# فَلَمْ يَرَ إِلَّا جُثَثَ ٱلْـجِيَاعِ عَلَى قَارِعَةِ ٱلطَّرِيقِ مُتَرَاكِمَةً، وَجَحَافِل ٱلذُّبَابِ تَطِيـرُ عَلَيْهَا



## dgwp

I am reading the short story حِكَايَةُ ٱلْقِنْدِيلِ by ʻIzz al-Dīn Madanī, and have encountered the following sentence (some context given below, but basically a man is walking round a town after a famine and describing what he sees):

فَلَمْ يَرَ إِلَّا جُثَثَ ٱلْـجِيَاعِ عَلَى قَارِعَةِ ٱلطَّرِيقِ مُتَرَاكِمَةً، وَجَحَافِل ٱلذُّبَابِ تَطِيـرُ عَلَيْهَا

I know it is a minor point, but I am unsure whether جَحَافِل should be in the nominative or accusative (together with جُثَثَ), and would welcome people's opinions on this.

فَقَالَ: «لَا بُدَّ مِنَ ٱلْقُوتِ لِلْعِيَالِ، لَا بُدَّ مِنْ ذٰلِكَ وَلَوْ بِٱلسَّرِقةِ، وَٱلسَّطْوِ، وَٱلْقَتْلِ!».

 فَخَرَجَ ٱلصَّبَاحَ ٱلْبَاكِرَ مُسَلَّحًا بِشَفْرَتِهِ، وَهُوَ يُـحَاذِي جُدْرَانَ ٱلشَّوَارِعِ، وَيَتَلَصَّصُ، فَلَمْ يَرَ إِلَّا جُثَثَ ٱلْـجِيَاعِ عَلَى قَارِعَةِ ٱلطَّرِيقِ مُتَرَاكِمَةً، وَجَحَافِلُ ٱلذُّبَابِ تَطِيـرُ عَلَيْهَا​


----------



## elroy

Either is possible. 

Nominative: He saw nothing but the corpses of the famished ..., *with* swarms of flies... 
(واو الحال)

Accusative: He saw nothing but the corpses ... *and* swarms... 
(واو العطف)


----------



## ayed

*as *swarms of might work, I guess.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Some times it can be more than one haraka and the writer or the speaker is the one who determines which one it is according to what he means.


elroy said:


> He saw nothing but the corpses of the famished ..., *with* swarms of flies...


If it can mean with, could it be واو المعية too?


----------



## elroy

“With” is often used to translate واو الحال.


----------



## dgwp

Thanks everyone. Reading on a bit further, I see there is a succession of nominal sentences separated by واو which leads me to think that perhaps the واو الحال possibility in the first example is more likely?

فَلَمْ يَرَ إِلَّا جُثَثَ ٱلْـجِيَاعِ عَلَى قَارِعَةِ ٱلطَّرِيقِ مُتَرَاكِمَةً، وَجَحَافِل ٱلذُّبَابِ تَطِيـرُ عَلَيْهَا، وَٱلسَمَاء زَرْقَاءُ صَاحِيَةٌ دَائِمًا، وٱلشَّمْس حَـمْرَاءُ حَادَّةٌ دَائِمًا، وَٱلرﱢيح قَوِيَّةٌ لَافِحَةٌ دَائِمًا


----------



## elroy

Is the text vowelized?


----------



## dgwp

No, I've been adding vowels as I go along to try and help understand it - sorry if there are any errors!


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> “With” is often used to translate واو الحال.


OK.
I agree. I see it واو الحال.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I disagree, it's واو العطف. If we remove the extra information in the sentence it will become:
لم يرَ إلا جثثَ الجياعِ وجحافلَ الذباب
هنا الاستثناء على الحصر فالفاعل رأى شيئين فقط حصرا ولم ير غيرهما: الجثث والجحافل. جحافل معطوفة على جثث فهي إذا منصوبة والجثث منصوبة لأنها مفعول به وليست حالا.

الواوات التي تليها أظنها استئنافية إلا أنها قد تكون معطوفة على الجثث كما في جحافل ولا أظنها واو الحال

Just to make myself clear, I'm not denying that it's possible for the other waaws to be waaw al-haal, I'm saying that I don't think it is. I'm pretty sure though that the first one is not.


