# أّنَّ - حرف مشبه بالفعل



## penrice

My textbook says that أَنَّ is one of الحروف المشبهة بالفعل, the other five being إنّ, لكنّ, ليت, لعلّ, and كأنّ. It says that إنَّ and أَنَّ are both used to impart تأكيد.
Later it says that أَنَّ is one of الحروف المصدرية, along with أَنْ and ما. Here are the examples it gives of each:

ما:
وضاقت عليهم الأرض بما رحبت
The earth became strait to them notwithstanding its spaciousness.

أَنْ:
وأن تصوموا خير لكم
And your fasting is better for you.

أَنَّ:
أعجبني أنّك قائم
Your standing pleased me.

Does this mean that there are two types of أَنَّ? In other words, the one that is a حرف مصدري does not impart تأكيد, and the one that is حرف مشبه بالفعل does not impart the meaning of the مصدر?


----------



## Matat

penrice said:


> Does this mean that there are two types of أَنَّ? In other words, the one that is a حرف مصدري does not impart تأكيد, and the one that is حرف مشبه بالفعل does not impart the meaning of the مصدر?


No. It is one and the same. أنّ is a حرف مصدري, and while being used as a حرف مصدري, it is considered something which imparts the meaning of التوكيد.


----------



## penrice

How can you be sure? Can you cite a textbook on this issue? I know that my textbook lists أَنَّ twice, once under الحروف المشبهة بالفعل and once under الحروف المصدرية. Why would the author do this? Furthermore, if, as you say it is both مصدري and imparts تأكيد (or توكيد, I don't know the difference in meaning), then that would mean that أعجبني أنك قائم emphasizes the fact that my addressee is standing. The translation does not convey this emphasis though.


----------



## Matat

penrice said:


> Furthermore, if, as you say it is both مصدري and imparts تأكيد (or توكيد, I don't know the difference in meaning), then that would mean that أعجبني أنك قائم emphasizes the fact that my addressee is standing. The translation does not convey this emphasis though.


I don't have a full answer to this, but it may refer to Classical Arabic where using أن may be considered more emphatic than its masdar equivalent. أعجبني أنك قائم may be more emphatic than saying أجبني قيامك. In MSA, it's not really thought of as more emphatic, but it may be a grammatical description that grammarians have continued to hold onto even though it's no longer used to mean this.

Or, it could just be a poor description on the part of the grammarians in Classical Arabic as well, where it doesn't actually do anything to intensify the meaning even in CA. I've seen Arabic textbooks refer to إنّ and أنّ as the same particle, but merely say that همزتها تفتح (its hamza gets a fatha) if it can be replaced with a masdar, while همزتها تكسر (its hamza gets a kasra) if it can't. Calling أنّ a حرف تفيد التوكيد may just stem from this description of إنّ and أنّ being the same particle.

But in any case, there are not two different أنّs. There is only one أنّ. I apologize that I don't have any particular source off the top of my head to confirm this to you.



penrice said:


> I know that my textbook lists أَنَّ twice, once under الحروف المشبهة بالفعل and once under الحروف المصدرية. Why would the author do this?


Yes, and this is fine, because it's both at the same time. أنّ is from الحروف المشبهة بالفعل because it makes the subject accusative and makes the predicate nominative. It is also a حرف مصدري because it is only used when it takes the place of the masdar. The other الحروف المشبهة بالفعل may make the subject accusative and the predicate nominative, but they do not take the place of a masdar. Similarly, the other الحروف المصدرية may take the place of a masdar, but they do not make the subject accusative and predicate nominative (and actually, I don't know if any of the others enter on nominal sentences in the first place as أنّ does).
Classifying أنّ as both of these does not mean there are two different أنّs. Rather, it's one and the same but shares the qualities of both these types of حروف.


----------



## penrice

I see. However, every single book says that أَنَّ contains تأكيد, even though every example I come across is translated without emphasis. Just take a look:

بلغني أنك تنطلق
It has come to my knowledge that you go away.

بلغني أنك في الدار
It has come to my knowledge that you are in the house.

