# every day that he is going



## syntactician

Hello,

how do you express something like "every day that he is going" in MSA? If "day" were definite, the expression should probably be something like 

اليوم الذي هو ذاهب (فيه 

But how is this expressed if "day" is indefinite? Would

كل يوم هو ذاهب

be correct (in the intended relative clause reading, as in: "he is happy every day he is going", not just meaning "he is going every day")?

Thank you!


----------



## Arabus

I tried to understand what you wrote but I got a headache.

Your phrase has no literal equivalent in MSA. In order for us to be able to help, we need a longer, full sentence. You can write in German if you want


----------



## syntactician

Sorry, I'll try again.

Take the following English sentence: "The boy is happy on every day on which he goes to school", which I suppose to be equivalent to

الصبي سعيد في كل يوم يذهب (فيه) إلى المدرسة

or

الصبي سعيد في كل يوم هو ذاهب (فيه) إلى المدرسة

I suppose the first one is correct (apart from the position of فيه about which I am not sure), but what about the second version? (with or without فيه)


----------



## Arabus

All these variants are correct (whether with فيه or not). You can also omit في and change the case of كل يوم to the adverbial case.

However, syntactically this sentence is awkward. It is better in Arabic to say the following:

يذهب الصبي سعيدا كل يوم إلى المدرسة


----------



## syntactician

Thank you very much!


----------



## Arabus

You're welcome. I appreciate when people say thanks. It is the least thing.


----------



## إسكندراني

يكون الصبي سعيد في كل يوم يذهب فيه إلى المدرسة
 «الصبي سعيد في كل يوم هو ذاهب (فيه) إلى المدرسة» خطأ في نظري أو على الأقل غير منتشرة
 الصبي سعيد في كل يوم يذهب إلى المدرسة» لا يبدو لي أنها صحيحة هي الأخرى»


----------



## Mahaodeh

إسكندراني said:


> يكون الصبي سعيد في كل يوم يذهب فيه إلى المدرسة



Small corrections: يكون الصبيّ سعيدا في كل يوم يذهب فيه إلى المدرسة


----------



## إسكندراني

ah. I hope the context isn't totally lost in any case; the two 'incorrect' examples I gave just 'feel' wrong more than anything. And the previous suggestion « يذهب الصبي سعيدا كل يوم إلى المدرسة» means 'the boy goes happily to school every day' or 'the boy goes to school happy every day'.


----------



## Arabus

He's asking about syntax. The sentences he wrote are grammatical, but not very natural. The sentence you wrote (يكون الصبي سعيد في كل يوم يذهب فيه إلى المدرسة) is no more natural than his sentences. This is an articial translation, it is not a natural Arabic syntax. No body would compose such a sentence naturally.


----------



## syntactician

@Arabus: Thanks, that is what I wanted to know. I suppose your judgement is based on your intuitions as a native speaker, or do you have a specific reference in an authoritative Arabic syntax book?

By the way, would you say the "na9t-sababi version" of my second sentence, i.e.
الصبي سعيد في كل يومٍ ذاهبٍ (هو) (فيه) إلى المدرسة 
is grammatical, too (although it is certainly far more unnatural than the former examples)?


----------



## Arabus

It is my  intuition as well as my observation. I don't think you will easily find a good reference on this question.

Anyway the sentence يكون الصبي سعيد في كل يوم يذهب فيه إلى المدرسة is obviously too artificial. I think إسكندراني was just trying to give you a more precise translation. 

As for الصبي سعيد في كل يومٍ ذاهبٍ (هو) (فيه) إلى المدرس, this sentence is grammatical if you understand the participle as meaning "will go." Participles in Arabic (as in other languages) have no tense. However, this is a rather unnatural sentence in Arabic.


----------



## إسكندراني

Maybe it's unnatural because it starts with يكون but otherwise it's totally subjective I think, Arabus. My sentence seems no less unnatural to me than most MSA!
As for الصبي سعيد في كل يومٍ ذاهبٍ (هو) (فيه) إلى المدرسة the ذاهب shouldn't have ـٍ , and I don't see how the sentence sounds plausible without هو & فيه


----------



## syntactician

I was assuming that
يومٍ ذاهبٍ (هو) (فيه) إلى المدرسة
is pretty much the same (syntactically) as 
  المرةِ الذاهبِ ابنُها إلى المدرسة (intended meaning equivalent to: المرة التي يذهب ابنها إلى المدرسة ) or الشارع الماشيون فيه (where the subject هم is elided as هو in my example).
Thus the sentence seems to be grammatical to me without هو and with kasra on the participle, while I have not found a corresponding example where فيه is elided.


----------



## إسكندراني

In any case it _is_ kind of clunky and since there's an action involved it's better to start each sentence segment with a verb.


----------



## Arabus

الصبي: مبتدأ مرفوع
سعيد: خبر مرفوع
في كل: جار ومجرور
يوم: مضاف إليه مجرور
ذاهب: خبر مرفوع لمبتدأ مقدر عائد على الصبي (وعند بعض النحاة أنها مبتدأ لا يلزمه خبر)
فيه: جار ومجرور، والجملة قائم فيه في محل رفع صفة ليوم

اسم الفاعل يا أخ إسكندراني يماثل الفعل المضارع في تصرفه، فيجوز أن تقول "هذا ضاربٌ زيداً" بمعنى هذا يضرب زيدا الآن أو غدا، ويجوز أيضا أن تقول "هذا ضاربُ زيدًا بالأمس" بمعنى كان يضرب زيدا بالأمس. وكما في أية جملة فعلية فإنه يجوز لك أن تحذف الفاعل فتقول ضاربٌ زيدًا بدلا من هذا ضارب زيدا وهكذا.

