# He came riding  - الحال



## Qureshpor

For a "Haal" construction, would

جاء زید و یرکب

be acceptable to mean, "Zaid came riding"?

I know that جاء زید و ھو یرکب is what one would normally expect as well as جاء زید یرکب and جاء زید راکباً


----------



## Ectab

No, it would not.
It actually does not make sense, using past tense with non-past.
As: "Zaid came and he rides\is riding"?
Also جاء زيد يركب, would be like "Zaid came to ride" rather than "while riding".


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you. Just to make clear (and I am sure you know this already), the و in جاء زید و یرکب is واو الحال.


----------



## cherine

As far as I know واو الحال doesn't precede verbs. So, like Ectab said, your example doesn't work and doesn't make sense.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ectab said:


> Also جاء زيد يركب, would be like "Zaid came to ride" rather than "while riding".



I'd say this one does exist and is correct. If you wanted to say 'Zaid came to ride' it should be جاء زيد ليركب.


----------



## Ectab

Mahaodeh said:


> I'd say this one does exist and is correct.


Do you mean it is correct, as correct to mean "while riding"? if so, then well it is not.
A verb(al sentence) can't act as an adverb. A noun\adjective or nominal sentence with و, or even without can.


Mahaodeh said:


> If you wanted to say 'Zaid came to ride' it should be جاء زيد ليركب


Oh, when using verbs of motion (e.g to come to go to return...) you don't have to use a particle for "(in order )to"
like: جئت اراك


----------



## Qureshpor

Ectab said:


> Do you mean it is correct, as correct to mean "while riding"? if so, then well it is not.
> A verb(al sentence) can't act as an adverb. A noun\adjective or nominal sentence with و, or even without can.


وَجَاءَ مِنْ أَقْصَى الْمَدِينَةِ رَجُلٌ يَسْعَىٰ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اتَّبِعُوا الْمُرْسَلِينَ

A man came running from the farthest end of the city and said: ‘O my people! Follow those who have been sent (to you as Messengers). (Yā-Sīn 36:20)


----------



## cherine

The reason this example sounded wrong to Maha and Ectab is the missing object. The verb yarkabu is transitive so the lack of object is bound to make the sentence sound incorrect.
I believe Classical grammarians used the example جاء زيد يركب جملا and the verbal sentence يركب جملاً is حال.


(Edit: correction in red)


----------



## Haya syr

Qureshpor said:


> وَجَاءَ مِنْ أَقْصَى الْمَدِينَةِ رَجُلٌ يَسْعَىٰ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اتَّبِعُوا الْمُرْسَلِينَ
> 
> A man came running from the farthest end of the city and said: ‘O my people! Follow those who have been sent (to you as Messengers).
> (Yā-Sīn 36:20)


I think you are mixing between words and sentences
For example: 
يسعى is just a present verb
ساعياً is the حال 
But the sentence (يسعى) is حال


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> The reason this example sounded wrong to Maha and Ectab


It seems you misunderstood me. I don't think it's wrong.



cherine said:


> the missing object. The verb yarkabu is transitive so the lack of object is bound to make the sentence sound correct.


I think you mean 'sound incorrect'. 

True, unless it was understood from the context. Frankly, I didn't think of this point because it wasn't the subject but you are right of course.



Ectab said:


> Do you mean it is correct, as correct to mean "while riding"? if so, then well it is not.
> A verb(al sentence) can't act as an adverb. A noun\adjective or nominal sentence with و, or even without can.



I never said it's حال, I just said the structure is correct. Up to my knowledge it would be جملة فعلية في محل صفة لزيد.



Ectab said:


> Oh, when using verbs of motion (e.g to come to go to return...) you don't have to use a particle for "(in order )to"
> like: جئت اراك


Really? I don't know, I've never heard of that and I searched for some source about this and couldn't find any. Are you absolutely sure that you can't use لام التعليل with أفعال الحركة? If so, then is there a reason for that?

Also, _seeing_ is not a motion so your example doesn't work.


----------



## Qureshpor

My original query was whether جاء زید و یرکب with و being واو الحال was correct in conveying the meaning "Zaid came riding" or not. I believe the response is that this is NOT correct. I suppose the answer would be the same even if I were to assert an object.

