# فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

Does this sentence seem correct to you ?
How would you translate this sentence ?

The use of verbs أتَى  and يَمْشِي for the same subject (جُرَذٌ) seems strange (syntactically) to me ...

Thank you.


----------



## analeeh

What's wrong with it? It's a 7aal: 'When he lay down, a rat came to him walking on its back and so he leapt to his feet.' Right?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Merci.

Yes I also thought it wouldn't be strange if it was a haal but the problem is that the noun جُرَذٌ  is undefined, so in this case the sentence would be rather an adjective which is strange ...


Maybe we should add the particle *allâm :  أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???*


----------



## hokie

What is the source of this if I may ask?


----------



## elroy

Ibn Nacer said:


> the noun جُرَذٌ is undefined


 So what?


----------



## Sun-Shine

يمشي is an adjective.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Merci.
> جُرَذٌ  is undefined, so in this case the sentence would be rather an adjective which is strange ...


Why do you think it's strange?


> Maybe we should add the particle *allâm :  أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???*


No. The rat came to walk??


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> The use of verbs أتَى and يَمْشِي for the same subject (جُرَذٌ) seems strange (syntactically) to me ...


Semantically it's the same subject, which is OK because one subject can do more than one action, right?

Syntactically or technically however it's not. جرذ is the subject of أتى. The subject of يمشي is: ضمير مستتر تقديره هو يعود على الجرذ. I understand that this is only an explanation after the fact (grammar was described after language was invented), and I understand that in English you need an explicit pronoun for the second verb, but in Arabic you don't need one because the pronoun is implied by the form of the verb - and grammarians decided to call it 'a hidden pronoun'.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes I also thought it wouldn't be strange if it was a haal


What exactly is a haal? The verb يمشي? I don't see what difference that makes because it still needs a subject regardless of what other functions it may have. By the way, the haal is not just يمشي; it's الجملة الفعلية يمشي على ظهره - the sentence should be complete, hence it includes the implied pronoun that acts as a subject for the verb.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Maybe we should add the particle *allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???*


I don't understand, how does that help? To me this completely changes the meaning from "a rat came walking on it's back" to "a rat came to walk on it's back". This is a significant change in meaning.


Sun-Shine said:


> يمشي is an adjective.



يمشي is a verb! Maybe you mean حال جملة فعلية?
Also, I wouldn't describe a haal as an adjective.


----------



## elroy

I think Sun-Shine means that الجملة الفعلية في محل رفع نعت, and I think I agree.  نعت seems more plausible to me than حال.


----------



## Mahaodeh

elroy said:


> I think Sun-Shine means that الجملة الفعلية في محل رفع نعت


This didn't really occur to me.
I know that both work and I'm not sure whether I have a preference yet, but I'm just wondering, why does an adjective seem more plausible than a haal?


----------



## Mahaodeh

I thought about it, I suppose it didn't need more than a few minutes   .

I think it depends on what the ه in ظهره refers to, i.e., whose back are we talking about. If it refers to the rat, that is, the rat is walking on it's own back (somehow able to move while lying on its back maybe?) then the adjective makes sense: we are describing the rat itself not the action of the rat (the action describes the rat).

If it's the other animal's back - the one that is crouching - which is what I understood instinctively (maybe that's why an adjective didn't occur to me), then it makes more sense for it to be a haal. The reason would be because the walking does not describe the rat itself, rather it describes 'how the rat came' or 'the coming of rat'. Hence a haal.


----------



## cherine

Ibn Nacer and Sun-Shine are right in that يمشي or يمشي على ظهره is an adjective not a 7al, because the rule says الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال but from a meaning point of view, this doesn't change anything: يمشي على ظهره still describes the rat walking on the back of [I suppose a lion].


----------



## elroy

cherine said:


> the rule says الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال


 I wasn't aware of this rule, but I was going to say the same thing based on intuition and reasoning:

أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره
Here يمشي على ظهره describes the state of the rat as he came to him.  We could say أتى إليه جرذ كبير and كبير, an obvious نعت, would fulfill the same function as يمشي على ظهره.

أتى إليه الجرذ يمشي على ظهره
Here يمشي على ظهره describes the manner in which the rat came to him. We could say أتى إليه الجرذ ماشيًا and ماشيًا, an obvious حال, would fulfill the same function as يمشي على ظهره.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

elroy said:


> أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره
> 
> أتى إليه الجرذ يمشي على ظهره



I think that in both sentences يمشي على ظهره can be understood to describe the manner of the coming of the rat.

I'm not aware of a rule that says that حال can't be used when the فاعل of the verb is indefinite. @cherine, the rule you cited is new to me. Could you share the source? 

If it were a صفة, an indefinite relative clause, I'm not sure the tense would make sense: "A rat came to him that *IS* walking on his/its back." In order to use a صفة here, I would rewrite the sentence this way: أتى إليه جرذٌ كان يمشي على ظهره ("A rat came to him that *WAS* walking..."). On the other hand, حال can clearly be used with a verb in the مضارع to describe the manner in which an action was carried out in the past.

@Ibn Nacer, my response to your original question would be that, regardless of how you describe the function of clause beginning with يمشي grammatically, I don't think the use of two verbs here is strange. What I do find strange about this sentence is that there seems to be some ambiguity regarding what the ه in ظهره refers to. It's really creepy for a rat to be walking on its back, but maybe that's what the author is saying if it's that kind of text? But I agree with @Mahaodeh that it seems more likely that the rat walked onto the back of the other animal that had crouched.


----------



## elroy

lukebeadgcf said:


> I think that in both sentences يمشي على ظهره can be understood to describe the manner of the coming of the rat.


 I disagree.  In the first one, it’s describing the rat’s state.  Of course, يمشي _semantically_ describes a manner of coming, but that’s not what the sentence is _saying_.


lukebeadgcf said:


> If it were a صفة, an indefinite relative clause, I'm not sure the tense would make sense: "A rat came to him that *IS* walking on his/its back." In order to use a صفة here, I would rewrite the sentence this way: أتى إليه جرذٌ كان يمشي على ظهره ("A rat came to him that *WAS* walking...").


 The tense is correct, and كان doesn’t work.  You’re approaching this with an English mindset.  Arabic doesn’t do tense congruence. أتى already puts us in the past, so we don’t need to mark the past again: يمشي indicates present *at the time of the event*, which is past (because of أتى).


----------



## lukebeadgcf

elroy said:


> The tense is correct, and كان doesn’t work. You’re approaching this with an English mindset. . Arabic doesn’t do tense congruence: أتى already puts us in the past, so we don’t need to mark the past again: يمشي indicates present *at the time of the event*, which is past (because of أتى).



Ok, interesting. If "rat" were definite, which sentence would you prefer? And do you sense different meanings between the two sentences?

أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره

OR

أتى إليه الجرذ الذي كان يمشي على ظهره


----------



## cherine

lukebeadgcf said:


> I'm not aware of a rule that says that حال can't be used when the فاعل of the verb is indefinite. @cherine, the rule you cited is new to me. Could you share the source?


I just copied it from my school grammar book, and I'm sure you can find it in any grammar book, either under the chapter tackling sentences الجمل التي لها محل من الإعراب or the chapters about الحال والنعت.

And, like I said, regardless of the إعراب the phrase يمشي على ظهره describes the rat that was walking on the other animal's back.


> In order to use a صفة here, I would rewrite the sentence this way: أتى إليه جرذٌ كان يمشي على ظهره ("A rat came to him that *WAS* walking..."). On the other hand, حال can clearly be used with a verb in the مضارع to describe the manner in which an action was carried out in the past.


You can find this use of كان is some MSA usage, and I think it's an influence of foreign languages. In Arabic, like Elroy said, this كان is not necessary (I wouldn't say it's wrong). consider this:
أرى جرذًا يمشي I see a rat walking (present tense for both actions: the rat walking and me seeing it)
رأيت جرذًا يمشي I saw a rat walking (past tense for both actions)

By the way, the same works with the object in a definite state: أرى الجرذ يمشي، رأيت الجرذ يمشي.

Turning the sentence into a جملة صلة isn't necessary and doesn't change the meaning.


----------



## elroy

This muddies the waters a bit, because aspect is affected, but here goes:

أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره = the rat that walked (habitually) 
أتى إليه الجرذ الذي كان يمشي على ظهره = the rat that had been walking or that previously walked (habitually)  
أتى إليه الجرذ يمشي على ظهره = the rat, walking


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> because the rule says الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال


Wow, this completely slipped my mind! We were taught this at school but I forgot it.


lukebeadgcf said:


> I'm not aware of a rule that says that حال can't be used when the فاعل of the verb is indefinite.


It's not about a فاعل; it would be the same if it were a nominal sentence such as أتى إليه جرذ أسنانه حادّة.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Mahaodeh said:


> يمشي is a verb! Maybe you mean حال جملة فعلية?
> Also, I wouldn't describe a haal as an adjective.


I mean يمشي is جملة نعت
يمشي: فعل مضارع والفاعل ضمير مستتر تقديره "هو" والجملة الفعلية في محل رفع نعت

As cherine said "الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال"
(لكن أحيانًا يوجد استثناءات)
أتى جرذ يمشي
يمشي: جملة نعت

أتى الجرذ يمشي
يمشي: جملة حال


----------



## ayed

I understood it as:
The rat walked on the man's back; so, the the man sprang up


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> How would you translate this sentence ?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you all for your interesting answers ...

It seems that you understood my problem, this sentence (جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) seems strange to me because syntactically it is an adjective sentence (as has been confirmed by Chérine and SunChine and Elroy seems to agree too) but the meaning corresponds rather to a jumlah haaliyyah...

Generally an adjective sentence is translated by a relative sentence, this sentence describes*المنعوت * like any adjective (*نعت*)...

So for me the sentence (جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) means "un rat qui marche sur son dos"... I'm not sure how to translate it into English, maybe: "a rat that/who walks on his back"...

In this case we could think (as Mahaodeh pointed out) that the rat walks on its own back which seems strange to me...



elroy said:


> I wasn't aware of this rule, but I was going to say the same thing based on intuition and reasoning:
> 
> أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره
> 
> Here يمشي على ظهره describes the state of the rat as he came to him.  We could say أتى إليه جرذ كبير and كبير, an obvious نعت, would fulfill the same function as يمشي على ظهره.


For me what you say corresponds to the definition of haal but in our case the sentence is not a haal, it is syntactically an adjective sentence.

An adjective sentence describes المنعوت like any adjective (like the example you cited: كبير) and generally it is translated by a relative sentence at least in French ...

I would translate the sentence like this: "un rat qui marche sur son dos est venu à lui" (maybe in english: "a rat that/who walks on his back came to him")...

If the word "rat" was defined we would have used the relative الذي like this : أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره

Here it is clear that (syntactically) the sentence is not a haal (the relative الذي is an adjective) and we would translate this sentence (الذي يمشي على ظهره) by a relative sentence (_"*le* rat *qui* marche sur son dos"_ and maybe in english: _"*the *rat that/who walks on his back"_).

It seems to me that this sentence is similar to the first (without الذي) except that in the first sentence the word "rat" is undefined (so the relative الذي is not necessary).



Sun-Shine said:


>


woh bravo, yes this is one of the french translations, thanks.



hokie said:


> What is the source of this if I may ask?


Fables de Lokman expliquées d'après une méthode nouvelle par deux traductions françaises


----------



## Sun-Shine

As @ayed said: The rat walked on the lion's back not its back.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Sun-Shine said:


> As @ayed said: The rat walked on the lion's back not its back.


Yes I know and I agree, but it is the meaning (the logic) and the context that makes us think that ...

But I find that the syntax does not correspond to the meaning ...

But maybe this kind of example is an exception ?

I already looked if there was a syntax which allows to describe a state (haal) of an *indefinite* noun like the haal describes the state of a defined noun (a haal but for an indefinite noun)...


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Ibn Nacer said:


> I already looked if there was a syntax which allows to describe a state (haal) of an *indefinite* noun like the haal describes the state of a defined noun (a haal but for an indefinite noun)...


I found a thread that I opened a few times ago: Fr: alors que

There are two groups of sentences : in the first group there are sentences with undefined nouns and in the second there are sentences with defined nouns.

At the time Chérine understood that we could translate the sentences of the second group (with defined nouns) with a haal :


cherine said:


> Je pense qu'il serait plus simple, et peut-être aussi plus correcte, de traduire le deuxième groupe de phrases avec le حال:




But the translation of the sentences of the first group (with indefinite nouns) seems more difficult... Several connectors have been proposed but today I wonder (as we saw here in this thread) if we can use an adjective sentence* for translate these sentences ...

* As Elroy explained here: #12


----------



## cherine

Ibn Nacer said:


> But I find that the syntax does not correspond to the meaning ...
> 
> But maybe this kind of example is an exception ?


It's not a exception, you may just be not used to this structure (which is perfectly fine, no one knows everything). Here are a couple of similar structures from the Qur'an:
ودَخَل المدينةَ على حِينِ غَفْلَةٍ مِن أَهْلِها فَوَجَدَ فيها رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلان (سورة القصص، الآية 15)
Here يقتتلان is a نعت of the two men. And, interestingly, some grammarians are/were of the opinion that this can be considered a حال, like ابن عطية.

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).


> I already looked if there was a syntax which allows to describe a state (haal) of an *indefinite* noun like the haal describes the state of a defined noun (a haal but for an indefinite noun)...


I hope al-Halaby's parcing answers your question.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you very much, this is very interesting ...


cherine said:


> I hope al-Halaby's parcing answers your question.



Yes but he speaks about the indefinite noun which is "particularized" (مُخَصَّص), a state between definition and indefinition... It seems that the majority of grammarians consider that an undefined noun can be a *sahibu-l-haal* provided that it is "particularized" (مُخَصَّص) (however I note that it is said that  سيبويه allowed this without condition).

This is very interesting, if I want to apply this rule, it is enough that I particularize (تخصيص) the undefined noun, for example by adding an adjective :

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ *كَبِيرٌ *يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ

But if we follow the opinion of سيبويه the particularization (تخصيص) is not mandatory ... I suppose that for the first example you cited, we must follow the opinion of سيبويه because the word رَجُلَيْنِ is undefined and not "particularized" (مُخَصَّص)...

Thanks again, you taught me something...


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> if I want to apply this rule, it is enough that I particularize (تخصيص) the undefined noun, for example by adding an adjective :
> فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ *كَبِيرٌ *يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ


نحن لا نأخذ الاستثناءات كقاعدة 
:القاعدة المُتَّبَعة هي
 "الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال"

جرذ كبير يمشي
يمشي is still an adjective (جملة نعت).


----------



## cherine

Exactly. Classical grammarians had different opinions on several cases, we even had different _schools_ of grammar مدرسة الكوفة ومدرسة البصرة and even one in الأندلس. You can chose to follow the one you prefer, or you can follow the consensus of modern grammarians. And I honestly advise you not to over-think every little detail because sometimes this can only cause confusion when we only need to be "éclairé sur une question".


----------



## elroy

Ibn Nacer, it sounds like you're pretty confused about a number of things, so let me try to make this clear:


Ibn Nacer said:


> So for me the sentence (جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) means "un rat qui marche sur son dos"... I'm not sure how to translate it into English, maybe: "a rat that/who walks on his back"...


 Hypothetically, it could refer to habitual walking, or walking at a certain point in time (progressive):
1. un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
2. un rat marchant / qui était en train de marcher / a rat (that was) walking 

In this context, 2 seems to be what is meant. 


Ibn Nacer said:


> In this case we could think (as Mahaodeh pointed out) that the rat walks on its own back which seems strange to me...


 Whose back the rat was walking on has *absolutely nothing *to do with the syntax or semantics of جرذ يمشي or الجرذ الذي يمشي.  I have no idea why you think these two things are related! 


Ibn Nacer said:


> If the word "rat" was defined we would have used the relative الذي like this : أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره
> 
> Here it is clear that (syntactically) the sentence is not a haal (the relative الذي is an adjective) and we would translate this sentence (الذي يمشي على ظهره) by a relative sentence (_"*le* rat *qui* marche sur son dos"_ and maybe in english: _"*the *rat that/who walks on his back"_).


 If we change it to definite, then, in my view, the verb can only have the habitual, not the progressive, meaning. 

3. le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)

I have no idea why you think making the noun definite changes the plausibility of the sentence.  1-3 are all perfectly plausible, and there are no issues with the syntax. 


Ibn Nacer said:


> But I find that the syntax does not correspond to the meaning


 


Ibn Nacer said:


> But maybe this kind of example is an exception ?


 It's not.


----------



## I.K.S.

When i read  أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ for the first time i understood it as; "a rat came to walk on it's own back" by intuition, but the syntactic ambiguity popped up when i discovered that the intended meaning in reality was; ''The rat walked on the lion's back '' according to the obvious context and the famous fable...I would say this sounds incorrect to me and creates a kind of grammatical ambiguity, because it doesn't make sense how a rat came from afar to the lion by crawling on the latter's back in a synchronized action and at the same moment?  wasn't it a bit away from the cat before coming close to it in the first place? this is like telling someone:   أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها, a question here should be asked; wasn't you already in the city when you was walking down its streets?
I think that's what made you think of adding a logical link such as the لام?


Ibn Nacer said:


> Maybe we should add the particle *allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???*


So yes, there's a syntactic problem but it is not about the sequence; جرذ يمشي ...and adding الذي to it won't solve anything, rather it's about the grammatical logic of this expression;  أتَى إِلَيْهِ] يَمْشِي[ عَلى ظهْرِهِ] ] ??? I'm wondering whether it correct to say that? probably the usage is uncommon in MSA and CA but still correct nevertheless.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you all for your answers and your patience ... Sorry my English is limited so sometimes (often?) I can't explain what I think ...

I see that إتحادية قبائل الشاوية explained one of the points that I did not have the courage to explain because it is difficult for me to explain in English …



elroy said:


> Ibn Nacer, it sounds like you're pretty confused about a number of things, so let me try to make this clear:
> 
> Hypothetically, it could refer to habitual walking, or walking at a certain point in time (progressive):
> 
> 1. un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
> 2. un rat marchant / qui était en train de marcher / a rat (that was) walking
> 
> In this context, 2 seems to be what is meant.


Yes in this context several participants understood that it is rather the meaning 2 which is appropriate ...

But it seems to me that the meaning 2 corresponds syntactically to a haal sentence, for example I think it corresponds to the translation proposed by Analeeh and he also thought that it was a haal ...

And the problem is that the rule says that it is not a haal but an adjective sentence ...

And it seems to me that an adjective sentence corresponds to the meaning 1 and not to the meaning 2 (the adjective sentence is generally translated by a relative sentence) ...




elroy said:


> Whose back the rat was walking on has *absolutely nothing *to do with the syntax or semantics of جرذ يمشي or الجرذ الذي يمشي.  I have no idea why you think these two things are related!
> 
> If we change it to definite, then, in my view, the verb can only have the habitual, not the progressive, meaning.
> 
> 3. le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
> 
> I have no idea why you think making the noun definite changes the plausibility of the sentence.  1-3 are all perfectly plausible, and there are no issues with the syntax.


I mentioned the sentence with the relative الذي because It seems to me that this sentence is similar to the first (without الذي) except that in the first sentence the word "rat" is undefined (so the relative الذي is not necessary).

I wanted to explain that since the two sentences are similar then the two sentences should be translated by a relative sentence...

I mean : if you translate this sentence "الجرذ الذي يمشي" by "le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / *the* rat that walked (habitually)" then you should translate this sentence "جرذ يمشي" like this "*un* rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / *a* rat that walked (habitually)", no ?

In both cases (1 and 3) we have an adjective (which we translate by a relative sentence)...

And the problem, as explained above, is that it is the meaning 2 that the participants understood and not the meaning 1...

With the meaning 1 the sentence (أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) would be translated like this: "a rat that walked (habitually) on his back came to him", no ?



إتحادية قبائل الشاوية said:


> I would say this sounds incorrect to me and creates a kind of grammatical ambiguity, because it doesn't make sense how a rat came from afar to the lion by crawling on the latter's back in a synchronized action and at the same moment? wasn't it a bit away from the cat before coming close to it in the first place? this is like telling someone: أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها, a question here should be asked; wasn't you already in the city when you was walking down its streets?
> 
> I think that's what made you think of adding a logical link such as the لام?


Thanks for explaining this ...

In our example the word "rat" is undefined so according to the rule the sentence cannot be a haal so this is why I said to myself that maybe we had to use the particle al-lâm...

But in your example the sahibu-l-haal is defined so I would say that مشيا  is a haal ...

Now the problem is as you said, semantically the simultaneity of the two actions is strange ...

I had already asked* this type of question and subsequently I learned that there are several types of haal ...

The haal which expresses simultaneity is called الحال المقارنة … So in your example I think it’s not a حال مقارنة but I think it can be a حال مقدرة...


* At the time I had several examples: خرجت أطلب ماء | جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأَ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً

I was wondering if the meaning was as if we had the particle al-lâm: خرجت لِأطلب ماء | جَلَسَ وليدٌ ليقرأَ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً

Here are several links:

- خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
- جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأُ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
- Purpose in مضارع

In this post He came riding  - الحال Qureshpor, cited several examples from Wright's book... There's this example that looks like your sentence :

اتی الی عین ماء یشرب "He came to a spring of water to drink"


----------



## elroy

Ibn Nacer said:


> And it seems to me that an adjective sentence corresponds to the meaning 1 and not to the meaning 2


 No, it doesn’t.  Both are possible, depending on context. 


Ibn Nacer said:


> And the problem, as explained above, is that it is the meaning 2 that the participants understood and not the meaning 1...


 There is no problem.  

