# They left the house carrying it.



## Chris778

I have some difficulty using active participles in certain situations.

They picked the body up and left the house carrying it:
رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حامليه
رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حاملين إياه

Would any of these be correct?


----------



## elroy

Neither.  تركوا البيت حاملينه.


----------



## Ghabi

It may be easier to think of it in the singular first: حاملًا إياه, where إيا is needed as you can't add a pronoun directly to فاعلًا, which serves as a حال. And the plural would then be حاملين إياه.


----------



## elroy

Ghabi said:


> And the plural would then be حاملين إياه


 But this is unnatural and unidiomatic.


----------



## jack_1313

elroy said:


> Neither.  تركوا البيت حاملينه.



Is this grammatically correct in MSA? I thought this structure - specifically the lack of ن deletion in such cases - was dialectal.


----------



## Ghabi

elroy said:


> But this is unnatural and unidiomatic.


One can see, for example, متهمين إياه بـ a lot in the news.


----------



## elroy

jack_1313 said:


> Is this grammatically correct in MSA? I thought this structure - specifically the lack of ن deletion in such cases - was dialectal.


 I'm 99% sure it's grammatically correct.  There's a difference in meaning:

حاملينه: carrying it [as a حال]
حامليه: the carriers of it, its carriers [as a noun in the accusative/genitive] 


Ghabi said:


> One can see, for example, متهمين إياه بـ a lot in the news.


 That one is natural and idiomatic.  حاملين إياه is not.


----------



## Matat

حاملينه is incorrect. You can't attach a suffix pronoun to a جمع مذكر سالم unless you omit the ن.
حاملين إياه would be the best in this sentence since the verb-like characteristics of the active participle are being used by adding a direct object (إياه), which best supports the meaning. I think a case may also be made for حامليه, but usually idaafas are thought of as more of possessors (meaning "...carriers of it").


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> حاملين إياه would be the best in this sentence


 No it wouldn't because it's unnatural and unidiomatic. 


Matat said:


> I think a case may also be made for حامليه


 This wouldn't work at all.  This is _only_ used as a noun ("carriers of it").

If you don't want to use حاملينه because it's prescriptively incorrect, the solution is not to use something unnatural or unidiomatic instead.  The solution is to reword: for example, رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت وهم يحملونه.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> No it wouldn't because it's unnatural and unidiomatic.


It would work grammatically and be perfectly correct from that perspective. I'm not interested in accepting or contesting whether it's natural and idiomatic or not.



elroy said:


> This wouldn't work at all. This is _only_ used as a noun ("carriers of it").


It would work. It can mean both. An إضافة لفظية can carry the meaning of one performing an action.


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> It would work grammatically and be perfectly correct from that perspective. I'm not interested in accepting or contesting whether it's natural and idiomatic or not.


 If it's unnatural and unidiomatic, then it's not the "best" choice. 


Matat said:


> It would work. It can mean both.


 No, it wouldn't, and no, it can't.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> No, it wouldn't, and no, it can't.


Elroy, do the following sentences make sense to you, and if so, how would you translate them?

هو حامله على كتفيه.كان حامله على كتفيه.خرج من البيت مع ابنه حامله على كتفيه.


----------



## cherine

Hi,
I saw this thread yesterday and hesitated in replying because I wasn't sure about حامليه - حاملينه (yes, I thought about حاملينه too) but as I couldn't remember the rule governing the نون الوقاية I preferred to abstain from replying. I'm still not sure whether both are correct or only one of them, but they both sound fine to me.

As for حاملين إياه it is definitely correct. Elroy, I don't know why you say it's unidiomatic and unnatural to say حاملين إياه, it sounds perfectly fine to me. Maybe you don't encouner this structure often, but this doesn't mean that it isn't idiomatic and natural.