وأما "فيه" فهي ليست لازمة لتمام الجملة وحذفها جائز نحويا، لأن الجملة تتم بوجود مبتدأ وخبر فقط أو فعل وفاعل.

ولكن هذه التراكيب تجدها فقط في كتب النحاة وهي نادرة في الكلام العادي.​


----------



## Arabus

syntactician said:


> I was assuming that
> يومٍ ذاهبٍ (هو) (فيه) إلى المدرسة
> is pretty much the same (syntactically) as
> المرةِ الذاهبِ ابنُها إلى المدرسة (intended meaning equivalent to:  المرة التي يذهب ابنها إلى المدرسة ) or الشارع الماشيون فيه (where the  subject هم is elided as هو in my example).
> Thus the sentence seems to be grammatical to me without هو and with  kasra on the participle, while I have not found a corresponding example  where فيه is elided.



You're right but why would the participle be in the genitive?​


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> You're right but why would the participle be in the genitive?​



I suppose the participle should agree in case with the noun it modifies, as it does in the analogous sentence هذا بيت المرةِ الذاهبِ ابنُها إلى المدرسة .



Arabus said:


> ويجوز أيضا أن تقول "هذا ضاربُ زيدًا بالأمس" بمعنى كان يضرب زيدا بالأمس



Just as a question, did you really mean this or rather "هذا ضاربٌ زيداً" (with tanwin on the participle)? This is the first time I see a triptote without article or tanwin that is followed neither by a genitive nor by a pronoun


----------



## Arabus

syntactician said:


> I suppose the participle should agree in case with the noun it modifies, as it does in the analogous sentence هذا بيت المرةِ الذاهبِ ابنُها إلى المدرسة .



OK, now I see what you meant by na9t-sababi (it is na3t sababi). For how long have you been studying Arabic? I was good in grammar at school but unfortunatly I keep forgetting even though I do read again every once in a while.

I really can't say much here, but if I had to answer I wouldn't say this is na3t sababi because ذاهب is not na3t as far as I understand what a na3t is.

So I am going to hold to ذاهبٌ in the nominative, even though I am less sure now.

Where did you get your sentence from?



syntactician said:


> Just as a question, did you really mean this or rather "هذا ضاربٌ زيداً"  (with tanwin on the participle)? This is the first time I see a  triptote without article or tanwin that is followed neither by a  genitive nor by a pronoun



I meant it with tanwin, it was a typo. However, you must know that ضاربُ without tanwin is also correct and it is commonly found in CA and the Quran. Sibawayh and the other linguists explain it as a reduced form (takhfiif):

يقول سيبويه*: "وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ العَرَب يَسْتَخِفّون، فَيَحْذِفُونَ التَّنوين والنُّون، ولا يَتَغَيَّر من المعنى شَيء"
*​


Sibawayh himself denies that the sentence ضاربٌ زيدًا بالأمس is grammatical. He bases his opinion on the following: since _faa3il _is equivalent of _yaf3al_, it cannot denote a past event. This is obviously flawed conclusion if you ask me, because_ yaf3al _denotes an imperfective aspect and it is not related to tense. Other grammarians do accpet ضاربٌ زيدًا بالأمس and they actually provide citations for it from the literature.


----------



## Arabus

If ذاهبٌ was indeed na3t sababi then I think فيه cannot be omitted.


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> For how long have you been studying Arabic? I was good in grammar at school but unfortunatly I keep forgetting even though I do read again every once in a while.



Probably, the most important thing in language use is intuition, not knowledge about grammar, anyway  I have been studying Arabic for three years, but mostly from the syntactic perspective.



Arabus said:


> Where did you get your sentence from?



The sentences I gave are made-up, but there are similar examples with a participle as na3t in the literature, e.g. مررت برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه (Sibawayh), رأيت الضارب أباه زيد (Sibawayh), السيارة السارقها أحمد (from a modern paper on Arabic syntax).



Arabus said:


> However, you must know that ضاربُ without tanwin is also correct and it is commonly found in CA and the Quran. Sibawayh and the other linguists explain it as a reduced form (takhfiif):
> 
> يقول سيبويه*: "وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ العَرَب يَسْتَخِفّون، فَيَحْذِفُونَ التَّنوين والنُّون، ولا يَتَغَيَّر من المعنى شَيء"
> *​



Thanks for the reference, that is really interesting.



Arabus said:


> If ذاهبٌ was indeed na3t sababi then I think فيه cannot be omitted.



Okay, thanks, this is again very interesting.


----------



## Xence

syntactician said:
			
		

> الصبي سعيد في كل يومٍ ذاهبٍ (هو) (فيه) إلى المدرسة



This is grammatically incorrect, because ذاهبٍ would be understood as an adjective to the word يومٍ and does not fit with the rest of the sentence, nor does it convey the meaning you intend to convey.

As for a more "natural" way to say your sentence, I would suggest: الصبيّ سعيد بذهابه كلَّ يوم إلى المدرسة


----------



## syntactician

Xence said:


> This is grammatically incorrect, because ذاهبٍ would be understood as an adjective to the word يومٍ and does not fit with the rest of the sentence, nor does it convey the meaning you intend to convey.



I don't really see your point. How would you explain the examples I gave in my previous post, to which the same argument would apply?



Xence said:


> As for a more "natural" way to say your sentence, I would suggest: الصبيّ سعيد بذهابه كلَّ يوم إلى المدرسة



This sentence seems not to convey the intended meaning of "is happy on every day on which he goes", i.e. in particular on days on which he goes to school, while your sentence implies that he goes every day.


----------



## Xence

syntactician said:
			
		

> I don't really see your point. How would you explain the examples I gave in my previous post, to which the same argument would apply?



