# Grammatical classification of جداً



## lukebeadgcf

Would you say that جدا, in its typical usage, is an example of التمييز?

As in:

هي جميلة جدا


----------



## Faylasoof

I think in English, جداً (= very / much) is called a _*quantitative adverb*_. Not sure how best to call it in Arabic.


----------



## clevermizo

lukebeadgcf said:


> Would you say that جدا, in its typical usage, is an example of التمييز?



I think it is التمييز but I'm not sure.


----------



## Huda

جداً is مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف


----------



## Ibn Nacer

What is  فعل محذوف please ?


----------



## Josh_

It means a omitted verb, or a verb that is not present.  In this case the verb جدّ.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

thank you very  much.

I thought the omitted verb (not present) was the  verb "to be"  in the translation "she *is* very beautiful" but I  was wrong.


----------



## Huda

Hi all

I'm so sorry, I have to correct myself and to be more accurate, جداً is صفة لمفعول مطلق مقدر تقديره جمال.ً
مقدر means " omitted or not uttered"   
جداً  here means شديداً  so the origin of the sentence is: هي جميلة جمال شديداً 
"جمال" here is omitted, that's why we say: صفة لمفعول مطلق مقدر تقديره "جمال
This صفة is equivalent to the degree adverb in English which is extremely,very, too and so on. So the translation would be : she is very beautiful.
N.B. you asked a difficult question lukebeadgcf even for the Arabs and I beleive this is the first correct answer to it.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Interesting.

So, what about كثيرا and قليلا? Are they similar grammatically?

أحبك كثيرا

is a short-cut for:

أحبك حبا كبيرا

(I know I used a different adjective; it seemed to fit better)

and

أحبك قليلا

is a short-cut for:

أحبك حبا صغيرا

What do you think?


----------



## Huda

Yes, they are similar grammaticaly. However, it is incorrect to say أحبك حباً صغيراً. your sentence is a short cut for أحبك حباً قليلاً not صغيراً . and so was أحبك كثيرأ. It is a short cut for  أحبك حبا كثيراً . I told you that جداً means شديداً because it is incorrect to say هي جميلة جمال جدا

Your very first sentence in the thread is similar to هو قبيح جدا and it is a short cut for  هو قبيح قبحاً شديداً
I hope this helps.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello and thank you very much.

I think I understand these two examples : أحبك حباً صغيراً and    أحبك حبا كثيراً It seems to me  that these are two verbals sentences in which we have: verb + masdar of this verb + adjective of this masdar. And "masdar of this verb + adjective of this masdar" is  equivalent to an adverb. Is it correct ?

But what  is the rule for other examples  هي جميلة جمال شديداً and   هو قبيح قبحاً شديداً ? (It seems to me  that these are two nominals sentences).


----------



## Huda

Yes they are. You could have مفعول مطلق even in nominal sentences.

When you say هي جميلة جمالاً شديداً:
جمالاً here is called مفعول مطلق and جميلة which is an adjective ofcourse is called here عامل المفعول المطلق. I believe it is called like that because the sentence does not include a verb. شديدا is صفة للمفعول المطلق منصوبة


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello and thank you very much.

So it's جمالاً and no جمال, thank  you for this correction.

I do not  understand this word "تقدير*ه*" in this passage " جداً is صفة لمفعول مطلق مقدر تقدير*ه *جمال." and the pronoun "*ه*" refers to what please?

Excuse me, I asked many questions ...


----------



## Huda

It is allright. Since I said that the word جداً is صفة لمفعول مطلق مقدر, which means the مفعول مطلق is omitted in the short sentence, I must have mentioned what is this مفعول by saing تقديره جمالاً. The whole word تقديره in Arabic simply means "that word is". So, you could say that تقديره or ه refers to المفعول المطلق. It is incorrect to say in Arabic so and so is مقدر without mentioningتقديره immediately after it. You have to mention what is the ommitted word.
I hope this helps.


Ibn Nacer said:


> I think I understand these two examples : أحبك حباً صغيراً and أحبك حبا كثيراً It seems to me that these are two verbals sentences in which we have: verb + masdar of this verb + adjective of this masdar. And "masdar of this verb + adjective of this masdar" is equivalent to an adverb. Is it correct ?


 Yes
 Sentences which are more common in use are the short ones.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank  you very much for your helpful answer.


----------



## Semiticist

Josh_ said:


> It means a omitted verb, or a verb that is not present.  In this case the verb جدّ.



But since the sentence هي جميلة جدا is in the present tense, shouldn't the omitted verb be يجدّ yajiddu rather than جدّ jadda?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Huda said:


> مقدر means " omitted or not uttered"



I think you mean that فعل محذوف is an omitted verb, while مُقدّر means 'assumed'.



