# تروح للحي بعدما نزلوا



## Cilquiestsuens

As salam alaykum, Hello to everyone,

I have more questions about the same qasidah as in my previous posts =

This time on the following verses =


*نطارد الوحـش والغزلان  نلحقهـا*
* على البعاد وما تنجو مـن   الضّمـر *

*تـروح للـحـي بعـدمـا  نزلـوا*
* منازلا ما بهـا لطـخ مـن الوضـر

*My question is = Can someone vowelize the line underlined. I am not sure whom *taroo7* is refering to (the *Dumar*?) *7ayy* must mean the camp / tribe, the place where the tribe have pitched their tents???? 

Then it is *naziluu / nazzaluu / nuzziluu* ??? whom does it refer to... As for the line following it it is clear enough...


----------



## samatar

تَرُوحُ لِلحَيِّ بَعدَما نَزَلُوا

تروح refers to (its Dameer) is "you", but here it's more of a general you. In English it could be translated as "if one were to go" (in French, the pronoun "on" maybe?)
حي is, as you correctly inferred, is the camp
نزلوا I think refers to the act of inhabiting the place (for the time being) - so "بعدما نزلوا" means "after they've settled in"
and the next line simply describes their dwelling-places and how clean they are


----------



## rayloom

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Then it is *naziluu / nazzaluu / nuzziluu* ??? whom does it refer to... As for the line following it it is clear enough...



Yes it's naz*a*luu as Samatar said. (from naz*a*la - yanz*i*lu)

And here it refers to حي I believe, since حي in Classical Arabic means tribe, or part of the tribe. As opposed to the newer meaning of حي.
I believe the poet is going for the older meaning.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

rayloom said:


> Yes it's naz*a*luu as Samatar said. (from naz*a*la - yanz*i*lu)
> 
> And here it refers to حي I believe, since حي in Classical Arabic means tribe, or part of the tribe. As opposed to the newer meaning of حي.
> I believe the poet is going for the older meaning.


 

Thanks for yor help. The only thing I don't really understand is why *manaazil* is *manSuub* in the following sentence, as if it were the *maf3uul bihi* of a verb??


----------



## rayloom

There is something called maf3uul mu6laq, which is the infinitive of the verb used (or a variation of it) which follows the verb and modifies the meaning of the verbal phrase. And it always comes man9uub.

Examples: أخذ الولد التفاحة أخذا

A variation of the infinitive:
أخذ الأمرَ مأخذا حسنا

There is also something called نائب المفعول المطلق.
Which is something which serves like an adjective of the maf3uul mu6laq, but the maf3uul mu6laq isn't there.
For example:
جرى الولد سريعا
sarii3an here is a naa2ib maf3uul mu6laq
The hypothetical sentence would be:
جرى الولد جريا سريعا.
Notice that it differs from the adverb حال.
Which might cause some confusion, an example of a 7aal in this case would be:
جرى الولد مسرعا

If you wanted further explanation I'd be happy to provide it


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Yes, I know about maf3uul mu6laq... I just didn't realized it was the case here. Things are becoming clear now!!!

Many thanks !


----------



## cherine

Hi,
Is منازلاً really a مفعول مطلق ? I thought it was a simple maf3uul bihi نزلوا منازلاً


----------



## samatar

Cherine - I also thought it would be مفعول به, but for a different reason:

I'm not sure if this even exists (however, يحق للشاعر ما لا يحق لغيره..) but it seems to me that there is a hidden verb and actor, so that originally it would have been:
تروح للحي ... وترى منازلاً

However, your explanation and that of rayloom both make sense to me as well, so I don't know..

Edit: thinking a bit more - wouldn't a maf'ool mutlaq مفعول مطلق be of the form:
نزلوا نزولاً
?


----------



## rayloom

Hi Cherine & Samatar,
nazala is an intransitive verb. 
The maf3uul mu6laq can be a variation of the infinitive and that's common.
The dispute between grammarians in the old days was what to consider it.
1) a group said to consider a variant of the maf3uul mu6laq. This was the most common.
2) a group said to consider it an adverb ظرف. This is a common view when the verb is associated with a variant of the infinitive of another verb. As in when you say رفعته منزلةً علية
3) a group said that it's منصوب بنزع الخافض: 
meaning by omission of the preposition. And this occurs in الأفعال المتعدية بحرف.
Their analysis is:
نزل الحي إلى منزل
نزل الحي منزلا.
رفعته إلى منزلة علية
رفعته منزلةً علية
This was the Kufi interpretation, which was rejected by later on grammarians. Because it's not fully productive.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Now, I am thinking.... *manaazil* is the plural of *manzil*... Are plurals also allowed as maf3uul mu6laq? I had been taught that technically any word derived from the root could become a _*maf3uul mu6laq*_ but never came across plurals...