----------



## elroy

Maha, your reading is one possible reading, but the other one is entirely possible as well.  Imagine a comma after الجياع.


----------



## jack_1313

I think it must be واو الحال and جحافل is therefore nominative.

If it's واو العطف, how do we explain the fact that we're trying to pair a relative clause with a definite referent without using the required relative pronoun? In other words, would we not have to write فَلَمْ يَرَ إِلَّا جُثَثَ ٱلْـجِيَاعِ عَلَى قَارِعَةِ ٱلطَّرِيقِ مُتَرَاكِمَةً، وَجَحَافِل ٱلذُّبَابِ *التي* تَطِيـرُ عَلَيْهَا ?

Edit: Never mind. I suppose in that case, تَطِيـرُ becomes a حال.


----------



## elroy

Jack, I had the same thought briefly, and the same realization.   Just a note, the whole_ phrase_ تطير عليها would be في محل نصب حال.


----------



## jack_1313

elroy said:


> Jack, I had the same thought briefly, and the same realization.



I think it's the lack of parallelism between جثث اليجاع متراكمةً and جحافل الذباب تطير (i.e. in one case the حال is an اسم فاعل and in the other case it's a جملة فعلية) that gives the immediate impression that these are different grammatical structures and that the واو is therefore واو الحال, not وال العطف.


----------



## elroy

Actually, my immediate intuitive reading of it was واو العطف, and I almost responded that accusative was the right case.  Then it hit me that it could also be واو الحال.  The التي thing didn’t occur to me until later, after I had posted, I think because my brain was looking for a sign that it was one or the other.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Also the presence of the comma can lead you to think about واو الاستئناف.


----------



## elroy

sun_shine 331995 said:


> واو الاستئناف


 Can you elaborate?


----------



## Mahaodeh

jack_1313 said:


> I think it's the lack of parallelism between جثث اليجاع متراكمةً and جحافل الذباب تطير (i.e. in one case the حال is an اسم فاعل and in the other case its a جملة فعلية) that gives the immediate impression that these are different grammatical structures and that the واو is therefore واو الحال, not وال العطف.


But how is that relevant? I understand that the type of haal is different, but the thing that is after the waaw is a noun, coincidently both are also the first part of iDaafa; in my mind they were practically identical. 

The others however (وَٱلسَمَاء زَرْقَاءُ صَاحِيَةٌ دَائِمًا، وٱلشَّمْس حَـمْرَاءُ حَادَّةٌ دَائِمًا، وَٱلرﱢيح قَوِيَّةٌ لَافِحَةٌ دَائِمًا) are a little different: they are all مبتدأ وخبر followed by adjectives and the first two also followed by ظرف زمان. 



elroy said:


> Maha, your reading is one possible reading, but the other one is entirely possible as well. Imagine a comma after الجياع.


In the original there is a comma after الجياع, technically it's after the whole phrase but it should be the same. You have to keep in mind that the comma isn't a sign that it's waaw al haal, a haal doesn't need a comma. For example in the sentence: ذهب وهو مسرور the waaw is waaw al haal and I don't believe anyone would add a comma here.

Anyhow, after thinking about it for a while longer, I now think that both are equally likely as you said.



elroy said:


> Can you elaborate?


I second that motion .


----------



## elroy

Mahaodeh said:


> the comma isn't a sign that it's waaw al haal, a haal doesn't need a comma.


 Yes, of course.  I agree.  I meant "imagine a comma" (I hadn't noticed that there already was a comma!) because I thought that might help you "see" the واو الحال reading. 

I'm glad we now seem to agree.


----------



## jack_1313

Mahaodeh said:


> But how is that relevant? I understand that the type of haal is different, but the thing that is after the waaw is a noun, coincidently both are also the first part of iDaafa; in my mind they were practically identical.


I was simply explaining why I first read the sentence a particular way (I should have written "gives *me* the impression"). When the syntax is ambiguous, we have to rely on other, less reliable indicators - like style - to discern the intended reading. But I'm self-aware enough to admit that my intuition in a foreign language doesn't carry a lot of weight


----------



## elroy

jack_1313 said:


> When the syntax is ambiguous


 Fortunately, in this case, both readings amount to the same reality, so the ambiguity is inconsequential.