----------



## Ghabi

One can find some examples from the news:

وأوضح موقع "أخبار 24" السعودي أن الصورة لمعلم يدعى "عارف الروقي" يعمل في مدرسة الرياض الابتدائية بالإدارة العامة للتعليم بمنطقة مكة، مشيراً إلى بادرة المعلم الأخلاقية في إقناع الطفل من ذوي الاحتياجات الخاصة لدخول المدرسة بعد رفضه بشدة النزول من الحافلة، فتمكن المعلم عارف من مداعبته وملاطفته حتى أقعنه بالدخول، حاملاً إياه على ظهره إلى أن أوصله إلى فصله.(source)

وقال المتحدث باسم الشرطة ستيفن بيتيرسن إن اللصوص دخلوا المتحف عبر نافذة على ما يبدو في الساعة 3:30 صباح الاثنين، وفتحوا عنوة خزانة كانت فيها العملة التي يطلق عليها اسم "ورقة القيقب الكبيرة"، وفروا حاملين إياها قبل وصول الشرطة.(source)


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> هو حامله على كتفيه.كان حامله على كتفيه.خرج من البيت مع ابنه حامله على كتفيه.


  For the third one, I would say وهو حامله.  With that change, I find all three sentences acceptable, with the following meanings: "He is carrying him on his shoulders," "He was carrying him on his shoulders," and "he left the house carrying him on his shoulders."  

But this is حامله not حامليه.  I would not find the following sentences acceptable:
هم حاملوه على أكتافهم 
كانوا حامليه على أكتافهم
خرجوا من البيت حامليه على أكتافهم

For me, هم حاملوه and كانوا حامليه mean "They are his carriers/They are the ones carrying him" and "They were his carriers/They were the ones carrying him, so the first two sentences would work for me (with those meanings) if على أكتافهم were omitted.  Those sentences would not mean that they are/were carrying him at a specific time, just that they are/were "his carriers."  The third sentence doesn't work for me at all. 


cherine said:


> As for حاملين إياه it is definitely correct. Elroy, I don't know why you say it's unidiomatic and unnatural to say حاملين إياه, it sounds perfectly fine to me. Maybe you don't encouner this structure often, but this doesn't mean that it isn't idiomatic and natural.


 Cherine, when I say something isn't natural or idiomatic, that's just my opinion, based on my intuitive reactions as a native speaker (not on how often I've encountered it), and others are always welcome to disagree.

Of course the structure is correct (see #7), and I _have_ encountered it in numerous contexts, but I don't find it natural or idiomatic in this particular context.


----------



## Chris778

It's quite interesting - yet strange at the same time - that هو حامله على كتفيه could be used as: "He is carrying him on his shoulders", but that it does not apply to the plural to get the same meaning


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> I find all three sentences acceptable


This goes back to what I said. An إضافة لفظية can carry both meanings. حامله can mean "carrier of it" or "carrying it". The same can be extrapolated to the plural.



elroy said:


> But this is حامله not حامليه.


Grammatically, there is no difference in the function of the idaafa when using the singular vs. the plural. I have seen إضافة لفظية's used with this same meaning where the plural was used on numerous occasions. The difference you feel is just a matter of your personal taste, not any inherent grammatical difference in meaning. As Cherine said, the original sentence we are talking about sounds fine to her with حامليه. As I said originally, a case can be made for the first sentence Krybro wrote, though I would personally stick with the second one.



Krybro said:


> It's quite interesting - yet strange at the same time - that هو حامله على كتفيه could be used as: "He is carrying him on his shoulders", but that it does not apply to the plural to get the same meaning


It does apply to the plural and will have the same meaning.


----------



## elroy

For me, intuitively, the singular and the plural don't feel the same.  This isn't "personal preference" because these are two different grammatical forms (so it can't just be a matter of choosing a form I like better).  It's not out of the question that usage would be more restricted in the plural than in the singular.  That said, I don't know what the prescriptive rules are; I'm just sharing what sounds natural to me and what doesn't.

