيون is definitely a مفعول به ثانٍ as the verb رزق takes 2 objects فِعل ينصب مفعولين. The first object is نا in the verb يرزقنا (gave _us_) and the second object is عيونَ. And the placement doesn't change this: in both لم يرزقنا عيونَ القطط مثلكم and لم يرزقنا مثلكم عيون القطط the word عيون is the second object of the verb.

P.S. كم in مثلكم is a مضاف إليه.


----------



## Sun-Shine

cherine said:


> I'm not sure about the i3raab of مثلكم, but عيون is definitely a مفعول به ثانٍ as the verb رزق takes 2 objects فِعل ينصب مفعولين.


If I say لم يرزقنا الله مثلكم it's a complete sentence so مثلكم is the second object.
but in لم يرزقنا الله عيون القطط, the second object is عيون
Sometimes, rephrasing the sentence changes the i3raab.


lena55313 said:


> Hi, I doubt what case takes the عيون in the sentence .


More context, please.
It can be something else.


----------



## cherine

sun_shine 331995 said:


> If I say لم يرزقنا الله مثلكم it's a complete sentence so مثلكم is the second object.


Changing the word order is not the same thing as removing parts of the sentence. If we change the order and say لم يرزقنا مثلكم عيون القطط, how would you parce 3uyuun?


> More context, please.
> It can be something else.


More context is always welcome, but I don't see how it could affect the parcing of this full sentence.


----------



## Sun-Shine

cherine said:


> More context is always welcome, but I don't see how it could affect the parcing of this full sentence.


I asked for help and was told that i3raab plus:
الرفع على القطع والنصب على النداء (I don't know what that means).


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> More context, please.


The man from the village complained that people from big cities can't see in the darkness. And after that the boy said this phrase. I translated it as: The God didn't give us eyes similar to your cat-like eyes.


----------



## Abbe

sun_shine 331995 said:


> I asked for help and was told that i3raab plus:
> الرفع على القطع والنصب على النداء (I don't know what that means).



الرفع على القطع means that it is a new sentence, in this case it could be with an omitted khabr  لديكم عيون القطط or something similar.

النصب على النداء means that there is يا النداء before عيون
يا عيونَ القططِ


----------



## Sun-Shine

Abbe said:


> الرفع على القطع means that it is a new sentence, in this case it could be with an omitted khabr  لديكم عيون القطط or something similar.


Thank you


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> The man from the village complained that people from big cities can't see in the darkness. And after that the boy said this phrase. I translated it as: The God didn't give us eyes similar to your cat-like eyes.


I guess:
لَمْ يَرْزُقْنَا اللهُ مِثْلَكُمْ عُيُونَ الْقِطَطِ 
مثلكم is an object
عيون is a substitute (بدل)


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> مثلكم is an object
> عيون is a substitute (بدل)


For me neither مثلكم nor عيون  look like (بدل). I've just read about the بدل  and what I understood was that the substitute stands after the noun and explains its meaning or adds some new information about the noun, e.g. حَضَرَ مُحَمَّدٌ خَالُكَ Muhammad, your uncle, was present, where the خَالُكَ explains who مُحَمَّدٌ is. 
But in my sentence, if we considered مثلكم as an object and عيون as its substitute we'd get: The God didn't give us your similarity (and then comes the explanation what the similarity is) cat's eyes. Similarity=eyes. If it was your similarity then the question comes: your similarity to what? But the meaning of my sentence definitely is "eyes like cat's eyes", it comes from the context.

Sun_shine, what do you think about the variant where the مثلكم is a preposition, like لديكم ? There is something *with *us - there is something *like* we. لديكم شَيْءٌ  -  مِثْلَكم شَيْءٌ 
And check the example, please, that I took from the Wright's لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ  
the بدل should follow the noun, but here كَمِثْلِهِ  is in genitive but شَيْءٌ  is in nominative.


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> For me neither مثلكم nor عيون  look like (بدل). I've just read about the بدل


I will ask and search more about this again.


> and what I understood was that the substitute stands after the noun and explains its meaning or adds some new information about the noun, e.g. حَضَرَ مُحَمَّدٌ خَالُكَ Muhammad, your uncle, was present, where the خَالُكَ explains who مُحَمَّدٌ is.