Semiticist said:


> But since the sentence هي جميلة جدا is in the present tense, shouldn't the omitted verb be يجدّ yajiddu rather than جدّ jadda?



She corrected her إعراب, there is no omitted verb, what is omitted is مفعول مطلق.

With regards to what the omitted word is (be it a verb or otherwise), it usually depends on the context. We are making guesses about what it might be.

Up to my knowledge there are two ways of إعراب for جدا and similar words. The other is considering جدا to be حال بمعنى جادا, in both cases there is an omitted مفعول مطلق. However, I think in this particular context it seems to me that the first one works better, the second might work in sentences such as: أحبه جدا


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> Up to my knowledge there are two ways of إعراب for جدا and similar words. The other is considering جدا to be حال بمعنى جادا, in both cases there is an omitted مفعول مطلق.


A la base les noms qui sont utilisés comme hâl sont des noms dérivés et descriptifs (comme le ismu-l-fâ'il, ismu-l-maf'ul, sifat...) mais c'est vrai que parfois un masdar peut être haal mais dans ce cas il ne me semble pas qu'il y ait un "omitted مفعول مطلق", non ?


----------



## Mahaodeh

I'm sorry I don't know French so I don't know what your question is.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Sorry my english is bad I'm not an English speaker...

Basically, the nouns that are used as haal are derived and descriptive nouns (وصف مشتق) like for example the ismu-l-faa'il, the ismu-l-maf'ul, the sifat ... But it's true that sometimes a masdar*** can be used as haal but in this case it does not seem to me that there is an "omitted مفعول مطلق", right?

*** Quelques articles :
- مجيء الحال مصدرا
- دراﺳﺔ - ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺠﻲء اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﻤﻨﻜﱠﺮ ﺣﺎﻻً ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮﺁن الكريم


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> But it's true that sometimes a masdar*** can be used as haal but in this case it does not seem to me that there is an "omitted مفعول مطلق", right?



I agree with the first part, but why do you think that there is no missing مفعول مطلق?

Assuming there is none, then جدا does not give the meaning of حال here, at best it's نعت but that doesn't really work either. Frankly, I can't really explain why (probably because I don't know all the grammar rules) but I just know it doesn't work as haal semantically. I feel that there is something omitted.


----------



## Qureshpor

I remember our Arabic teacher discussing the sentence:

کان فی قریۃ رجل مشہور جداً

He said رجل مشھور was اسم کان

فی قریۃ was جار مجرور

And جداً was مفعول مطلق, the فعل being جد (jadda) which was understood.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> And جداً was مفعول مطلق, the فعل being جد (jadda) which was understood.


Are you sure he said مفعول مطلق not نائب عن المفعول المطلق? I'm asking because if it were as you said then the meaning would change. I understand جدا here to mean كثيرا. If it were as you said then the تقدير would be: كان في قرية رجل مشهور جَدّ جدا, the verb would then be referring to the man and the meaning would be: he is famous and really serious with the emphasis being on serious rather than on famous.

On the other hand, if it were نائب عن المفعول المطلق then the sentence would be assumed to be رجل مشهور شهرة جادة أو كثيرة with جدا having the meaning of 'a lot' and the emphasis is on مشهور. This makes much more sense to me. It's also the إعراب that I'm used to.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Yes, I am sure he said جداً was مفعول مطلق (definitely not حال).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> I agree with the first part, but why do you think that there is no missing مفعول مطلق?





Mahaodeh said:


> Assuming there is none, then جدا does not give the meaning of حال here, at best it's نعت but that doesn't really work either. Frankly, I can't really explain why (probably because I don't know all the grammar rules) but I just know it doesn't work as haal semantically. I feel that there is something omitted.


What I was saying concerns the second analysis you mentioned:



Mahaodeh said:


> Up to my knowledge there are two ways of إعراب for جدا and similar words. The other is considering جدا to be حال بمعنى جادا,



When you say "حال بمعنى جادا" I understood that the masdar "جدا" is a haal. I thought this because I have already seen this type of grammatical analysis (when a masdar is used as a haal) and in this type of analysis the masdar is interpreted (تأويل بالوصف), I thought you did that (تأويل بالوصف) when you wrote "حال بمعنى جادا" (indeed the word جاد is a وصف more precisely it is the اسم الفاعل من جَدَّ).

But in my reading about this type of analysis, I did not see that it was mentioned an "omitted مفعول مطلق"...