With the indefinite, 1 and 2 are both possible, and context tells us which is meant.
With the definite, only 3 is possible, in my view.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

elroy said:


> With the indefinite, 1 and 2 are both possible, and context tells us which is meant.


According to you in both cases the sentence is an adjective sentence not a haal ?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

If we translate the sentence like this : 

"a rat came to him walking on its back" (un rat est venu à lui en marchand sur son dos)

then I understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions: 1- coming to him 2 - walking on his back

---> at the time of his coming he was walking on his back 

It seems to me that this corresponds to a haal (الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل)

Can an adjective sentence express simultaneity like haal?


----------



## elroy

Ibn Nacer said:


> According to you in both cases the sentence is an adjective sentence not a haal ?


 Yes.  You are confusing syntax with semantics.  As I said earlier: 


elroy said:


> Of course, يمشي _semantically_ describes a manner of coming, but that’s not what the sentence is _saying_.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

elroy said:


> Yes.  You are confusing syntax with semantics.  As I said earlier:


For me it's strange when the semantic (meaning) does not correspond to the syntax ...

For example you wrote:


elroy said:


> أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره
> Here يمشي على ظهره describes the state of the rat as he came to him.



I find that this meaning corresponds to the definition of haal:  الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل

- الحال< --- يمشي على ظهره
- describes the state ---> يبين هيئة
- of the rat ---> صاحب الحال
-  as he came to him ---> عند وقوع الفعل

so what troubles me is that semantically it corresponds to a haal but syntactically it is an adjective sentence ...

But it seems that there is something that I misunderstood...


----------



## elroy

We’re going in circles.  I have nothing to add to what I’ve already said.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you anyway for your patience ...

I thought there might be a grammar rule that explains this situation ... I will look again ...

Does anyone know of other examples where an adjective sentence seems to have a meaning corresponding to haal?

PS : I just found this article: الفرق بين جملة الحال وجملة النعت - حياتكَ


----------



## elroy

Do you see the difference between the following sentence pairs?

English:
1.) A rat walking on his back came.
2.) A rat came, walking on his back.

French:
1.) Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint.
2.) Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos.

In both languages, we have an adjectival phrase in 1.) and an adverbial phrase in 2.).  The meaning is the same / similar, but the syntax is different.  It’s the same in Arabic.

I urge you to heed Cherine’s advice and stop over-complicating things.


----------



## cherine

Ibn Nacer said:


> I thought there might be a grammar rule that explains this situation ... I will look again ...


Je pense que tu te casses la tête pour rien, c'est vraiment simple:
Like I said in the post above: some grammarians see that this type of sentence is/can be considered a حال. So you can just follow their opinion. It is not wrong, and it preserves the meaning you're understanding from the sentence.


----------



## elroy

cherine said:


> some grammarians see that this type of sentence is/can be considered a حال. So you can just follow their opinion.


 The point, though, is that a نعت can express all kinds of different meanings, some of which may overlap with what a حال might express.  Ibn Nacer’s inability or refusal to accept this is what is needlessly giving him a headache.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you Chérine and Elroy for your patience, sorry I know that I am stubborn and that it is not easy for you ...



elroy said:


> Do you see the difference between the following sentence pairs?


To be honest yes I see a difference :



elroy said:


> French:
> 1.) Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint.
> 2.) Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos.



Here "en marchant" is a gerund which expresses a simultaneity, the two actions ("the coming" and "the walking on his back") take place at the same time...

This gerund does not describe the rat, rather it describes the action of coming of the rat, it expresses the manner of coming of the rat... This description (of the coming) exists only during a specific time (the time of the action).

And the relative sentence "qui marchait sur son dos" describes the rat, so this description can exist even outside of the time of the action of coming...

I find that it corresponds to what Mahaodeh explained :



Mahaodeh said:


> I think it depends on what the ه in ظهره refers to, i.e., whose back are we talking about. If it refers to the rat, that is, the rat is walking on it's own back (somehow able to move while lying on its back maybe?) then the adjective makes sense: *we are describing the rat itself not the action of the rat (the action describes the rat)*.
> 
> If it's the other animal's back - the one that is crouching - which is what I understood instinctively (maybe that's why an adjective didn't occur to me), then it makes more sense for it to be a haal.* The reason would be because the walking does not describe the rat itself, rather it describes 'how the rat came' or 'the coming of rat'*. Hence a haal.



I think that when you used the word "habitually" to explain the different meanings it was a way of saying that this description does not only exist during the time of the action (it can exist even outside the time of action).

It is just a parenthesis because in fact I reread your messages and I think that I may be starting to understand, here is the rule that I think I have understood (correct me if I am wrong):

A- The meanings 1 and 2 are different but in Arabic they can be translated by the same structure : "*an undefined noun + a sentence".*

This is one of the points that disturbed me because I did not think that this structure could express both meanings (In French we have two different structures to express each of the two meanings). Thank you for having the patience to explain this.

With regard to grammatical analysis, perhaps the sentence is adjective in both cases or perhaps it is adjective in the first case and haal in the second case ... In all cases, it should above all be noted that it is the same structure.

B- If the word "rat" was defined, this time we can use two different structures:

For the meaning 1, we use a relative :  أتى الجرذ *الذي *يمشي على ظهره
For the meaning 2, we use a haal :  أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره

This time, we have a different structure for each meaning (like in french), so it is easier to distinguish the two cases.

What do you think ? Did I understand correctly this time?

Thanks again for your patience, I know I am not easy to bear (je ne suis pas facile à supporter).


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> For the meaning 1, we use a relative :  أتى الجرذ *الذي *يمشي على ظهره


Here, the relative pronoun الذي is an adjective and يمشي is a relative clause جملة صلة الموصول.


> For the meaning 2, we use a haal :  أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره



يمشي is جملة حال.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> I think that when you used the word "habitually" to explain the different meanings it was a way of saying that this description does not only exist during the time of the action (it can exist even outside the time of action).


Did I use the word habitually? I couldn't really find it and I can't remember whether I wrote it or not at the time. But no, I did not mean something that does not only exist during the time of the action.


Ibn Nacer said:


> A- The meanings 1 and 2 are different but in Arabic they can be translated by the same structure : "*an undefined noun + a sentence".*


Can you? I don't think so. In both cases (whether the word rat was definite or indefinite), nothing implies that the action happens outside the time in which the action happened. In fact, I was explaining something else (obsolete as it may be now). Why would you think that this is what I was saying? I mean, on what basis do you conclude that the rat was walking on the lion's back _before _the rat came? I'm confused, maybe I misunderstood you.


Ibn Nacer said:


> perhaps the sentence is adjective in both cases or perhaps it is adjective in the first case and haal in the second case ... In all cases, it should above all be noted that it is the same structure.


I'm sorry but I made a mistake in that post, it is not a haal, it's only an adjective. Maybe you didn't notice that I later agreed with Cherine and Sunshine.


Ibn Nacer said:


> What do you think ? Did I understand correctly this time?


Hard to say, because I'm not sure I understand you . Sorry.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

@Sun-Shine, thank you...



Mahaodeh said:


> Did I use the word habitually? I couldn't really find it and I can't remember whether I wrote it or not at the time.


I spoke to Elroy...



Mahaodeh said:


> But no, I did not mean something that does not only exist during the time of the action.


Sorry my English is limited, I have difficulty explaining this point... I thought it was a known concept and therefore I thought you would have understood even if I express myself poorly.

I wanted to explain one of the differences between an adjective and a haal ...

An adjective is a description, this description is an inherent quality. If I say "a big rat came", I don't mean that the rat was big only when it came, this description is an inherent quality, it was big before coming, it will probably be big after...

However if I say "Zaid came smiling", I don't mean that Zaid smiles all the time (it is not a habit nor an inherent quality), what I mean is that Zaid was smiling *when *he came.

This meaning corresponds to the definition of haal:  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.
But as Elroy said:


elroy said:


> The point, though, is that a نعت can express all kinds of different meanings, some of which may overlap with what a حال might express. Ibn Nacer’s inability or refusal to accept this is what is needlessly giving him a headache.


So I tried to understand in which case the adjective can express the meaning of haal ... And then I made a summary of what I had understood so that someone would tell me if I understood correctly.




Mahaodeh said:


> I'm sorry but I made a mistake in that post, it is not a haal, it's only an adjective. Maybe you didn't notice that I later agreed with Cherine and Sunshine.


Haal or adjective, it's a matter of syntax ... Does that change anything about your understanding of the sentence?

Since you are now saying that this sentence is an adjective does that mean that the meaning is this:



Mahaodeh said:


> I think it depends on what the ه in ظهره refers to, i.e., whose back are we talking about. If it refers to the rat, that is, the rat is walking on it's own back (somehow able to move while lying on its back maybe?) then the adjective makes sense: we are describing the rat itself not the action of the rat (the action describes the rat).


If your understanding has changed, can you tell me how you understand the sentence now?



Mahaodeh said:


> Can you? I don't think so.


Yes of course you can, but did you understand what I meant? I explained what I understood from Elroy's messages. Maybe I misunderstood, that's why I asked him to tell me if I misunderstood. I don't know if you followed the discussion ?


Elroy quoted this passage:


Ibn Nacer said:


> And it seems to me that *an adjective sentence* corresponds to the meaning 1 and not to the meaning 2 (the adjective sentence is generally translated by a relative sentence) ...



And he replied:


elroy said:


> No, it doesn’t. *Both* are possible, *depending on context*.



The two meanings we are talking about are these:



elroy said:


> Hypothetically, it could refer to habitual walking, or walking at a certain point in time (progressive):
> 1. un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
> 2. un rat marchant / qui était en train de marcher / a rat (that was) walking
> 
> In this context, 2 seems to be what is meant.



I logically deduced that for him the adjective sentence (structure : "*an undefined noun + a sentence"*) could have two meanings (1 and 2) and that it is the context which allows us to know which of the two meanings the sentence has.

So this meaning depends on the context and not on the syntactic structure since it is the same in both cases.

---> However If the word "rat" was defined, this time we can use two different structures:

For the meaning 1 (*the *_rat that walked (habitually) came_) , we use a relative :  أتى الجرذ *الذي *يمشي على ظهره
For the meaning 2 (*the *_rat (that was) walking came_), we use a haal :  أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره

This deduction (for the meaning 1) corresponds to what I understood from this passage (among others):



elroy said:


> If we change it to definite, then, in my view, the verb can only have the habitual, not the progressive, meaning.
> 
> 3. le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)


But there too, I may have misunderstood... 



Mahaodeh said:


> Hard to say, because I'm not sure I understand you . Sorry.


Sorry, I make a lot of effort to explain, it is difficult for me because my English is limited.
I hope my message is clearer this time ...


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> I'm sorry but I made a mistake in that post, it is not a haal, it's only an adjective. Maybe you didn't notice that I later agreed with Cherine and Sunshine.


Just a parenthesis: 

I knew the rule mentioned by Chérine but did you read her message number 26 and my reply (message #27)?
Some grammarians consider that the sahibu-l-haal can be undefined...

here is another link : *هل يكون صاحب الحال نكرة؟*

The questioner also mentioned this rule but ...


----------



## cherine

Hi,

I don't know if I can answer all your questions, but here's a try: 


Ibn Nacer said:


> I wanted to explain one of the differences between an adjective and a haal ...
> An adjective is a description, this description is an inherent quality. If I say "a big rat came", I don't mean that the rat was big only when it came, this description is an inherent quality, it was big before coming, it will probably be big after...
> However if I say "Zaid came smiling", I don't mean that Zaid smiles all the time (it is not a habit nor an inherent quality), what I mean is that Zaid was smiling *when *he came.


Good point. But let's not focus too much on the inherence of the quality and look at both الحال والصفة as descriptions.
Once more, there are grammarians who accept that a حال can describe an indefinite noun. And I think this solves your problem with this structure.
Other people don't mind the technicalities that much and don't have a problem with a phrase being an adjective or a 7aal, because either ways it describes a noun. The description being temporary or permanent doesn't matter that much either in many cases.


> This meaning corresponds to the definition of haal:  الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل


True. And it's also true with adjectives except that الصفة أيضًا تبيّن حال الموصوف both at the time of the action and the rest of the times. So the difference isn't really that big, except for certain contexts, of course, but even there the context, as usualy, is a key element to get the _*meaning*_ which is the most important thing. Meaning is what matters, and if the meaning is conveyed, than the communication is established, the idea is transmitted, and the technicalities shouldn't matter this much. I'm not belitteling your interest in the grammatical details, I'm just worried that caring too much about them can take a big amount of time and energy that could (and I dare say should) be spent in acquiring more knowledge in the language itself (like reading the language itself and its literature more than its grammatical intricacies). But it is of course your time, and your energy and you're absolutely free to spend them the way you want. This is just a sisterly advise, from someone who also loves languages and love learning them.


> So I tried to understand in which case the adjective can express the meaning of haal ... And then I made a summary of what I had understood so that someone would tell me if I understood correctly.


Frankly, I think we're going in circles now and just repeat ourselves. I did tell you that you understood correctly, according to a number of grammarians, so what more doubts do you still have? 


> Haal or adjective, it's a matter of syntax ... Does that change anything about your understanding of the sentence?


Absolutely not. The lion was laying رابض and a rat came and walked on the lion's back. It's a very simple sentence, really. The meaning doesn't change, even if or when we reword the sentence.

Si tu préfère que j'écrive en français, dis-le moi (mon français n'est plus ce qu'il était, mais peut-être ce serait mieux pour toi que l'anglais).


----------



## Interprete

Si on veut utiliser la terminologie de la grammaire indo-européenne, il est quand même difficile de parler ici d'un adjectif alors qu'il s'agit clairement d'un complément de manière. Un rat est venu COMMENT ? en marchant sur le dos du lion. Il y a précision de la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue. 
Après avoir lu l'ensemble du fil (ou presque), j'avoue ne pas trop comprendre quelle est la question que tu te poses, ni quel est le problème que tu crois discerner ici.
Je pense qu'il faut éviter de mélanger la classification grammaticale indo-européenne avec celle de la grammaire classique arabe, et qu'il ne vaut mieux pas comparer les deux langues, sinon on ne s'en sort plus.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you very much Chérine, for your explanations, your patience and your advice ...



Interprete said:


> Si on veut utiliser la terminologie de la grammaire indo-européenne, il est quand même difficile de parler ici d'un adjectif alors qu'il s'agit clairement d'un complément de manière.


C'est amusant que tu dises cela car justement la plupart des participants ont considéré qu'il s’agissait d'un adjectif... Il y a Mahaodeh qui pensait au début que c'était haal mais elle s'est ravisée par la suite lorsque Chérine (au message #11) a rappelé la fameuse règle de grammaire : الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال … Ainsi d’après cette règle la phrase (يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) occupe la fonction d'adjectif car le mot جُرَذٌ  est *indéfini*... Par contre si le mot "rat" (qu'on appelle sahibu-l-haal en grammaire arabe) était défini alors la phrase serait haal.

Par contre analeeh a bien considéré qu'il s'agissait d'un haal et sa traduction correspond bien à cela... J'avais compris comme lui, je pensais aussi qu'il s’agissait d'un haal d’après le sens de la phrase mais le problème c'est que d’après la fameuse règle (que je connaissais justement), il ne s'agit pas d'un haal mais d'un adjectif ! Mais comme toi je trouvais que parler d’adjectif ici ne collait pas alors étant donné que je trouvais que le sens ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe, j'ai essayé de comprendre, peut-être qu'il y a une erreur ou peut-être que l'adjectif peut aussi exprimer un sens correspondant à celui du haal ???

Mais malheureusement on a eu du mal à se comprendre (en partie parce que je m'exprime mal en anglais), je pensais entre autres que la différence entre l'adjectif et le haal était bien connu mais j'ai dû la rappeler... Le haal exprime entre autres une simultanéité, il indique l'état du sahibu-l-haal durant l’accomplissement de l'action (par exemple l'action exprimée par le verbe de la phrase principale) en arabe on a : الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل... Il s'agit donc d'un état temporaire, spécifique au temps de l'action principale... Alors que l'adjectif est une description exprimant une qualité inhérente indépendante du temps de l'action, la phrase adjective est souvent traduite par une phrase relative et non par un gérondif (qui indique une simultanéité)...

Ensuite à un moment donné Chérine a posté un message (#26) où elle donne deux exemples de versets dans lesquels on a un nom indéfini suivit d'une phrase or bien que ce nom soit indéfini certains ont été d'avis que la phrase était un haal... Alors j'ai cherché et trouvé d'autres explications et effectivement on trouve dans certains cours un chapitre qui explique que sous certaines conditions le sahibu-l-haal peut être *indéfini*.

A ce niveau, on peut choisir cet avis afin de faire correspondre le sens et la fonction grammaticale (sémantique et syntaxe)... Bien sûr chacun est libre, d'ailleurs certains ont continué de penser qu'il s’agissait d'un adjectif malgré que le sens correspondait plutôt à celui d'un haal... Alors comme c'est le sens qui importe le plus finalement, j'ai voulu laisser de côté la question de la fonction grammaticale et j'ai parlé de la structure "nom indéfini + phrase", j'ai voulu savoir quel pouvait être le sens de cette structure...

Ce que j'ai compris des propos d'Elroy c'est que cette structure peut avoir deux sens selon lui et que le choix entre les deux se fait d’après le contexte, si tu as un avis cela m'intéresse, voir la dernière partie du message #43.



Interprete said:


> en marchant sur le dos du lion. Il y a précision de la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue.


Ben justement j'ai aussi essayé d'expliquer le sens de ce gérondif "en marchant" (qui n'a justement pas le même sens qu'une phrase relative selon moi) :



Ibn Nacer said:


> To be honest yes I see a difference :
> 
> 
> 
> elroy said:
> 
> 
> 
> French:
> 1.) Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint.
> 2.) Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos.
> 
> 
> 
> Here "en marchant" is a gerund which expresses a simultaneity, the two actions ("the coming" and "the walking on his back") take place at the same time...
> 
> This gerund does not describe the rat, rather it describes the action of coming of the rat, it expresses the manner of coming of the rat... This description (of the coming) exists only during a specific time (the time of the action).
> 
> And the relative sentence "qui marchait sur son dos" describes the rat, so this description can exist even outside of the time of the action of coming...
Click to expand...


Mais je n'ai pas réussi à me faire comprendre apparemment, c'est vrai que mon anglais n'est pas terrible...



Interprete said:


> Après avoir lu l'ensemble du fil (ou presque), j'avoue ne pas trop comprendre quelle est la question que tu te poses, ni quel est le problème que tu crois discerner ici.


J'ai expliqué ci-dessus un des problèmes et je fais une parenthèse ici pour faire remarquer qu'un autre sens est peut-être possible (seul إتحادية قبائل الشاوية a remarqué ce point, regarde son message #31 et ma réponse #32 (dernière partie)... Qu'en pense-tu ?

Comme tu as dit : _"Un rat est venu COMMENT ? en marchant sur le dos du lion. Il y a précision de la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue." _

Ceci implique qu'il y a une simultanéité des deux actions : "venir auprès du lion" et "marcher sur son dos" mais n'est-ce pas étrange : s’il marche sur le dos du lion c'est qu'il est déjà auprès de lui et non qu'il est en train de venir auprès de lui... Logiquement on devrait plutôt avoir d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos...

Il existe plusieurs traductions de cette fable, il est intéressant de remarquer que les traductions sont en gros du genre : _"un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos"_. La traduction par un infinitif est bien pratique, on respecte bien l'ordre logique (d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos) sans exprimer explicitement (avec par exemple "pour" ou "afin de") un but (il est venu pour se promener sur son dos).

Ici le sens est évidement différent, c'est peut-être un deuxième sens possible...

Plusieurs exemples de phrases de ce type ont été citées (j'ai donné plusieurs liens) et dans la plupart des cas la traduction par un infinitif convient mieux que la traduction par un gérondif ou autre...

L'exemple de إتحادية قبائل الشاوية est  أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها (ici il utilise un nom à l’accusatif mais on aurait pu utiliser une phrase verbale)

"Je suis venu à la ville en marchant dans ses rues"  Vs "Je suis venu à la ville marcher dans ses rues"...

Enfin bref c'était juste une parenthèse...


----------



## Interprete

Ibn Nacer said:


> C'est amusant que tu dises cela car justement la plupart des participants ont considéré qu'il s’agissait d'un adjectif...


J'ai l'impression que le concept de صفة ne correspond pas exactement à celui d'adjectif dans les langues indo-européennes. C'est pour ça que je disais qu'il vaut mieux choisir l'un ou l'autre de ces systèmes mais pas les deux à la fois. En indo-européen, à ma connaissance, un groupe verbal ne peut jamais être un adjectif : il ne peut être qu'un complément.


Ibn Nacer said:


> je trouvais que le sens ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe, j'ai essayé de comprendre, peut-être qu'il y a une erreur ou peut-être que l'adjectif peut aussi exprimer un sens correspondant à celui du haal ???


Tu trouvais plutôt que la notion indo-européenne d'adjectif ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe de cette phrase. Je crois que c'est là le cœur du problème.




Ibn Nacer said:


> A ce niveau, on peut choisir cet avis afin de faire correspondre le sens et la fonction grammaticale (sémantique et syntaxe)...


En arabe elles correspondent. C'est en grammaire française qu'elles ne correspondent pas.



Ibn Nacer said:


> Ce que j'ai compris des propos d'Elroy c'est que cette structure peut avoir deux sens selon lui et que le choix entre les deux se fait d’après le contexte, si tu as un avis cela m'intéresse, voir la dernière partie du message #43.


