# شبه جملة / شبه الجملة



## Ibn Nacer

Hello, 

"شبه جملة" what is it ? Cherine (thank you to her) mentioned it here : #*10*. 

Pourriez-vous m'expliquer ce que signifie "*شبه جملة*" en grammaire arabe ? Cherine (merci à elle) a évoqué cela dans une autre discussion, voici le lien du message : #*10*.


----------



## shafaq

It is a quasi-phrase that contains some components more than a word but yet doesn't form a complete meaningful sentence.


----------



## Faylasoof

Just to add to what Shafaq has already said a _shibhu jumlah_ (شبه جملة) can be:

A short phrase defined either as:

Prepositional phrase, e.g. 

على المكتب، على المائدة  ،  فى الدار، كالنار etc. etc.

Genitive Phrase, e.g.

مفتاح الجنة ، سبب الزيارة

OR 

An adverb (الظرف) , e.g.

البارح ، اليوم، عند، ورأ، فوق  etc. etc.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

shafaq said:


> It is a quasi-phrase that contains some components more than a word but yet doesn't form a complete meaningful sentence.


thank you very much.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Faylasoof said:


> Just to add to what Shafaq has already said a _shibhu jumlah_ (شبه جملة) can be:
> 
> A short phrase defined either as:
> 
> Prepositional phrase, e.g.
> 
> على المكتب، على المائدة  ،  فى الدار، كالنار etc. etc.
> 
> OR
> 
> An adverb (الظرف) , e.g.
> 
> البارح ، اليوم، عند، ورأ، فوق  etc. etc.


Yes I think you're right.



Faylasoof said:


> Genitive Phrase, e.g.
> 
> مفتاح الجنة ، سبب الزيارة


Here, there is a problem, I recall the rule cited by Cherine:



cherine said:


> When the khabar is a شبه جملة (sorry, don't know how to say that in any other language but Arabic) it comes before the mubtada2.


the rule cited by Cherine is correct but I think both idafa "*مفتاح الجنة*" and "*سبب الزيارة*" are not *شبه جملة*.

Consider these two examples :

*الدراسة سبب الزيارة*
*الصلاة مفتاح الجنة*

OK,So here we have :

- "*الصلاة*" and "*الدراسة*" are *mubtada *(subject)
 - "*مفتاح الجنة*" and "*سبب الزيارة*" are *khabar* (predicate).

* But* here the khabar comes *after* the mubtada2 contrary to the rule cited by Cherine.​


----------



## jojiwa

*مفتاح الجنة الصلاة*

This form is also correct! so the way Cherine has explained !


----------



## Faylasoof

jojiwa said:


> *مفتاح الجنة الصلاة*
> 
> This form is also correct! so the way Cherine has explained !


 
 Firstly, welcome to the forum jojiwa!

As I see it, Ibn Nacer is in no way doubting the the rule Cherine mentioned. His point is that <<_both idafa "*مفتاح الجنة*" and "*سبب الزيارة*" are not *شبه جملة*_>>, to quote him.

Formally speaking he might be right about this, and here let me revise my earlier definition of شبه جملة that I give above, which includes the _idhafa_ constructs. This was implied in one grammar book but the explanation was rather unclear. 

Having looked at a number of other references a شبه جملة is defined as:

- a prepositional phrase (as mentioned above).

- a prepositional genitive phrase, e.g.  رجل فى الحديقة

- an adverb (this too mentioned above). 

So I agree that مفتاح الجنة الصلاة is correct, which is why I thought it worth citing, but what Ibn Nacer is reiterating is that this is not following the rule because the genitive (idhafa) construct doesn't fall into the category of شبه جملة.


----------



## jojiwa

Ok, I see!! 
Thank you for replying


----------



## Ibn Nacer

*Faylasoof*,thank you very much for your explanation,

I actually think that the rule cited by Cherine is correct but according to this rule, if we consider that both idafa "*مفتاح الجنة*" and "*سبب الزيارة*" are  *شبه جملة* then the two examples I gave above would be incorrect because the khabar comes after the mubtada :



> Consider these two examples :
> 
> *الدراسة سبب الزيارة*
> *الصلاة مفتاح الجنة*
> 
> OK,So here we have :
> 
> - "*الصلاة*" and "*الدراسة*" are *mubtada *(subject)
> - "*مفتاح الجنة*" and "*سبب الزيارة*" are *khabar* (predicate).
> 
> * But* here the khabar comes *after* the mubtada2 contrary to the rule cited by Cherine.​


But I think these sentences are correct so I deduced that  both idafa "*مفتاح الجنة*" and "*سبب الزيارة*" are not *شبه جملة*.​


----------



## Faylasoof

Ibn Nacer, I perfectly understand what you are trying to say. In fact, if you see I have slightly modified the categories of *شبه جملة* I have found _so far_ in various Arabic grammars. I'm still looking!