Here are some passages (source : الحال - معهد آفاق التيسير للتعليم عن بعد) concerning this type of analysis :


ومَصْدَرٌ مُنَكَّرٌ حَالاً يَقَعْ = بِكَثْرَةٍ كَبَغْتَةً زَيْدٌ طَلَعْ ([14])

حَقُّ الحالِ أنْ يكونَ وَصْفاً، وهو ما دَلَّ على معنًى وصاحبِه؛ كقائمٍ وحَسَنٍ ومَضْرُوبٍ، فوُقُوعُها مصدراً على خلافِ الأصلِ؛ إذ لا دَلالةَ فيه على صاحبِ المعنَى([15]).
وقد كَثُرَ مَجِيءُ الحالِ مصدراً نَكِرَةً، ولكنَّه ليسَ بِمَقِيسٍ؛ لِمَجِيئِهِ على خِلافِ الأصلِ، ومنه (زيدٌ طَلَعَ بَغْتَةً)؛ فـ(بَغْتَةً) مصدرٌ نكرةٌ، وهو منصوبٌ على الحالِ، والتقديرُ: زيدٌ طَلَعَ باغِتاً، هذا مَذْهَبُ سِيبَوَيْهِ والجمهورِ.
وذَهَبَ الأخفشُ والمُبَرِّدُ إلى أنه منصوبٌ على المَصْدَرِيَّةِ، والعاملُ فيه محذوفٌ، والتقديرُ: طَلَعَ زَيْدٌ يَبْغَتُ بَغْتَةً، فـ(يَبْغَتُ) عندَهما هو الحالُ، لا (بَغْتَةً).
وذَهَبَ الكُوفِيُّونَ إلى أنه منصوبٌ على المصدريَّةِ كما ذَهَبَا إليه، ولكنَّ الناصِبَ له عندَهم الفعلُ المذكورُ، وهو طَلَعَ؛ لِتَأْوِيلِهِ بفعلٍ مِن لفظِ المصدرِ، والتقديرُ في قولِكَ: (زَيْدٌ طَلَعَ بَغْتَةً)، (زَيْدٌ بَغَتَ بَغْتَةً)، فيُؤَوِّلُونَ (طَلَعَ) بِبَغَتَ، ويَنْصِبُونَ به (بَغْتَةً).


----------

الرابِعُ: أنْ تَكُونَ نفسَ صاحبِها في المعنَى؛ فلذلك جازَ: "جاءَ زيدٌ ضَاحِكاً", وامْتَنَعَ "جاءَ زيدٌ ضَحِكاً".
وقد جاءَتْ مَصَادِرُ أحوالاً بقِلَّةٍ في المعارفِ؛ كـ "جاءَ وَحْدَه" و"أرْسَلَها العِراكَ".
*وبكثرةٍ في النَّكِراتِ([28])؛كـ "طَلَعَ بَغْتَةً", و:"جاءَ رَكْضاً", و: "قَتَلْتُه صَبْراً" وذلك على التأويلِ بالوصْفِ, أي: مُباغِتاً, ورَاكِضاً, ومَصْبوراً, أي: مَحْبوساً*.
ومعَ كثرةِ ذلك فقالَ الجمهورُ: لا يَنقاسُ مُطْلقاً, وقَاسَهُ المُبَرِّدُ فيما كانَ نَوْعاً من العاملِ فأجازَ: "جاءَ زَيْدٌ سُرْعَةً", ومَنَعَ: "جاءَ زيدٌ ضَحِكاً", وقاسَه الناظمُ وابنُه بعدَ "أمَّا" نحوَ: "أمَّا عِلْماً فعَالِمٌ", أي: مَهْمَا يُذْكَرُ شَخْصٌ في حالِ عِلْمٍ فالمذكورُ عَالِمٌ, وبعدَ خبرٍ شُبِّهِ بهِ مبتدؤُه؛ كـ "زيدٌ زُهَيْرٌ شِعْراً" أو قُرِنَ هو بـ"أل" الدالِّ على الكمالِ نحو: "أنتَ الرجُلُ عِلْماً".


----------

337 - وَمَصْدَرٌ مُنَكَّرٌ حالاً يَقَعْ = بِكَثْرَةٍ كَبَغْتَهً زَيْدٌ طَلَعْ
*و"جاءَ زيدٌ ركْضًا" و"قتلتُه صبًرا" وهو عند سيبويهِ والجمهورِ على التأويلِ بالوصفِ: أي: بَاغِتًا وراكضًا ومصبورًا أي: محبوسًا*.
وذهبَ الأخفشُ والمبرِّدُ إلى أن نحوَ ذلكَ منصوبٌ على المصدريَّةِ ، والعاملُ فيه محذوفٌ والتقديرُ: طلَعَ زيدٌ يبغَتُ بَغْتَةً، وجاءَ يركضُ رَكْضًا وقتلتُه يصبُر صبرًا ، فالحالُ عندهما الجملةُ لا المصدرُ.
وذهبَ الكوفيونَ إلى أنه منصوبٌ على المصدريَّةِ ، كما ذهبَا إليه ، لكن الناصبُ عندهم الفعلُ المذكورُ لتأولِّهِ بفعلٍ من لفظِ المصدرِ فـ"طلعَ زيدٌ بغتةً"، عندهم في تأويل: "بغَتَ زيدٌ بغتةً" و"جاءَ ركضًا" في تأويلِ: ركضَ ركضًا و"قتلتُه صبرًا" في تأويلِ: صبرْتُه صبرًا.