Cette distinction de sens entre le gérondif et la relative est artificielle, car elle découle de ta supposition que le rat marche sur son propre dos (ce qui n'a pourtant aucun sens !). Il est clair que le rat marche sur le dos du lion, et en arabe, surtout dans les textes classiques, il est extrêmement courant que deux personnages soient désignés par un pronom indéfini au masculin singulier et que l'auteur laisse à ses lecteurs le soin de déduire qui est qui en fonction du contexte.
Or, une fois qu'il est établi que le rat marche sur le dos du lion, le sens des deux formulations est exactement le même :
1. 1.) Un rat arriva, qui marcha sur le dos du lion.
2. Un rat arriva en marchant sur le dos du lion.

Dans les deux cas il y a simplement un ajout d'une précision du verbe très vague أتى qui exprime uniquement l'idée d'une arrivée, voire d'une simple apparition (par exemple : أتاني في المنام : il m'est apparu en songe).



Ibn Nacer said:


> J'ai expliqué ci-dessus un des problèmes et je fais une parenthèse ici pour faire remarquer qu'un autre sens est peut-être possible (seul إتحادية قبائل الشاوية a remarqué ce point, regarde son message #31 et ma réponse #32 (dernière partie)... Qu'en pense-tu ?


Si l'autre sense que tu juges possible est celui du rat marchant sur son propre dos, alors j'ai déjà répondu à ça. Je suis évidemment gêné, en tant que modeste apprenant, de contredire un arabophone natif, mais pour moi ce genre d'ambiguïté pronominale est extrêmement fréquent en arabe classique, comme je le disais plus haut.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Ceci implique qu'il y a une simultanéité des deux actions : "venir auprès du lion" et "marcher sur son dos" mais n'est-ce pas étrange : s’il marche sur le dos du lion c'est qu'il est déjà auprès de lui et non qu'il est en train de venir auprès de lui... Logiquement on devrait plutôt avoir d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos...


Je pense que tu raisonnes encore une fois en français alors que la syntaxe est arabe. أتى est à l'accompli alors que يمشي est à l'inaccompli. S'il y avait succession dans l'action, les deux verbes auraient été à l'accompli avec un و, un ف ou un ثم (par exemple) entre les deux. Le fait que le deuxième verbe soit à l'inaccompli marque bien sa dépendance par rapport à أتى et donc qu'il s'agit d'un complément décrivant أتى.
Du point de vue du sens, أتى étant un verbe extrêmement vague, je ne pense pas que ton objection (comment peut-il venir s'il est déjà en train de marcher sur son dos) soit recevable. أتى peut ici exprimer le fait qu'un rat marchant sur le dos du lion est ainsi entré ("venu") dans sa sphère de perception.


Ibn Nacer said:


> on respecte bien l'ordre logique (d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos)


Cet ordre logique n'apparaît pas dans l'arabe à mon avis. Moi, je comprends que le lion était allongé quelque part, plus ou moins assoupi, et qu'il s'est à un moment rendu compte (c'est pour moi le sens de أتى ici) qu'un rat lui courait sur le dos.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Interprete said:


> J'ai l'impression que le concept de صفة ne correspond pas exactement à celui d'adjectif dans les langues indo-européennes. C'est pour ça que je disais qu'il vaut mieux choisir l'un ou l'autre de ces systèmes mais pas les deux à la fois. En indo-européen, à ma connaissance, un groupe verbal ne peut jamais être un adjectif : il ne peut être qu'un complément.


Ben si justement, une phrase relative (proposition subordonnée relative) peut jouer un rôle semblable à celui de l'adjectif (épithète), au point que certains parlent de "relative adjective", "propositions adjectives", "subordonnée adjective"...

J'ai fait une petite recherche et il se trouve qu'il y a beaucoup d'articles qui en parlent, exemples :



> Si dans un souci de progression pédagogique on peut étudier séparément les adjectifs qualificatifs puis les propositions relatives, toute étude systématique met rapidement en évidence les liens complexes qui les unissent. *La tradition grammaticale pose d'ailleurs une équivalence fonctionnelle entre la relative et l'adjectif épithète*, au point que dans « Le bon usage » Grevisse étudie les relatives sous le titre général de « Propositions adjectives » (p. 1066).





> … On distingue trois catégories de relatives :
> 
> — les adjectives qui ont un antécédent et le complètent à la manière d’un adjectif qualificatif. J’aime travailler avec des enfants qui écoutent.
> 
> Source : La proposition subordonnée relative - Le bon usage



Cependant tu as raison, il est vrai que certains parlent de complément du nom comme ici mais là ils font quand même le lien avec l'adjectif :



> La proposition subordonnée relative joue en quelque sorte le rôle d'un adjectif. Pour vérifier qu'une proposition subordonnée est relative, on peut donc la remplacer par un adjectif.
> ...
> La proposition subordonnée relative complément du nom joue en quelque sorte le rôle d'un  *adjectif*.



Enfin bref, le nom de la fonction peut être différents selon les auteurs et les époques...


Interprete said:


> Tu trouvais plutôt que la notion indo-européenne d'adjectif ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe de cette phrase. Je crois que c'est là le cœur du problème.





Interprete said:


> En arabe elles correspondent. C'est en grammaire française qu'elles ne correspondent pas.


Juste pour être sûr de comprendre : pour toi aussi la phrase *يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ *occupe la fonction d'adjectif ? Je parle bien de la fonction grammaticale en grammaire arabe (جملة الصفة/النعت)... Et du point de vu du sens, cette phrase est "un complément de manière" c’est-à-dire qu'elle exprime la manière/ la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue, c'est bien ça ?

Sinon ce que je voulais expliquer c'est que haal ou adjectif, peu importe, chacun peut choisir l'avis qui lui convient, l'essentiel finalement c'est de connaitre et comprendre les différents sens que peut avoir la structure "nom indéfini + phrase". Et je parlais *d'une manière générale*, je parlais de cette structure et non de l'exemple spécifique de cette fable...



Interprete said:


> Cette distinction de sens entre le gérondif et la relative est artificielle, car elle découle de ta supposition que le rat marche sur son propre dos (ce qui n'a pourtant aucun sens !). Il est clair que le rat marche sur le dos du lion,...


Mais je sais bien qu'ici les possibilités sont réduites car le sens "un rat qui marche sur son propre dos" est peu probable mais encore une fois je parlais *d'une manière générale* de la structure "nom indéfini + phrase"...

Et donc oui il me semble qu'il y a une différence évidente entre un gérondif et une phrase relative, exemples :

Un automobiliste, *qui conduisait une voiture grise,* a heurté une petite fille.
Un automobiliste a heurté une petite fille *en* *conduisant une voiture grise.*

Antoine, qui porte des lunettes, a nagé toute la journée.
Antoine a nagé toute la journée en portant des lunettes.

Il me semble que les deux sens sont différents, par exemple "qui porte des lunettes" c'est une description complémentaire qu'on pourrait d'ailleurs supprimer sans affecter le sens principal, cette description n'est pas liée à la nage, cela pourrait par exemple être une habitude (pour reprendre le terme employé par Elroy)  ---> Antoine porte habituellement des lunettes, on ne veut pas dire qu'il porte des lunettes pendant qu'il nage.

Par contre avec "en portant des lunettes" on veut bien dire qu'il porte des lunettes pendant qu'il nage... En dehors de la nage il est possible qu'il porte des lunettes tout comme il est possible qu'il porte des lentilles. Dans le deuxième cas on peut comprendre qu'il porte des lunettes pendant qu'il nage car les lentilles sont déconseillées durant la nage...

Cette différence est tellement évidente que je me dis qu'on ne doit pas parlé de la même chose, je me dis que j'ai dû mal te comprendre.... Peut-être que tu voulais parler du participe présent et non du gérondif ?



Interprete said:


> Or, une fois qu'il est établi que le rat marche sur le dos du lion, le sens des deux formulations est exactement le même :
> 1. 1.) Un rat arriva, qui marcha sur le dos du lion.
> 2. Un rat arriva en marchant sur le dos du lion.


Oui comme tu dis une fois établi... Mais cela a été établi d’après le contexte et le fait qu'un rat qui marche sur son propre dos est peu probable et une fois ce sens établi on est forcément influencé par la suite...

Il suffirait de changer la phrase pour que la différence entre un gérondif et une phrase relative apparaisse, exemple :

1- Un rat, qui mangeait des petits insectes, est venu après du lion. (habitude)
2- Un rat est venu après du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)



Interprete said:


> Si l'autre sense que tu juges possible est celui du rat marchant sur son propre dos, alors j'ai déjà répondu à ça.


Non ce n'est pas de ce sens-là dont je parlais mais du sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : _"un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos"_.  On a là, une traduction par un infinitif et contrairement au gérondif il n'exprime pas une simultanéité...



Interprete said:


> Je pense que tu raisonnes encore une fois en français alors que la syntaxe est arabe. أتى est à l'accompli alors que يمشي est à l'inaccompli. S'il y avait succession dans l'action, les deux verbes auraient été à l'accompli avec un و, un ف ou un ثم (par exemple) entre les deux. Le fait que le deuxième verbe soit à l'inaccompli marque bien sa dépendance par rapport à أتى et donc qu'il s'agit d'un complément décrivant أتى.


Non justement c'est bien de la syntaxe arabe, j'ai donné plusieurs liens dans lesquels il y plusieurs exemples de phrases et aucun connecteur n'est utilisé, il s'agit en fait d'un certain type de haal appelé  الحال المقدرة ou الحال المستقبلة.

Il y a par exemple cette phrase : خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء que je ne traduirais pas en utilisant un gérondif (car il n'y a pas de  simultanéité) "je suis sortit en cherchant de l'eau" mais en utilisant un infinitif "je suis sortit chercher de l'eau"... Comme tu le vois il n'y a pas de connecteur... Et pourtant on sent bien qu'il y a une succession : d’abord je sors ensuite (une fois dehors) je cherche de l'eau...

La traduction avec un infinitif est plus neutre que si on traduisait avec les connecteurs qui expriment le but comme "pour" ou "afin de" mais quand même on pourrait se demander si ce ne serait pas un moyen d'exprimer le but d'ailleurs il y a un fil intéressant qui pose la question : Purpose in مضارع dans ce fil il y a plusieurs autres exemples intéressants et pareil les phrases sont traduites avec un infinitif et non avec un gérondif...

Attention je n'affirme pas que ce type de haal exprime le but mais en tout cas il ne semble pas exprimer une simultanéité...

Récemment j'ai répondu ici #6 à quelqu’un qui demandait pourquoi on ne traduisait le haal en utilisant "while", il se demandait cela sans doute parce qu'en général le haal exprime une simultanéité mais dans le verset en question je pense qu'il ne s'agit pas de ce type de haal, ce n'est pas mon avis j'ai cité un passage où il est dit qu'il s’agit d'un حال مقدرة et l'auteur explique pourquoi...

Bref, merci pour cet échange, j'éspère que je ne t'ai pas trop pris la tête, cela m'a fait réfléchir, et je pense que c'est instructif...


----------



## Interprete

Ibn Nacer said:


> Cette différence est tellement évidente que je me dis qu'on ne doit pas parlé de la même chose, je me dis que j'ai dû mal te comprendre.... Peut-être que tu voulais parler du participe présent et non du gérondif ?


Oui mais là tu ne donnes que des exemples français. Moi je te parlais de l'exemple arabe de la souris, et dans ce cas là je ne vois pas de différence entre la relative (qui est équivalente à un participe présent d'ailleurs) et le gérondif.
Tu ne peux pas te baser sur le français pour essayer de tirer des règles générales de grammaire arabe... Il faudrait que tu trouves d'autres cas de figure *en arabe*.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Il suffirait de changer la phrase pour que la différence entre un gérondif et une phrase relative apparaisse, exemple :
> 
> 1- Un rat, qui mangeait des petits insectes, est venu après du lion. (habitude)
> 2- Un rat est venu après du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)


Ça donne quoi, ces phrases, en arabe ?


Ibn Nacer said:


> Non ce n'est pas de ce sens-là dont je parlais mais du sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : _"un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos"_. On a là, une traduction par un infinitif et contrairement au gérondif il n'exprime pas une simultanéité...


Il me semble que si, car il y a (en français) deux lectures possibles  :
1/L'infinitif dénote un but (il est venu pour quoi, pour se promener), en "bon" français (il me semble).
2/En français plus relâché, les deux verbes sont pris ensemble pour dénoter le début d'une action entreprise : par exemple, _ne viens pas me casser la tête. Vous venez me contredire alors que vous n'avez pas suivi l'affaire. Cela fait deux heures que je travaille et lui vient chanter dans mon bureau. _



Ibn Nacer said:


> Il y a par exemple cette phrase : خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء que je ne traduirais pas en utilisant un gérondif (car il n'y a pas de simultanéité) "je suis sortit en cherchant de l'eau" mais en utilisant un infinitif "je suis sortit chercher de l'eau"... Comme tu le vois il n'y a pas de connecteur... Et pourtant on sent bien qu'il y a une succession : d’abord je sors ensuite (une fois dehors) je cherche de l'eau...


Pas d'accord, dans ce cas là il s'agit de l'expression du but et non de la succession : pourquoi suis-je sorti ? pour aller chercher de l'eau. Ça rejoint le cas de figure du rat, où on a un premier verbe général suivi d'un deuxième qui explicite le contexte de l'action. Ce n'est pas une simple énonciation deux actions l'une après l'autre.
_._


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Vraiment désolé, ce message est bien long...



Interprete said:


> Moi je te parlais de l'exemple arabe de la souris, et dans ce cas là je ne vois pas de différence entre la relative (qui est équivalente à un participe présent d'ailleurs) et le gérondif.
> Tu ne peux pas te baser sur le français pour essayer de tirer des règles générales de grammaire arabe... Il faudrait que tu trouves d'autres cas de figure *en arabe*.


Ok on s'est mal compris alors, car j'avais bien cité les deux traductions d'Elroy qui pensait que les deux phrases avaient quasiment le même sens, j'avais cité le passage où j'expliquais que selon moi il y avait  une différence entre  "Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint" et "Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos".

C'est pourquoi je voulais savoir si pour lui la structure "non indéfini + phrase" pouvait exprimer ces deux sens, le choix entre ces deux sens se faisant selon le contexte. C'est ce qu'il semblait dire dans ses réponses mais dans le doute je lui avait demandé une confirmation.



Interprete said:


> Il me semble que si, car il y a (en français) deux lectures possibles :
> 1/L'infinitif dénote un but (il est venu pour quoi, pour se promener), en "bon" français (il me semble).
> 2/En français plus relâché, les deux verbes sont pris ensemble pour dénoter le début d'une action entreprise : par exemple, _ne viens pas me casser la tête. Vous venez me contredire alors que vous n'avez pas suivi l'affaire. Cela fait deux heures que je travaille et lui vient chanter dans mon bureau. _


Ok alors selon toi quel est le sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : _"un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos"_ ? Le sens 1 (but) ou le sens 2 ?



Interprete said:


> Pas d'accord, dans ce cas là il s'agit de l'expression du but et non de la succession : pourquoi suis-je sorti ? pour aller chercher de l'eau. Ça rejoint le cas de figure du rat, où on a un premier verbe général suivi d'un deuxième qui explicite le contexte de l'action. Ce n'est pas une simple énonciation deux actions l'une après l'autre.


Je me suis peut-être mal exprimé mais quand j'utilisais le mot "succession" c'était par opposition au mot "simultanéité", c'était une façon de dire que les deux actions n'ont pas lieu en même temps et dés lors qu'elle n'ont pas lieu en même temps alors c'est que *l'une a lieu après l'autre.*

Le mot "succession" c'est juste pour dire qu'un des deux événements a lieu après l'autre après savoir quel sens donné à cette "succession" c'était pour moi une autre question que j'ai posé plusieurs fois dans plusieurs fils (et je ne suis pas le seul). Pour moi aussi cela semble exprimer le but mais je voulais avoir une confirmation tout comme l'auteur du fil : Purpose in مضارع

C'est pour cela d'ailleurs que je demandais si le sens était le même que celui que l'on obtient lorsque l'on ajoute la particule al-lâm (qui peut exprimer explicitement le but) :  خرجت لِأطلب ماء

Je pensais tellement que cela exprimait le but que je me demandais si la phrase n'était pas incorrecte sans la particule al-lâm. Oui parce que tout le monde était d’accord sur le fait que ce type de phrase était un haal mais à l'époque cela me perturbait car il est bien connu qu'à la base le haal exprime une simultanéité or ici cela ne colle pas vraiment.

Alors par la suite les choses se sont éclaircies quand j'ai appris qu'il y avait en fait plusieurs types de haal : le haal qui exprime la simultanéité est appelé الحال المقارنة donc ce n'est pas ce type de haal auquel on a affaire dans ce type de phrase... Dans ce type de phrase il s'agirait plutôt d'un الحال المقدرة  (ou  الحال المستقبلة).

Je n'ai pas trouvé de référence disant clairement que ce type de haal (الحال المقدرة) exprimait le but c'est pourquoi je ne me suis pas avancé et que je suis resté prudent en disant seulement que ce type de haal n'exprime pas une simultanéité mais qu'on a plutôt une "succession" (un des deux événements a lieu après l'autre).

Enfin pour éviter tout malentendu je te met une explication en arabe (c'est plus prudent et ça passera peut-être mieux) :

الحال في مثل هذا المثال تسمى (الحال المقارنة) وهي التي يتحقق معناها في زمن تحقق معنى عاملها بدون تأخر. فزمن الفرح هو زمن المجيء . وتقابلها (الحال المقدرة) وهي الحال المستقبلة التي يتحقق معناها *بعد *وقوع معنى عاملها نحو : ادخلوا المسجد سامعين المحاضرة . فإن سماعهم متأخر عن زمن دخولهم . ومنه قوله تعالى : { وَتَنْحِتُونَ الْجِبَالَ بُيُوتاً } فـ (بيوتًا) حال من (الجبال) . وهي حال مقدرة؛ لأن زمن كون الجبال بيوتًا متأخر عن زمن نحتها .

Tu peux aussi regarder l'exemple ici #6  penses-tu que le verset exprime un but ? Si oui cela aiderait à le traduire, au lieu d'utiliser "while" comme le propose l'auteur de la question il faudrait peut-être utiliser "pour" par exemple...



Interprete said:


> Ça donne quoi, ces phrases, en arabe ?


C'est la big question ! Lol

C'est justement ce que j'ai essayé de comprendre,  j'ai ouvert ce fil en citant un exemple mais par la suite je voulais comprendre et savoir exprimer ce genre de phrase d'une manière générale mais je me suis mal fait comprendre apparemment (petit niveau en anglais). J'avais résumé ce que j'avais compris des messages pour établir en quelque sorte une "règle" mais je n'ai pas eu de confirmation.

Ce que j'ai compris c'est que pour certains la structure "nom indéfini + phrase" pourrait exprimer les deux sens, c'est le contexte qui décide... Dans ce cas je propose ça :  جاء إلى الأسد جرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة

1- Un rat, *qui mangeait* des petits insectes, est venu auprès du lion.
2- Un rat est venu auprès du lion *en mangeant* des petits insectes. (simultanéité)

---
Une paranthése : On sait que le haal est tout indiqué pour exprimer une simultanéité, l'ennui c'est que d’après la fameuse règle, la phrase est adjective après un nom indéfini et haal après un nom défini mais par la suite on a vu qu'en fait il y a des cas où on peut avoir un haal même avec un nom indéfini (c'est-à-dire quand le sahibu-l-haal est indéfini).

J'avais posté ce lien : : *هل يكون صاحب الحال نكرة؟*

J'en déduis qu'on peut s'assurer qu'on a bien un haal en utilisant le point n°4 :


4ـ أن تكون الحال جملة مرتبطة بالواو.مثال:جاءني رجل وهو يصرخ .
*تنبيه: *وجود الواو في صدر الجملة الحالية يدل على أن الجملة حالية لا نعتية وبها يزول الالتباس.


Cela donnerait :  جاء إلى الأسد جرذ وهو يأكل حشرات صغيرة

Comme il est dit, ici cela ne peut pas être une phrase adjective, le fameux wâw (c'est un wâwu-l-haal) leve l'ambiguité (وبها يزول الالتباس).

Bon aprés je ne dis pas que la phrase est "naturelle", elle est peut-être un peu "lourde"...
---

Par contre, comme je l'avais fait remarquer, si le mot "rat" était défini, je pense que les choses seraient différentes car là on peut utiliser deux structures différentes (1- avec le relatif الذي et 2- avec un haal) :

1- Le rat *qui mangeait* des petits insectes est venu auprès du lion.
1- جاء إلى الأسد الجرذ الذي يأكل حشرات صغيرة

2- Le rat est venu auprès du lion *en mangeant* des petits insectes. (simultanéité)
2- جاء إلى الأسد الجرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة

Petite parenthèse pour la phrase 2 comme on l'a vu on pourrait penser la traduire avec un infinitif :

2.1- Le rat est venu auprès du lion *manger *des petits insectes. (but ?).

Mais là comme il s'agit d'un haal et que le sens de la simultanéité est possible (sémantiquement) je pense que c'est ce sens (2) qui l'emporte. A ce propos un message intéressant de barkoosh :



barkoosh said:


> Grammatically speaking, أطلب ماء is a جملة حالية. The thing is that with the verb طلب, the form خرجت وأنا أطلب ماء (which is a جملة حالية = I went out seeking water) almost means the same thing as خرجت لأطلب ماء = I went out to seek water.
> 
> However, try it with another verb:
> خرجت آكل تفاحة
> Is it خرجتُ وأنا آكل تفاحة (I went out eating an apple) or خرجتُ لآكل تفاحة (I went out to eat an apple)? They don't mean the same thing. But being a جملة حالية, the phrase خرجت آكل تفاحة means only "I went out eating an apple".



Si on tiens a exprimer le sens 2.1 on peut utiliser la particule al lâm...

Vraiment désolé, ce message est bien long...