جاء زید و یرکب جملاً Zaid came riding a camel (?)

The discussion has moved in a different direction, looking into whether

جاء زید یرکب means "Zaid came riding (something)" or "Zaid came to ride (something)

Further whether this is حال or not.

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


----------



## cherine

Let's keep the object because the missing object sounds incomplete and is incorrect.
So in the sentence جاء زيد يركب جملاً the phrase يركب جملاً is indeed a حال.
I don't know what a حال مقدر is. As far as a I know, the types of حال are:
حال مفردة، تطابق صاحبها في النوع وفي العدد
حال جملة، اسمية أو فعلية
حال شبه جملة

As for the واو الحال in جاء ويركب جملاً it is, as I said in pot #4 above incorrect. The واو الحال comes before a noun or pronoun:
لن نغفل والعدو متربص
يستخفون من الناس ولا يستخفون من الله وهو معهم


----------



## Qureshpor

Continuing with this topic, if I may.

My original question was whether جاء زید و یرکب was correct to mean "Zaid came riding". For me, it is immaterial to include his mode of transport be it horse, camel, donkey, mule, bicycle or a car. I came across the following example in a book called "A New Approach to Teaching Arabic by Abdullah Nacereddine (2009) in chapter 24 (the first page of this chapter).
http://anacereddine.com/Arabic_Grammar___Exercises.PDF

ra2aytuhu *wa yaxruju* mina_lbait

I saw him going out of the house.

If mina_lbait was n't there, the sentence would still make sense, "I saw him going out".

To me, this is a similar structure to جاء زید *و یرکب. *Would you agree? If you do, then it appears that جاء زید *و یرکب* is correct and it means "Zaid came riding". Am I correct in my understanding?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Qureshpor said:


> To me, this is a similar structure to جاء زید *و یرکب. *Would you agree? If you do, then it appears that جاء زید *و یرکب* is correct and it means "Zaid came riding". Am I correct in my understanding?


Yes, it also seems to me that the two sentences ("جاء زید ویرکب" and "رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ") have a similar structure (a wâw + a verbal sentence with verb in imperfect tense).

But in this course (Circumstantial Adverb | Learn Arabic Online)  which is more complete it is said that this structure is incorrect, there is a summary of the rules with examples just after, here is the summary:





The sentence (جاءني زيد ويركب) given as an example is considered incorrect.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Ibn Nacer said:


> But in this course (Circumstantial Adverb | Learn Arabic Online) which is more complete it is said...


I found an article in Arabic that confirms this rule:

- نوع الرابط في الحال الجملة الفعلية التي فعلها مضارع مثبت .
- إذا كان الحال جملة فعلية فعلها مضارع مثبت فالرابط فيها الضمير فقط ،ولا يجوز أن تقترن بالواو ، نحو : جاء زيدٌ يضحك . فالرابط : ضمير مستتر تقديره ( هو ) فاعل يضحك ، ولا يجوز دخول الواو ؛ فلا تقول : جاء زيدٌ ويضحك 

Source : الحال5

---> But it is possible that the sentence "جاء زید ویرکب" is correct* because just after it is said:


إن جاء من لسان العرب ما ظاهره دخول الواو على الفعل المضارع المثبت 
الواقع حالاً  أُوِّل على إضمار مبتدأ بعد الواو ، ويكون المضارع خبراً عن المبتدأ - وهذا هو المراد من البيت الثاني - ومثال ذلك قولهم : قمتُ وأَصُكُّ عينَه . فأصُك : فعل مضارع ، والفاعل ضمير مستتر تقديره ( أنا ) والجملة الفعليّة في محل رفع خبر لمبتدأ محذوف ، والتقدير : قمت وأنا أصُك عينه ، والجملة من المبتدأ والخبر في محل نصب حال

So maybe التقدير of جاء زید ویرکب is جاء زید وهو یرکب ???

In this case the nominal phrase, "هو یرکب" would be "في محل نصب حال" (so it would be a jumlah haaliyyah).