In the examples you gave,you are using what is called النعت السببي , but you seem to forget its definition, which is:هو تابع يُذكر لبيان صفة في *شيء متعلق بالموصوف* (المنعوت) ا , i.e a quality relating to the qualified noun:

هذا بيتٌ واسعٌ بابُه ---> the causative adjective واسعٌ , although it comes after the noun بيت , is not qualifying بيت but *a part of* بيت, something whom "cause" is بيت , which is باب

In this case, your are allowed to write مررتُ ببيتٍ واسعٍ بابُه

But in your sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ ذاهبٍ هو إلى المدرسة , if you consider ذاهب as a causative adjective, it means that هو is relating to (a part of) يوم ,which is obviously absurd. That's why I said the only way to understand this sentence is to consider ذاهب as an adjective to the word يوم (= _every day gone by_, or something closer). But this either is not correct, because it doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence.

Of course, you can say الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يوم ذاهبٌ هو فيه إلى المدرسة as mentioned by Arabus, this is grammatically correct (though not natural) but has nothing to do with the causative adjective. It's simply called "sentence adjective" نعت الجملة .



			
				syntactician said:
			
		

> This sentence seems not to convey the intended meaning of "is happy on every day on which he goes", i.e. in particular on days on which he goes to school, while your sentence implies that he goes every day.



You are right in that my sentence is not the best way to convey what you intended. I just said it's more "natural" for me, and it implies for me that كل يوم does not necessarily mean _every day_ but rather _every school day_.


----------



## Arabus

Well, here is the full Sibawayh text:

http://rabat.unesco.org/majaliss/article.php3?id_article=1376

So what I said was correct. In the sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ  ذاهبٌ هو إلى المدرسة the word ذاهب has nothing to do with يوم (the day  is not going anywhere), nor it can be called na3t sababi because there  is nothing after it that is going anywhere (excpet هو, which refers to  the young man). This word can only be understood as refering to the  young man, like Sibawayh's example:



> باب إجراء الصفة فيه على الاسم
> في بعض المواضع أحسن وقد يستوي فيه إجراء الصفة على الاسم  وأن تجعله   خبراً فتنصبه فأما ما استويا فيه فقوله‏:‏ مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائدٍ به   إن جعلته وصفاً‏.‏
> وإن لم تحمله على الرجل وحملتَه على الاسم المضمَر المعروف  نصبتَه   فقلت‏:‏ مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ صائداً به كأنه قال‏:‏ معه بازٌ  صائداً به   حين لم يرد أن يحمله على الأول‏.‏​


​الصفة  في مثالنا محمولة على الصبي كما ذكرت في إعرابي الأول، وأما حملها على  اليوم أو على شبه الجملة التالية لها فهو غير جائز معنًى. فإذن الصفة في  مثالنا مرفوعة موافقةً للصبي. 

والله تعالى أعلم،​


----------



## syntactician

Xence said:


> In the examples you gave,you are using what is  called النعت السببي , but you seem to forget its definition, which is:هو  تابع يُذكر لبيان صفة في *شيء متعلق بالموصوف* (المنعوت) ا , i.e a quality relating to the qualified noun





Arabus said:


> So what I said was correct. In the sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ   ذاهبٌ هو إلى المدرسة the word ذاهب has nothing to do with يوم (the day   is not going anywhere), nor it can be called na3t sababi because there   is nothing after it that is going anywhere (excpet هو, which refers to   the young man). This word can only be understood as refering to the   young man, like Sibawayh's example:



Thanks for the explanations, but it is not at all clear to me how the Sibawayh examples I gave (مررت برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and  رأيت الضاربَ أباه زيد, the vowels are taken from this edition: http://www.archive.org/details/kitabsibawayh) should be correct then. Case marking and the use of the article follow the na3t sababi rules in these cases, although daarib is a participle like dhaahib. Since the examples are certainly correct (as they are from Sibawayh), it seems that some part of your explanations must be incorrect, I suppose. Your (Arabus) Sibawayh example is interesting, but I do not see how it demonstrates the ungrammaticality of الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ  ذاهبٍ هو إلى المدرسة.


----------



## Arabus

Your first sentence is:

مررت برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه

Now answer the following question:

To whom does the word ضاربِها refer? Who did the hitting? Is it the man? No, it the father (the word that comes after ضاربِها). Therefore this is na3t sababi. It is different from our example.

The second sentence:

رأيت الضاربَ أباه زيد

The word ضاربَ in this sentence is not even na3t. It is a direct object. This sentence is totally irrelevant.

Now let's take my example:

مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به

Let's answer the question:

To whom does the word صائد refer? Who did the hunting? Is it the hawk? No, it is the man. Therefore this is not a na3t of the hawk, and it is not na3t sababi because it has nothing to do with the hawk in the first place.

Sibawayh says the word صائد has two possibilities:


It can be genitive (صائدٍ) if it is a na3t referring to the man (because the na3t follows the noun it modifies).
It can be accusative (صائداً) if it is an adverb.
Our sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ  ذاهبٌ هو إلى المدرسة is like the example colored in blue. Read my explanation again carefully:


> In the sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ  ذاهبٌ هو إلى المدرسة the word  ذاهب has nothing to do with يوم (the day  is not going anywhere), nor it  can be called na3t sababi because there  is nothing after it that is  going anywhere (excpet هو, which refers to  the young man). This word  can only be understood as refering to the  young man



I hope it is clear now.


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> To whom does the word ضاربِها refer? Who did the hitting? Is it the man?  No, it the father (the word that comes after ضاربِها). Therefore this  is na3t sababi. It is different from our example.



Sorry, I did not quite get your point. What makes these sentences different? The phrases يومٍ  ذاهبٍ هو and رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه are almost completely analogous syntactically: they consist of a noun followed by a participle together with its subject ("he" and "the man"). The only difference is that, if فيه is omitted, there is no resumptive pronoun in the first phrase that could establish the reference to "day". Does that mean that you would consider the example grammatical as na3t sababi only if فيه was not omitted? (Then the phrase would even be almost completely analogous to phrases like الشارع الماشيون فيه (from this MSA grammar: http://www.amazon.com/Syntax-Arabis...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287321209&sr=1-1)).