----------



## Interprete

Ibn Nacer said:


> Ok alors selon toi quel est le sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : _"un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos"_ ? Le sens 1 (but) ou le sens 2 ?


Pour moi c'est clairement le sens 2, et d'ailleurs je ne suis pas certain que cette traduction soit idéale (même si je n'ai rien de mieux à suggérer).


Ibn Nacer said:


> C'est pour cela d'ailleurs que je demandais si le sens était le même que celui que l'on obtient lorsque l'on ajoute la particule al-lâm (qui peut exprimer explicitement le but) : خرجت لِأطلب ماء


À mon sens il y a une nuance, car dans le premier cas de figureon juxtapose deux actions, la première étant nécessaire pour effectuer la deuxième. Par contre dans le deuxième cas, on explicite pourquoi on est sorti, par exemple en réponse à une question.


Ibn Nacer said:


> C'est la big question ! Lol





Ibn Nacer said:


> Ce que j'ai compris c'est que pour certains la structure "nom indéfini + phrase" pourrait exprimer les deux sens, c'est le contexte qui décide... Dans ce cas je propose ça : جاء إلى الأسد جرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة
> 
> 1- Un rat, *qui mangeait* des petits insectes, est venu auprès du lion.
> 2- Un rat est venu auprès du lion *en mangeant* des petits insectes. (simultanéité)


Dans ce cas de figure, l'option 2 n'est pas vraiment envisageable, même en français elle n'a pas vraiment de sens. Ce n'est peut-être pas le meilleur exemple.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Petite parenthèse pour la phrase 2 comme on l'a vu on pourrait penser la traduire avec un infinitif :
> 
> 2.1- Le rat est venu auprès du lion *manger *des petits insectes. (but ?).


Tout à fait, c'est pour ça que l'infinitif utilisé dans la traduction de ton récit de départ, qui n'indique clairement pas le but, me semble relever d'un français plutôt relâché et à la limite de la correction.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Interprete said:


> Dans ce cas de figure, l'option 2 n'est pas vraiment envisageable, même en français elle n'a pas vraiment de sens. Ce n'est peut-être pas le meilleur exemple.


Pour moi la phrase 1 a du sens, on exprime une simultanéité, on peut très bien venir, marcher, regarder une vidéo... Tout en mangeant quelque chose *** ... En tous cas elle n'a pas moins de sens que la phrase "un rat est venu auprès de lui en marchant sur son dos",  car là il me semble que la simultanéité a encore moins de sens (comment un rat peut-il venir auprès du lion tout en marchant sur le dos de ce même lion ?).

----
** *Petite parenthèse : avec ces phrases ci-après (déjà mentionnées), je pense qu'on n'a pas le choix, elles expriment une simultanéité :

- جاء إلى الأسد جرذ وهو يأكل حشرات صغيرة
- Un rat est venu auprès du lion *en mangeant* des petits insectes. (simultanéité)

- جاء إلى الأسد الجرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة
- Le rat est venu auprès du lion *en mangeant* des petits insectes. (simultanéité)
----

Mais bon ce n'est pas la question de fond, on pourrait citer d'autres exemples qui te conviendraient mieux **** le but étant de comprendre et connaitre le ou les sens possible(s) de la structure "nom indéfini + phrase"... Est-ce qu'il n'y a qu'un seul sens imposé par la syntaxe ou bien cette syntaxe peut avoir plusieurs sens et c'est le contexte qui décide ? C'est la vraie question finalement au delà des exemples de ce présent fil...

Et justement il est intéressant que tu ais exclue l’option 2 qui exprime la simultanéité... Car mon premier réflexe est aussi d’exclure le sens de la simultanéité puisque d’après la fameuse règle la phrase après un nom indéfini est adjective et non haal. En plus en général la phrase adjective est traduite par une phrase relative ce qui correspond effectivement à l'option 1 et non à l'option 2...

Et pour la phrase (يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) de ce présent fil eh bien c'est plutôt le contraire qui s'est passé : on a d’après la fameuse règle une phrase adjective mais pourtant c'est le sens avec la phrase relative qui a été écarté : "_un rat qui marchait sur son dos est venu auprès du lion_" car là on sent que la phrase semble dire que le rat marchait sur son propre dos ce qui n'a pas de sens et c'est je pense à cause de cela que ce sens a été écarté et non à cause de la syntaxe puisque en général c'est bien ce sens (description via une phrase relative) qui correspond à cette syntaxe (nom indéfini + phrase *adjective*).

Et d'ailleurs un fait révélateur c'est que certains ont considéré qu'il s'agissait d'un haal et non d'un adjectif et ce sans doute parce que le sens correspondant en général à celui d'une phrase adjective ne collait pas ici... Ils ont donc retenu un autre sens (dans lequel on a plutôt un simultanéité qu'une relative).

Ce qui confirme selon moi qu'*en général *le sens de la simultanéité correspond bien syntaxiquement au haal tandis qu'une description via une phrase relative correspond syntaxiquement plutôt à la fonction "adjective"...

Je dis *en général* car maintenant suite à cette présente discussion j'envisage aussi la possibilité que dans certains contextes une phrase adjective (qualifiant un nom *indéfini*) puisse aussi exprimer un sens similaire à celui d'une phrase qui est haal...



---
*** *Peut-être que cet exemple te conviendrait mieux :

1- Un rat, *qui marchait *lentement*,* est venu auprès du lion.
2- Un rat est venu auprès du lion *en marchant *lentement. (simultanéité)


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> Salut,
> 
> فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما
> 
> Does this sentence seem correct to you ?
> How would you translate this sentence ?
> 
> The use of verbs أتَى  and يَمْشِي for the same subject (جُرَذٌ) seems strange (syntactically) to me ...
> 
> Thank you.


And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!

Compare this sentence with:

خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.

"Where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with a mudaari3 forms, omitting "and" at the furst juncture (though not subsequently)." Arabic Grammar - a first workbook - G. M. Wickens

So, in my humble opinion, the sentence in question is neither a صفة after indefinite noun (a rat), nor a Haal but a straight forward sequence of two verbs "to come" and "to walk".


----------



## Romeel

*بعيدا عن النحو*

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

من كتب هذا؟
أنا أراها لغة ركيكة واسلوب غير متقن لشرح مشهد من قصة خيالية، فمثلا لن ينتظر الأسد حتى *يمشى *على ظهره جرذ ثم يثب

ولو كنتُ مكانه لكتبتُ:
فلَمَّا رَبَضَ قفز على ظهره جُرَذٌ فوَثَبَ الأسد من مكانه

خرج أمیر الجیش *یصعد فی الجبل* و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ
هذه عبارة جميلة


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> So, in my humble opinion, the sentence in question is neither a صفة after indefinite noun (a rat), nor a Haal but a straight forward sequence of two verbs "to come" and "to walk".


It is not. your translation is not accurate in my opinion, you are assuming that there is a sequence when neither sentence implies that.



Qureshpor said:


> Where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with a mudaari3 forms, omitting "and" at the furst juncture (though not subsequently)." Arabic Grammar - a first workbook - G. M. Wickens


I have no idea who Wickens is, but his explanation does not explain cases such as:
الَّذِي خَلَقَكَ فَسَوَّاكَ فَعدَلَكَ - الرحمن

يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَيُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْخَيْرَاتِ وَأُولَٰئِكَ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ - آل عمران

كُلُوا وَتَمَتَّعُوا قَلِيلًا إِنَّكُمْ مُجْرِمُونَ - المرسلات

All these are virtually simultaneous, all have the same tense.

In any case it differs from the original sentence and from your example.

Also, his description leaves much to be desired.



Qureshpor said:


> And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!


No, the rat did not come _*and*_ walk on his back otherwise it would have been جاء جرذ ومشى على ظهره. The rat came *walking* on his back. That is, the sentence “walking on his back” is describing the rat, not telling of his action. The sentence جاء جرذ يمشي على ظهره means the same thing as جاء جرذ ماشٍ على ظهره.



Qureshpor said:


> The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.


Again, incorrect translation. You are assuming that there is a sequence of actions: first the commander came out, then he climbed, and then he looked. But the sentence is saying that he went out *climbing* and *looking*. That is, climbing and looking are describing his status as he came out.

The sentence خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل وینظر الی صفوف العدوّ has the same meaning as:
خرج أمير الجيش صاعدا الجبل وناظرا إلى صفوف العدو
Not: خرج أمير الجيش وصعد الجبل ونظر إلى صفوف العدو.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Romeel said:


> فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما
> 
> من كتب هذا؟
> أنا أراها لغة ركيكة واسلوب غير متقن لشرح مشهد من قصة خيالية، فمثلا لن ينتظر الأسد حتى *يمشى *على ظهره جرذ ثم يثب


من ناحية اللغة أنا أراها أفصح من جملة قائد الجيش.

من ناحية الوصف، وأظنك تقصد هذا، لا أرى فيه شيئا. أتى لا تعني بالضرورة أنه جاء ببطء، ولا تعني بالضرورة أنه جاء من أمام الأسد ليراه ويجلس منتظرا حتى يمشي على ظهره. أفهم المقصود بأن الجرذ أتى إليه متسللا من الخلف فما إن شعر الأسد به يمشي على ظهره وثب قائما.

ليس بالضرورة أن يشعر به الأسد بمجرد صعوده، ربما مرّت بضع ثوان قبل أن يشعر به الأسد.


Romeel said:


> خرج أمیر الجیش *یصعد فی الجبل* و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ
> هذه عبارة جميلة


لا أدري، لو كنت مكانه لما أضفت حرف الجرّ الذي يبدو لي وكأنه زائد لا داعي له، كنت سأقول: خرج أمير الجيش يصعد الجبل وينظر إلى صفوف العدو.

لا أدري لماذا وجدتها جميلة، لعلك رأيت شيئا لم أره فيها.


----------



## Romeel

Mahaodeh said:


> لا أدري لماذا وجدتها جميلة، لعلك رأيت شيئا لم أره فيها.


*في الجبل* أجمل لأنها تدل على أن الجبل ليس مجرد سطح يُصعد عليه بل مكون من أشجار وطبيعة وهواء منعش


----------



## Qureshpor

Mahaodeh said:


> It is not. your translation is not accurate in my opinion, you are assuming that there is a sequence when neither sentence implies that.


I am just a learner of the Arabic language and respect your and other mother tongue Arabic speakers' views and opinions. I could very well be wrong but I am not happy with the حال interpretation of OP @Ibn Nacer's sentence and can fully understand his difficulty with the sentence and his reservations. I admire his commitment and patience. I think the sequential explanation, logically and semantically fits the scenario better. A rat comes to the place where a lion is lying down on the ground (probably asleep). It (the rat) feels it's a good opportunity to get on the lion's back and does so. Upon feeling the presence of an unwanted intruder, the lion suddenly jumps up on its feet. I believe Cherine has explained the sentence in the following words.


cherine said:


> The lion was laying رابض and a rat came and walked on the lion's back. It's a very simple sentence, really. The meaning doesn't change, even if or when we reword the sentence.





Mahaodeh said:


> I have no idea who Wickens is


He was a Professor of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the University of Toronto.


Mahaodeh said:


> No, the rat did not come _*and*_ walk on his back otherwise it would have been جاء جرذ ومشى على ظهره. The rat came *walking* on his back. That is, the sentence “walking on his back” is describing the rat, not telling of his action. The sentence جاء جرذ يمشي على ظهره means the same thing as جاء جرذ ماشٍ على ظهره.


Well, as I have indicated earlier, "A rat came walking on his (the lion's) back" does not sound convincing to me. The rat came and then got on top of the lion by walking up to its back. It did not come walking to its back.

خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل وینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.



Mahaodeh said:


> Again, incorrect translation. You are assuming that there is a sequence of actions: first the commander came out, then he climbed, and then he looked. But the sentence is saying that he went out *climbing* and *looking*. That is, climbing and looking are describing his status as he came out.


The sentence quoted is from the 1943 edition (Exercise 15 - page 62) of "Teach Yourself Arabic" by Professor A S Tritton, Professor Emeritus of Arabic, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The translation is his and it is on page 281.

On page 59 he writes, "He came out and looked" may be translated as خرج ینظر or خرج و ینظر. The imperfect suggests a close connection of the two acts. خرج و نظر suggests two unconnected acts.

06 Teach Yourself Arabic ( 1962) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Please take a look at the following sentence, taken from Wicken's book where a ماضی is followed by two مضارع sentences. There is no intervening و after the first مضارع. Nor is the first مضارع followed by a و and a ماضی. I do not believe this section of the sentence is حال. You and others may have a different take on it.

اشتری رجل سیارۃ مستعملة کثیرا ما تخرب و بعد أن أنففق علیھا فلوسا کثیرا قرّر أن یبیعھا یشتری بدلا منھا جملا فما وجد فی القاھرۃ کافة جملا واحدا یصلح لحاجته۔

My translation:

A man bought a used car which used to break down frequently and after he had spent a large amount of money on it, he decided to sell it* and *buy a camel instead but he did not find a single camel in the whole of Cairo which was suitable for his need.

For me the same logic of sequence applies in the OP's sentence

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ

And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came (obviously walking on its feet to get to the lion) and walked on top of his (the lion's) back...

"walked on" can be changed to "got on" to make this sentence idiomatic in English. A verb such as صعد would have been a better choice for the writer than مشی.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Qureshpor said:


> And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!
> 
> Compare this sentence with:
> 
> خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ
> 
> The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.
> 
> "Where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with a mudaari3 forms, omitting "and" at the furst juncture (though not subsequently)." Arabic Grammar - a first workbook - G. M. Wickens


Thank you for this example and this quote which explains this kind of structure. It is really very interesting and informative.



Qureshpor said:


> So, in my humble opinion, the sentence in question is neither a صفة after indefinite noun (a rat), nor a Haal but a straight forward sequence of two verbs "to come" and "to walk".



I agree with you, for me too it is a sequence (except that I used the word "succession" in French) of two actions. I tried to briefly explain that to *إتحادية قبائل الشاوية* in English but I explained this with more detail to *Interprete *but it is in French ...

*Interprete *replied that If there was a succession in the action, the two verbs would have been in the past and joined by a conjunction like  ف, و or ثم ...

But when I was talking about "succession" it was also as opposed to "simultaneity" ... Indeed the haal in general expresses a simultaneity : If we translate the sentence like this : "_a rat came to him walking on his back (the lion's back)_"  then I understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions: 1- coming to him 2 - walking on his back

---> *at the time of his coming* he was walking on its back.

It seems to me that this corresponds to a haal : *الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل*

But in some cases (like this example) the simultaneity does not make sense. *إتحادية قبائل الشاوية *gave a good explanation in English :



I.K.S. said:


> When i read أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ for the first time i understood it as; "a rat came to walk on it's own back" by intuition, but the syntactic ambiguity popped up when i discovered that the intended meaning in reality was; ''The rat walked on the lion's back '' according to the obvious context and the famous fable...*I would say this sounds incorrect to me and creates a kind of grammatical ambiguity, because it doesn't make sense how a rat came from afar to the lion by crawling on the latter's back in a synchronized action and at the same moment? wasn't it a bit away from the cat before coming close to it in the first place?* this is like telling someone: أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها, a question here should be asked; wasn't you already in the city when you was walking down its streets?
> I think that's what made you think of adding a logical link such as the لام?



So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to him) takes place just before the second (walking on his back)... And that is why I was talking about a succession of two actions and I think that is why you are talking about a "sequence of two verbs"...

-----------
What is the grammatical function ?



Qureshpor said:


> I could very well be wrong but I am not happy with the حال interpretation of OP @Ibn Nacer's sentence and can fully understand his difficulty with the sentence and his reservations.



I understand why you are not happy with the حال interpretation and as already said I agree with your understanding but I think it is indeed a Haal... But it is not the haal that people generally know, which is often mentioned and explained in grammar lessons, *it is a specific haal that does not express simultaneity.*

So when you think it is not a Haal, I agree with you because when we mention the Haal without precision (i think like in this present thread) it is generally the Haal that people know well, the one which expresses simultaneity, in Arabic briefly : *الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل*...

But there is another type of Haal and you know these two types of Haal but maybe you forgot it. You have opened several threads concerning this subject, you have participated in several threads that I opened ...

I learned a lot from your messages. Besides, in this present thread, I have given the links of these thread several times ...

Here a example :



Ibn Nacer said:


> Now the problem is as you said, semantically the simultaneity of the two actions is strange ...
> 
> I had already asked* this type of question and subsequently I learned that there are several types of haal ...
> 
> The haal which expresses simultaneity is called الحال المقارنة … So in your example I think it’s not a حال مقارنة but I think it can be a حال مقدرة...
> 
> 
> * At the time I had several examples: خرجت أطلب ماء | جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأَ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
> 
> I was wondering if the meaning was as if we had the particle al-lâm: خرجت لِأطلب ماء | جَلَسَ وليدٌ ليقرأَ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
> 
> Here are several links:
> 
> - خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
> - جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأُ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
> - Purpose in مضارع
> 
> In this post He came riding - الحال Qureshpor, cited several examples from Wright's book... There's this example that looks like your sentence :
> 
> اتی الی عین ماء یشرب "He came to a spring of water to drink"



So there are several types of haal ... The haal which expresses simultaneity is called *الحال المقارنة* and the other type of Haal is called *الحال المقدرة* or *الحال المستقبلة*.

You have mentioned these two types of Haal for example here :



Qureshpor said:


> Wright states that a sentence of the type جاء زید یضحک "Zaid came laughing." is حال مقارن and
> 
> اتی الی عین ماء یشرب "He came to a spring of water to drink" حال مقدر
> 
> جاء الیہ یعودہ "He came to him to visit him." حال مقدر
> 
> ثم استوی علی العرش یدبر الاکر "The he seated himself on the thrown to administer the rule". حال مقدر
> 
> So, based on this explanation جاء زید یرکب "Zaid came riding" would be حال مقارن



Thank you for this message, it is one of the rare messages that mentions these two types of Haal ...


------------
How to translate this type of Haal (called *الحال المقدرة* or *الحال المستقبلة*)?

- Personally, as far as possible, I would avoid using a gerund ("_a rat came to him *walking* on his back (the lion's back)_") because it seems to me that the gerund expresses a simultaneity (this is at least the case in French). And we have seen that in some cases the simultaneity is inappropriate ... You yourself have explained it well, for example here:



Qureshpor said:


> دخل الأولاد في البحر* يسبحون*
> 
> The boys entered the sea *swimming*
> 
> _*would not be appropriate because it implies that they were already swimming even before they set foot in the sea!*_




- And if possible I would also avoid using a conjunction (and) because we could think that this conjunction is present in the original text in Arabic. And maybe the meaning is different with a conjunction...

- I have often wondered if this type of Haal expressed the purpose that is why I have several times asking the question: is the meaning the same if we add the preposition al-laam as for example: *أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ*

But maybe the translation by "in order to" is too strong ... So for the moment, as far as possible, I prefer to translate with an infinitive, in French it sounds well...

It seems that you too have proposed translations with an infinitive in this good thread: Purpose in مضارع

Thank you for this thread, it is really useful ...


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> *Interprete *replied that If there was a succession in the action, the two verbs would have been in the past and joined by a conjunction like ف, و or ثم ..


This may be something that is part of MSA. I don't know. But the content of both Tritton and Wickens is non-colloquial and non MSA Arabic. Wickens says that almost the examples in his book are real Arabic sentences taken from written Arabic sources and not made up. Allow me to quote from section 93 (page 51) of his book.

"Use of the مضارع - As remarked in para 62, the مضارع, in default of specific time indications, is normally rendered by the English present or the future. However, one of the most characteristic functions of Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him". It might be thought that this could be easily enough rendered into Arabic by two ماضی (i.e past) verbs in succession; this infact could be done but the tendency would then be to understand the statement as referring to two cuccessive and not necessarily related actions: he struck him on the head on one occasion, and actually went as far as to kill him on another! What would be much more normal in Arabic would be to render : he struck (ماضی) him on the head, kills (مضارع) him. It will be noted that the "and" normally disappears in such constructions, leaving something akin to our own alternative phrasing: "he struck him on the head, killing him. _Valuable hint_: where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with مضارع forms omitting "and" at the first juncture (though not subsequently). Conversely, a series of ماضی verbs, linked by "and", suggests a series of _separate_ past actions; and a succession of مضارع verbs, _all _linked by "and" would suggest a series of _separate _present-near future actions. Obviously, as so often in languages, borderline cases can easily arise; and, in any event, the appropriate English renderings will often be (as in the original example above) quite ambiguous."


Ibn Nacer said:


> But there is another type of Haal and you know these two types of Haal but maybe you forgot it. You have opened several threads concerning this subject, you have participated in several threads that I opened ...





Ibn Nacer said:


> So there are several types of haal ... The haal which expresses simultaneity is called *الحال المقارنة* and the other type of Haal is called *الحال المقدرة* or *الحال المستقبلة*.


Yes, I remember. Bearing in mind what Wickens has said above, let's look at the examples already provided and one or two more. This is not to deny the "purpose" Haal or *الحال المقدرة*

اتی الی عین ماء یشرب "He came to a spring of water to drink".

This example comes from Tritton's book and the translation is his. But you would agree if the translation was "He came to a spring of water and drank", it would still be fine.

دخل الأولاد في البحر* يسبحون *The boys enteres the sea to swim.

This again is from Tritton and the translation is his. One could translate this as "The boys entered the sea abd swam".

جلسنا بقرب النھر ساعة لنستریح قلیلا بعد غروب الشمس ثمّ رددنا علی الأرض و نمنا اللیل کلهِ فقمنا الغد قبل طلوع الشمس نذھب الی شغلنا الیومّي۔

We sat close to the river for an hour to rest a little after sunset. Then we strtched on the ground and slept the whole night. Then we got up the next day before sunrise to go to our daily work. (my translation)

Here again we can perhaps say, ".... and went to our daily work."