***---> But in جاء زید ویرکب the verbal sentence یرکب would not be a haal it would be a khabar, more precisely it would be "في محل رفع خبر لمبتدأ محذوف"... So I wonder what is the meaning of the sentence, should we translate the sentence "جاء زید ویرکب" as if it were "جاء زید وهو یرکب" (in which the nominal phrase "هو یرکب" would be a jumlah haaliyyah) ?

*What do you think ?*


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you @Ibn Nacer. So both my example and the one which I quoted from Mr Abdullah Nacereddine's book is wrong. Thank you once again and thank you everyone else who participated in this thread.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Maybe, maybe not, look at the second part of my second message.


----------



## elroy

To me, جاء زيد ويركب sounds wrong, whether or not an object is added.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Yes but apparently (according to the passage I quoted) it could be that the sentence is correct (التقدير of this sentence could be جاء زید وهو یرکب)

What do you think, did I misunderstand?

PS : And what do you think of the sentence "رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ" ?


----------



## elroy

It sounds okay with وهو, but not with و + فعل.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ibn Nacer said:


> I found an article in Arabic that confirms this rule:
> 
> - نوع الرابط في الحال الجملة الفعلية التي فعلها مضارع مثبت .
> - إذا كان الحال جملة فعلية فعلها مضارع مثبت فالرابط فيها الضمير فقط ،ولا يجوز أن تقترن بالواو ، نحو : جاء زيدٌ يضحك . فالرابط : ضمير مستتر تقديره ( هو ) فاعل يضحك ، ولا يجوز دخول الواو ؛ فلا تقول : جاء زيدٌ ويضحك
> 
> Source : الحال5
> 
> ---> But it is possible that the sentence "جاء زید ویرکب" is correct* because just after it is said:
> 
> 
> إن جاء من لسان العرب ما ظاهره دخول الواو على الفعل المضارع المثبت
> الواقع حالاً  أُوِّل على إضمار مبتدأ بعد الواو ، ويكون المضارع خبراً عن المبتدأ - وهذا هو المراد من البيت الثاني - ومثال ذلك قولهم : قمتُ وأَصُكُّ عينَه . فأصُك : فعل مضارع ، والفاعل ضمير مستتر تقديره ( أنا ) والجملة الفعليّة في محل رفع خبر لمبتدأ محذوف ، والتقدير : قمت وأنا أصُك عينه ، والجملة من المبتدأ والخبر في محل نصب حال
> 
> So maybe التقدير of جاء زید ویرکب is جاء زید وهو یرکب ???
> 
> In this case the nominal phrase, "هو یرکب" would be "في محل نصب حال" (so it would be a jumlah haaliyyah).
> 
> ***---> But in جاء زید ویرکب the verbal sentence یرکب would not be a haal it would be a khabar, more precisely it would be "في محل رفع خبر لمبتدأ محذوف"... So I wonder what is the meaning of the sentence, should we translate the sentence "جاء زید ویرکب" as if it were "جاء زید وهو یرکب" (in which the nominal phrase "هو یرکب" would be a jumlah haaliyyah) ?
> 
> *What do you think ?*


Thank you for the additional piece. I think you may have been adding it whilst I was typing my response.

I had not come across جاء زید ویرکب kind of construction in print but our Arabic teacher said it did exist albeit very rare. Then I came across رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ in the aforementioned Arabic grammar book written by an Arab and to me it was the same type of sentence as جاء زید ویرکب and felt that our teacher was right. Now you are providing another example قمتُ وأَصُكُّ عينَه (I don't know exactly what it means....I got up hitting his eye/to hit his eye (?). So, in truth I am not sure if جاء زید ویرکب is correct to give the meaning "Zaid came riding" or not. I do know that جاء زید وهو یرکب is one of many ways to express exactly "Zaid came riding".

As for رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ, the author of the book gives its equivalent in English as a 7aal sentence, "I saw him going out of the house". If جاء زید ویرکب is wrong, then I suspect our author is wrong too. Native speakers on this forum feel uncomfortable about جاء زید ویرکب. This must be a good indicator.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Agree with Ibn Nacer #15


Ibn Nacer said:


> I found an article in Arabic that confirms this.
> *What do you think ?*





Qureshpor said:


> So, in truth I am not sure if جاء زید ویرکب is correct to give the meaning "Zaid came riding" or not. I do know that جاء زید وهو یرکب is one of many ways to express exactly "Zaid came riding".