For me, رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حامليه sounds completely incorrect and non-Arabic.  I would never use this syntactic structure and I've never come across it.  I would be confused as to what was meant because I would wonder why an accusative/genitive noun ("carriers of it") was randomly appended to the end of the sentence.  If I had to guess what the meaning was I would guess that the author meant وترك البيت حاملوه and used the wrong verb form and grammatical case.

I'm surprised to hear that Cherine finds this sentence natural. 





Matat said:


> It does apply to the plural and will get the same meaning.


 Krybro, if you want to make sure everyone understands what you mean, do not use this version.  Language doesn't exist in a vacuum, and its purpose is to communicate thoughts and ideas.  Anything that doesn't effectively communicate what we mean (regardless of whether we can find a dusty manuscript supporting it) should be avoided.


----------



## cherine

I'm not good with lengthy discussions, but I'll try to post again because I'm afraid we're confusing Krybro (and possibly many others)


elroy said:


> For me, intuitively, the singular and the plural don't feel the same.  This isn't "personal preference" because these are two different grammatical forms (so it can't just be a matter of choosing a form I like better).  It's not out of the question that usage would be more restricted in the plural than in the singular.  That said, I don't know what the prescriptive rules are; I'm just sharing what sounds natural to me and what doesn't.


When we talk about what sounds natural or not, we usually base our intuition on previous experience with usage and what we know to be correct. I can't think of an instance where a usage has a meaning in singular that's different from the plural. After all, the usage is the same, why would the change of number change the correctness of the usage? 
So, allow me to repeat that your gut-feeling (which I'm not belittling) could be just a matter of not being exposed to this usage before, which is perfectly fine. But to go from this to confirming that something is incorrect (and innatural) just because we haven't encountered it before is a dangerous generalization, in my humble opinion.


> For me, رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حامليه sounds completely incorrect and non-Arabic.


To you. But I don't agree with you, and we're both native speakers.
By the way, the only possible confusion in this sentence is the reference of the pronoun: what are they carrying. But as they can't possibly be carrying the house  we're luckily spared this confusion.


> I would never use this syntactic structure and I've never come across it.  I would be confused as to what was meant because I would wonder why an accusative/genitive noun ("carriers of it") was randomly appended to the end of the sentence.


It's not random, حامليه or more accurately حاملي is a حال منصوب ; it describes their state حال while leaving the house: carrying the body.


> I'm surprised to hear that Cherine finds this sentence natural.


And I'm surprised you're so against it. 


> Krybro, if you want to make sure everyone understands what you mean, do not use this version.  Language doesn't exist in a vacuum, and its purpose is to communicate thoughts and ideas.  Anything that doesn't effectively communicate what we mean (regardless of whether we can find a dusty manuscript supporting it) should be avoided.


Just because some of the listners don't understand a sentence, doesn't mean it's incorrect. And, from experience, it's really hard to be understood by every single person. This is why we have a forum like ours.


Krybro said:


> It's quite interesting - yet strange at the same time - that هو حامله على كتفيه could be used as: "He is carrying him on his shoulders", but that it does not apply to the plural to get the same meaning


Yes, strange. This is why I'm saying that both forms are correct.


----------



## elroy

It's not possible for me to predict which of my intuitions other natives will agree with and which ones they won't.  I can't be reasonably expected to refrain from saying that something sounds unnatural and unidiomatic just because there's a chance other natives won't agree.  I think it should be implicitly understood that when I say this, I mean "based on my own intuition" and - as I think I've demonstrated time and again - I am always open to new perspectives.  Everyone is free to disagree (as you've done here and in other threads), and I've learned a lot from these disagreements. 


cherine said:


> But to go from this to confirming that something is incorrect (and innatural) just because we haven't encountered it before is a dangerous generalization, in my humble opinion.


  In my first post (#2), I said it wasn't correct because it didn't seem correct to me, intuitively.  Over the course of the discussion, I started to describe the usage as "unnatural" and "unidiomatic" rather than "incorrect" because it does sound unnatural and unidiomatic to me (whether or not it's prescriptively correct).


cherine said:


> It's not random, حامليه or more accurately حاملي is a حال منصوب ; it describes their state حال while leaving the house: carrying the body.