Arabus said:


> The word ضاربَ in this sentence is not even na3t. It is a direct object. This sentence is totally irrelevant.



Okay, you're right, it's a different structure.



Arabus said:


> Sibawayh says the word صائد has two possibilities:
> 
> 
> It can be genitive (صائدٍ) if it is a na3t referring to the man (because the na3t follows the noun it modifies).
> It can be accusative (صائداً) if it is an adverb.
> Our  sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ  ذاهبٌ هو إلى المدرسة is like the  example colored in blue. Read my explanation again carefully:


Okay, now I understand why dhaahib can be nominative. But as far as I see, that does not demonstrate that it cannot be genitive (of course, it may be genitive only if it can be na3t sababi; thus, this post reduces to its first question )


----------



## Arabus

The active participle in Arabic belongs to a class of derivatives called توابع. These words take their case from the noun they modify or refer to semantically.

In رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه the participle theoritically should be in the nominative, because it refers to أبوه (nominative), but since this is a special case of نعت سببي, the participle follows the noun to which the second word in the string is related.

The phrase يومٍ  ذاهبٍ هو is *NOT *نعت سببي (I hope you get this straight). Therefore, we apply the regular grammar like Sibawayh did in his analysis of مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به. Read the analysis of that sentence carefully and you shall understand that Sibawayh totally igonred the word صقرٌ  while discussing the case of  صائد.


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> Therefore, we apply the regular grammar like Sibawayh did in his analysis of مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به. Read the analysis of that sentence carefully and you shall understand that Sibawayh totally igonred the word صقرٌ  while discussing the case of  صائد.



The analysis of مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به is already clear and I am comletely aware that it is quite different from na3t sababi. I just do not understand the siginificance of that example to our example, but this question will be answered by the answer to the second thing I do not understand:



Arabus said:


> In رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه the participle theoritically should be in the  nominative, because it refers to أبوه (nominative), but since this is a  special case of نعت سببي, the participle follows the noun to which the  second word in the string is related.



Why can رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and الشارع الماشيون فيه (which, according to the book I took it from, is indeed نعت سببي) be a special case of نعت سببي, while يومٍ ذاهبٍ هو فيه cannot? Especially the second example (الشارع الماشيون فيه) is essentially identical.


----------



## rayloom

Hi Syntactician
You have to take into account the grammar & analysis of phrases in Arabic:

1)
مررت برجلٍ ضارِبُه أبوه the part Daar*i*b*u*hu abuuhu is an adjectival phrase. Daaribuhu is a subject (or an advanced predicate), abuuhu is a predicate (or a delayed subject, doesn't matter in this sentence where both the subject and predicate are definite). The phrase is an adjective to rajulin. No na3t sababi in this sentence.

مررت برجل ضاربٍ أباه Daaribin is a na3t, abaahu is the object of Daaribin

2)
رأيت الضارب أباه زيدا aD-Daariba object of ra2aytu, abaahu is the object of aD-Daariba, zaydan is what's called a 3a6f bayaan (a 3a6f bayaan is always treated like an adjective, and isn't preceded by a waw).
Also no na3t sababi.

3)
الشارع الماشون فيه also no na3t sababi.

4) your sentence:
الصبي سعيد في كل يومٍ ذاهبٌ هو فيه إلى المدرسة
Another adjectival phrase: ذاهبٌ هو فيه إلى المدرسة
dhaahibun is an advanced predicate.
huwa is a delayed subject.

The adjectival phrase is the adjective of yawmin
So dhaahibun is not the adjective of سعيد nor is it the predicate of الصبي.
And again, no na3t sababi.

By the way, Saybawayh uses the term wa9f to indicate several things:
-9ifah (na3t)
-badal (apposition)
-3a6f bayaan.

Just thought I should point that out.


----------



## rayloom

The words in a restictive or non-restrictive phrase in Arabic are analysed separately, the phrase itself is treated like a single word syntactically.
A simple example:

ra2aytu rajulan kabiir*u*n baytuhu/ ra2aytu rajulan baytuhu kabiir*u*n.
Both cases are the same. the adjectival phrase in either case is the adjective of rajulan.

ra2aytu rajulan kabiir*a*n anfuhu
kabiiran is a na3t sababi, modified by anfuhu (which is always in the nominative).

ra2aytu rajulan anfuhu kabiir*u*n
anfuhu kabiirun is an adjectival phrase. 

ra2aytu rajulan kabiir*u*n anfuhu
also an adjectival phrase. No na3t sababi.


----------



## syntactician

rayloom said:


> مررت برجلٍ ضارِبُه أبوه the part Daar*i*b*u*hu abuuhu is an adjectival phrase. Daaribuhu is a subject (or an advanced predicate), abuuhu is a predicate (or a delayed subject, doesn't matter in this sentence where both the subject and predicate are definite). The phrase is an adjective to rajulin. No na3t sababi in this sentence.



Hi, thank you for the additional explanations. I completely agree with your analysis of the ضارِبُه version. But my Sibawayh edition gives the word as ضاربِها. If the edition is correct here (it is confirmed by other online editions, try http://www.google.com/search?q="مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه"), there seems to be no way this cannot be na3t sababi.



rayloom said:


> رأيت الضارب أباه زيدا aD-Daariba object of ra2aytu, abaahu is the object of aD-Daariba, zaydan is what's called a 3a6f bayaan (a 3a6f bayaan is always treated like an adjective, and isn't preceded by a waw).



Again, your analysis of the given sentence is certainly completely right, but my Sibawayh edition gives زيد rather than زيدا, so Zayd is intended to be the subject of aD-Daariba.