جاء زيد و يركب= جاء زيد وهو يركب
as mentioned above "يركب":
خبر لمبتدأ محذوف
(I think that المبتدأ المحذوف و خبره is حال)
الواو could be رابط in this case if there was قد
As in جاء زيد و قد يركب


----------



## Ghabi

Qureshpor said:


> As for رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ, the author of the book gives its equivalent in English as a 7aal sentence, "I saw him going out of the house"


It should be رأيته يخرج من البيت. As noted above, if you want to introduce a 7aal with a waaw, you need a noun or pronoun after it:


cherine said:


> The واو الحال comes before a noun or pronoun


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ghabi said:


> It should be رأيته يخرج من البيت. As noted above, if you want to introduce a 7aal with a waaw, you need a noun or pronoun after it.


Right, but رأيته و يخرج is correct(seems strange but correct) and يخرج is خبر لمبتدأ محذوف.


----------



## Ghabi

If one intends to say "I saw him going out of the house", then it has to be رأيته يخرج من البيت. Or you don't agree with this?


----------



## Sun-Shine

I agree.


----------



## Qureshpor

So in summary, would it be correct to say that:

رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ means "I saw him and he was going out of the house" and it is NOT 7aal?

And likewise, جاء زید و یرکب should be translated as "Zaid came and he was riding", again NOT 7aal?


----------



## Sun-Shine

What is the difference in meaning between "I saw him going out" and "I saw him and he was going out" ?


----------



## Qureshpor

sun_shine 331995 said:


> What is the difference in meaning between "I saw him going out" and "I saw him and he was going out" ?


جاء زید و یرکب

رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ 

How would you translate them in English?


----------



## Sun-Shine

I asked because I don't know the difference.

I think in both,  يخرج and يركب are 
خبر لمبتدأ محذوف


----------



## Qureshpor

sun_shine 331995 said:


> I asked because I don't know the difference.
> 
> I think in both,  يخرج and يركب are
> خبر لمبتدأ محذوف



OK, I follow your thinking.

جاء زید و یرکب Zaid came and he was riding.

رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ I saw him and he was going out of the house.

From what I can see, both these are equivalent to "Zaid came riding" and "I saw him coming out of the house", whilst the consensus appears to be that they are NOT 7aal sentences. I hope I am correct in my summation.


----------



## Sun-Shine

Qureshpor said:


> I hope I am correct in my summation.


----------



## elroy

Qureshpor said:


> رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ means "I saw him and he was going out of the house" and it is NOT 7aal?
> 
> And likewise, جاء زید و یرکب should be translated as "Zaid came and he was riding", again NOT 7aal?


 Personally, I completely reject both sentences.  They simply do not work for me; as far as I'm concerned, they are not Arabic.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you elroy. As you are aware, رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ comes from a book written by an Arab whose source I have already provided. The other sentence جاء زید و یرکب is a "made up one".

I would like to hear from other participants in this thread (apart from @sun_shine 331995) who feel the same way as elroy. I had arrived at the conclusion that these sentences were not 7aal but still imparted ultimately the same meaning as رَأَيْتُهُ يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ and جاء زید یرکب but now a spanner has been thrown in the works, so to speak!


----------



## Abu Talha

I found some possibly relevant discussion in Wright. He says (paraphrased) that the particle و often serves to connect two clauses, the second of which describes the state or condition either of the subject or one of the complements of the first clause, or else of a new subject. This takes place in such a way that:
a) The clause descriptive of the state is nominal. He gives examples like:
قام زيد وهو باكٍ
كذبتم وأنتم تعلمون (My comment: This example is very interesting because the explicit pronoun أنتم before the verb apparently makes the clause nominal.)
b) The clause descriptive of the state is verbal and affirmative, the verb being in the imperfect indicative, preceded by وقد. *If the particle قد be not employed وَ must also be dropped,* so that the circumstantial Imperfect is outwardly unconnected with the previous proposition; as جاء زيد يضحك , etc.
c,d,e) etc..

See vol. 2, sect. 183, pp. 330-331.

EDIT: just read Ibn Nacer's post above which already mentions this..