Now turning to الحال المقدرۃ. There is a book called "Written Arabic - An approach to basic structures" by A L F Beeston (1911-1955), Professor of Arabic, University of Oxford

"On page 81, he says, "A "circumstance" clause has the primary function of describing a situation which is represented as simply an attendent circumstance to the main statement; and it may begin with an imperfect verb: (i) it may begin immediately with an imperfect verb, or (ii) it may begin with وقد followed by a perfect verb, or (if negative) with ولم and an imperfect verb, or (iii) it may begin with و plus a thematic structure."

(Please read "circumstance" clause as حال, imperfect as مضارع and perfect as ماضي and "thematic structure" as جملة اسمیة.)

He then goes on to say, "A circumstance clause of type (l) may either describe a situation existing simultaneously with that of the main statement, or an intension present at that time:

خرج یحمل الکتاب في یدہ He went out carrying the book in his hand.

ذھب الی عمان یُخبِر الملک بالأخبار He went to Amman with the intention of informing the king of the news.

(The sentences and translations are the late professor's)

Now getting back to your sentence:

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

I have already said that, "---- a rat came walking on his (the lion's) back......" does not ring true in my mind. This would be الحال المقارنة. Applying the الحال المقدرة understanding to this sentence, it would be translated something like..

"---- a rat came to walk on his (the lion's) back...."

Without full context, we can not decide if the rat approached the lion with the intention of walking on the lion's back. Perhaps, you can add a little of what came before or after this sentence.

Now all this is only relevant if the nakirah zulHaal meets the various conditions. I have posted a list of these conditions which I repeat here.

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).

Does your sentence meet any of these conditions. I don't think it does. This implies this sentence can't be Haal. So, we are back to my suggestion that it means...

And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> Without full context, we can not decide if the rat approached the lion with the intention of walking on the lion's back. Perhaps, you can add a little of what came before or after this sentence.


I've looked at the reference you have provided. The passage, "A lion and a fox" goes something like this.

Once the sun's heat got too much for a lion. So he entered one of the caves to take shade in it. But when he lay down, a rat came to it and walked* on his back. So, he jumped up from his seated position and looked right and left, being scared and intimidated.....

* The verb "to climb" would have been a better choice.

An English version that I managed to find, has a mouse as opposed to a rat.

"A Lion, fatigued by the heat of a summer’s day, fell fast asleep in his den. A Mouse ran over his mane and ears and woke him from his slumbers. He rose up and shook himself in great wrath, and searched every corner of his den to find the Mouse...."


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,

Thank you for posting these passages from these two authors ... It's interesting to have several explanations, it's useful ... I found these books and these passages: Arabic Grammar and مدخل وجيز الى قراءة العربية ...

I also post the passage of the book "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" - Wright :






I notice that the example أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب is also cited with the same translation ...



Qureshpor said:


> Yes, I remember. Bearing in mind what Wickens has said above, let's look at the examples already provided and one or two more. This is not to deny the "purpose" Haal or *الحال المقدرة*


- Me too, I do not deny your translation with "and", I just said that as far as possible I prefer to translate with an infinitive, it is just a preference, I do not assert that it is this translation that is correct and that the others are incorrect ... I am also probably influenced by the translations of the authors that we have cited and by the translations of certain members of the forum ...

- And I do not assert that these sentences express a purpose, but I would like to know if this is the case or not ,I am trying to understand ...



Qureshpor said:


> Now all this is only relevant if the nakirah zulHaal meets the various conditions. I have posted a list of these conditions which I repeat here.


Thank you for this list, I also posted a link where the author gives a list of different cases ...



Qureshpor said:


> 7) و صلّی وراہ رجال قیاماً (I haven't got a subtitle written down for this).
> 
> Does your sentence meet any of these conditions. I don't think it does. This implies this sentence can't be Haal. So, we are back to my suggestion that it means...



- As for the grammatical function, yes I think these sentences are *حال مقدرة *but I can be wrong, for this too I have probably been influenced by the passage that I quoted above and also by the answers of some members of the forum...

But also, for the moment, I don't see what other possibility there is? If these sentences are not *حال مقدرة *then what is their grammatical function ?

The authors you mentioned explain the meaning but it seems to me that they did not say what is the grammatical function ...

*In all cases it is important to note that to say that these sentences are حال مقدرة does not imply that the meaning you have explained is incorrect. *You explained the meaning and it is the most important thing, then to complete our learning it would be a good thing to know what is the grammatical function of these sentences but it is not the most important thing ...

- To answer your question _"Does your sentence meet any of these conditions"_, I would say number 7, the one that has no subtitles ... lol.

More seriously, I looked for an explanation for condition number 7 and in fact it would seem that it is not a condition ...  The first six points are conditions but the point number 7 concerns those who are of the opinion that the صاحب الحال / ذو الحال *can be indefinite without condition*.

The example that is cited is a hadith : the word قياماً is haal and the صاحب الحال is رجالٌ *and it is indefinite* but it seems that it does not meet any of the six conditions...

Here is one of the explanations:



> [*صلّى رسول الله، صلّى الله عليه وسلّم قاعداً، وصلّى وراءه رجالٌ قياماً*]. (حديث شريف)
> 
> [قياماً]: حال، صاحبها: [رجالٌ]، وهو نكرة. وهذا شاهدٌ لا يُدحَض، على أنّ ذلك في العربية أصلٌ صحيح. ولقد وقف سيبويه عند هذه المسألة، *فأجازها جوازاً مطلقاً بغير قيد*.
> 
> 
> Source : الحال - قواعد اللغة العربية - الكفاف



This opinion exists but there is not unanimity on this question so I do not know if we can apply it to the type of sentence that we have cited ... In addition maybe this opinion concerns only the *الحال المقارنة* and not the *الحال المقدرة* ???


----------



## Romeel

Ibn Nacer said:


> Salut,
> 
> Thank you for posting these passages from these two authors ... It's interesting to have several explanations, it's useful ... I found these books and these passages: Arabic Grammar and مدخل وجيز الى قراءة العربية ...
> 
> I also post the passage of the book "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" - Wright :
> 
> View attachment 71617
> 
> I notice that the example أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب is also cited with the same translation ...



I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate


 أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as  أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب

 أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب  He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب  He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate
> 
> 
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as  أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب
> 
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب  He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
> أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب  He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)


Let's agree to disagree, @Romeel. Your mind might be set with the language of our time. I do not agree with your translation as the implication is that the person was drinking even before he got to the spring of water. I would personally translate this as, "He came to a spring of water and drank" based on Wicken's explanation quoted by me in a previous post. As you can see, this sentence is quoted by Wright, considered to be an authority on the Classical Arabic language (not MSA). Secondly, Professor Beeston, who held this position for many many years at the university of Oxford, has been quoted above by me, where he gives the sentence below with his translation.

ذھب الی عمان یُخبِر الملک بالأخبار He went to Amman with the intention of informing the king of the news.

I would simply have left the last part as "...to inform the king of the news". 

Or:

He went to Amman and informed the king of the news. (Two ماضي verbs are not needed, as explained by Wickens.)


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> as the implication is that the person was drinking even before he got to the spring of water. I would personally translate this as,


No
أتى he already came


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> No
> أتى he already came


"He came to the spring of water drinking". As far as my understanding of the English language is, this implies he was drinking water on route to the water spring. If you disagree, let's agree to disagree once again.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> "He came to the spring of water drinking". As far as my understanding of the English language is, this implies he was drinking water on route to the water spring. If you disagree, let's agree to disagree once again.


I don't know that _came _is used for the future, but 'am not that good in English.

What I know is thatأتى is past


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I don't know that _came _is used for the future, but 'am not that good in English.
> 
> What I know is thatأتى is past


اتی is,  "He came." (past)

came is past

What is sending me the message that he was drinking something even before he got to the water spring is your use of the word "drinking".

"The boy went to school crying" does not mean he started crying when he got to school but he started crying from the starting point, his home, and he carried on crying when he got to the school.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> اتی is,  "He came." (past)
> 
> came is past
> 
> What is sending me the message that he was drinking something even before he got to the water spring is your use of the word "drinking".
> 
> "The boy went to school crying" does not mean he started crying when he got to school but he started crying from the starting point, his home, and he carried on crying when he got to the school.


Thank you, but you understand what I mean?


----------



## Romeel

Romeel said:


> Thank you, but you understand what I mean?


What I want to say is that أتى past but يشرب is present
So he is drinking now after he came to the spring


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> What I want to say is that أتى past but يشرب is present
> So he is drinking now after he came to the spring


Yes, I know and the "time" for the second verb (present) is set by the first verb (past), as per Wicken's explanation. Therefore, the second verb has also past significance even though it is in the present. For this reason, I am translating as I am.

And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Yes, I know and the "time" for the second verb (present) is set by the first verb (past), as per Wicken's explanation. Therefore, the second verb has also past significance even though it is in the present. For this reason, I am translating as I am.
> 
> And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!


As I said I am not following your long discussion, but I just want to correct the book translation 
He came to a spring of water *to drink *should be أتى إلى عين ماء *ليشرب *NOT أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> As I said I am not following your long discussion, but I just want to correct the book translation
> He came to a spring of water *to drink *should be أتى إلى عين ماء *ليشرب *NOT أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب


As I have said, this sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب is taken from Wright, whose book is considered the ultimate authority on the Classical Arabic language. The translation is his. Beeston also confirms that one type of Haal has a purpose element in it, without the use of لِ with the مضارع. 

Wickens says about Wright, "For the advanced student of Classical Arabic, W. Wright's grammar is of course essential".

Tritton say, "For further study, Wright's grammar (two volumes) is indispensible.

Karin C Ryding, author of Modern Standard Arabic has Wright in her list of books for further study.

Modern Written Arabic – Elsaid Badawi, Michel. G. Carter and Adrian Gulley, also lists Wright under books for further study.

In "A Grammar of Classical Arabic- Wolfdietrich Fischer- Translated by Jonathan Rogers, on page 112, there is the following sentence with its English translation.

خرج ھارباً (یھربُ) He went out to flee (to flee means to escape)


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> - And I do not assert that these sentences express a purpose, but I would like to know if this is the case or not ,I am trying to understand ...


I have provided an example from a Classical Arabic grammar book in response to @Romeel.

خرج ھارباً (یھربُ) He went out to flee.



Ibn Nacer said:


> The authors you mentioned explain the meaning but it seems to me that they did not say what is the grammatical function ...


That is true. They have not given this particular type of sentence an Arabic or English name, explicitly.


Ibn Nacer said:


> The example that is cited is a hadith : the word قياماً is haal and the صاحب الحال is رجالٌ *and it is indefinite* but it seems that it does not meet any of the six conditions...


Thank you.


Ibn Nacer said:


> This opinion exists but there is not unanimity on this question so I do not know if we can apply it to the type of sentence that we have cited ... In addition maybe this opinion concerns only the *الحال المقارنة* and not the *الحال المقدرة* ???


As you've said, I don't think the terminology is important. As long as we have a correct understanding of the sentence, that is the important thing.


----------



## Sadda7

Romeel said:


> He came to a spring of water *to drink *should be أتى إلى عين ماء *ليشرب *NOT أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب


In the hadith you'll find something like "جاء/أتى رجل إلى النبي يسأله/يستأذنه/يستشيره" and it is understood that the man came *to *ask or _*to *_consult the prophet, without the need for the laam. And the action of asking/consulting is not simultaneous to the coming of the man, but the intention is.


----------



## Romeel

Sadda7 said:


> In the hadith you'll find something like "جاء/أتى رجل إلى النبي يسأله/يستأذنه/يستشيره" and it is understood that the man came *to *ask or _*to *_consult the prophet, without the need for the laam. And the action of asking/consulting is not simultaneous to the coming of the man, but the intention is.



What is the translation of: _He came to a spring of water to drink_?


----------



## Sadda7

The translation will be influenced by the person's writing style, both translations "أتى...ليشرب" and "أتى...يشرب" are valid.


----------



## Qureshpor

Sadda7 said:


> In the hadith you'll find something like "جاء/أتى رجل إلى النبي يسأله/يستأذنه/يستشيره" and it is understood that the man came *to *ask or _*to *_consult the prophet, without the need for the laam. And the action of asking/consulting is not simultaneous to the coming of the man, but the intention is.


@Sadda7, what is your understanding of the OP's sentence provided in the very first post. How would you translate it in English?


----------



## Sadda7

Qureshpor said:


> @Sadda7, what is your understanding of the OP's sentence provided in the very first post. How would you translate it in English?





analeeh said:


> 'When he lay down, a rat came to him walking on its back and so he leapt to his feet.'


This is the apparent meaning, but it can possibly mean "to walk on his back (lion's back)" as the different narrations of this fable show, and because that مجيء الجرذ is already in motion even before reaching the lion's body, unless you take أتى إليه as أتى إلى رأسه so him "يمشي على ظهره" is his state on his way to the lion's head 🤔


----------



## Qureshpor

Sadda7 said:


> This is the apparent meaning, but it can possibly mean "to walk on his back (lion's back)" as the different narrations of this fable show, and because that مجيء الجرذ is already in motion even before reaching the lion's body, unless you take أتى إليه as أتى إلى رأسه so him "يمشي على ظهره" is his state on his way to the lion's head 🤔


Thank you. I would like your translation of the sentence please, if you don't mind.


----------



## Sadda7

@Qureshpor
My translation would be similar to @analeeh's, and I have to say the more I read the Arabic wording the more confusing it gets, I would have gone for "...to walk on his back" but then فوثب قائما would not fit I think, the lion would leap to his feet only after the rat has mounted his back, if he's unaware of him. Maybe it would fit if the lion saw the rat and anticipated his intention, the story is vague anyway.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Romeel said:


> I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate
> 
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب


Thank you. It is interesting that you said that because I myself asked this question several times in different threads of discussion, examples :

- خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
- جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأُ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
- ثُمَّ جَلَسْتُ أَتلُو آيَاتٍ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللهِ

Even in this discussion I asked for this:



Ibn Nacer said:


> Maybe we should add the particle *allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???*



I also wondered if this type of sentence expressed a purpose and if the meaning was the same if we added the preposition al-Laam ...

- Why do we ask this kind of question?

Several members have considered that these sentences were Haal (grammatical function) and the Haal (the one that people generally know) expresses a simultaneity therefore (like you) they often translate this kind of sentence with a gerund (drinking) and not with an infinitive (to drink).

But semantically there is a problem: for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense as we have explained several times in different messages ...

There are other members who have translated with an infinitive, some even thought that this type of sentence express a purpose (as is the case when we use the preposition al-laam).



Romeel said:


> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
> أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)



If you translate with a gerund (drinking) we understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions, but as already said above, for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense...

Here it seems obvious that there is a sequence/succession of two actions :

1- *coming to a spring of water*.
2- *drinking* (the water from this spring).

So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to a spring of water) takes place just before the second (drinking)...

It seems obvious that the simultaneity of these two actions is not appropriate, this would mean that : *he was drinking while he was coming to a spring of water.*

We can rephrase the sentence to better show what certain members have understood (namely that the sentence is a Haal that expresses simultaneity) with a waawu-l-haal like this : *أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب*

Does this reformulation seem strange to you? Isn't the meaning different ? Your translation "_He came to a spring of water, drinking_" corresponds rather to this reformulation (*أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب*).

I do not assert that the sentence *أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب* has the same meaning as the sentence with the preposition al-lâm" but I think that the meaning of this sentence is closer to the meaning of *أتى إلى عين ماء **ل**يشرب* than to the meaning of *أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب...*


----------



## Romeel

Ibn Nacer​I will get back to you soon. Most of the people here are confused (and I may be one of them) either because of poor English or Arabic


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> Several members have considered that these sentences were Haal (grammatical function) and the Haal (the one that people generally know) expresses a simultaneity therefore (like you) they often translate this kind of sentence with a gerund (drinking) and not with an infinitive (to drink).
> 
> But semantically there is a problem: for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense as we have explained several times in different messages ...
> 
> There are other members who have translated with an infinitive, some even thought that this type of sentence express a purpose (as is the case when we use the preposition al-laam).


And there is a third view that I've expressed.



Ibn Nacer said:


> If you translate with a gerund (drinking) we understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions, but as already said above, for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense...


Agreed.


Ibn Nacer said:


> Here it seems obvious that there is a sequence/succession of two actions :
> 
> 1- *coming to a spring of water*.
> 2- *drinking* (the water from this spring).
> 
> So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to a spring of water) takes place just before the second (drinking)...


Agreed.


Ibn Nacer said:


> It seems obvious that the simultaneity of these two actions is not appropriate, this would mean that : *he was drinking while he was coming to a spring of water.*


This is what I have said.


Ibn Nacer said:


> We can rephrase the sentence to better show what certain members have understood (namely that the sentence is a Haal that expresses simultaneity) with a waawu-l-haal like this : *أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب*
> 
> Does this reformulation seem strange to you? Isn't the meaning different ? Your translation "_He came to a spring of water, drinking_" corresponds rather to this reformulation (*أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب*).


Agreed.


Ibn Nacer said:


> I do not assert that the sentence *أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب* has the same meaning as the sentence with the preposition al-lâm" but I think that the meaning of this sentence is closer to the meaning of *أتى إلى عين ماء **ل**يشرب* than to the meaning of *أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب...*


The meaning of the sentence *أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب *sentence could be:

1) He came to the water spring to drink (As Wright has translated)

or 2) He came to the water spring and drank.

(Assuming we don't know the context from which we could deduce the man's intention. If he was looking for a spring of water and comes across it, then surely 1) would be a suitable translation of the sentence.)

The latter translation is based on the supposition that the coming to the spring and drinking at the spring are two closely connected events but not simultaneous. And two closely connected events, where the first one is a ماضي which sets the time in the past is followed by a مضارع to show a close connection between the two events but still has a past significance. This was the case with the sentence, which I have quoted earlier.

خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.

If we say, "The commander of the army went out climbing the mountain and looking at the enemy ranks", this would imply his encampment is on the slope of the mountain and as soon as he sets out of his camp/tent, he begins to climb. I do not accept this logic.

So the third view is this. The rat in your sentence has left an unknown place A and gets to place B where he sees a lion, asleep by all accounts. So, he stops and thinks that this is a good opportunity to get on top of the lion.

The rat came أتی from A to B, that is to say he walked. He had no intention to climb on top of a lion as he didn't know he would find a lion, a lion that is asleep. So the translation "to walk on his (the lion's) back" is out.

It can't be...

"And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him walking on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!"

This implies the rat walked from A (starting point) to B (the lion's resting place) and then continued walking to C (the lion's back), all in one smooth simultaneous action. This logically, could not have occurred.

What does make sense is the third option, as in the "commander of the army" sentence, which I proposed in my very first post (based on Professor Wicken's explanation and Professor Tritton's translation of the "commander of the army" sentence.)

"And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!"


----------



## Romeel

خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
The sentence may means خَرَجْتُ وأنا أَطْلُبُ مَاء

But most likely here it means خَرَجْتُ لأَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ لكي أَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ كي أَطْلُبَ مَاء

What I mean by most likely, because some Arabs shorten it by deleting the اللام
Using the lam( or kay or li kay) will join the two parts of the sentence. The lam ensures that the cause of the first verb is for the sake of the second verb, not doing so will leave the reader guessing

The guess may not be apparent in that sentence, but in the next sentence the presence of guessing is obvious

ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب
هل هو يعني
ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب
Or
ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد ليشربَ
Or
أتى محمد إلى المسجد + محمد يشرب في المسجد

Is the sentence meaning he came while he was drinking *or *he came to drink *or *he came and now he is drinking? All are a valid option.


In my post when I used drinking because I couldn't think of any verb in the present.

Also, When I wrote my previous post about correcting translation out of my understanding of the sentence as an Arabic speaker and not because I am good at grammar!


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Qureshpor said:


> And there is a third view that I've expressed.


In my message I mainly talked about the old threads but yes of course, in this present thread, you presented a third view.

In any case I think we agree that these sentences do not express a simultaneity of several actions, but they express a sequence/succession of actions.

Regarding meaning and translation, we presented and discussed several possibilities, points of view ...

Regarding the grammatical function, some have said adjective, others said haal (and I think they mean the Haal which expresses the simultaneity الحال المقارنة).

And personally I think it is another type of haal called الحال المقدرة or الحال المستقبلة.

It seems that Wright confirms this, in the passage that I posted we can see that the expression حال مقدر is explicitly mentioned. In the passage you posted, Professor Beeston does not mention the expression حال مقدرة explicitly but he speaks of Haal and he distinguishes two meanings for the structure "_(i) it may begin immediately with an imperfect verb_" :



Qureshpor said:


> Now turning to الحال المقدرۃ. There is a book called "Written Arabic - An approach to basic structures" by A L F Beeston (1911-1955), Professor of Arabic, University of Oxford
> 
> "On page 81, he says, "*A "circumstance" clause* has the primary function of describing a situation which is represented as simply an attendent circumstance to the main statement; and it may begin with an imperfect verb: *(i) it may begin immediately with an imperfect verb*, or (ii) it may begin with وقد followed by a perfect verb, or (if negative) with ولم and an imperfect verb, or (iii) it may begin with و plus a thematic structure."
> 
> (Please read "circumstance" clause as حال, imperfect as مضارع and perfect as ماضي and "thematic structure" as جملة اسمیة.)
> 
> He then goes on to say, "A circumstance clause of type (l) may either describe a situation existing simultaneously with that of the main statement, or an intension present at that time:
> 
> خرج یحمل الکتاب في یدہ He went out carrying the book in his hand.
> 
> ذھب الی عمان یُخبِر الملک بالأخبار He went to Amman with the intention of informing the king of the news.
> 
> (The sentences and translations are the late professor's)



I think that "_either describe a situation existing *simultaneously* with that of the main statement_" correspond to الحال المقارنة and that "_or an intension present at that time_" probably corresponds to الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة...