 I understand that, of course.  I'm just saying that because for me the only natural usage of حامليه is "its carriers" that's what my mind would go to and I would be confused.


cherine said:


> Just because some of the listners don't understand a sentence, doesn't mean it's incorrect.


 In the quote you posted this in response to, I said nothing about correctness or incorrectness.  I advised Krybro to avoid this structure if he wanted to be understood by everyone.  There are alternatives that everyone agrees sound okay, so why not use those?


----------



## barkoosh

I think that حامليه in this context is incorrect; حاملين إياه is totally correct; حاملينه is probably incorrect.

We usually omit the ن of الجمع المذكر السالم if it was مضاف and if الضمير is مضاف إليه. However, it's not the case here. حاملين is حال taking the role of a verb, making هـ in this case مفعول به. We can see that by replacing هـ with الجثمان. We then say: رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حاملين الجثمان not رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حاملي الجثمان.

حاملين إياه is correct since إياه is used as a ضمير نصب منفصل that can/should be used in some cases.

حاملينه is very common in dialects (probably this is why it sounds natural), but I can't say that it's correct. This is based on what Ghabi said:


> It may be easier to think of it in the singular first: حاملًا إياه, where إيا is needed as you can't add a pronoun directly to فاعلًا, which serves as a حال. And the plural would then be حاملين إياه.


I don't think that we can say حاملَه as حال+مفعول به, even though it sounds natural in some dialects.

I could be wrong.


----------



## be.010

Hi!

I tend to agree with barkoosh, except that I do find حاملينه natural in MSA. What we are finding natural/unnatural, is that it is unnatural to have حال as معرفة, because it is basically نكرة with very few and limited exceptions. That's why حامليه is indeed unnatural (and probably incorrect, I doubt it this is one of the exceptions where حال can be معرفة).

As to حاملاً إياه vs. حاملينه, saying حامله in singular makes it perceived as معرفة, that's why we use حاملاً إياه. That's not the case though with حاملينه, because it's clearly نكرة given the ن. So the separate pronoun is not really needed here. There are many instances of جمع المذكر السالم being directly connected to a ضمير نصب متصل in modern and classical Arabic literature.

And I too could be wrong. Couldn't find sufficient resources online to have a decisive answer...


----------



## Matat

barkoosh said:


> I don't think that we can say حاملَه as حال+مفعول به, even though it sounds natural in some dialects.





be.010 said:


> What we are finding natural/unnatural, is that it is unnatural to have حال as معرفة, because it is basically نكرة with very few and limited exceptions. That's why حامليه is indeed unnatural (and probably incorrect, I doubt it this is one of the exceptions where حال can be معرفة).


You make a good point, be.010. A حال is very rarely ever a معرفة; it is almost always a نكرة. There are different opinions about whether a حال can be a معرفة or not and in what cases it would be allowed to be or not, but it is discouraged in any case. I think this is the best case against Krybro's first sentence. This would also stand against my example sentence خرج من البيت مع ابنه حامله على كتفيه. However, this doesn't take away from what حاملوه/حامليه can mean. Even if we use it outside of a حال, it can carry the same meaning as حاملين إياه. For example, both هم حاملوه and هم حاملون إياه are grammatically correct sentences and they both technically (I'm trying to be careful with what I say here) can carry the same meaning of "They are carrying him". The former can also mean "They are carriers of him". This website talks about this a little bit.



> 3 -  يجوز في اسم الفاعل الذي تلاه مفعوله أن ينصب هذا المفعول إذا كان منوناً ، أو يجره بإضافته إليه إذا لم يكن منوناً .
> *مثل : { إِن المعلم مقدمٌ العلمَ لطلابه}  ..   { إِن المعلم مقدمُ العلمِ  لطلابه} ..*





barkoosh said:


> We *usually* omit the ن of الجمع المذكر السالم if it was مضاف and if الضمير is مضاف إليه.