> الشارع الماشون فيه also no na3t sababi.


Why? The book I took it from says it is (and gives similar examples).



rayloom said:


> The words in a restictive or non-restrictive  phrase in Arabic are analysed separately, the phrase itself is treated  like a single word syntactically.
> A simple example:



This is clear to me  The question is just why يومٍ ذاهبٍ هو فيه should be wrong when رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and  الشارع الماشون فيه are correct.


----------



## rayloom

syntactician said:


> Hi, thank you for the additional explanations. I completely agree with your analysis of the ضارِبُه version. But my Sibawayh edition gives the word as ضاربِها. If the edition is correct here (it is confirmed by other online editions, try http://www.google.com/search?q="مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه"), there seems to be no way this cannot be na3t sababi.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your analysis of the given sentence is certainly completely right, but my Sibawayh edition gives زيد rather than زيدا, so Zayd is intended to be the subject of aD-Daariba.
> 
> 
> Why? The book I took it from says it is (and gives similar examples).
> 
> 
> 
> This is clear to me  The question is just why يومٍ ذاهبٍ هو فيه should be wrong when رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and  الشارع الماشون فيه are correct.



zaydun can be in the nominative as the subject correct.

Regarding ضاربها أبوه I'll have to check on that. If it's confirmed by other version, that means it's not a typo! Could it mean rijlin (as in leg?! which is feminine). If that's the case, it would explain why it's in the genitive because it's a na3t sababi. Then again, you don't pass by a leg now don't you!! 

yawmin dhaahibin I think is incorrect because of the meaning. If there's an adjective which wouldn't combine with the noun, then most probably it's the adjective of something else I guess.


----------



## rayloom

I forgot about:
مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به
صائد here can receive all 3 cases. 
nominative as part of an adjectival phrase. Another interpretation is that it can be a na3t maq6uu3.
accusative as an adverb.
genitive as an adjective to rajulin.


----------



## syntactician

rayloom said:


> Could it mean rijlin (as in leg?! which is feminine).


It principle, it really could, my edition and the online versions do not give its fatha and damma. But that would be quite strange; there are similar sentences in the same chapter where رجل means man (such as "مررت برجل معه مرأة ضاربها هو").




rayloom said:


> yawmin dhaahibin I think is incorrect because of the meaning. If there's an adjective which wouldn't combine with the noun, then most probably it's the adjective of something else I guess.



That sounds reasonable, the problem is just the phrase الشارع الماشون فيه which has to face the same problem. But anyway, it seems clear now that the structure with dhaahibin is at least highly counterintuitive.


----------



## syntactician

rayloom said:


> صائد here can receive all 3 cases.
> nominative as part of an adjectival phrase. Another interpretation is that it can be a na3t maq6uu3.



Do you have a specific reference stating that nominative is possible in adjectival phrases if the noun has another case and the adjective stands at the beginning of the adjectival phrase (the same applies to ra2aytu rajulan kabiir*u*n anfuhu)? That would be very intersting to me, since I have never seen such a choice of i3raab before, even among Sibawayh's examples (I have not studied other grammarians).


----------



## rayloom

syntactician said:


> That sounds reasonable, the problem is just the phrase الشارع الماشون فيه which has to face the same problem. But anyway, it seems clear now that the structure with dhaahibin is at least highly counterintuitive.



I guess somehow it could be a na3t sababi. Something like al-kitaabu 'l-maktuubu fiihi. Where ماشون is somehow a quality of the street.


----------



## syntactician

rayloom said:


> I guess somehow it could be a na3t sababi. Something like al-kitaabu 'l-maktuubu fiihi. Where ماشون is somehow a quality of the street.



That might be true. Anyway, thank you all for all the explanations


----------



## rayloom

syntactician said:


> Do you have a specific reference stating that nominative is possible in adjectival phrases if the noun has another case and the adjective stands at the beginning of the adjectival phrase (the same applies to ra2aytu rajulan kabiir*u*n anfuhu)? That would be very intersting to me, since I have never seen such a choice of i3raab before, even among Sibawayh's examples (I have not studied other grammarians).



Yes I'll look for you. It's also the theory behind the نعت مقطوع.
If I find a good reference I'll post its link here.

A simplified explanation:
http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/kafaf/Bohoth/NaetMaqtoa.htm


----------



## rayloom

syntactician said:


> That might be true. Anyway, thank you all for all the explanations



You're welcome


----------



## syntactician

rayloom said:


> Yes I'll look for you. It's also the theory behind the نعت مقطوع.
> If I find a good reference I'll post its link here.
> 
> A simplified explanation:
> http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/kafaf/Bohoth/NaetMaqtoa.htm



That's interesting, I will just look in Ghalayini's book for نعت مقطوع when I come home.


----------



## rayloom

Hi again:

Check:
http://www.sandroses.com/abbs/t141831/

It list the nominal adjectival phrase as a type of na3t. And gives the following example:


> *زَرَعْتُ شجرةً نوعُها غريبٌ  *
> *نوع: مبتدأ مرفوع علامته الضمة، وهو مضاف.*
> *هـ : في محل جر بالإضافة*
> *غريب: خبر مرفوع ، والجملة الاسمية من المبتدأ والخبر في محل نصب صفة لـ (شجرة)*


Unfortunately I'm having to search online since I'm studying abroad currently, and I have no Arabic sources whatsoever 
Left'em all back home.

Yes and also check na3t maq6uu3 when you get back home.


----------



## syntactician

rayloom said:


> Unfortunately I'm having to search online since I'm studying abroad currently, and I have no Arabic sources whatsoever
> Left'em all back home.