بلغني أن هذا زيد
It has come to my knowledge that this is Zayd.

عرفت أنك قائم
I knew that you were standing.

لا شك أنه كذا
There is no doubt that it is thus.

I wonder if some of the native speakers could give an example of where أَنَّ is used for تأكيد.


----------



## elroy

Even إن doesn't generally convey توكيد in MSA, so if this is in fact a term that is applied to أن, then my inclination would be to agree with Matat that, as in the case of إن, this is simply a relic from a time when it may have actually indicated emphasis, or just a poorly chosen name.  You are correct that it does not actually indicate emphasis in practice.


----------



## penrice

Thank you, elroy. I wonder if maybe in Classical Arabic "anna" أَنَّ retained some of the تأكيد that has completely disappeared in the modern language.


----------



## elroy

It may have.  Unless you're reading old texts, though, it doesn't matter.


----------



## penrice

Actually, I am. What I am studying is specifically Classical Arabic. That's why I really want to be sure of what "anna" means.


----------



## Matat

penrice said:


> Actually, I am. What I am studying is specifically Classical Arabic. That's why I really want to be sure of what "anna" means.


Throughout my reading of Classical Arabic, I never got the impression that أنّ was any more emphatic.

I looked throughout the internet and could not find any source which highlights أنَّ's "tawkeed" quality or discusses it seriously as a tawkeed particle. The most any link says is that it is a حرف توكيد, but they do not really explain in what sense it is used as a توكيد, nor do they really provide any example which seems to show an emphatic quality. So I think, as I said before, that it is just a poor description stemming from the fact that أنّ and إنّ were/are referred to as the same particle in many Arabic textbooks, and since إنّ  is considered a tawkeed particle (e.g. إن زيدا قائم is more emphatic than زيد قائم), that أنّ has falsely been morphed into that description (even now when textbooks have started to accurately describe them as two separate particles).


----------



## penrice

Okay, that makes sense. Shukran!


----------



## Matat

@penrice, I think I have found the answer to your question here.



> ((إِنَّ وأَنَّ)) يفيدان التوكيد لمضمون الجملة، فنسبة الخبر إلى المسند إليه في قولك: (إن زهيراً يصحبنا، ظننت أَنك مسافر) أَقوى وأَوكد من قولك (زهير يصحبنا، ظننتك مسافراً).



Basically, it's saying that using أنّ is stronger and more emphatic than using its masdar equivalent and/or another equivalent. So saying ظننت أنك مسافر is stronger and more emphatic than saying ظننتك مسافرا. So it has less to do with emphasizing the general meaning of a sentence and more to do with which is more emphatic by comparison (i.e. between using a masdar/other equivalent or using أنّ). Both sentences mean "I thought you were traveling.", but the one with أنّ is slightly more emphatic by comparison, but doesn't necessarily mean you're strongly emphasizing how much you thought he was traveling.


----------



## elroy

It's important to note that this doesn't generally apply in MSA.  To my ears, ظننت أنك مسافر and ظننتك مسافرًا are equal in meaning and emphasis.


----------



## Interprete

Matat said:


> So it has less to do with emphasizing the general meaning of a sentence and more to do with which is more emphatic by comparison (i.e. between using a masdar/other equivalent or using أنّ). Both sentences mean "I thought you were traveling.", but the one with أنّ is slightly more emphatic by comparison, but doesn't necessarily mean you're strongly emphasizing how much you thought he was traveling.


Hello, sorry to intrude, but what is it that they mean by 'emphatic'?
I thought you were traveling a little bit, moderately, very much? How can there be an idea of emphasis in a mere statement that contains no idea of quantity nor intensity?

Thanks.


----------



## elroy

I think the idea is that the statement is more forceful or something.  Like I said, though, this isn't really relevant to MSA.


----------



## Matat

I agree with elroy. For the particular example above, it doesn't have to do with how much the person is traveling, rather how forceful your statement of the fact that he is traveling is.