----------



## Sun-Shine

Yes,
If the و preceded a verbal sentence as
جاء زيد و يركب then it isn't واو الحال
We should add a pronoun or قد
"جاء زيد و هو يركب" or "جاء زيد و قد يركب"
In those two sentences the و is واو الحال


----------



## elroy

Full agreement with Wright!   This is real Arabic.

And yes, the overt pronoun makes the clause nominal and makes all the difference in the world (see #20).


----------



## Sun-Shine

متى تمتنع واو الحال؟
:تمتنعُ واوُ الحال من الجملة في سبع مسَائلَ منها
أن تكونَ مُضارعيّةً مُثبَتةً غيرَ مُقترنةٍ بِقدْ وحينئذٍ تُربطُ بالضميرِ وحدَهُ نحو: "جاء خالدٌ يحملُ كتابهُ". فإن اقترنت بِقدْ، وجبتِ الواوُ معَها، ولا يجوزُ الواوُ وحدَها ولا قَد وحدَها، بل يجبُ تجريدُها منهما معاً، أو اقترانُها بهما معاً​


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you Abu Talha for a quote from Wright. So...

"جاء زيد و هو يركب" and "جاء زيد و قد يركب" are both حال and translate as "Zaid came riding".

Now if, according to elroy, جاء زید و یرکب and رَأَيْتُهُ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ "are not Arabic", are they completely meaningless sentences or do they mean something but they are NOT حال as has been confirmed by several friends in this thread? If they do mean something, what do they mean? In other words, what would their English translation be?


----------



## elroy

They are meaningless to me.

جاء زيد وقد يركب is also meaningless to me.  Sorry, I think I misread this part of the Wright post.  جاء زيد وقد ركب works for me, with that meaning “Zayd came, having ridden,” but it doesn’t work for me with the second verb in the present.


----------



## Abu Talha

elroy said:


> جاء زيد وقد يركب is also meaningless to me.  Sorry, I think I misread this part of the Wright post.


It may not be current in Modern Standard Arabic. In any case Wright does provide an example.


elroy said:


> جاء زيد وقد ركب works for me, with that meaning “Zayd came, having ridden,” but it doesn’t work for me with the second verb in the present.


Wright has this category in the same section part (d).


----------



## elroy

In MSA قد يركب means “he may ride.”  Did it mean something else in Classical Arabic?


----------



## Abu Talha

I don't have a good understanding myself of this particular usage but can provide this information:


elroy said:


> In MSA قد يركب means “he may ride.”  Did it mean something else in Classical Arabic?


This is the meaning I see in Wright. Although he does add


> In poetry قد أرى may be used for قد كنت أرى _videbam;_ see Noldeke, _Delectus _32, 1. 2; 98, 1. 4.


Wright vol. i, sect 362, p. 286 (footnote).

Noldeke (at the referred locations) lists some classical poetry with this usage: Delectus veterum carminum arabicorum; .. : Nöldeke, Theodor, 1836-1930, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

As for the واو الحال example with وقد, Wright gives Quranic verse 61:5 as an example and there are some linguistic explanations to be found in the تفاسير.

Grammar books also give these examples:
قدمت المدرسة وقد يزورني فيها زائر
لِمَ تقطعون الأمل وقد يعود الغائب


----------



## Sun-Shine

elroy said:


> In MSA قد يركب means “he may ride.”  Did it mean something else in Classical Arabic?


You are right, it means may.
قد مع المضارع تفيد التقليل/ التكثير
مع الماضي تفيد التحقيق /التقريب 

Know that:
قد أحيانًا(قليلًا) ما تأتي مع المضارع وتفيد التحقيق


----------



## cherine

Abu Talha said:


> As for the واو الحال example with وقد, Wright gives Quranic verse 61:5 as an example


To complete this information, here's the verse:


الآية رقم ( 5 ) من سورة ( الصف ){ وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ يٰقَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَد تَّعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ ٱللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوۤاْ أَزَاغَ ٱللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ وَٱللَّهُ لاَ يَهْدِي ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْفَاسِقِينَ }
قوله: و {وَقَد تَّعْلَمُونَ}: جملةٌ حالية.​
(link)

We have other threads about قد, so let's no focus our discussion here about it so as to not divert off topic.