----------



## Semiticist

What book or poem is وَمَصْدَرٌ مُنَكَّرٌ حالاً يَقَعْ = بِكَثْرَةٍ كَبَغْتَهً زَيْدٌ طَلَعْ from?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

*ألفية ابن مالك*

Un autre passage intéressant :


lukebeadgcf said:


> In turns out that there are different ways to interpret this construction. On this page (http://www.drmosad.com/index50.htm), Dr. مسعد محمد زياد states:
> قد تأتي الحال مصدرا ، والتخريج لها في ذلك ، أن تكون مؤولة بالوصف ،  نحو : حضر الولد جريا ، ومات قهرا ، والتقدير : حضر الولد جاريا ، ومات مقهوراً ، وهو سماعي عند كثير من النحاة ، وقد قاسه البعض ، وهناك من جعل المصدر في هذا الباب منصوبا على المفعولية المطلقة ، والعامل فيه محذوف ، والتقدير : حضر الولد يجري جريا ، ونحوه .
> ​A rough translation:
> 
> The حال may occur as a مصدر, and the justification for this is that it be interpreted as having an adjectival function. For example: [I will omit the example sentences. See above]. This is sanctioned as common convention by many philologists. However, there are those who consider the مصدر in this case to be منصوب by virtue of its being a مفعول مطلق, and have considered the عامل [the verb which "يعمل" in the حال to make it منصوب] to be omitted, which the implied sentence being: [See above for the example sentences].
> 
> So to summarize, it can either be a حال, standing in for a صفة, or it can be a مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف.





Qureshpor said:


> ^ Yes, I am sure he said جداً was مفعول مطلق (definitely not حال).


 Why say "definitely not حال" while Mahaodeh asks you "Are you sure he said مفعول مطلق not *نائب عن المفعول المطلق*?" ?

Did you mean "definitely not *نائب عن المفعول المطلق*" ?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> Why say "definitely not حال" while Mahaodeh asks you "Are you sure he said مفعول مطلق not *نائب عن المفعول المطلق*?" ?
> 
> Did you mean "definitely not *نائب عن المفعول المطلق*" ?


Because a reference to حال has been made in one of the previous posts.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> What I was saying concerns the second analysis you mentioned:


Oh, I forgot about that. It's because I feel it's not a حال because the meaning here does not fit very well. It's not really common to use جدا to mean serious, but then again this might be the effect of the most common use which is the meaning of 'very'.



Qureshpor said:


> ^ Yes, I am sure he said جداً was مفعول مطلق (definitely not حال).


I understand, but are you sure it's not *نائب* عن المفعول المطلق? Because if the answer is yes, then this is a very unusual إعراب.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> Are you sure he said مفعول مطلق not نائب عن المفعول المطلق? I'm asking because if it were as you said then the meaning would change. I understand جدا here to mean كثيرا. If it were as you said then the تقدير would be: كان في قرية رجل مشهور جَدّ جدا, the verb would then be referring to the man and the meaning would be: he is famous and really serious with the emphasis being on serious rather than on famous.


For me too this analysis seems strange to me but it can be seen in some sites, example here: #7 :

في الحقيقة / كنتُ قد اطلعتُ سابقا على كتاب عندي يعرب جدا : مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف تقديره : يجد جدا ، وذهبتُ الآن للتأكد من المعلومة ، فهي نفسها ( والكتاب هو : قواعد اللغة العربية لفؤاد نعمة ) ص : 70

I found the passage of the book mentioned:






PS : You used the verb in the past (جَدّ), is it correct if we use this verb in the present tense: كان في قرية رجل مشهور يجد جدا ?
Thank you.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Interesting, but unusual. I still think نائب مفعول مطلق but if it's accepted by grammarians then who am I to object .



Ibn Nacer said:


> PS : You used the verb in the past (جَدّ), is it correct if we use this verb in the present tense: كان في قرية رجل مشهور يجد جدا ?



Yes, it's correct. I used the past because the sentence is in the past, however, it's not wrong to use the present after كان.


----------