The substitute has 3 or 4 types and حَضَرَ مُحَمَّدٌ خَالُكَ is one of its types.


> Sun_shine, what do you think about the variant where the مثلكم is a preposition, like لديكم ? There is something *with *us - there is something *like* we. لديكم شَيْءٌ  -  مِثْلَكم شَيْءٌ


I need the context or the complete sentence.


> And check the example, please, that I took from the Wright's لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ
> the بدل should follow the noun, but here كَمِثْلِهِ  is in genitive but شَيْءٌ  is in nominative.


ليس: one of kaana's sisters (أخوات كان)
شيء is اسم ليس
كـمثله :
كـ is حرف جر زائد
مثله is خبر ليس
It's common for خبر ليس to attach to a preposition called حرف جر زائد


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> I will ask and search more about this again.


Yes, could you please ask the person you ask about this: 
the main reason for me that مثلكم seems to be "your similarity" and not the "our similarity to you" Maybe I'm wrong. But if it means what I think it means, where is then the object of "your similarity"? Your similarity to what? 
The God didn't give us your cat-like eyes. We could say: he didn't give us our similarity to you. But here it is said (if we consider the مثلكم  as an object) he didn't give us your similarity (but to whom they are similar?) Your similarity sounds odd to me.


----------



## AndyRoo

Hi, Your translation is not quite right, it should be something like:
God didn't give us cats' eyes like [he gave] you.


----------



## lena55313

AndyRoo said:


> God didn't give us cats' eyes like [he gave] you.


And what would be the مثلكم then? I can't catch the difference between the preposition َمثل and the noun ٌمثل. In the Wehr dictionary both of them mean "something like something"



sun_shine 331995 said:


> I need the context or the complete sentence.


Sorry, I can't give the context. I thought up those examples myself to demonstrate the similarity in their constructions which I've seen. They are only my guess. And I cannot yet make long sentences))) Maybe these would be the complete ones:  هل لديكم شَيْءٌ Do you have something? (literally: if *with* you a thing?) هل مِثْلَكم شَيْءٌ If there is anything like you (literally: if *like* you a thing) Both sentences are almost the same, except the words in bold which   are  prepositions. 


sun_shine 331995 said:


> مثله is خبر ليس


Ok, it's the خبر but what the part of speech is it? In the sentence with the same structure لَيْسَ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ the فِيهِ (the habar) is a preposition+he.


----------



## AndyRoo

lena55313 said:


> And what would be the مثلكم then? I can't catch the difference between the preposition َمثل and the noun ٌمثل. In the Wehr dictionary both of them mean "something like something"


I think it is a preposition, but I am not sure.


----------



## lena55313

Thank you, AndyRoo


----------



## elroy

I think  it’s a حال, but I’m also not 100% sure.


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> And what would be the مثلكم then? I can't catch the difference between the preposition َمثل and the noun ٌمثل. In the Wehr dictionary both of them mean "something like something"


مثل is a noun not a preposition and the i3raab is according to its position in the sentence.
(I didn't see مثل as anything rather than a noun).


> هل مِثْلَكم شَيْءٌ


it's مثلُكم with dammah. It's *مبتدأ* or خبر. 
(I guess it's a مبتدأ but I'm not 100% sure)


> Ok, it's the خبر but what the part of speech is it? In the sentence with the same structure لَيْسَ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ the فِيهِ (the habar) is a preposition+he.


(ليس كـمثله شيء (ليس شيءٌ مثلَه
كـمثله is a "Singular Predicate" خبر مفرد (one word).


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> I guess it's a مبتدأ but I'm not 100% sure


I really can't understand how it could be a مبتدأ.
All three sentences look like of the same structure. 
1. هل لديكم شَيْءٌ 
2. هل مِثْلَكم شَيْءٌ 
3.  هل فيكم شَيْءٌ
For me, the شَيْءٌ looks more like a subject (مبتدأ ) that prepositions لدى and في because it answers the question "what?" What? - the شَيْءٌ, where is it?  فيكم / لديكم
And if the فيكم / لديكم are prepositions ( حرف جر) why the مِثْلَكم couldn't be a preposition too?