We always do. Or, at least, we're always supposed to.


barkoosh said:


> making هـ in this case مفعول به. We can see that by replacing هـ with الجثمان. We then say: رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حاملين الجثمان not رفعوا الجثمان وتركوا البيت حاملي الجثمان.


It is important to understand that a ضمير متصل can never be a مفعول به unless it is attached to a فعل. If it is attached to an اسم such as حامل or حاملين, it will always be a مضاف إليه. Both حامل and حاملين are اسم's, so if you add a pronoun to either of them, the pronoun will be a مضاف إليه, meaning the ه's in حامله and حامليه are مضاف إليه's. I wrote an example in one of the comments above saying هو حامله على كتفيه. The pronoun in حامله is a مضاف إليه, not a مفعول به, for this reason.

If we wished اسم الفاعل to take the role of a verb, and the مفعول به we wanted to use was a pronoun, then we'd need to use a ضمير منصفل منصوب. This would be our only option since we can't use a ضمير متصل on an اسم as anything other than a مضاف إليه. This is why we can say حاملين إياه and حاملا إياه. The اسم الفاعل's in these two examples are taking the role of verbs and the pronouns are their مفعول به's.


be.010 said:


> There are many instances of جمع المذكر السالم being directly connected to a ضمير نصب متصل in modern and classical Arabic literature.


This isn't possible. A جمع مذكر سالم is an اسم, and there is no such thing as a ضمير نصب متصل when dealing with اسم's. Whenever a pronoun attaches to an اسم, it is always a مضاف إليه.


barkoosh said:


> حاملينه is very common in dialects (probably this is why it sounds natural), but I can't say that it's correct.


It is incorrect for the reason described above. When a pronoun attaches to an اسم, the pronoun will always be a مضاف إليه. When dealing with جمع مذكر سالم's like حاملين, whenever these are مضاف's, we must omit their ن's. Since a ضمير متصل attaching to an اسم must make it a مضاف إليه, the جمع مذكر سالم must be the مضاف, and for this reason, the ن must always be omitted. It is not possible to view ه in حاملينه as a مفعول به; it must be a مضاف إليه, and thus its ن must be omitted, since it is a ضمير متصل to an اسم.


----------



## Ghabi

A 7aal can be definite when it's a "false iDaafa" (e.g. يمشي حافي القدمين), but otherwise it has to be indefinite and without attached pronoun (with the obvious exception of وحده of course).


----------



## be.010

Matat said:


> It is important to understand that a ضمير متصل can never be a مفعول به unless it is attached to a فعل. If it is attached to an اسم such as حامل or حاملين, it will always be a مضاف إليه. Irrespective of whether حامل and حاملين take the role of verbs or not, they are still considered اسم's, so if you add a pronoun to either of them, the pronoun will be a مضاف إليه.  So the ه's in حامله and حامليه are مضاف إليه's. I wrote an example in one of the comments above saying هو حامله على كتفيه. The pronoun in حامله is a مضاف إليه, not a مفعول به, for this reason.
> 
> However, if we wished اسم الفاعل to take the role of a verb, and the مفعول به we wanted to use was a pronoun, then we'd need to use a ضمير منصفل منصوب. This would be our only option since you can't use a ضمير متصل on an اسم as anything other than a مضاف إليه. This is why we can say حاملين إياه and حاملا إياه. The اسم الفاعل's in these two examples are taking the role of verbs and the pronouns are their مفعول به's.
> 
> This isn't possible. A جمع مذكر سالم is an اسم, and there is no such thing as a ضمير نصب متصل when dealing with اسم's. Whenever a pronoun attaches to an اسم, it is always a مضاف إليه.


Could you elaborate? It'd be appreciated if your provide resources. You can google جاعلينه حافظونه, حاملونه, قائلونه to see examples about what I said.


----------



## Matat

be.010 said:


> Could you elaborate? It'd be appreciated if your provide resources.