BTW, I'm not questioning the validity of the sentences you present: 

*الدراسة سبب الزيارة*
*الصلاة مفتاح الجنة* 

But the following are correct too : 

*سبب الزيارة الدراسة 
مفتاح الجنة الصلاة*

I think I know now what category might these sentences fall in. The term to describe them in English is, I believe: _transposed_ equational sentences - see my latest post here.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Faylasoof said:


> Ibn Nacer, I perfectly understand what you are trying to say. In fact, if you see I have slightly modified the categories of *شبه جملة* I have found _so far_ in various Arabic grammars. I'm still looking!
> 
> BTW, I'm not questioning the validity of the sentences you present:
> 
> *الدراسة سبب الزيارة*
> *الصلاة مفتاح الجنة*
> 
> But the following are correct too :
> 
> *سبب الزيارة الدراسة
> مفتاح الجنة الصلاة*
> 
> I think I know now what category might these sentences fall in. The term to describe them in English is, I believe: _transposed_ equational sentences - see my latest post here.


Yes, I saw and I think you're right.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,



Ibn Nacer said:


> *Unless this rule (cited by Cherine**) are some exceptions?*
> ​


It seems that there are many exceptions, see this passage:



> *أنواع الخبر:* ثلاثة:
> 
> 1- *المفرد:* ويقصد به غير الجملة أو شبهها، نحو: عليٌّ أديبُ، الطالبان مجتهدان، الصدقُ نجاةٌ، هو صادقٌ، هذا كريمٌ.
> 
> 2- *الجملة:* وهي نوعان:
> الجملة الاسمية: محمدٌ خلُقُه كريمٌ، المزرعةُ أرضُها خصبةٌ. (محمد: مبتدأ أول، خلقه: مبتدأ ثانٍ، كريم: خبر المبتدأ الثاني، والجملة الاسمية المؤلفة من المبتدأ الثاني وخبره في محل رفع خبر المبتدأ الأول).
> الجملة الفعلية: الطالب يحبُّ العلم، الفلاح يُصْلِح أرضه. المسافرون عادوا إلى بلدهم. (الطالب: مبتدأ، يحب فعل مضارع وفاعله مستتر جوازا تقديره هو، والجملة الفعلية في محل رفع خبر للطالب).
> 
> 3- *شبه الجملة:*
> -* الجار والمجرور*: خالدٌ *في* الدارِ، الزادُ *على* الراحلةِ. البستان *بقرب* النهرِ.
> - *الظرف*: البيت *فوقَ* الجبلِ، الفلاحُ* تحت *الشجرة، القائدُ *أمامَ *الجيشِ.​


*Source : *http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/lisan/grammar2.htm

In all these examples the predicate (khabar) comes *after* the subject (mubtada '). I think the reason is that *subjects are all definite.* But if *the mubtada '* is *indefinite* then the *khabar* (when it is a شبه جملة) should come *before* it.

For example, I do not know if this expression " بيت فوقَ الجبلِ " has a meaning but I think this is not a sentence. In french it means "une maison sur la montagne" (a house on the mountain).

However if we write this " فوقَ الجبلِ بيت" then it becomes a sentence that means "a house *is* on the mountain" or "there is a house on the mountain". 

What do you think, please?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Bonsoir ou Bonjour,

Voici deux autres exemples :  [خالدٌ في البيت]  أو [الكتاب على الطاولة].

*Source :* http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/kafaf/Bohoth/TalikShebhJomla.htm

Pareil, ici le mubtada précède le khabar malgré que ce dernier soit une "شبه جملة" mais comme je le disais dans mon message précédent, cela est peut-être dû au fait que dans tous ces exemples *les sujets (mubtada) sont définis.
 
*En effet *"*الكتاب*"* et* "*خالدٌ*" *sont tous les deux définis, le premier par l'article défini "ال" et le second est défini par nature (c'est un nom propre). Mais si le mubtada n'est pas défini et qu'on le place avant le khabar, obtient-on toujours une phrase ? 

Je pense que non, par exemple si j'écris ceci "كتاب على الطاولة" je pense que cela signifie "un livre sur la table" ce n'est donc pas une phrase complète (elle n'est ni nominale ni verbale). Par contre si j'écris "على الطاولة كتاب" cela signifie littéralement "sur la table est un livre" ou "un livre est sur la table" et moins littéralement "il y a un livre sur la table".

Merci de me corriger en cas d'erreur...