----------



## Sun-Shine

lena55313 said:


> I really can't understand how it could be a مبتدأ.
> All three sentences look like of the same structure.
> 1. هل لديكم شَيْءٌ
> 2. هل مِثْلَكم شَيْءٌ
> 3.  هل فيكم شَيْءٌ


The first and the third are clear because "فيكم" and "لديكم" are "Semi-sentences" and can't be the mubtadaa
but the second "مثلكم" confuses me because it's a noun so, I'm not sure.


> And if the فيكم / لديكم are prepositions ( حرف جر) why the مِثْلَكم couldn't be a preposition too?


Because مثل is a noun attached to the pronoun كـ
فيكم and لديكم are "Semi-sentences":
في is a preposition (حرف جر)
لدى is an adverb (ظرف)
but مثل (used to express similarities) is a noun like any other noun.


----------



## lena55313

sun_shine 331995 said:


> but مثل (used to express similarities) is a noun like any other noun.


It's written in the Wehr dictionary that the مثل could be a preposition. I've read about the prepositions of the second class which are formed from the nouns, as بينَ which comes from the noun بينٌ (Wright, v.1, p.281, art. 359) So, there should be other signs how to distinguish nouns from their adverbial prepositions.
But anyway, what I know exactly now that in my sentence it's the مثل with a fatha at the end )))


----------



## Matat

مثلكم is a مفعول مطلق and عيون القطط is a مفعول به ثان. It's like saying لم يرزقنا الله (رزقاً) مثلَكم عيونَ القطط. With the omission of رزقاً, we call مثلكم the المفعول المطلق as it takes the place of the masdar (in these instances, some would call this النائب عن المفعول المطلق, but some contest the use of this phrase). With this, the meaning would be as AndyRoo stated:


AndyRoo said:


> God didn't give us cats' eyes like [he gave] you.





sun_shine 331995 said:


> لَمْ يَرْزُقْنَا اللهُ مِثْلَكُمْ عُيُونَ الْقِطَطِ :
> مثلكم is an object
> عيون is an adjective(نعت) or substitute (بدل)


With مثلكم being a مفعول به ثان, I guess it's theoretically possible to call عيون القطط a بدل, though this is odd since it's usually مثل which is البد, not المبدل منه. The meaning would be: "God didn't provide for us (that which is) like what he provided you, the cat eyes."

However, I don't see how عيون القطط could be a نعت of مثلكم since عيون is an اسم جامد, not an اسم مشتق, and an اسم جامد does not become a نعت except in certain instances, mainly when it takes on the meaning of an اسم مشتق.



sun_shine 331995 said:


> it's مثلُكم with dammah. It's *مبتدأ* or خبر.
> (I guess it's a مبتدأ but I'm not 100% sure)


It could be either a مبتدأ or خبر, but the meaning would suggest it's a خبر مقدم and شيء is a مبتدأ مؤخر.



lena55313 said:


> I've read about the prepositions of the second class which are formed from the nouns, as بينَ which comes from the noun بينٌ (Wright, v.1, p.281, art. 359) So, there should be other signs how to distinguish nouns from their adverbial prepositions.


بين and مثل are both اسم's, but only بين can be a ظرف. All ظرف's are اسم's, but not all اسم's can be ظرف's. For this reason, you can't compare مثل to بين.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Matat said:


> مثلكم is a مفعول مطلق and عيون القطط is a مفعول به ثان. It's like saying لم يرزقنا الله (رزقاً) مثلَكم عيونَ القطط. With the omission of رزقاً, we call مثلكم the المفعول المطلق as it takes the place of the masdar (in these instances, some would call this النائب عن المفعول المطلق,


It depends on which word you have omitted. I said "مفعول به" by omission of خصائص. It's like "لم يرزقنا الله (خصائص) مثلكم". The adjective مثلكم would become the second object. 
وإن كان الراجح هو أنّ "عيون" مفعول به ثان


----------



## Matat

sun_shine 331995 said:


> It depends on which word you have omitted. I said "مفعول به" by omission of خصائص. It's like "لم يرزقنا الله (خصائص) مثلكم". The adjective مثلكم would become the second object.


Yes, I considered this i3raab as well:


Matat said:


> With مثلكم being a مفعول به ثان, I guess it's theoretically possible to call عيون القطط a بدل, though this is odd since it's usually مثل which is البد, not المبدل منه. The meaning would be: "God didn't provide for us (that which is) like what he provided you, the cat eyes."