----------



## Qureshpor

ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب"

هل هو يعني

ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب

Or

ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد ليشربَ

Or

أتى محمد إلى المسجد + محمد يشرب في المسجد

Is the sentence meaning he came while he was drinking *or *he came to drink *or *he came and now he is drinking? All are a valid option."

A very good question @Romeel. I think the answer depends on the type of verb used in the مضارع. If I number your sentences as 1), 2) and 3), the following would fit your questions perfectly.

1. خرج الکلاب تنبح The dogs came out barking = خرج الکالب و ھي تنبح

دخل الأجناد القدس یقتلون سکّانھا کلّھم و یسرقون أموالھم = The armies entered Jerusalem, killing all its residents and stealing their property.

2. خرج الأولاد یلبعون The boys came out to play = خرج الأولاد لیلبعوا

بعثه النجّارُ إليّ یطلبُ خشباً The carpenter sent him to me to look for wood = بعثه النجّارُ إليّ لیطلبَ خشباً

دخل الأولاد البحرَ یسبحون The boys went into the sea to swim = دخل الأولاد البحرَ لیسبحوا

3.  أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ = A rat came to him (and) walks on his back = A rat came to him and walked on his back

خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد في الجبل و ینظر إلی صفوف العدوّ = The commander of the army came out, climbs the mountain and looks at the enemy ranks = The commander of the army came out, climbed the mountain and looked at the enemy ranks.

There will always be borderline cases which do not neatly fit into these three categories.

دخل الأولاد البحرَ یسبحون The boys went into the sea to swim.

This sentence could also mean, "The boys entered the sea and they swim = The boys entered the sea and they swam.

خرج الکلاب تنبح The dogs came out barking.

The meaning here could be, "The dogs came out and they bark = The dogs came out and they barked.

دخل الأجناد القدس یقتلون سکّانھا کلّھم و یسرقون أموالھم = The armies entered Jerusalem, killing all its residents and stealing their property.

This could aslo be thought as: The armies entered Jerusalem, killed all its inhabitants and stole their property.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Romeel said:


> خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
> The sentence may means خَرَجْتُ وأنا أَطْلُبُ مَاء
> 
> But most likely here it means خَرَجْتُ لأَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ لكي أَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ كي أَطْلُبَ مَاء
> 
> What I mean by most likely, because some Arabs shorten it by deleting the اللام
> Using the lam( or kay or li kay) will join the two parts of the sentence. The lam ensures that the cause of the first verb is for the sake of the second verb, not doing so will leave the reader guessing


Yes it is true that I have seen this type of sentence several times, sometimes without particle and other times with the preposition al-Laam or kay/likay et and more rarely with hatta... Perhaps the structure without particle is just an abbreviation...



Romeel said:


> The guess may not be apparent in that sentence, but in the next sentence the presence of guessing is obvious
> 
> ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب
> هل هو يعني
> ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب
> Or
> ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد ليشربَ
> Or
> أتى محمد إلى المسجد + محمد يشرب في المسجد
> 
> Is the sentence meaning he came while he was drinking *or *he came to drink *or *he came and now he is drinking? All are a valid option.


Thank you. Personally, for the moment, for this type of sentence I proceed in this order:

1- If simultaneity makes sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a simultaneity : in your example أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب the simulatanity makes sense so I would say that the meaning of this sentence is : أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب and that the grammatical function of يشرب would be الحال المقارنة.

2-  If simultaneity does not make sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a sequence/succession of actions. The meaning of this sequence/succession of actions has been discussed a lot. Maybe it expresses a purpose as if we had the preposition al-lâm or maybe it expresses something else ...

For example for the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب the simultaneity does not make sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a sequence/succession of two actions :

1- *coming to a spring of water*.
2- *drinking* (the water from this spring).

I do not assert that the sentence *أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب* has exactly the same meaning as the sentence with the preposition al-lâm" but I think that the meaning of this sentence is closer to the meaning of *أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب* than to the meaning of *أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب*...

And I would say that the grammatical function of يشرب would be الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> Thank you. Personally, for the moment, for this type of sentence I proceed in this order:
> 
> 1- If simultaneity makes sense then the meaning will be simultaneity : in your example أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب the simulatanity makes sense so I would say that the meaning of this sentence is : أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب and that the grammatical function of يشرب would be الحال المقارنة.


For me, if it was simultaneous, then he would be drinking all the way up to and including the mosque.


Ibn Nacer said:


> For example for the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب the simultaneity does not make sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a sequence/succession of two actions :
> 
> 1- *coming to a spring of water*.
> 2- *drinking* (the water from this spring).


Could this not also mean, "He came to the water spring and drinks"? He is walking in a desert and suddenly comes across a spring and even though he has a supply of water in his leather bag, he decides to have a cool, fresh drink. He had no intension of drinking any water prior to finding the spring.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Qureshpor said:


> For me, if it was simultaneous, then he would be drinking all the way up to and including the mosque


I understand the sentence like this: "*he was drinking while he was coming to the mosque".*

Here the simultaneity of the two actions makes sense so I consider that this is the meaning of the sentence.

I give priority to الحال المقارنة on الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة...



Qureshpor said:


> Could this not also mean, "He came to the water spring and drink"? He is walking in a desert and suddenly comes across a spring and even though he has a supply of water in his leather bag, he decides to have a cool, fresh drink. He had no intension of drinking any water prior to finding the spring.



Honestly I don't know, but why not* ? In fact I think that I am influenced by the translation of Wright in English and by several translations in French and by the fact that I know the context of this sentence ...

It seems that this sentence comes from the same book that I mentioned in this present thread, here is the context: clique here :
 إيل، يعني غزال، مرة عطش. فأتى إلى عين ماء يشرب

The deer was thirsty so he went to a spring of water with the intention of drinking...

--------
* Here is an example that has been translated with the conjunction "and" :

... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*
Anas said that when a man of the Ansar *came* to the Prophet *and **begged* *from him*...

I have seen examples that do not seem to be able to be translated with an infinitive...


-------
PS :The situation you describe makes me think of a particular structure in Arabic: بينما ...فإذا / إذ
See for example : I was walking, when suddenly...


----------



## Romeel

I will write in Arabic, and if there is an unclear point, please ask

كل مثال ينظر إليه بصورة مختلفة وأنا أتفق معكما في أغلب ما طرحتماه

*خرجت الكلاب تنبح* لا يمكن أن نفهم من الكلام أن *الكلاب خرجت لتنبح* لأنها دائما تنبح في الداخل والخارج إنما الأقرب للفهم *خرجت الكلاب وهي تنبح  *
كذلك *خرج الأولاد يلعبون*

عندما نقول *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل* لا بد أنها تعني *أن الرجل أتى النبي ليسأله* (لأن أغلب الناس ستسأل الني لا غيره) ومما يجعل هذا المعنى أوكد عندما نضيف له الضمير فنقول *يسأله *فهنا حصرنا المعنى في الجملة *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله*

عندما نقول
*أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء يشرب* أقرب فهم لها *أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء ليشرب * لأن الناس لا تأتي للينابيع إلا لتشرب (90%)

لكن عندما نقول
*أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب* هنا مختلف عن السابق لأن الناس لا تذهب للمسجد لتشرب الماء ففي الغالب أنها لا تعني أنه* أتى المسجد ليشرب * إنما الأقرب للفهم أنه *أتى المسجد وهو يشرب*


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> * Here is an example that has been translated with the conjunction "and" :
> 
> ... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*
> Anas said that when a man of the Ansar *came* to the Prophet *and **begged* *from him*...


Yes, this translation is of the type I am offering for your sentence of your first post in this thread. So, this type of translation with "and" and a past tense is valid.


Ibn Nacer said:


> PS :The situation you describe makes me think of a particular structure in Arabic: بينما ...فإذا / إذ
> See for example : I was walking, when suddenly...


Perhaps I should not have used the word "suddenly" and just wrote, "...and comes across a spring..."


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Romeel said:


> *خرجت الكلاب تنبح* لا يمكن أن نفهم من الكلام أن *الكلاب خرجت لتنبح* لأنها دائما تنبح في الداخل والخارج إنما الأقرب للفهم *خرجت الكلاب وهي تنبح *
> كذلك *خرج الأولاد يلعبون*


Yes we agree for the sentence *خرجت الكلاب تنبح *but for the sentence *خرج الأولاد يلعبون *it seems to me that the meaning could be close to:* خرج الأولاد ليلعبوا*...



Romeel said:


> عندما نقول *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل* لا بد أنها تعني *أن الرجل أتى النبي ليسأله* (لأن أغلب الناس ستسأل الني لا غيره) ومما يجعل هذا المعنى أوكد عندما نضيف له الضمير فنقول *يسأله *فهنا حصرنا المعنى في الجملة *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله*


Thank you for this explanation, it's interesting.



Romeel said:


> عندما نقول
> *أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء يشرب* أقرب فهم لها *أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء ليشرب * لأن الناس لا تأتي للينابيع إلا لتشرب (90%)
> 
> لكن عندما نقول
> *أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب* هنا مختلف عن السابق لأن الناس لا تذهب للمسجد لتشرب الماء ففي الغالب أنها لا تعني أنه* أتى المسجد ليشرب * إنما الأقرب للفهم أنه *أتى المسجد وهو يشرب*



Yes we agree. Thank you.


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I will write in Arabic, and if there is an unclear point, please ask


I am sorry but my Arabic isn't good enough to understand your post.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Qureshpor said:


> Yes, this translation is of the type I am offering for your sentence of your first post in this thread. So, this type of translation with "and" and a past tense is valid.


I did not say that your translations would not be valid, I respect the different opinions and I try to be careful: I say what I understand but at the same time I say that I do not affirm that it is my understanding that would be correct and that the others would be incorrect.

I am just a learner of the Arabic language like you, I can say what I think but I do not have the level to affirm if an understanding is correct or incorrect.

We learn from each other by discussing together ...



Qureshpor said:


> Perhaps I should not have used the word "suddenly" and just wrote, "...and comes across a spring..."


Ok, if we remove the word "suddenly" we get : _"He is walking in a desert and comes across a spring"..._

You explained that it could be that he did not intend to drink, but your sentence also seems to mean that he did not intend to go to a water source, right ?

PS : I noticed that Romeel gave two examples of sentences with a defined noun (*رجل*) :

*أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب
أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل*

But despite this, from the point of view of meaning, I would not say that the sentences *يشرب* and *يسأل *are adjective of *رجل*...


----------



## Romeel

Ibn Nacer said:


> Salut,
> 
> but for the sentence *خرج الأولاد يلعبون *it seems to me that the meaning could be close to:* خرج الأولاد ليلعبوا*...


 You are right, but you got the idea!
The idea is to consider the meaning of the sentence, what it's talking about, its connotations, people's habits and how each community will understand the meaning of your words. Grammar is just an aiding tool for understanding and not the basis, but unfortunately people go deeper into grammar and leave the basics of language.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> I am sorry but my Arabic isn't good enough to understand your post.





Romeel said:


> كل مثال ينظر إليه بصورة مختلفة وأنا أتفق معكما في أغلب ما طرحتماه


Each example is viewed differently, and I agree with most of what you have raised


Romeel said:


> *خرجت الكلاب تنبح* لا يمكن أن نفهم من الكلام أن *الكلاب خرجت لتنبح* لأنها دائما تنبح في الداخل والخارج إنما الأقرب للفهم *خرجت الكلاب وهي تنبح  *
> كذلك *خرج الأولاد يلعبون*


The dogs came out barking. We cannot understand from the words that the dogs came out to bark because they always bark inside and outside. But the closest to understanding is that the dogs came out barking.



Romeel said:


> عندما نقول *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل* لا بد أنها تعني *أن الرجل أتى النبي ليسأله* (لأن أغلب الناس ستسأل الني لا غيره) ومما يجعل هذا المعنى أوكد عندما نضيف له الضمير فنقول *يسأله *فهنا حصرنا المعنى في الجملة *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله*


When we say a man came to the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and asks, it must mean that the man came to the Prophet to ask him (because most people will ask the Prophet). What makes this meaning more assertive is when we add to it the pronoun, and we say he asks him يسأله, for here we have limited the meaning to the sentence to be  *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله*.



Romeel said:


> عندما نقول
> *أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء يشرب* أقرب فهم لها *أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء ليشرب * لأن الناس لا تأتي للينابيع إلا لتشرب (90%)


A man came to a spring of water to drink the closest understanding to it A man came to a spring of water to drink. Because people do not come to the springs except to drink (90%)


Romeel said:


> لكن عندما نقول
> *أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب* هنا مختلف عن السابق لأن الناس لا تذهب للمسجد لتشرب الماء ففي الغالب أنها لا تعني أنه* أتى المسجد ليشرب * إنما الأقرب للفهم أنه *أتى المسجد وهو يشرب*


*أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب* different from above, because people do not go to the mosque to drink water. For the most part, it does not mean that he came to the mosque to drink. Rather, the closest to understanding is that they came to the mosque while drinking.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Romeel said:


> You are right, but you got the idea!
> The idea is to consider the meaning of the sentence, what it's talking about, its connotations, people's habits and how each community will understand the meaning of your words. Grammar is just an aiding tool for understanding and not the basis, but unfortunately people go deeper into grammar and leave the basics of language.


Thank you. 
Yes we understand the idea.


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> The dogs came out barking. We cannot understand from the words that the dogs came out to bark because they always bark inside and outside. But the closest to understanding is that the dogs came out barking.


Yes, that's the meaning given by Tritton and I agree with your explanation.


Romeel said:


> When we say a man came to the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and asks, it must mean that the man came to the Prophet to ask him (because most people will ask the Prophet). What makes this meaning more assertive is when we add to it the pronoun, and we say he asks him يسأله, for here we have limited the meaning to the sentence to be *أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله*.


It is obvious that a man came و یسأل*ه *and asks him. But surely he may not have had the intention of asking anything before he got to the prophet (peace be upon him). If we take this approach, then we can translate this sentence as..

A man came to the prophet (peace and blessings be upn him) and asked him..... (Wright translates it as "...and begged him..".


Romeel said:


> A man came to a spring of water to drink the closest understanding to it A man came to a spring of water to drink. Because people do not come to the springs except to drink (90%)


True but people can also go to a spring and take pictures of it. So *أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب *could be interpretted in two ways..

1) A man came to a spring to drink (as translated by Wright and also your understand)...and

2) A man came to a spring and drank. (Without having had the intention before he got to the spring but when he saw the lovely spring, he decided to take a cool drink.)


Romeel said:


> *أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب* different from above, because people do not go to the mosque to drink water. For the most part, it does not mean that he came to the mosque to drink. Rather, the closest to understanding is that they came to the mosque while drinking.


Yes, I agree.

Thank you for translating your Arabic response. I am indebited.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> True but people can also go to a spring and take pictures of it. So *أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب *could be interpretted in two ways..
> 
> 1) A man came to a spring to drink (as translated by Wright and also your understand)...and
> 
> 2) A man came to a spring and drank. (Without having had the intention before he got to the spring but when he saw the lovely spring, he decided to take a cool drink.)


My words are not to impose a specific meaning for each text, but rather to warn the writer to choose the right words to express what he wants and to alert the reader to look at who wrote and his time to know know what he meant.

If the custom at his time, and whoever will read his words in his society and time will understand that
أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب = أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب
he can then write/say it
أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
But if he wrote it like this, it would be better أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب

And if he wanted to say that
He came to a spring of water not for the purpose of drinking, but then he drank
he can write/say  it
أتى إلى عين ماء ثم شرب

Except for the example of _dogs _and the like, it is a common sense!
Is it clear what I want to say?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> so what troubles me is that semantically it corresponds to a haal but syntactically it is an adjective sentence ...


Let's take a look at the relevant part of the Qur'anic ayahs quoted by Cherine.

1. فَوَجَدَ فيها رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلان

2. وجاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَقْصَى المَدِينَةِ يَسْعَى

They are both definitely sentences where we have indefinite noun موصوف followed by a مضارع verb which is the _صفة ._

1. ...and he found there two men who were fighting.

This would be the adjective sentence translation.

Accepting Sibawayh's ruling, if we treat رَجُلَيْنِ as ذوالحال and يَقْتَتِلان as حال, then the translation would be..

1. ...and he found there two men fighting.

I don't really see any difference in the final scheme of things with regard to the meaning in the two situations.

2. ...and there came a man, who was rushing from the farthest part of the city. (As adjective sentence)

......and there came a man, rushing from the farthest part of the city (Following the advice of some classical grammarians, مِنْ أَقْصَى المَدِينَةِ gives رجل a man, تخصیص, so it can be treated as a حال sentence.)

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02141749/document

Once again, would you agree there is hardly any difference, if any, in the meaning?

Coming to the original enigma! I am going to add "the lion" into the sentence for convenience and add "the lion" wherever necessary for clarification.

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ الأسدُ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

As an adjective phrase

And when the lion lay down, there came to him a mouse who was walking on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up.

As الحال المقارنۃ

And when the lion lay down, a mouse came walking on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up.  (The mouse's coming and walking are not simultaneous).

As الحال المقدّرۃ

And when the lion lay down, a mouse came to walk on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up. (How do we know if the mouse came to walk on the lion's back?)

Looking through my jungle of notes, it seems لمّا is a ظرف and it is one of the particles أدوات of شرط.


فلَمَّا رَبَضَ الأسدُ And when the lion lay down (شرط)

أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما a mouse came to him, walked on his back and the lion jumped and stood up! (جواب الشرط)

My reason for translating يَمْشِي  with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

"If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> If the custom at his time, and whoever will read his words in his society and time will understand that
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب = أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب
> he can then write/say it
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
> But if he wrote it like this, it would be better أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب


Thank you for this and I am in agreement with you.


Romeel said:


> And if he wanted to say that he came to a spring of water not for the purpose of drinking, but then he drank,he can write/say it
> أتى إلى عين ماء ثم شرب


Agree but ....

My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

"If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you for this and I am in agreement with you.
> 
> Agree but ....
> 
> My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186


I don't know what you are talking about? I also don't have that book


Qureshpor said:


> "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:


I'm not sure if this is correct!! What I know is that the imperfective past *only if there is no subject*
like
صار الجو جميلا
No sure though


Qureshpor said:


> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله


Again I don't think this correct maybe it is something like
إذا أصبح عمرو قال من *عادى *إلھنا؟ ثمّ یغدو *یلتمِسْه *حتّی إذا وجدہ *غسّله*
OR maybe عدا from تعدى
Please re-check


Qureshpor said:


> When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."


Maybe يغدو  imperfect

But still I cannot see your point and how is this related to my last post?


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186
> 
> "*If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect*:
> 
> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله
> 
> When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."





Romeel said:


> I don't know what you are talking about? I also don't have that book





Romeel said:


> Again I don't think this correct maybe it is something like
> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من *عادى *إلھنا؟ ثمّ یغدو *یلتمِسْه *حتّی إذا وجدہ *غسّله*
> OR maybe عدا from تعدى
> Please re-check


Here is what I am talking about. Note especially the highlighted parts, above and below. If you want to see the quote for yourself, here is a link to the book. (See page 105) It is عَدا and غَسَلَ*ه. *I missed علی. the sentence should be:

إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا علی إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

AGrammar Of Classical Arabic : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive



Qureshpor said:


> Wickens says that almost the examples in his book are real Arabic sentences taken from written Arabic sources and not made up. Allow me to quote from section 93 (page 51) of his book.
> 
> "Use of the مضارع - As remarked in para 62, the مضارع, in default of specific time indications, is normally rendered by the English present or the future. However, one of the most characteristic functions of Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". *Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him". It might be thought that this could be easily enough rendered into Arabic by two ماضی (i.e past) verbs in succession; this infact could be done but the tendency would then be to understand the statement as referring to two cuccessive and not necessarily related actions: he struck him on the head on one occasion, and actually went as far as to kill him on another! What would be much more normal in Arabic would be to render : he struck (ماضی) him on the head, kills (مضارع) him.* It will be noted that the "and" normally disappears in such constructions, leaving something akin to our own alternative phrasing: "he struck him on the head, killing him.





Romeel said:


> Maybe يغدو imperfect


Yes, it is مضارع


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you for this and I am in agreement with you.
> 
> Agree but ....
> 
> My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186
> 
> "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:
> 
> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله
> 
> When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."



I don't think you can measure compare يغدو in the last example with يمشي in the title

Because the title sentence could have the meaning of
فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ *وهو *يَمْشِي

But you cannot say
إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ *وهو *یغدو

because of ثم he first wakeup then he go (يغدو)


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I don't think you can measure يغدو in the last example with يمشي in the title
> 
> Because the title sentence could have the meaning of
> فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ *وهو *يَمْشِي
> 
> But you cannot say
> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ *وهو *یغدو
> 
> because of ثم he first wakeup then he go (يغدو)


Ok, thank you. I am afraid we have a language barrier between us and I am unable to explain my point of view. So, it would be best to leave this discussion.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> So there are several types of haal ... The haal which expresses simultaneity is called *الحال المقارنة* and the other type of Haal is called *الحال المقدرة* or *الحال المستقبلة*.


In case anyone is interested...

The sentence which the classical Arabic grammarians used to demonstrate  *الحال المقارنة* was..

مررت برجل معه صقر صائداً به غداً

I passed by a man with a hawk intending to hunt with it tomorrow.