----------



## Faylasoof

Ibn Nacer said:


> Hello,...
> 
> In all these examples the predicate (khabar) comes *after* the subject (mubtada '). I think the reason is that *subjects are all definite.* But if *the mubtada '* is *indefinite* then the *khabar* (when it is a





Ibn Nacer said:


> شبه جملة) should come *before* it.


 Agree! These are well established rules for equational sentences.



> For example, I do not know if this expression "





> بيت فوقَ الجبلِ " has a meaning but I think this is not a sentence. In french it means "une maison sur la montagne" (a house on the mountain).
> 
> However if we write this " فوقَ الجبلِ بيت" then it becomes a sentence that means "a house *is* on the mountain" or "there is a house on the mountain".
> 
> What do you think, please?




Well, this is a classic example of how the grammar of one language differs from another! 

If you did a translation of this into English (keeping in mind that the Arabic equavelnt of <*is*> in an expression like this is not used), you'll get a perfectly valid and meaningful sentence: a house is on the mountain! 
But, as you yourself realize, this is *not*_ a sentence according to the rules of fus7a. _I give a similar example above, viz. رجل فى الحديقة. This too is not a sentence accordig to _fus7a_ rules, although again you know what is meant. One would need to do the same here as you did above for your snetence: فى الحديقة رجل= a man is in the garden / there is a man in the garden.  
(I think in MSA you can also say: هناك رجل فى الحديقة = There is a man in the garden.  But this is not possible in CA).

This is the correct way to express the idea. Now it is a sentence according to _fus7a _(CA) rules. Again, in MSA I think you could also say:  هناك بيت فوقَ الجبلِ
But this not possible in CA.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello Faylasoof


Faylasoof said:


> Agree! These are well established rules for equational sentences.


Yes, you're right but I did not yet know these rules (I'm a beginner). I learned a lot in recent days. 

Thank you for your help and for your corrections.



Faylasoof said:


> Well, this is a classic example of how the grammar of one language differs from another!
> 
> If you did a translation of this into English (keeping in mind that the Arabic equavelnt of <*is*> in an expression like this is not used), you'll get a perfectly valid and meaningful sentence: a house is on the mountain!
> But, as you yourself realize, this is *not*_ a sentence according to the rules of fus7a. _I give a similar example above, viz. رجل فى الحديقة. This too is not a sentence accordig to _fus7a_ rules, although again you know what is meant. One would need to do the same here as you did above for your snetence: فى الحديقة رجل= a man is in the garden / there is a man in the garden.
> (I think in MSA you can also say: هناك رجل فى الحديقة = There is a man in the garden.  But this is not possible in CA).
> 
> This is the correct way to express the idea. Now it is a sentence according to _fus7a _(CA) rules. Again, in MSA I think you could also say:  هناك بيت فوقَ الجبلِ
> But this not possible in CA.


Yes I have seen this type of sentence (*هناك* رجل فى الحديقة) but I did not know there was a difference between MSA and CA.


----------



## Faylasoof

Ibn Nacer said:


> ..Yes I have seen this type of sentence (*هناك* رجل فى الحديقة) but I did not know there was a difference between MSA and CA.



In this case they do seem to differ but overall differences between them are minimal. 

The biggest difference between CA and MSA is not in grammar, as you might expect, but in vocabulary of course. However, occasionally we do discuss grammatical differences between the two, as here and here.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Faylasoof said:


> In this case they do seem to differ but overall differences between them are minimal.
> 
> The biggest difference between CA and MSA is not in grammar, as you might expect, but in vocabulary of course. However, occasionally we do discuss grammatical differences between the two, as here and here.


Thank you.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Agree! These are well established rules for equational sentences.
> 
> Well, this is a classic example of how the grammar of one language differs from another!
> 
> If you did a translation of this into English (keeping in mind that the Arabic equavelnt of <*is*> in an expression like this is not used), you'll get a perfectly valid and meaningful sentence: a house is on the mountain!
> But, as you yourself realize, this is *not*_ a sentence according to the rules of fus7a. _I give a similar example above, viz. رجل فى الحديقة. This too is not a sentence accordig to _fus7a_ rules, although again you know what is meant. One would need to do the same here as you did above for your snetence: فى الحديقة رجل= a man is in the garden / there is a man in the garden.
> (I think in MSA you can also say: هناك رجل فى الحديقة = There is a man in the garden.  But this is not possible in CA).
> 
> This is the correct way to express the idea. Now it is a sentence according to _fus7a _(CA) rules. Again, in MSA I think you could also say:  هناك بيت فوقَ الجبلِ
> But this not possible in CA.


On page 191 of "A Grammar of Classical Arabic" by Wolfdietrich Fischer, there are following examples listed.

الجارية في البيت 
في البيت جارية 
من في البيت؟
 جارية في البيت


----------