----------



## lena55313

Matat said:


> All ظرف's are اسم's, but not all اسم's can be ظرف's.


Do you mean that َمثل can't be a preposition? Or you know any examples when it could be?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lena55313 said:


> Do you mean that َمثل can't be a preposition? Or you know any examples when it could be?


There are three kinds of words: noun, verb and particule (harf).
If a word is a noun then it is always a noun, this does not depend on its use (context) or its grammatical function.

مثل is a noun (as many participants have said...).

Tanwin is one of the characteristics of the noun. Another characteristic is the possibility of being preceded by a preposition as in the sentence you mentioned  لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ , the noun is preceded by the preposition al kaaf... We can not have two consecutive prepositions ...


----------



## lena55313

Ibn Nacer said:


> If a word is a noun then it is always a noun


I would agree with you, but ... (Wehr dictionary, p.1047)
_مثل  mitla (prep.) and كمثل ka-mitli similar to, like, just as;_
Maybe I misunderstood what the (prep.) meant, but usually it means "the preposition"


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Yes it is a problem of translation of the technical terms of the grammar. There are the prepositions (the prepositions are part of the particles) and there are certain nouns that are often used in the accussatif (like fawqa, tahta, qabla...).

We find several translations for these two groups, for the first group: preposition, true prepositions, indeclinable prepositions ...
And for the second group : prepositions, quasi-prepositions, declinable prepositions, adverbs...

But in Arabic, we have *harf jarr *and *ism* (ism mansuub more precisely :* ظرف*).

Here is an article that discusses the question : Is ḫalfa a Preposition? On a Subclass of the ẓarf in Arabic Grammatical Tradition

You use the grammar book of Wright and precisely there is this passage in the article :



> Wright (1896–1898 I, pp. 280–282) classifies these words as “*prepositions*”,  but recognizes that they are “*simply nouns of different forms in the accus. sing., determined by the following genitive* …” (ibid. I, p. 280).


----------



## Matat

I agree with Ibn Nacer. Hans-Wehr is a good resource for looking up meanings, but don't use it as a grammar reference. مثل does not work like بين. The reason بين is a ظرف is that represents time or place (in this case, it represents place). مثل does not represent time or place, so you can't use it as a ظرف.
من بينَكم؟
من مثلُكم؟


----------



## lena55313

Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes it is a problem of translation of the technical terms of the grammar.


Agree, then let's make the terminology clear.
There are:
1 Nouns - differen kinds of Ism-s answering the question Who? or What?
2. The words which describe the nouns, and they can be:
2.1. past participles مفعول
2.2. present participle فاعل
2.3. adjectives فعيل و فعول etc
2.4. relative adjectives إسم ألمنسوب
3. Verbs فِعل
4. Adverbs - words which describe verbs.
5. Prepositions - words and particles which connect nouns in the sentence and mark the relation between nouns or parts of the sentence.
6. Conjunctions - words and particles which connect words which are not related to each other, which are equal to each other by their function in the sentence.
ِProbably the point 5 contains not only حرف الجار but many others حرف  and إسم . Then let's pay attentions to the role of the particle or the word in the sentence but not to its arabic name.



Ibn Nacer said:


> But in Arabic, we have *harf jarr *and *ism* (ism mansuub more precisely :* ظرف*).


I read that the ism mansuub it is a relative adjective, I've never heard that it could be a *ظرف - *see please point 2.4. above.
But the  *ظرف *can be attributed to the point 4, because it is "an adverb denoting place or time" - Wehr, p.679


Matat said:


> Hans-Wehr is a good resource for looking up meanings, but don't use it as a grammar reference.


Sorry, Matat, but I don't know any other dictionary.)))

But in English there are many kinds of adverbs, and the adverd of place or time is only one of them, e.g.: adverb of manner, degree, frequency, maybe some others, I don't know. But all of them describe the verb and answer the question "How?" How have the action been done? or How does he do the action? etc.


Matat said:


> بين and مثل are both اسم's, but only بين can be a ظرف.