As for the topic at hand, here's what I found in النحو الوافي of عباس حسن, vol. 2, pp.312-314. He talks about the waaw:

هناك موضعان تجب فيهما الواو، ومواضع أخرى تمتنع فيها [...] والمواضع التي تمتنع فيها هي: [...]
7- الجملة المضارعية المثبتة المجردة من "قد"؛ نحو شهدت الطالب الحريص يسرع إلى المحاضرة، يتفرغ لها. وقد وردت أمثلة مسموعة من هذا النوع وكان الرابط فيها الواو، منها قولهم: قمت وأصُكّ عين العدو [...] وقد تأوّل النحاة هذه الأمثلة ليدخلوها في نطاق القاعدة، ويخرجوها من الشذوذ. ولا داعي لهذا التأول الذي لم يعرفه ولم يقصد إليه الناطقون بتلك الأمثلة (1). والخير أن نحكم عليه بما يستحقه من القلة والندرة التي لا تُحاكَى، ولا يقاس عليها.
في غير هذه المواضع التي تمتنع فيها الواو يكون الربط بالواو وحدها، أو بالضمير وحده، أو بهما معًا. وقد سبقت الأمثلة لكل هذا(2).

(1) قالوا في التأويل: إن الواو واو الحال حقيقة. ولكنها لم تدخل على الجملة المضارعية مباشرة؛ وإنما دخلت على مبتدأ محذوف؛ خبره الجملة المضارعية المذكورة بعده، والجملة من المبتدأ وخبره في محل نصب حال. فالحال هو الجملة الاسمية لا الفعلية. والواو داخلة على جملة اسمية عندهم. فما الداعي لهذا؟ إن كان دخول الواو غير مقبول وغير صحيح وجب التصريح بهذا، والحكم على ما يخالفه بأنه يُحفظ ولا يقاس عليه. وإن كان دخول الواو صحيحًا وجب التصريح بهذا أيضًا من غير تأويل. وإن كان التأويل يبيح الممنوع وجب السماح بالواو لكل من شاء. ومن أراد أن يحمل نفسه مشقة التأوُّل فهو حر فيما يرتضيه لها. ولا شك أن التأول على هذه الصورة لا خير فيه. وأن الخير في ترك الواو في مثل هذه المواضع.

(2) اقتصر ابن مالك على حالة واحدة من الحالات التي تمتنع فيها الواو سجلها بقوله:
وذاتُ بَدْءٍ بِمُضَارِعٍ ثَبَتْ *** حَوَتْ ضَمِيرًا، ومنَ الواوِ خَلَتْ
يريد: أن الجملة المضارعية المثبتة الواقعة حالاً تحوي الضمير الرابط وتخلو من الواو المستعملة في الربط؛ لأن هذه الواو لا تصلح للربط هنا. ثم بين أن الجملة المضارعية الحالية المسبوقة بالواو ينوى ويقدر لها بعد هذه الواو مبتدأ محذوف، خبره الجملة المضارعية؛ فتكون مسندة له. يقول:
وذاتُ واوٍ بَعْدَهَا انْوِ مُبْتَدَا *** لَهُ المضارِعَ اجْعَلَنَّ مُسْنَدَا

I hope it's not too complicated to understand for those used to read about Arabic grammar in English, but the gist of the explanation is that the verb in the present shouldn't be preceded by a waaw, because if it's preceded by a waaw (like in a few rare examples of usage) the only possible parcing is that there's a مبتدأ محذوف and that the verb is a خبر of the that mubtada2, so the nominal phrase is the 7aal.
And this is confirmed in a way by Ibn Malek who says that when the 7aal is a verb it shouldn't be preceded by waaw ذات بدء بمضارع ثبت (a 7aal verbal sentence starting with a verb in the present, in the affirmative) حَوَت ضميرًا that sentence has a pronoun referring to صاحب الحال and من الواو الخال doesn't have or isn't preceded by a waaw.
Then he (Ibn Malek) explains that when such a sentence is preceded by a waaw ذات واو it becomes a nominal sentence اِنْوِ مبتدا، له المضارع اجعلنّ مسندا meaning: consider that it has an ellided mubtada2 and then the verb will become its خبر.