I've just discovered there is a pdf of Ghalayini on the web: http://muslimebook.blogspot.com/2009/11/kitab-jamiu-durus.html. It has is a short (and unofrtunately not that informative, although the book is very comprehensive in many areas) chapter on na3t maq6uu3 on page 401 (of the pdf).


----------



## rayloom

syntactician said:


> I've just discovered there is a pdf of Ghalayini on the web: http://muslimebook.blogspot.com/2009/11/kitab-jamiu-durus.html. It has is a short (and unofrtunately not that informative, although the book is very comprehensive in many areas) chapter on na3t maq6uu3 on page 401 (of the pdf).



Danke


----------



## Arabus

syntactician said:


> The analysis of مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به is already clear and I am comletely aware that it is quite different from na3t sababi. I just do not understand the siginificance of that example to our example, but this question will be answered by the answer to the second thing I do not understand:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and الشارع الماشيون فيه (which, according to the book I took it from, is indeed نعت سببي) be a special case of نعت سببي, while يومٍ ذاهبٍ هو فيه cannot? Especially the second example (الشارع الماشيون فيه) is essentially identical.



Word order means nothing in Arabic. What matters is which word is related to which. You have to understand the _meaning _of the _whole _sentence in order to know the correct cases.

When I say:

تفاحةً كبيرةً حيثُ أكلتُ_ tuffaahatan kabiiratan 7aythu akaltu_

and

تفاحةٌ كبيرةٌ حيثُ أكلتُ _tuffaahatun kabiiratun 7aythu __akaltu_

Both phrases have the exact same structure, yet they have different cases because the _meaning _is different. The first phrase is a subordinate clause meaning "where/when I ate a big apple." The second phrase is a complete sentence meaning "there was a big apple where I ate."


A  نعت سببي must be semantically related to the noun it modifies. If you have really read the text of Sibawayh you could have realized that:



> فإن قلت‏:‏ مررت برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها جررتَ ونصبت على ما فسّرتُ لك‏. ‏ وإن شئت قلت ضاربَها هو فنصبت وإن شئت جررتَ ويكون هو وصفَ المضمَر في ضاربها حتى يكون كأنك لم تذكرها‏.‏
> 
> 
> وإن شئت جعلتَ هو منفصلاً فيصير بمنزلة اسمٍ ليس من علامات المضمَر‏.‏
> 
> تقول‏:‏ مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها هو فكأنك قلت‏:‏ معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها زيدٌ‏.‏ ومثل قولك ضاربُها هو قوله‏:‏ مررتُ برجل معه امرأة ضاربُها أبوه إذا جعلتَ الأب مثل زيد فإن لم تُنزل هو والأبَ منزلة زيد وما ليس من سببه ولم يلتبس به قلت‏:‏ مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها أبوه أو هو‏.‏
> 
> وإن شئت نصبت تُجرى الصفة على الرجل ولا تُجريها على المرأة كأنك قلت‏:‏ ضاربِها وضاربَها وخصَصتَه بالفعل فيجري مجرى مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه ومررت بزيد ضاربَها أخوه‏.‏
> 
> ولا يجوز هذا في زيد كما أنه لا يجوز مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها زيدٌ ولا مررتُ بعبد الله ضاربَها خالدٌ وكما كان لم يجز يا ذا الجاريةِ الواطئَها زيدٌ فتحملَه على النّداء‏.‏​


Let me simplify this text foy you. Sibawah is saying the following:

1-the first case:



> مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها هو فكأنك قلت‏:‏ معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها زيدٌ‏.‏ ومثل قولك ضاربُها هو قوله‏:‏ مررتُ برجل معه امرأة ضاربُها أبوه إذا جعلتَ الأب مثل زيد ​


If you say one of the following:

مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها هو
مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها زيدٌ‏
مررتُ برجل معه امرأة ضاربُها أبوه

The case of ضاربُها must be nominative. Why? Because the noun which ضاربُها modifies or refers to has nothing to do with the man. It refers to another person called Zayd or to the father of Zayd (not the father of the man). Therefore the word ضاربُها must be in the nominative because the phrarse ضاربُها أبوه is not na3t sababi. The regular grammar applies like I told you before.

Listen to what Sibawayh says:



> لا يجوز مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها زيدٌ ​


You CANNOT say مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها زيدٌ. Why? Because the phrase ضاربِها زيدٌ has no semantic relation to رجلٍ, therefore you can't call it na3t sababi ofرجلٍ  

2- the second case is the one you quoted:



> فإن لم تُنزل هو والأبَ منزلة زيد وما ليس من سببه ولم يلتبس به قلت‏:‏ مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها أبوه أو هو‏.‏


In this case, you say:

مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها هو 
مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها أبوه 

You say  ضاربِها in the ginitive, Why? Listen to what Sibawayh says:



> فإن لم تُنزل هو والأبَ منزلة زيد وما ليس من سببه ولم يلتبس به ‏​


The word هو  or أبوه  in the second case do not refer to Zayd, nor to the father of a stranger like Zayd, nor to anything that is not related to the man (ما ليس من سببه ولم يلتبس به), therefore, the word  ضاربِها  must be in the genitive because it refers to the man or the man's father, so it is na3t sababi.

3-the third case is an adverbial case not related to our discussion.


Now let's take  الشارع الماشون فيه. How possibly can this be na3t sababi? Do you even know what a na3t sababi is? A na3t sababi is an attribute of noun that follows the na3t and which is semantically realted to the noun before the na3t. What is the connection between this defenition and between phrases such as ماشون فيه or ذاهب فيه? These phrases do not even have a second noun. A na3t sababi must at least contain two nouns.

As for the phrase ذاهب هو فيه, let me quote myself once again:



> In the sentence الصبيّ سعيد في كلّ يومِ  ذاهبٌ هو إلى المدرسة the word   ذاهب has nothing to do with يوم (the day  is not going anywhere), nor it   can be called na3t sababi because there  is nothing after it that is   going anywhere (excpet هو, which refers to  the young man). This word   can only be understood as refering to the  young man.