So, مثل could be an adverb, not even being a ظرف. i.e. All ظرف are adverbs, but not all adverbs are ظرف.
I don't know the arabic names of other sorts of adverbs, *can anybody name them?*

What I'm sure out of the dictionary information is that if Wehr put the mitla into the separate point and named it the preposition, this word with a fixed fatha at the end is something (I don't know how to name it in arabic) that is formed from the noun mitl.
And it's really doesn't matter how to call it, but the nouns are declinable in arabic but adverbs are always in accusative. So my aim is to understand if I found the مثل in another sentence would it have fatha at the end anyway or it could have a damma.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Matat said:


> Hans-Wehr is a good resource for looking up meanings, but don't use it as a grammar reference


Apparently there are also some problems with some grammar books, I looked at Wright's grammar book and we can read this (pages 278-281) :



> III. THE PARTICLES.​
> 354. There are four sorts of particles (حَرْفٌ, pl. حُرُوفٌ, [or أَدَاةٌ, pl. أَدَوَاتٌ]) ; viz., Prepositions, Adverbs, Conjunctions, and Interjections.
> 
> A. The Prepositions.​
> 355. The prepositions are called by the Arabs حُرُوفُ ٱلْجَرِّ, the particles of attraction, …
> …
> 359. Examples of prepositions of the second class are : أَمَامَ before (of place) ; بَيَنَ between, among...



We understand that prepositions are a sort of particles, this is ok ... But he classifies words as أَمَامَ , بَيَنَ... in the category of prepositions (second class).

And the problem is that in Arabic, these words are classified in the category of nouns (اسم) and not in the category of particles (حرف) or prepositions (حرف الجر)...


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,
Sorry I only saw your message after posting mine...



lena55313 said:


> 1 Nouns - differen kinds of Ism-s answering the question Who? or What?


There is a difference between Arabic and English or French, in Arabic there are only three types of words (part of speech) :* ism*, *fi'l* and *harf *and in English / French there are more ...

The *ism* category includes the noun / substantive category of English/French but it also includes all the words you mentioned in 2 (participles, adjectives, relative adjective) and also pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, relative pronouns, masdars ...



lena55313 said:


> 5. Prepositions - words and particles which connect nouns in the sentence and mark the relation between nouns or parts of the sentence.
> ...
> ِProbably the point 5 contains not only حرف الجار but many others حرف and إسم . Then let's pay attentions to the role of the particle or the word in the sentence but not to its arabic name.


Preposition = حرف الجر and the particles (حَرْفٌ, pl. حُرُوفٌ) include prepositions, conjunctions, interjections ...



lena55313 said:


> I read that the ism mansuub it is a relative adjective, I've never heard that it could be a *ظرف* - see please point 2.4. above.


I did not mean اسم منسوب, I meant اسم منصوب (noun in the accusative case).


----------



## Matat

@lena55313, the issue you're running into is that you're thinking too much about the English (or Russian?) meaning of the grammar terms. Instead of thinking what an "adverb" does or what a "preposition" does, you need to think about what a "مفعول مطلق" does or what a "ظرف"  does or what a "حرف جر" does and how a particular word can be classified.



lena55313 said:


> 2.1. past participles مفعول
> 2.2. present participle فاعل


Do you mean اسم المفعول and  اسم الفاعل?



lena55313 said:


> Sorry, Matat, but I don't know any other dictionary.)))


That's fine; I'm not telling you to find a different resource. You may use the Arabic dictionaries found online; they'll tell you whether something is an اسم, حرف, or فعل.



lena55313 said:


> So, مثل could be an adverb, not even being a ظرف. i.e. All ظرف are adverbs, but not all adverbs are ظرف.
> I don't know the arabic names of other sorts of adverbs, *can anybody name them?*


A مفعول مطلق can also be loosely translated as a kind of adverb. In your example  لم يرزقنا الله مثلكم عيون القطط, here, مثلكم can work as a مفعول مطلق. If you wanted to use the English term, you can claim it is being as an adverb there. However, in  هل مثلُكم شيءٌ؟, it can't be described as a مفعول مطلق because 1) what omitted masdar مصدر would it be describing? and 2) what verb (or verb-like thing) in the sentence would the مصدر be emphasizing? It also can't be a ظرف as has already been discussed.


----------



## lena55313

Sorry, I can't answer now. You gave me a lot of new information, I'm leaving to study it.))) Thank you all so much for your help.


----------