----------



## Sun-Shine

The waw could be waw al-haal so it's جحافلُ .
It could be واو الاستئناف too , جحافلُ.
It could be واو العطف then جحافلَ.

The best answer is واو الحال .


----------



## elroy

sun_shine 331995 said:


> It could be واو الاستئناف too , جحافلُ.


 Again, please elaborate.


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> Again, please elaborate.


Elaborating what? (the meaning of واو الاستئناف?)


----------



## elroy

Yes, and why you think this is a possible reading in this context.


----------



## Sun-Shine

My opinion was واو الحال , and I supposed that واو العطف is fine.
After searching and asking, I was told that واو الاستئناف is possible.
واو الاستئناف : the sentence after it is not related to the sentence before in إعراب.
If I say : لا تأكلِ السمكَ وتشربِ اللبن  the the waw is حرف عطف because تشرب is مجزوم as تأكل 

but in (لا تأكلِ السمكَ وتشربُ اللبن ) the waw is واو الاستئناف because the sentence after is a new sentence and not related to the other in إعراب
تشربُ: فعل مضارع مرفوع.


----------



## elroy

What about our sentence here?


----------



## Sun-Shine

Because the sentence is without vowels, there can be more than one answer and all are correct.
واو الحال is the best and then it's جحافلُ .
واو العطف is correct and then it's جحافلَ.
واو الاستئناف (could be) and then جحافلُ.


----------



## elroy

You still haven’t given any arguments in favor of a واو الاستئناف analysis for this particular sentence in this particular context.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I'm not sure about واو الاستئناف because it means that the two sentences are not related and after the waaw we continued with something else. However, in our case the two sentences are directly and closely related as indicated by the pronoun in عليها. In fact, noticing the ponoun is what made me change my mind about waaw al haal.


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> You still haven’t given any arguments in favor of a واو الاستئناف analysis for this particular sentence in this particular context.


إذا اعتبرنا أن الواو هنا هي واو الاستئناف فهذا يعني أننا نفصل الجملتين عن بعضهما
كأننا نقول (فلم ير إلا جثث الجياع) جملة مستقلة بذاتها و جملة( وجحافل الطير تطير علها) جملة أخرى مستقلة كاملة(تتكون من مبتدأ وخبر/فعل وفاعل) وكأنني أبدأ حديثًا جديدًا فالجملة بعد حرف الاستثناء منقطعة إعرابيًا عمّا بعدها
(قول أن واو الاستئناف ممكنة لا يعني أنها الأرجح هنا بل يعني أنه لا شيء يمنع أن تكون هي)



Mahaodeh said:


> I'm not sure about واو الاستئناف.
> in our case the two sentences are directly and closely related as indicated by the pronoun in عليها.


أنا أيضًا فكرت في هذا ولكن هذا ليس شرطًا
بعض الجمل يكون فيها ضمير يعود على شيء في الجملة السابقة ومع ذلك الواو تكون للاستئناف
مثال: لم يزرني زيد و يهنئني
بجزم الفعل يهنئني تكون الواو للعطف 
(برفع الفعل تكون الواو للاستئناف(مع اختلاف المعنى
 بالرغم من وجود ضمير (مستتر) يعود على زيد
"ثم قضى أجلاً وأجل مسمى عنده" 
عنده" بها ضمير ومع ذلك قال البعض أن الواو استئنافية"


----------



## elroy

Sunshine, I think your impressive knowledge of Arabic grammatical analysis is actually doing you a disservice in this case.   I think you’re overthinking this. 


sun_shine 331995 said:


> لا شيء يمنع أن تكون هي


Yes, there is: it’s completely implausible semantically.  Semantics plays a huge role in إعراب.  

Of course the two clauses are related in this context, so واو الاستئناف is ruled out.


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> Sunshine, I think your impressive knowledge of Arabic grammatical analysis is actually doing you a disservice in this case.   I think you’re overthinking this.



أنا لم أقل أفضل واو الاستئناف. أنا فقط أحاول توضيح سبب كونها ممكنة هنا
ولكن لنسحبها


----------