So, to sum it up: جاء زيد ويركب is correct according to some grammarians, but then the 7aal is not the verb يركب but the nominal sentence made of the ellided mubtada2 (in this case المبتدأ ضمير محذوف تقديره هو) and the خبر which is the verb.
Other grammarians (I dare say the majority) say that this incorrect (and/or unnecessary) and that a 7aal made of a جملة فعلية تبدأ بفعل مضارع should not be preceded by the waaw.
And, the modern day usage certainly follows this opinion, as attested by the reactions of most (all?) the native speakers who contributed to this thread.


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks Cherine. That's a very good summary and very informative for me.

Thanks sunshine for the note regarding قد. It clears up what I read in the tafseers.


----------



## Qureshpor

From what I have been able to gather (thank you cherine for the summary) is that جاء زيد ويركب is correct and it has to be understood as being equivalent to جاء زيد و هو يركب, which is of course 7aal and therefore جاء زيد ويركب is also a 7aal. This is the view of the minority. Further, in the modern language, this is a big no, no!

As for جاء زيد وقد یرکب, @elroy expects a past verb after قد which would then mean "Zaid came, having ridden". However, Wright (via our friend Abu Talha) provides a 3aal example from the Qur'an in the form of 61:5, which cherine has kindly quoted.

The translation of the first part of the Ayah would be something like...

And when Moses said to his people, O people, why do you harm me *knowing* that I am God's messenger, (sent) to you...

So, it is *knowing* and not *having known*...which would be the case with a past verb. If this is a correct understanding on my part, then thanking everyone for their kind participation, I will say goodbye to this thread!


----------



## Sun-Shine

Qureshpor said:


> From what I have been able to gather (thank you cherine for the summary) is that جاء زيد ويركب is correct and it has to be understood as being equivalent to جاء زيد و هو يركب, which is of course 7aal and therefore جاء زيد ويركب is also a 7aal. This is the view of the minority. Further, in the modern language, this is a big no, no!


Not exactly,


sun_shine 331995 said:


> جاء زيد و يركب= جاء زيد وهو يركب
> "يركب":
> خبر لمبتدأ محذوف
> ( المبتدأ المحذوف و خبره is حال)
> الواو could be رابط in this case if there was قد
> As in جاء زيد و قد يركب


----------



## cherine

Qureshpor said:


> From what I have been able to gather (thank you cherine for the summary) is that جاء زيد ويركب is correct and it has to be understood as being equivalent to جاء زيد و هو يركب, which is of course 7aal and therefore جاء زيد ويركب is also a 7aal. This is the view of the minority. Further, in the modern language, this is a big no, no!


Yes, except for the part corrected by Sun-shine, when talking about ويركب you have to keep in mind that the verb is not the 7aal, but the جملة اسمية المكونة من المبتدأ المحذوف وخبره (the nominal sentence formed from the ellided mubtada2 and it's verbal khabar) that is the 7aal.
And yes, all this is neither used nor accepted in modern usage. Though knowing it may help understand some Classical texts where it could be used.


> If this is a correct understanding on my part, then thanking everyone for their kind participation, I will say goodbye to this thread!


Yes, you understood it correctly. Goodbye to you too.


----------



## Sami Ali

Why all this complexity 
جاء زيد ويركب 
This sentence seems completely illogical especially in modern standard arabic .


----------



## cherine

That's what we agreed on, Sami (welcome to the forum, by the way).
It's just that some learners need or prefer to learn Classical Arabic, so this rarely-used case does exist and needed an explanation which was provided already. Those who need to learn Classical usage now know how this is constructed and parced, and those who prefer MSA know that this is not an acceptable construction in this form of Arabic.


----------



## Sami Ali

Thanks for your feedback
The picture is clear now .


----------



## Qureshpor

elroy said:


> In MSA قد يركب means “he may ride.” Did it mean something else in Classical Arabic?


وَ إِذْ قالَ مُوسى‌ لِقَوْمِهِ يا قَوْمِ ] _لِمَ_ تُؤْذُونَنِي *وَ *_*قَدْ تَعْلَمُونَ* أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ_]

Why do you harm me, *knowing well* that I am the messenger of Allah to you.


----------