----------



## Interprete

Thank you, I admit I can't grasp this idea of a statement being more or less forceful without any specific effect of said forcefulness.. Forceful in terms of what ?
Certainty,  ie.  'I think you were *really * travelling '?
Tone ? 'hey you, weren't you supposed to be travelling ?' ?
Or yet another notion ?
Thanks...


----------



## cherine

Sorry if I'm unable to give you a good or really helpful answer here, but I just wanted to say that if you're interested in MSA and not Classical Arabic, then you don't need to worry about this because there is no difference between the two structure, and أنّ doesn't carry any emphasis.
Actually, even when reading old texts I can't pereceive that توكيد, but I don't know if it's the effect of my being more used to the MSA usage.


----------



## Interprete

I guess you were writing this for me Cherine, since penrice mentioned that s/he's specifically interested in Classical Arabic. It's not my main concern but I'm really intrigued about this 'tawkid' that can't seem to be rendered in any other language.
Maybe my question was not properly phrased. To be clearer: in general terms, how do you differenciate a 'forceful' statement from a 'weak' statement? what is it that the listener/reader understands differently, thanks to that tawkid or lack thereof?
If really this difference could not be defined, then it would mean that it has no linguistic existence and is a purely subjective impression that varies with each speaker.

Thanks...


----------



## penrice

I think I might be able to answer your question, Interprete. First of all, we all agree that inna إنّ adds force to the sentence. Thus إن زيدًا قائمٌ is more forceful and emphatic than زيدٌ قائمٌ. The next question is: where would one want to use the former rather than the latter? For that, please refer to the attached image. Note especially that if the other person is denying that Zaid is standing, you must use إن.

By the way, زيدٌ قائمٌ would mean simply "Zaid is standing." while إن زيدًا قائمٌ would mean "Zaid IS standing."
In English, when speaking we would stress the verb "is" to achieve the effect of إنّ, I think. In writing, on the other hand, we would capitalize "is", as I did above, or put it in italics, i.e. "Zaid _is_ standing."


----------



## elroy

penrice said:


> By the way, زيدٌ قائمٌ would mean simply "Zaid is standing." while إن زيدًا قائمٌ would mean "Zaid IS standing."


 Not in MSA.


----------



## Interprete

penrice said:


> I think I might be able to answer your question, Interprete. First of all, we all agree that inna إنّ adds force to the sentence. Thus إن زيدًا قائمٌ is more forceful and emphatic than زيدٌ قائمٌ. The next question is: where would one want to use the former rather than the latter? For that, please refer to the attached image. Note especially that if the other person is denying that Zaid is standing, you must use إن.


Thanks for the source Penrice, but how do you apply this 'forceful' use of 'in' to the example at hand?
 (I thought you were travelling).
"saying ظننت أنك مسافر is stronger and more emphatic than saying ظننتك مسافرا. "
Where is the emphasis? Is it: I thought you WERE (indeed) travelling? I thought YOU (not someone else) were travelling? I thought you were TRAVELLING (not doing something else)?


----------



## Matat

Interprete said:


> Where is the emphasis? Is it: *I thought you WERE (indeed) travelling? *I thought YOU (not someone else) were travelling? I thought you were TRAVELLING (not doing something else)?


From what I understand from the website, I think it is the first one you mentioned.


----------



## Mazhara

Unlike "Inna", this particle does not have the force of emphasis. Its function is to convert the sentence into a fact. This is used in the middle of a sentence,  before subject noun or predicate.
2:25
 وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ *أَنَّ* لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ ۖ كُلَّمَا رُزِقُوا مِنْهَا مِن ثَمَرَةٍ رِّزْقًا ۙ قَالُوا هَٰذَا الَّذِي رُزِقْنَا مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَأُتُوا بِهِ مُتَشَابِهًا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِيهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُّطَهَّرَةٌ ۖ وَهُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُون

 أَن is حرف مصدري ونصب
2:27
الَّذِينَ يَنقُضُونَ عَهْدَ اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ مِيثَاقِهِ وَيَقْطَعُونَ مَا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ بِهِ* أَن* يُوصَلَ وَيُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُون


----------