The first grammarian to deal with this example in the context of *الحال المقارنة* was Ibn al-Sarraaj (1316/928).


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> In case anyone is interested...
> 
> The sentence which the classical Arabic grammarians used to demonstrate  *الحال المقارنة* was..
> 
> مررت برجل معه صفر صائداً به غداً
> 
> I passed by a man with a hawk intending to hunt with it tomorrow.
> 
> The first grammarian to deal with this example in the context of *الحال المقارنة* was Ibn al-Sarraaj (1316/928).


I don't know if this sentence is grammatically correct or not, but even if it written in grammar books I assure you that Arabs don't use such phrases!


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I don't know if this sentence is grammatically correct or not, but even if it written in grammar books I assure you that Arabs don't use such phrases!


By all accounts, this sentence is grammatically correct. The Arabs of 2022 are bound to be a bit different in their use of language from their ancestors who lived over a thousand years ago, don't you think?


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> By all accounts, this sentence is grammatically correct. The Arabs of 2022 are bound to be a bit different in their from their ancestors who lived over a thousand years ago, don't you think?


I doubt you will find such phrase even before 2000 years!!

I do not say this for the sake of arguing with you, but I personally read the Qur’an, history books, poems, and I write. I have never seen anything like this in my life!

The problem with some grammar books is that they imagine some phrases and how it should be solved grammatically, but they actually do not exist at all and nobody use them, neither old nor new!

مررت بصقّار سيصطاد غدا 

Grammar rules are important, but what it is more important is that people understand what you want to say in short and easy way


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I doubt you will find such phrase even before 2000 years!!


الاصول فى النحو - 2

(Please see page 38 of الأُصول فی النحو by Ibn-al Sarraaj who died in 316 Hijri.


----------



## Sadda7

Qureshpor said:


> مررت برجل معه صفر صَقْر صائداً به غداً





Romeel said:


> I doubt you will find such phrase even before 2000 years!!


You won't find that exact sentence but you will come across similar grammatical construction depending on what you read.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> الاصول فى النحو - 2
> 
> (Please see page 38 of الأُصول فی النحو by Ibn-al Sarraaj who died in 316 Hijri.


Thank you, but I think you didn't understand what I said, Language barrier


----------



## Qureshpor

Sadda7 said:


> You won't find that exact sentence but you will come across similar grammatical construction depending on what you read.


Apologies for the typo صفر for صقر. I have amended the spelling. The exact sentence is indeed there and I've already provided one reference for it.


----------



## Sadda7

Qureshpor said:


> Apologies for the typo صفر for صقر. I have amended the spelling. The exact sentence is indeed there and I've already provided one reference for it.


 I agree with that, my reply for Romeel though.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> The exact sentence is indeed there and I've already provided one reference for it.


أخي العزيز قد تجد  نصا هنا أو هناك من مثل هذا لكن لن تجدها إلا في كتب النحو! يجب بين الفينة والأخرى أن تخلع عباءة النحويين وتنطلق لسعة اللغة ورحابة عالمها. النحوي قد أدى دوره بنقل ما يمكن عن العرب وضبط القواعد بقدر الإمكان - ونحن نشكرهم على ذلك- لكن هذه مجرد وسائل لغاية أعظم وهي تعلم العربية. فلا تترك الغاية وتتمسك بالوسيلة! قد تتعلم القواعد والأصول النحوية لكن هذا لا يعني أنك ستتعلم اللغة أي لغة!


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> أخي العزيز قد تجد  نصا هنا أو هناك من مثل هذا لكن لن تجدها إلا في كتب النحو! يجب بين الفينة والأخرى أن تخلع عباءة النحويين وتنطلق لسعة اللغة ورحابة عالمها. النحوي قد أدى دوره بنقل ما يمكن عن العرب وضبط القواعد بقدر الإمكان - ونحن نشكرهم على ذلك- لكن هذه مجرد وسائل لغاية أعظم وهي تعلم العربية. فلا تترك الغاية وتتمسك بالوسيلة! قد تتعلم القواعد والأصول النحوية لكن هذا لا يعني أنك ستتعلم اللغة أي لغة!


Thank you brother and I appreciate very much what you are saying. I only posted the sentence مررت برجل معه صفر صائداً به غداً just to show that this is the sentence which the grammarians in the past have used as a sample for الحال المقدّرۃ.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you brother and I appreciate very much what you are saying.


You are welcome! Did you understand what I wrote?


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> You are welcome! Have you understand what i wrote?


Yes, I used Google translate! I have added a little bit to my previous answer.


----------



## Qureshpor

Mahaodeh said:


> What exactly is a haal? The verb يمشي? I don't see what difference that makes because it still needs a subject regardless of what other functions it may have. By the way, the haal is not just يمشي; it's الجملة الفعلية يمشي على ظهره - the sentence should be complete, hence it includes the implied pronoun that acts as a subject for the verb.


The sentence in question is only Haal if we accept that an indefinite ذوالحال namely a rat (جُرَذ) is acceptable without any conditions listed in # 64 but instead we rely on Qur'anic ayas (e.g 36:20) and Sibawayh's ruling (as quoted by @Ibn Nacer). So, let's accept the sentence has a Haal component starting from یمشي.

From what I have been able to find is that Haal is of three types, based on the timing of the ذوالحال's verb and the Haal's time.

1. الحال المقارنة

The action of the ذوالحال's verb and the Haal's time are simultaneous, e.g جاء زید یرکب / راکباً (Zaid came riding. He was coming and riding at the same time). Suppose, the rat was only round the corner, a mere 20 metres away.

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

Did the rat come walking on the lion's back......at the same time? No, he walked on the ground for the 20 metres and then when he got to the lion, he walked/got up on its back. So الحال المقارنة is not applicable.

2. الحال المقدّرة

The time of the Haal is after the ذوالحال verb time.

39:73* وقال خزنتھا سلام علیکم طبتم فادخلوھا خالدین*

I am using two Qur'an translations, both by Arab translators.

"... and its keepers will say, “Peace be upon you! You have done well, *so come in, to stay forever*.” (What's added in square brackets is to faciliate understanding) - (Mustafa Khattab)

"... and its keepers will say to them, "Peace be upon them. You have been good. *Come in: you are here to stay*". (Abdel Haleem)

It seems a purpose is embedded in the الحال المقدّرة, both the translators employing "to stay" (for the purpose of staying).

Would it make sense if we assumed the sentence in question has الحال المقدّرة in it?

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

So when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him *to walk* on his back. And he jumped to his feet.

I don't believe there was a purpose in the rat's mind. He just came across the lion coincidentally.

3. الحال المحکیّة

Here the time of the Haal is before the ذوالحال time frame.

یجيءُ الیومَ محمّد راکباً أمسِ

Muhammad comes/is coming/will come today riding (since) yesterday.

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

So when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him having walked on his back (before coming!) And he jumped to his feet.

Once again, this possibly is out of the question. This throws out the Haal out of the equation altogether. This just leaves the straight foreward translation.

And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his back. So he jumped to his feet.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> The sentence in question is only Haal if we accept that an indefinite ذوالحال namely a rat (جُرَذ) is acceptable without any conditions listed in # 64


Yes we’ve been through that and my post became obsolete once my mistake was made clear. It was an old one, one in which I depended on my understanding of the sentence and forgot about the rule.

I admit that I was wrong. I’m here to learn too you know 🙂.


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> "Use of the مضارع - As remarked in para 62, the مضارع, in default of specific time indications, is normally rendered by the English present or the future. However, one of *the* most characteristic functions *of* Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him".


Just a correction of a passage I quoted in my post #64.

"Use of the مضارع - As remarked in para 62, the مضارع, in default of specific time indications, is normally rendered by the English present or the future. However, one of *its* most characteristic functions *in* Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him".


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to him) takes place just before the second (walking on his back)... And that is why I was talking about a succession of two actions and I think that is why you are talking about a "sequence of two verbs"...


Agreed.


Ibn Nacer said:


> But there is another type of Haal and you know these two types of Haal but maybe you forgot it. You have opened several threads concerning this subject, you have participated in several threads that I opened ...


Agreed.


Ibn Nacer said:


> How to translate this type of Haal (called *الحال المقدرة* or *الحال المستقبلة*)?
> 
> - Personally, as far as possible, I would avoid using a gerund ("_a rat came to him *walking* on his back (the lion's back)_") because it seems to me that the gerund expresses a simultaneity (this is at least the case in French). And we have seen that in some cases the simultaneity is inappropriate ...


Agreed.

This type of Haal is usually translated as an infinitive....a rat came to him to walk on his (the lion's) back. This implies "purpose" but I think, here is the finer difference. If I wrote...

"He went to meet him.", we could write...

ذھب لیقابله

But this sentence does not necessarily mean that he actually did meet him. Perhaps, the person was not at home. However, with  *الحال المقدرة *when we say...

أتى رجل إلى عین ماء يشرب and translate it as "A man came to a water spring to drink", it really means "A man came to a water string to drink (and he drank).

Similarly in ... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*

.....a man from the Ansaar came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to ask him (and asked him).

Now going back to your original example...the background, as you know is this..

"The sun's heat once became too intense for a lion so he went into one of the caves to seek shade in it."

 فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk on his back (and he walked on his back). So, he (the lion) jumped to his feet.

So, to make the translation work and removing the ambiguity of whether the action took place or not, it is my suggestion that we exclude the infinitive clause and add instead the conjunctive clause (with and).

When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came and he walked on his back. So, he (the lion) jumped to his feet.

I wonder what you and other friends think of my suggestion.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Qureshpor said:


> This type of Haal is usually translated as an infinitive....


Yes indeed but I remind you that personally I do not assert that this type of Haal expresses a purpose. What I think and we agree on this point is that this type of Haal does not express a simultaneity but rather a succession.

Then the problem is how to translate this succession ...



Qureshpor said:


> This type of Haal is usually translated as an infinitive....a rat came to him to walk on his (the lion's) back. This implies "purpose" but I think, here is the finer difference. If I wrote...
> 
> "He went to meet him.", we could write...
> 
> ذھب لیقابله
> 
> But this sentence does not necessarily mean that he actually did meet him. Perhaps, the person was not at home. However, with *الحال المقدرة *when we say...
> 
> أتى رجل إلى عین ماء يشرب and translate it as "A man came to a water spring to drink", it really means "A man came to a water string to drink (and he drank).


Yes that's good point, an interesting remark to take into account ...



Qureshpor said:


> I wonder what you and other friends think of my suggestion.


As explained above we agree on several points and then there is the problem of the meaning and the translation ...

Personally, as I have already said I do not reject your idea of translating using the conjunction "and" ... This translation has the advantage of expressing a succession (unlike certain translations which express simultaneity).

Translation with an infinitive is widespread but it can make believe that we express a purpose... But I thought that perhaps the infinitive was less strong than "in order to"...

I suppose that the choice of a translation depends on the context and what we understood ... Translating correctly is difficult, you often have to make compromises ... 

Do you consider that we must always translate this type of sentence with the conjunction "and" and never with an infinitive? Or do you also think that the choice of a translation depends on the context?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> Yes we’ve been through that and my post became obsolete once my mistake was made clear. It was an old one, one in which I depended on my understanding of the sentence and forgot about the rule.
> 
> I admit that I was wrong. I’m here to learn too you know 🙂.


But perhaps considering that the sentence is a Haal is not a mistake, remember this message* : #47

However, if we consider that this sentence is a haal, I do not believe that it is the Haal which expresses a simultaneity (الحال المقارنة) because it seems to me that in this context, simultaneity does not make sense... I think it is rather another type of haal called الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة...


* See also :


Ibn Nacer said:


> The example that is cited is a hadith : the word قياماً is haal and the صاحب الحال is رجالٌ *and it is indefinite* but it seems that it does not meet any of the six conditions...
> 
> Here is one of the explanations:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*صلّى رسول الله، صلّى الله عليه وسلّم قاعداً، وصلّى وراءه رجالٌ قياماً*]. (حديث شريف)
> 
> [قياماً]: حال، صاحبها: [رجالٌ]، وهو نكرة. *وهذا شاهدٌ لا يُدحَض، على أنّ ذلك في العربية أصلٌ صحيح*. ولقد وقف سيبويه عند هذه المسألة، *فأجازها جوازاً مطلقاً بغير* *قيد*.
> 
> Source : الحال - قواعد اللغة العربية - الكفاف
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This opinion exists but there is not unanimity on this question so I do not know if we can apply it to the type of sentence that we have cited ... In addition maybe this opinion concerns only the *الحال المقارنة* and not the *الحال المقدرة* ???
Click to expand...


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes indeed but I remind you that personally I do not assert that this type of Haal expresses a purpose. What I think and we agree on this point is that this type of Haal does not express a simultaneity but rather a succession.


Unfortunately, the English infinitive does impart the sense of purpose.

دخل الأولاد البحرَ یسبحون The children went into the sea to swim. (Tritton- Teach Yourself Arabic 1943)

I too don't believe a purpose is embedded within the الحال المقدّرة construction * but infinitive is one way to translate it into English and using the conjunction "and" with a past tense verb is another. You yourself have quoted a sentence of الحال المقدّرة type that has been translated in this manner.

... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*

Anas said that when a man of the Ansar *came* to the Prophet *and begged* *from him*...

I have quoted two such sentences...

1) خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد في الجبل و ینظر اإلی صفوف العدوّ The commander of the army came out, went up the moutain and looked at the ranks of the enemy. (Tritton- Teach Yourself Arabic 1943)

2) جلستم تسمعون کلام الشّاعر You sat down and listened to the words of the poet.  (Tritton- Teach Yourself Arabic 1943)

( I must confess. This example to my mind fits الحال المقارنة better with the simultaneous meaning..You sat listening to the poet's words.)



Ibn Nacer said:


> Do you consider that we must always translate this type of sentence with the conjunction "and" and never with an infinitive? Or do you also think that the choice of a translation depends on the context?


I am not sure if I can provide you with a definitive reply but it does seem to make more sense to me if we use "and" with a past tense.

Here is another example where an imperfect is translated with an infinitive. Here it does not follow a perfective verb ماضي but an imperfective one. However, the past time has been set by the very first ماضي verb namely أصبح.

إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ *یغدو* *یلتسِمَه* حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

"When morning came (perfect), Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? *Then he set out very early* (imperfect) *to look for him* (imperfect). When he finally found him, he purged him."

This quote is from "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer- Translated by Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000 page 105 section 186) where he says...

"If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect."

* What do you make of this sentence from Tritton, page 62

بَعَثَ النجّارُ إلیَّ یطلُبُ خَشَباً

The translation given in the book is...

The carpenter sent to me to ask for wood.

Sent who? Perhaps the sentence should have been...

بَعَثَه النجّارُ إلیَّ یطلُبُ خَشَباً

The carpenter sent him to me to ask for wood.

Here the purpose seems to be part of the sentence. We can't translate this sentence as..

The carpenter sent him to me and he asked for wood.

So, perhaps the final meaning we deduce is also dependent upon the type of verb we have.

Thank you for starting this thread. I believe I've learnt quite a lot from it!


----------



## Qureshpor

elroy said:


> The point, though, is that a نعت can express all kinds of different meanings, some of which may overlap with what a حال might express


From "Tense and Text in Classical Arabic " by Michael Marmorstein - page 80

It should be noted that the distinction between an attribute* and a predicative asyndetic clause** in not always clear cut. In many cases where the nominal antecedent (the موصوف or ذوالحال) is indefinite, it seems that both the interpretations are equally plausible.....

* adjective
** a 7aal clause that does not begin with a و

He then goes on to give two examples, one from *Kaliilah and Dimnah* and the other from *Riwaayaat* and gives translations based on the assumption that they can be read as a Sifah sentence or a 7aal sentence.

فمرَّ في طریقه علی وعلینِ یتنناطَحَانِ

He passed in his way two goats *that were butting.* (*Sifah*)

He passed in his way two goats* butting.* (*7aal*) [As it happens, this 7aal is Haal muqaarinah]

واستصحَبَ معه رجلاً یدُلُّه علی الطّریقِ

He took as companion a man *who would show him* the way. [*Sifah*]

He took as companion a man *to show him* the way. (*7aal*) [Haal muqaddirah]

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

If we apply the Sifah understanding..

When he (the lion) lay down, a rat who walks/would walk/was walking on his (the lion's) back came to him. So he jumped up to his feet.

Clearly, this analysis does not work.

We have already come to the conclusion (at least @Ibn Nacer and I) that the coming of the rat and his getting up on the lion's back are not simultaneous acts. This is not 7aal muqaarinah. The other 7aal, namely 7aal muqaddirah implies the 7aal action taking place after the ذوالحال verb action and is normally translated in English with an infinitive but on occasionally with a conjunction "and" and a past ماضي verb.

When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk on his back. So he jumped up to his feet.

I think, a better idiomatic approach would be to translate this using a conjuction plus a past verb, as we know that he, the rat, did indeed walk on the lion's back because this action made the lion jump up to his feet.

When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk and walked on his feet. So he jumped up to his feet.


----------



## Qureshpor

@Ibn Nacer

The context to your sentence is:

أسد مرۃً اشتدَّ علیهِ حرُّ الشّمسِ۔ فدخل إلی بعض المغائرِ یتظَلَّلُ بھا۔



Qureshpor said:


> Once the sun's heat got too much for a lion. So he entered one of the caves to take shade in it.



فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ  But when/after he lay down, a rat came to him.

It is clear from the context that the rat's coming to the resting lion was a pure coincident and there was no intention in the rat's mind to come to the lion and climb on top of him. I am sure you will agree with this. The remaining part of the sentence is:

يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِماً

he (the rat) walks on his (the lion's) back and he (the lion) jumped up to his feet.

This section of the sentence, I have been translating with an "and" and a "past tense" in English.

About the "and" you've said...


Ibn Nacer said:


> - And if possible I would also avoid using a conjunction (and) because we could think that this conjunction is present in the original text in Arabic. And maybe the meaning is different with a conjunction...


You know there are many many situations in Arabic where there is no intervening و in Arabic but when we translate the same into English, more often than not we have to incorporate an "and" in the translation. One example is a group of adjectives in Arabic without the و. Another example is of a construction of the type...

أنظُر إلی جسمهِ* تری *علی ظھرہ شیئاً مُرتَفِعاً یُقال لهُ سنام۔  Look at its body *and you will see *something raised called a hump.

One more example..



Qureshpor said:


> اشتری رجل سیارۃ مستعملة کثیرا ما تخرب و بعد أن أنففق علیھا فلوسا کثیرا قرّر أن یبیعَھا *یشتریَ* بدلا منھا جملا فما وجد فی القاھرۃ کافة جملا واحدا یصلح لحاجته۔
> 
> My translation:
> 
> A man bought a used car which used to break down frequently and after he had spent a large amount of money on it, he decided to sell it* and buy* a camel instead but he did not find a single camel in the whole of Cairo which was suitable for his need.


So, I feel I am justified in adding an "and".

Why change "*he *(the rat)* walks* on his (the lion's) back ..." to "and *he *(the rat)* walked* on his (the lion's) back.."? I have quoted a number of scholars already but to reitterate..



Qureshpor said:


> On page 59 he writes, "He came out and looked" may be translated as خرج ینظر or خرج و ینظر. The imperfect suggests a close connection of the two acts. خرج و نظر suggests two unconnected acts.
> 
> 06 Teach Yourself Arabic ( 1962) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive





Qureshpor said:


> Allow me to quote from section 93 (page 51) of his book.
> 
> "Use of the مضارع - As remarked in para 62, the مضارع, in default of specific time indications, is normally rendered by the English present or the future. However, one of the most characteristic functions of Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him". It might be thought that this could be easily enough rendered into Arabic by two ماضی (i.e past) verbs in succession; this infact could be done but the tendency would then be to understand the statement as referring to two cuccessive and not necessarily related actions: he struck him on the head on one occasion, and actually went as far as to kill him on another! What would be much more normal in Arabic would be to render : he struck (ماضی) him on the head, kills (مضارع) him. It will be noted that the "and" normally disappears in such constructions, leaving something akin to our own alternative phrasing: "he struck him on the head, killing him. _Valuable hint_: where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with مضارع forms omitting "and" at the first juncture (though not subsequently). Conversely, a series of ماضی verbs, linked by "and", suggests a series of _separate_ past actions; and a succession of مضارع verbs, _all _linked by "and" would suggest a series of _separate _present-near future actions. Obviously, as so often in languages, borderline cases can easily arise; and, in any event, the appropriate English renderings will often be (as in the original example above) quite ambiguous."





Qureshpor said:


> My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186
> 
> "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:
> 
> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا علی إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله
> 
> When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."





Qureshpor said:


> إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا علی إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله
> 
> AGrammar Of Classical Arabic : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


You yourself have quoted the following example which has been translated with "and" followed by a past tense verb.


Ibn Nacer said:


> * Here is an example that has been translated with the conjunction "and" :
> 
> ... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*
> Anas said that when a man of the Ansar *came* to the Prophet *and **begged* *from him*...


And I quoted the following example from Tritton..



Qureshpor said:


> خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ
> 
> The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.


So, it seems that the use of both "and" and the past tense is justified.

I found the following sentence in Wicken's book which I believe is almost identical to your sentence. You would agree that both sentences are of the الحال المقدّرہ type where the time of the حال is *after* the time of the ذوالحال and *not* *simultaneous *with it. I have added الأسد in your sentence and changed the order of a couple of words to facilitate comparison and translation.

جاء رجل إلی رسول اللّهِ یُریدُ الإسلامَ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔فأسلمَ

A man came to the Messenger of Allah wanting Islam.....and he became a Muslim. (Here "wanting" does not imply simultaneity but sequence).

or

A man came to the Messenger of Allah to want/to acquire Islam... and he became a Muslim.

or

A man came to the Messenger of Allah to become a Muslim...and he became a Muslim.