I have been giving you superdetailed explanations and if you don't get what I am telling you then I don't think you will be convinced by anybody else.​


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> I have been giving you superdetailed explanations and if you don't get what I am telling you then I don't think you will be convinced by anybody else.​



I really appreciate your detailed explanations. But they do not convince me. I could try again to say why I don't understand your reasoning, but there seems to be a more fundamental misunderstanding. Your last posts, as I understand them, did absolutely not adress 
the issue that رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and الشارع الماشون فيه are grammatical (even if they are not na3t sababi, sorry for my messing up with this term), while you claim our example with dhaahibin is not. (You are right in saying that word order is not important, but I pointed to an identity with regard to case and syntactic function)

I'm sorry about that, nevertheless thank you for all the detailed explanations  Maybe I'll get your point when I read the discussion again later... Just two clarifications:



Arabus said:


> You CANNOT say مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها زيدٌ. Why? Because the phrase ضاربِها  زيدٌ has no semantic relation to رجلٍ, therefore you can't call it na3t  sababi ofرجلٍ
> مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها هو
> مررتُ برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربِها أبوه
> 
> You say  ضاربِها in the ginitive, Why? Listen to what Sibawayh says:


I totally agree with your explanations about these two , but the claims I have made are quite different. (I gave the first example with 'abuuhu instead of Zayd and did not claim anything about the second example, it was just an example demonstrating that rjl does not mean "leg" here). It does not help me much if you convincingly demonstrate that claims are wrong that I never made   (the same applies to your explanations about word order, I know that. I'm sorry you bothered to make these detailed, yet unnecessary explanations )



Arabus said:


> A na3t sababi must at least contain two nouns.


I'm sorry, the definition I used to work with did not include that restriction. Probably traditional Arab gammar has another term for the structure of الشارع الماشون فيه. It would just be interesting to me how Arab grammar calls structures like this one, or الشيء الممنوع منه, and البرامج التلفزيونية الممكن للمشاهد أن يختار بينها. Apparently they are not called na3t sababi, but they are grammatical and thus must have one or more names.


----------



## Arabus

syntactician said:


> I really appreciate your detailed  explanations. But they do not convince me. I could try again to say why I  don't understand your reasoning, but there seems to be a more  fundamental misunderstanding. Your last posts, as I understand them, did  absolutely not adress
> the issue that رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه and الشارع الماشون فيه are grammatical  (even if they are not na3t sababi, sorry for my messing up with this  term), while you claim our example with dhaahibin is not. (You are right  in saying that word order is not important, but I pointed to an  identity with regard to case and syntactic function)



I explained in detail and with quotations from Sibawayh that رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه _can be_ na3t sababi when أبوه means the "father of the man," but not when it means the father of somebody else (Zayd). This is the whole point: the meaning. If you don't consider the meaning, you won't know the correct case.

The other phrase (الشارع الماشون فيه) is not a complete sentence, therefore we CAN'T (plaese pay attention to this point): we can't know the correct case of ماشون in this phrase if we don't know WHO is walking, because this phrase CANNOT be a na3t sababi by definition.

As for our example, I am not quoting myself again.



syntactician said:


> I'm sorry, the definition I used to work with did not include that restriction. Probably traditional Arab gammar has another term for the structure of الشارع الماشون فيه. It would just be interesting to me how Arab grammar calls structures like this one, or الشيء الممنوع منه, and البرامج التلفزيونية الممكن للمشاهد أن يختار بينها. Apparently they are not called na3t sababi, but they are grammatical and thus must have one or more names.



You're driving me crazy. A na3t is a noun that attributes something to another noun. How can you have a na3t when you only have one noun?? Na3t sababi is composed of:

noun (1) + na3t + noun (2)

In order for this construction to be na3t sababi, the na3t must be referring to *NOUN 2; AND noun 2 must be semantically related to NOUN 1.* If these conditions are not met, then we are NOT talking about na3t sababi, therefore we have to apply normal grammar and search for the NOUN REFFERD TO BY THE NA3T in order to get the correct case.


----------



## Arabus

To know the case of ذاهب in our example answer the following questions:

1- Is ذاهب هو فيه na3t sababi?

The ansewr: no, and we don't even have to look at the sentence because na3t sababi must have at least two nouns.

2-What is the noun modified by ذاهب هو فيه? (What is the thing that is _going_?)

The answer: it is the young man. Therefore we copy the case of the word صبي.


----------



## Arabus

This is the definition of na3t sababi from this webpage:

           هو ما دل على صفة في نفس متبوعه ، ويكون مفردا دائما . 

The word متبوع means the noun that comes _before _the na3t (that is, the noun that gets its case from). The na3t sababi must indicate a quality of the noun that it gets its case from.

Examples from the same site:

 دعاني صديق كريم خلقه
أحب أمي الرحيم قلبها
يخرج من بطونها شراب مختلف ألوانه
 
Note that the red noun represents something related to the green noun.


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> I explained in detail and with quotations from Sibawayh that رجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه _can be_ na3t sababi when أبوه means the "father of the man," but not when it means the father of somebody else (Zayd). This is the whole point: the meaning. If you don't consider the meaning, you won't know the correct case.



I am completely aware that this is na3t sababi. Since my definition of na3t sababi is wrong, I now agree with you that this sentence is different from mine.



Arabus said:


> The other phrase (الشارع الماشون فيه) is not a complete sentence, therefore we CAN'T (plaese pay attention to this point): we can't know the correct case of ماشون in this phrase if we don't know WHO is walking, because this phrase CANNOT be a na3t sababi by definition.