Here is one that I found:


> إذا اتصل الضمير بالاسم فانه يكون مضافاً إليه دائماً.


If الضمير المتصل is always a مضاف إليه (when attached to an اسم) and it is attached to a جمع مذكر سالم, it must be that جمع المذكر السالم is a مضاف, and if جمع المذكر السالم is a مضاف, then its ن must always be omitted (see here).


> وهي كذلك في جمع المذكرِ السالمِ، فكما يجبُ حذفُ التنوينِ في المفرَدِ عند إضافته, فكذلك يجبُ حذفُ النونِ في جمعِ المذكرِ السالمِ عند إضافتهِ.


Here is another way to think of it. Consider the singular حاملٌ. It will always have a تنوين unless an الـ is added to it or it is made a مضاف. Let's suppose we add a ضمير متصل to حاملٌ. Had الضمير المتصل been capable of being a مفعول به, then حاملٌ would keep its تنوين (since it is would not be a مضاف), and we would say حاملٌه where we keep the تنوين. This would be similar to adding any other مفعول به to حاملٌ such as when saying حاملٌ الكتابَ. Of course, it is not possible to say حاملٌه (with a تنوين) since التنوين can only ever be on the last letter of any word, so it is not possible that the ه in حامله can ever be a مفعول به. We must say حاملُه (with no تنوين), which must mean that حامل must be a مضاف, which means that the ه attached to it must always be a مضاف إليه. If the ه in حامله must always be a مضاف إليه, then it would follow that if a ضمير متصل attached to the plural, حاملين, it must also always be a مضاف إليه, which must mean that حاملين must always be its مضاف, which must mean that the ن needs to always be omitted from it.



be.010 said:


> You can google جاعلينه حافظونه, حاملونه, قائلونه to see examples about what I said.


A Google search shows us whether something is used or not. It does not show us whether something is grammatically correct or not.


----------



## Matat

Matat said:


> be.010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> tend to agree with barkoosh, except that I do find حاملينه natural in MSA. What we are finding natural/unnatural, is that it is unnatural to have حال as معرفة, because it is basically نكرة with very few and limited exceptions. That's why حامليه is indeed unnatural (and probably incorrect, I doubt it this is one of the exceptions where حال can be معرفة).
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point, be.010. A حال is very rarely ever a معرفة; it is almost always a نكرة. There are different opinions about whether a حال can be a معرفة or not and in what cases it would be allowed to be or not, but it is discouraged in any case. I think this is the best case against Krybro's first sentence. This would also stand against my example sentence خرج من البيت مع ابنه حامله على كتفيه. However, this doesn't take away from what حاملوه/حامليه can mean. Even if we use it outside of a حال, it can carry the same meaning as حاملين إياه. For example, both هم حاملوه and هم حاملون إياه are grammatically correct sentences and they both technically (I'm trying to be careful with what I say here) can carry the same meaning of "They are carrying him". The former can also mean "They are carriers of him". This website talks about this a little bit.
Click to expand...




Ghabi said:


> A 7aal can be definite when it's a "false iDaafa" (e.g. يمشي حافي القدمين), but otherwise it has to be indefinite and without attached pronoun (with the obvious exception of وحده of course).


Sorry to revive this old thread. I don't wish to get into a discussion about this sentence again, but I have come to find out that حامله and حامليه are actually indefinite, so one can't say that they can't be used as a 7aal because of their definiteness. Ghabi mentioned this but I seemed to have overlooked what he meant. 
الإضافة هنا لفظية وليست معنوية، فلا يكتسب المضاف منها التعريف.


----------



## Ghabi

cherine said:


> I saw this thread yesterday and hesitated in replying because I wasn't sure about حامليه - حاملينه


Hi Cherine, can you tell me how to say the original sentence ("they left the house carrying it") in Egyptian Arabic? Thanks again!


----------



## cherine

خرجوا من البيت شايلينُه kharago m'el-beet/men el-beet shayliino.


----------