In this example, the man clearly had the intension of becoming a Muslim at some stage before getting to the Prophet (Peace be upon him).

ًفلَمَّا رَبَضَ) ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔أتَى جُرَذٌ إِلی الأسدِ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ۔۔۔۔۔فوَثَبَ قائِما)

Ignoring what's in brackets..

A rat came to the lion walking on his (the lion's) back ....So (the lion) jumped up to his feet!

Here "walking" gives the impression, at least in English, that the actions of the حال verb (أتَى) and the ذوالحال verb (يَمْشِي) are simultaneous which they are not.

A rat came to the lion to walk on his (the lion's) back ....So (the lion) jumped up to his feet!

"to walk" implies purpose (again, from an English perspective) and we know the rat had no purpose/intention of climbing over the lion who was resting. A rat that he is, on impulse he decided to do the naughty deed! 

So, finally we have..

A rat came to the lion *and walked* on his (the lion's) back ....So (the lion) jumped up to his feet!

The verb أتی is in a ماضي tense. The rat, at a time after his arrival decided to walk on the lion's back. So, the time of the verb یمشي is after أتی  and therefore can and here should be translated with a past tense in English.

I hope I've presented my "case" and line of thinking clearly and logically.

PS: There is a scholarly article entitled "Technical Terms in Arabic Grammatical Tradition and Their Everyday Meanings - The Case of al-haal al-muqaddarra" by Almog Kasher in which he surveys the works of a number of Classical Arabic language grammarians and how they understood this kind of 7aal.

"Therefore, haal muqaddara means “intended (or:decreed) state” or “supposed (i.e expected, anticipated) state”. (page 203)

"Al-Zaggaag thus uses the expression Haal mutawaqqa3a as a synonym of Haal muqaddara" (page 206)

"The term muqaddara is a (near-) synonym of e.g مُنتَظَرۃ and مُتَوَقَّعَة and an antonym of e.g. muqaarina and waaqi3ah" (page 210)

Technical terms in Arabic grammatical tradition and their everyday meanings: The case of al-ḥāl al-muqaddara


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,

Thank you for all these efforts, these explanations, these references ...



Qureshpor said:


> Thank you for starting this thread. I believe I've learnt quite a lot from it!


I too learned a lot from your messages with examples and references ... Thank you.



Qureshpor said:


> From "Tense and Text in Classical Arabic " by Michael Marmorstein - page 80
> 
> It should be noted that the distinction between an attribute* and a predicative asyndetic clause** in not always clear cut. In many cases where the nominal antecedent (the موصوف or ذوالحال) is indefinite, it seems that both the interpretations are equally plausible.....


Very good ! I also concluded (in the message* #43) that this structure ("an undefined noun + a sentence") could have these two interpretations* but I did not have an answer (confirmation) ... I also deduce that this author also think that this type of sentence can be a Haal (although the ذو الحال is indefinite), it's a good thing to have a confirmation ...

*


Ibn Nacer said:


> A- The meanings 1 and 2 are different but in Arabic they can be translated by the same structure : "*an undefined noun + a sentence".*
> 
> This is one of the points that disturbed me because I did not think that this structure could express both meanings (In French we have two different structures to express each of the two meanings). Thank you for having the patience to explain this.
> 
> With regard to grammatical analysis, perhaps the sentence is adjective in both cases or perhaps it is adjective in the first case and haal in the second case ... In all cases, it should above all be noted that it is the same structure.
> 
> B- If the word "rat" was defined, this time we can use two different structures:
> 
> For the meaning 1, we use a relative : أتى الجرذ *الذي *يمشي على ظهره
> For the meaning 2, we use a haal : أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره
> 
> This time, we have a different structure for each meaning (like in french), so it is easier to distinguish the two cases.
> 
> What do you think ? Did I understand correctly this time?





Qureshpor said:


> I hope I've presented my "case" and line of thinking clearly and logically.


Yes it is clear, it is well presented with examples and references. It is not always easy to find examples and explanations of different authors. It's a long research work ... Thank you for that...




Qureshpor said:


> PS: There is a scholarly article entitled "Technical Terms in Arabic Grammatical Tradition and Their Everyday Meanings - The Case of al-haal al-muqaddarra" by Almog Kasher in which he surveys the works of a number of Classical Arabic language grammarians and how they understood this kind of 7aal.
> 
> "Therefore, haal muqaddara means “intended (or:decreed) state” or “supposed (i.e expected, anticipated) state”. (page 203)
> 
> "Al-Zaggaag thus uses the expression Haal mutawaqqa3a as a synonym of Haal muqaddara" (page 206)
> 
> "The term muqaddara is a (near-) synonym of e.g مُنتَظَرۃ and مُتَوَقَّعَة and an antonym of e.g. muqaarina and waaqi3ah" (page 210)


Very good,  It is rare to find articles on this subject...


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> The context to your sentence is:
> 
> أسد مرۃً اشتدَّ علیهِ حرُّ الشّمسِ۔ فدخل إلی بعض المغائرِ یتظَلَّلُ بھا۔


The word given in Hans Wehr dictionary for caves is given as مغایر and not مغائر. I don't know if this makes a difference.



Qureshpor said:


> "Al-Zaggaag thus uses the expression Haal mutawaqqa3a as a synonym of Haal muqaddara" (page 206)


The grammarian in question is ابو اسحاق الزَّجَّاج.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> The word given in Hans Wehr dictionary for caves is given as مغایر and not مغائر. I don't know if this makes a difference.


Arabs sometime change ء after ا to ي

like:
عجائز = عجايز
عمائم = عمايم
رسائل = رسايل

etc


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> Coming to the original enigma! I am going to add "the lion" into the sentence for convenience and add "the lion" wherever necessary for clarification.
> 
> فلَمَّا رَبَضَ الأسدُ *أتَى* إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ *يَمْشِي* عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما
> 
> As an adjective phrase
> 
> And when the lion lay down, there came to him a mouse who was walking on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up.



Treating it as a sifah phrase ("jurazun" followed by "yamshii"), one could translate the sentence as:

And when the lion lay down, there *came *to him a rat *who walked* on his back and the lion jumped and stood up! (past tense is used for the "sifah" section as the main verb is in the past)

As I've written earlier, the sentence which the classical Arabic grammarians used to demonstrate *الحال المقدَّرة *was

مررت برجل معه صقر صائداً به غداً

The English translation provided by scholars is:

I passed by a man with a hawk intending to hunt with it tomorrow.

This sentence is in fact almost identical with our sentence.

أتی اِلیهِ جرذ is eqiuivalent to مررتُ برجل

جرذ is ذوالحال which is also the فاعل

تُ or أنا is ذوالحال one (فاعل), while رجل is ذوالحال two which is مفعول بهِ غیر صریح

يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ is 7aal muqaddarah

صائداً به is 7aal muqaddarah

The only problem that I have with الحال المقدَّرة is that it implies some sort of intention on the behalf of the ذوالحال and I can't envisage the rat having any intention to climb over the sleeping lion. With this in mind, if I wasn't going for a "sifah" explanation and was choosing the 7aal option, I would translate the sentence as:

And when the lion laid down, a rat *came *to him *and walked* on his back. So, he jumped and stood up.

This translation is based on translation of a sentence such as the one below. (Wright's translation)

... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*

Anas said that when a man of the Ansar *came* to the Prophet *and begged* from him...

Sunnah. com has the same translation:

Anas said that when a man of the Ansar came to the Prophet and begged from him…


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate
> 
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب
> 
> أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
> أتى إلى عين ماء *ل*يشرب He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)


Here is an example from Sīrat Sayyidīna Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh by after Ibn ʾIsḥāq (1, 194)

فخرجنا نسأل عن رسول الله و کُنّا لا نعرفه لم نراہ قبل ذٰلک

"We went out to ask the Mesenger of God, and we did not know him, nor had we seen him before that."

(Transaltion by Michal Marmorstein - Tense and Text in Classical Arabic)

Fables de Lokman expliquées d'après une méthode nouvelle par deux traductions françaises

From the second story on page 14, you'll find the following sentence.

إیّل یعني غزال مرۃً عطش ۔ فأتی إلیٰ عین ماء یشربُ

If my understanding of the story is correct, the poor gazelle never got the chance to drink the water!

PS : Correction

Here is an example from Sīrat Sayyidīna Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh by after Ibn ʾIsḥāq (1, 294)

فخرجنا نسأل عن رسول الله و کُنّا لا نعرفه لم نرہ قبل ذٰلک


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Here is an example from Sīrat Sayyidīna Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh by after Ibn ʾIsḥāq (1, 194)
> 
> فخرجنا نسأل عن رسول الله و کُنّا لا نعرفه لم نراہ قبل ذٰلک


لا أعتقد أن هذا النص صحيح
أين المصدر؟



Qureshpor said:


> "We went out to ask the Mesenger of God, and we did not know him, nor had we seen him before that."
> 
> (Transaltion by Michal Marmorstein - Tense and Text in Classical Arabic)
> 
> Fables de Lokman expliquées d'après une méthode nouvelle par deux traductions françaises
> 
> From the second story on page 14, you'll find the following sentence.
> 
> إیّل یعني غزال مرۃً عطش ۔ فأتی إلیٰ عین ماء یشربُ
> 
> If my understanding of the story is correct, the poor gazelle never got the chance to drink the water!


اسلوب هذا الكتاب لا يدل على الفصاحة ويخلو من البلاغة
فلا يعتدّ به ولا يتخذ مرجعا للغة العربية
والله أعلم

من ألّف الكتاب باللغة العربية؟


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> لا أعتقد أن هذا النص صحيح
> أين المصدر؟





Qureshpor said:


> Here is an example from Sīrat Sayyidīna Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh by after Ibn ʾIsḥāq (1, 194)


Correction: Sīrat Sayyidīna Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh by after Ibn Hišām (1, 294)

(Transaltion by Michal Marmorstein - Tense and Text in Classical Arabic- page 126)



Romeel said:


> اسلوب هذا الكتاب لا يدل على الفصاحة ويخلو من البلاغة
> فلا يعتدّ به ولا يتخذ مرجعا للغة العربية
> والله أعلم
> 
> من ألّف الكتاب باللغة العربية؟


I suppose @Ibn Nacer can best answer this question but the link he has posted points to "Luqman" (3alaihissalaam) but if you believe that you'll believe anything!

Fables de Lokman expliquées d'après une méthode nouvelle par deux traductions françaises

The thing that is noteworthy is that Wright has quoted the relevant sentence and he would not have included it in his book if the source had been unrliable or the sentence grammatically incorrect.


----------



## Romeel

ما أعلمه أن العرب لا تقول لم نراه 

أما كتاب لقمان فهو ركيك حتى لا يصلح للإطفال

لو أنا كتبت كتابا (اليوم) وقلت فيه
الثعلب مرة مرض
الأسد مرة نام
الكلب مرة عطش

لرماني الناس بأحذيتهم 

أما من اقتبس من الكتاب فلسنا ملزمين به


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> ما أعلمه أن العرب لا تقول لم نراه


This is my mistake. I wrote it from a sentence in Roman. It should be لم نرہ

fa-ḫarajnā nasʾalu ʿan rasūli llāhi wa-kunnā lānaʿrifu-hū lam nara-hū qabla ḏālika


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> This is my mistake. I wrote it from a sentence in Roman. It should be لم نرہ
> 
> fa-ḫarajnā nasʾalu ʿan rasūli llāhi wa-kunnā lānaʿrifu-hū lam nara-hū qabla ḏālika


لذلك أنا أسأل عن رابط بالمصدر. فبدون رابط للمصدر من موقع موثوق لا نستطيع أن نكمل النقاش.
لكن لو فرضنا بصحة النص لا أرى فيه تعارض مع كلامي.


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> لذلك أنا أسأل عن رابط بالمصدر. فبدون رابط للمصدر من موقع موثوق لا نستطيع أن نكمل النقاش.


Tense and Text in Classical Arabic (page 126)

I have already provided you the actual source (Ibn Hisham's Siirah - volume 1 page 294

لكن لو فرضنا بصحة النص لا أرى فيه تعارض مع كلامي

So, you accept that this sentence .......

*فخرجنا نسأل* عن رسول الله و کُنّا لا نعرفه لم نرہ قبل ذٰلک

is of the same grammatical structure as 

إیّل یعني غزال مرۃً عطش ۔ *فأتی* إلیٰ عین ماء *یشربُ*


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Tense and Text in Classical Arabic (page 126)
> 
> I have already provided you the actual source (Ibn Hisham's Siirah - volume 1 page 294
> 
> لكن لو فرضنا بصحة النص لا أرى فيه تعارض مع كلامي
> 
> So, you accept that this sentence .......
> 
> *فخرجنا نسأل* عن رسول الله و کُنّا لا نعرفه لم نرہ قبل ذٰلک
> 
> is of the same grammatical structure as
> 
> إیّل یعني غزال مرۃً عطش ۔ *فأتی* إلیٰ عین ماء *یشربُ*


خرجنا نسأل عن رسول الله
ليست مثل 
أتينا رسول الله نسأل

خرجنا إلى عين الماء نشرب
ليست مثل
أتينا عين الماء نشرب


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> *خرجنا نسأل* عن رسول الله
> ليست مثل
> أتينا رسول الله نسأل





Romeel said:


> خرجنا إلى عين الماء نشرب
> ليست مثل
> *أتينا* عين الماء* نشرب*


Why not?


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> Why not?



خرجنا نسأل عن رسول الله
تعني: ذهبنا نبحث* ونسأل الناس* عن مكان الرسول عن بيته  أو عن المكان الذي يجلس فيه

أتينا رسول الله نسأل
تعني: أتينا نسأل رسول الله نستفته ونسأله عن الحلال والحرام


خرجنا إلى عين الماء نشرب
هذه الجملة تحتمل معنيين
1. أننا خرجنا إلى عين الماء وفي أثناء خروجنا كنا نشرب الماء
2. أننا خرجنا إلى عين الماء *لنشرب *منها
لذلك من أجل التوضيح ومنع اللبس نضيف لام فنقول
خرجنا إلى عين الماء *لنشرب*
فهذه لا تعني إلا أننا نريد أن نذهب إلى العين ونشرب منها

أتينا عين الماء نشرب
أننا وصلنا إلى عين الماء ونحن نشرب منها


والله أعلم


----------



## Sadda7

Romeel said:


> خرجنا نسأل عن رسول الله
> ليست مثل
> أتينا رسول الله نسأل
> 
> خرجنا إلى عين الماء نشرب
> ليست مثل
> أتينا عين الماء نشرب


The similarity is in this bit, the rest of the text is not important:
*خرجنا* *نسأل*
*أتينا*...*نسأل*


----------



## Qureshpor

Sadda7 said:


> The similarity is in this bit, the rest of the text is not important:
> *خرجنا* *نسأل*
> *أتينا*...*نسأل*


This is what I was attempting to explain to @Romeel but did not succeed.


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> This is what I was attempting to explain to @Romeel but did not succeed.


أخي العزيز أنت استشهدت بـ "خرجنا نسأل *عن *رسول الله"
فقاتُ لك أنها ليست كـ "أتينا رسول الله نسأل"

فسألتَ Why not?!

فلا أدري ما الذي كنت تريد أن توصله لي؟


----------



## Romeel

خرجنا نسأل أحمد
خرجنا إلى أحمد نسأل
خرجنا نسأل عن أحمد
كلها جمل ذات معاني مختلفة عدى أن الأخيرة أبعد في المعنى عن الموضوع المطروح هنا. فلازلت لا أعلم سبب استشهادك بها؟

هل تريد أن أترجم لك هذه الجمل؟


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> هل تريد أن أترجم لك هذه الجمل؟



No, I'll translate them for you.

*خرجنا نسأل* أحمد      *We went out to ask* Ahmad

*خرجنا *إلى أحمد *نسأل* *We went out* to Ahmad *to ask

خرجنا نسأل *عن أحمد *We went out to ask* about Ahmad



Romeel said:


> فلازلت لا أعلم سبب استشهادك بها؟



If my memory serves me right, you were contesting the use of a construction such as ماضي followed by a مضارع

*أتی *الی عین ماء* یشرب **He came* to a spring of water *to drink*.

You were proposing

*أتی *الی عین ماء* لیشرب*

I think @Ibn Nacer had already provided an example from the Hadeeth quoted by Wright

وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ *أَتَى *النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ *يَسْأَلُهُ*


I then quoted the following from Ibn Hishaam's siirah.

*فخرجنا نسأل* عن رسول الله و کُنّا لا نعرفه لم نراہ قبل ذٰلک

I think we need to stop this discussion between us now as we are no closer to an agreement for the original sentence quoted by @Ibn Nacer



Qureshpor said:


> *أتَى* إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ* يَمْشِي* عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما


----------



## Romeel

Qureshpor said:


> *أتی *الی عین ماء* لیشرب*


شكرا لك على التوضيح

فقط أريدأن أبين سبب إضافة اللام

عندما أقول
أتى إلى عين الماء يشرب
has two possible meanings
He came to the spring(well) to drink
or
He came to the spring while drinking

to remove the doubts about the meaning I added the lam
أتى إلى عين الماء ليشرب
Which only means: He came to the spring to drink


----------



## Qureshpor

Romeel said:


> فقط أريدأن أبين سبب إضافة اللام
> 
> عندما أقول أتى إلى عين الماء يشرب has two possible meanings
> 
> He came to the spring(well) to drink
> or
> He came to the spring while drinking



Logic and context dictates that the second option is out of question and I have provided full context.

إیّل یعني غزال مرۃً عطش ۔ فأتی إلیٰ عین ماء یشربُ



Romeel said:


> to remove the doubts about the meaning I added the lam
> أتى إلى عين الماء ليشرب
> Which only means: He came to the spring to drink


There are therefore no doubts that need to be removed.


----------



## Qureshpor

I would like to express my final thoughts on the question posed by @Ibn Nacer in his opening post. This is the context of the sentence provided.

أسد مرۃً اشتدَّ علیهِ حرُّ الشّمسِ۔ فدخل إلی بعض المغائرِ یتظَلَّلُ بھا۔ 

Once the heat of the sun became intense for a lion. So he entered a cave to take shelter there. 

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ *أتَى* إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ *يَمْشِي* عَلى ظهْرِهِ

The highlighted verbs (ماضي followed by مضارع) can represent three constructions.

1.  الحال المقارنة It can not be this format beause the "coming" and the "walking" are not simultaneous.

2. الحال المقدرة This represents a situation where the time frame of the مضارع verb is subsequent to the ماضي verb and this is the case here. However, in الحال المقدرة there is at least an implicit intention incorporated within the مضارع. In this sentence there is none and therefore we have to rule out this possibility too.

3. صفة This to my mind is the most favourable choice left and the translation would be on the lines of...

But when he lay down, there came a rat who walked on his back.

فوثب قائماً فنظر یمیناً و یساراً و ھو خائف و مرعوب۔

So he jumped and stood up and looked right and left being fearful and alarmed.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما
> 
> Does this sentence seem correct to you ?
> How would you translate this sentence ?
> 
> The use of verbs أتَى and يَمْشِي for the same subject (جُرَذٌ) seems strange (syntactically) to me ...


Although not many peope have perceived this sentence as a juruz موصوف, yamshii صفة sentence, the majority it seems have gone for a 7aal translation. 

Let's assume for a moment that this is not 3aal but  موصوف صفة. The translation in this case would be..

So when he [the lion] lay down, there came a rat to him who walked on his [the lion's] back. So he [the lion] jumped and stood up.

A 3aal we are told must have a ذوالحال that has to be معرفة. But, several examples have been provided in this thread that lead us to believe that a ذوالحال that is نکرة can also form part of a 3aal sentence. So, let us also assume that this could be a 3aal sentence and examine the following translation, that has already been suggested by some friends.

So, when he lay down, a rat came to him *walking* on his back. So he jumped and stood up.

Q1. Was the rat walking on the lion's back *while* he was coming? The answer is "No". Therefore this is not الحال المقارنة.

Q2. As the act of walking on the lion's back took place *after *getting to the lion, how should we translate the sentence?

i) If we use *walking *this creates a false impression that this could be الحال المقارنة when in fact it is الحال المقدّرة. 

ii) Let's translate it by the "usual" way الحال المقدّرة sentences are translated into English.

So when he lay down, a rat came to him *to walk* on his back. So he jumped and stood up.

To my mind, this translation "to walk" means "in order to walk". There is an interesting article, entitled "The Haal Construction And The Main Verb in the Sentence by Peter Abboud* who touches on this matter. He says, "English usage dictates that the above sentences ** be translated with a to-construction., but the Arabic sentences do not have the meaning of "in order to".

** جاء إلیه یعوده
أتی إلی عینِ ماء یشربُ
أرسل یُعلِمُهُ
کتب یقولُ

(iii) The following sentence is from Modern Literary Arabic - Ron Buckley (p 544)

دخلت تُوصِدُ خَلَفَھَا البابَ

This can be translated in idiomatic English as:

She entered, closing the door behind her.

Clearly she did not enter the door and close it at the *same time*. She closed it *after* entering it. The author of the book translates this sentence as:

She entered and closed the door behind her.

With all that has been said, it therefore leaves one no choice but to translate @Ibn Nacer's sentence as:

So, when he lay down, a rat came to him *and walked* on his back. So he jumped and stood up.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

* Abboud, Peter Fouad, Professor of Arabic at the University of Texas at Austin, founder of the Middlebury School of Arabic (Vermont) and husband to Victorine Abboud (1918-1984), who was among the first scholars to focus on designing and developing computer-assisted instruction in foreign languages. Peter F. Abboud was born in Palestine in 1931. He studied in London, Cairo and Austin, where he taught from 1961 on……


----------