Okay, that is now an answer to my question  You're right of course, we don't know the environment. But take سماعي عن طيبة عائلةِ المقيمِ معها (from the same book). muqiim here refers to a person outside the clause, not to "the family"; but the object of the preposition refers to the noun. There are plenty of similar examples of this pattern. They are, as you say, not na3t sababi, but they allow case agreement of the noun and the following adjective,although does not refer to the noun. Then what are they and why are they grammatical, while my example with dhaahibin is not? In both clauses, we have an adjective copying the case of a noun it does not refer to semantically.



Arabus said:


> You're driving me crazy. A na3t is a noun that attributes something to another noun. How can you have a na3t when you only have one noun?? Na3t sababi is composed of:





Arabus said:


> This is the definition of na3t sababi from this webpage:
> ...
> Note that the red noun represents something related to the green noun.



Thank you for the detailed explanations, I now haveunderstood that my definition of na3t sababi was wrong. So my example is not na3t sababi, but as I tried to explain in the previous paragraph it must be grammatical because there are examples which are virtually identical. (from the point of view of part of speech, case, and meaning)

Please understand that I not at all doubt that your explanations are correct. The problem is just that there still are many examples (as the one with the family I gave above) that seem to prove that dhaahibin is grammatical, though it could never be na3t sababi (as you finally have convinced me ).


----------



## Xence

I totally agree with Arabus explanations.

Just a word about Sibawayh's phrase مررت برجلٍ ضارِبُها أبوه . This is not an example he is giving, it's a contraction of a previous sentence from which he removed a part to make his example clearer. One has to read the whole context in order to understand why it's ضاربها and not ضاربه.



> وتقول مررت برجل معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها هو، فكأنك قلت معه امرأةٌ َضاربُها زيدٌ | ومثل قولك ضاربُها [ هو ] قوله: مررت برجلٍ معه امرأةٌ ضاربُها أبوه، إذا جعلت الأب مثل زيد، فإن لم تُنزِل هُوَ والأبَ منزلةَ زيدٍ وما ليس من سببه ولم يَلتبس به قلت: مررت برجلٍ معه امرأة ضاربِها أبوه أو هو | وإن شئت نصبت، تُجري الصِّفة على الرجل ولا تُجريها على المرأة، كأنك قلت ضاربِها وضاربَها، وخَصَصْته بالفعل، فيُجْرَى مجرى مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها أبوه،  ومررت بزيدٍ ضاربَها أخوه | ولا يجوز هذا في زيدٍ، كما أنه لا يجوز مررتُ برجلٍ ضاربِها زيدٌ، ولا مررت بعبد الله ضاربَها خالدٌ​


----------



## Arabus

syntactician said:


> Okay, that is now an answer to my question  You're right of course, we don't know the environment. But take سماعي عن طيبة عائلةِ المقيمِ معها (from the same book). muqiim here refers to a person outside the clause, not to "the family"; but the object of the preposition refers to the noun. There are plenty of similar examples of this pattern. They are, as you say, not na3t sababi, but they allow case agreement of the noun and the following adjective,although does not refer to the noun. Then what are they and why are they grammatical, while my example with dhaahibin is not? In both clauses, we have an adjective copying the case of a noun it does not refer to semantically.



This is also not a complete sentence, so we can't answer, because we don't know who is exactly the referent of مقيم.

If the word refers to the same person referred to by the pronoun in سماعي, then it must be genitive like the pronoun. The phrase has another problem, because عائلةِ is indefinite, therefore the word مقيم in this case is just a _muddaf ilayh_, and the phrase is irrelevant to our discussion.


----------



## Arabus

Xence said:


> Just a word about Sibawayh's phrase مررت برجلٍ ضارِبُها أبوه . This is not an example he is giving, it's a contraction of a previous sentence from which he removed a part to make his example clearer.



You're right; but the phrase معه امرأةٌ does not change anything in our discussion, so it didn't matter when *syntactician* removed it.



Xence said:


> One has to  read the whole context in order to understand why it's ضاربها and not  ضاربه.



Can you explain to us what you understood from him? Because understading his cryptic language takes me a lot of time.


----------



## Arabus

Like I told you from the beginning, if what you say were correct, Sibawayh would have pointed it out in his analysis of the sentence  مررتُ برجلٍ معه صقرٌ  صائد به; but since he totally ignored the word صقرٌ  in his analysis, we simply conclude that صائد به has nothing to do with صقرٌ.


----------



## syntactician

Arabus said:


> This is also not a complete sentence, so we can't answer, because we don't know who is exactly the referent of مقيم.
> 
> If the word refers to the same person referred to by the pronoun in سماعي, then it must be genitive like the pronoun. The phrase has another problem, because عائلةِ is indefinite, therefore the word مقيم in this case is just a _muddaf ilayh_, and the phrase is irrelevant to our discussion.



Oh, that's a mistake, it is العائلة in the example. Anyway ,there are many other examples of this kind (where the case of the adjective and its referent are different), but I do not have the books here currently.


----------



## clevermizo

Moderator's Note:

If anyone feels that a post is off-topic, they should use the Report-A-Post feature which is the small red triangle in the upper right corner of a post, to alert moderators so that they may review the case. We welcome this because it is sometimes difficult to monitor all threads at all times. Similarly, if anyone feels that they are being insulted or attacked, they should report this and not reply to such posts.

Please try to keep discussions focused, polite, respectful and on topic.

That said, a lot of the finer points of Arabic syntax in this thread are in fact off-topic, however they are intermingled with the original question, which makes the thread difficult to split. I am leaving this closed so that users may benefit from the discussion, however it seems the original questions has more or less been answered.

If anyone would like to discuss specific points of Arabic syntax and grammatical theory, please open a new thread on such topics. 

Regards,

clevermizo.


----------