Maybe you can fill me in a bit more on *maf3uul mu6laq*... I was under the impression that it is a word used to reinforce the action of the verb and that contrary to _*maf3uul bihi*_ they did not describe an actual, existing thing, as in the example you gave : *أخذ الأمرَ مأخذا حسنا*

In the verse under scrutiny, *manaazilan* seems to describe an existing object = their tents and the place where they set them, this seems to be confirmed by the used of *bihaa* refering apparently to manaazil... but as you said, *nazala* is *laazim* and therefore cannot have a *maf3uul bihi.*...

Can you confirm that = 1. *manaazilan* is *maf3uul mu6laq* and at the same time describe actual objects... 2. That the *bihaa* following it refers to manaazil ?

Last twist = the version you have found has this verse like this = 

*نــروح للــحـــيّ لــيـلا بعدما نزلـــوا
                                                                              منازلاً ما بها لطخٌ من الوضـــــــــــر

*This doesn't really affect the present discussion but seems more logical.


----------



## rayloom

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Now, I am thinking.... *manaazil* is the plural of *manzil*... Are plurals also allowed as maf3uul mu6laq? I had been taught that technically any word derived from the root could become a _*maf3uul mu6laq*_ but never came across plurals...
> 
> Maybe you can fill me in a bit more on *maf3uul mu6laq*... I was under the impression that it is a word used to reinforce the action of the verb and that contrary to _*maf3uul bihi*_ they did not describe an actual, existing thing, as in the example you gave : *أخذ الأمرَ مأخذا حسنا*
> 
> In the verse under scrutiny, *manaazilan* seems to describe an existing object = their tents and the place where they set them, this seems to be confirmed by the used of *bihaa* refering apparently to manaazil... but as you said, *nazala* is *laazim* and therefore cannot have a *maf3uul bihi.*...
> 
> Can you confirm that = 1. *manaazilan* is *maf3uul mu6laq* and at the same time describe actual objects... 2. That the *bihaa* following it refers to manaazil ?
> 
> Last twist = the version you have found has this verse like this =
> 
> *نــروح للــحـــيّ لــيـلا بعدما نزلـــوا
> منازلاً ما بها لطخٌ من الوضـــــــــــر
> 
> *This doesn't really affect the present discussion but seems more logical.



Yeah the last verse fits better.

As for the maf3uul mu6laq and it's variants.
It can be pluralized (so to speak):
ضربته ضرباتٍ

It can be an object (as in a physical object), or objectified from the infinitive (so to speak also!)
كافأت الطالب مكافأة
ضربت الطالب قلما (means to slap, qalaman is a naa2ib maf3uul mu6laq).

The variant of the infinitive, can be an infinitive itself, can be a noun from the same root (as in ضربات& منازل, of course these can be singular also).

I want also to add that:
مفعول مطلق
مفعول لأجله 
نزع الخافض
ظرف متعلق بالفعل
All these are attempts by old Arab grammarians to explain that anything modifying a verbal phrase (other than the subject) comes in the accusative case.
There is a lot of overlapping between these things, and between the 7aal and tamyiz in a verbal phrase.


----------



## rayloom

There is also some overlapping with the maf3uul bihi in some cases.
علم علما since it fits the meaning of the maf3uul mu6laq regarding emphasis. Although it would conventionally be considered a maf3uul bihi.
علمناه علما can be consided a maf3uul mu6laq, it uses the infinitive of 3alima, not 3allama. It can serve an emphatic meaning, or it can be objectified of the infinitive. Can be a tamyiz also.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

cherine said:


> Hi,
> Is منازلاً really a مفعول مطلق ? I thought it was a simple maf3uul bihi نزلوا منازلاً



I agree with you. The verb نَزَلَ is described in Hans Wehr as both transitive and intransitive. We are all familiar with the meaning of the word as, "to descend", "to get down", or "to take up quarters", "to lodge", but Hans Wehr also lists the meaning, "to inhabit" and definitively states that it can take an object. I'll quote it:

...live, dwell (ه in a place), inhabit (ه a place)...

Also in the examples, Hans Wehr clearly illustrates the word's transitive capacity:

... نزل منزلا (_manzilan_) to occupy a place or position, get to a place or into a position; نزل منزله اللائق (_manzilahu_) to occupy one's due place.

With this usage in mind, it appears that this is a clear and simple case of فعل and مفعول به . 

I did notice however, that the word منازلا has تنوين الفتح despite being ممنوع من الصرف . I'll just assume that this is an example of يحق للشاعر ما لا يحق لغيره .


----------



## rayloom

lukebeadgcf said:


> I agree with you. The verb نَزَلَ is described in Hans Wehr as both transitive and intransitive. We are all familiar with the meaning of the word as, "to descend", "to get down", or "to take up quarters", "to lodge", but Hans Wehr also lists the meaning, "to inhabit" and definitively states that it can take an object. I'll quote it:
> 
> ...live, dwell (ه in a place), inhabit (ه a place)...
> 
> Also in the examples, Hans Wehr clearly illustrates the word's transitive capacity:
> 
> ... نزل منزلا (_manzilan_) to occupy a place or position, get to a place or into a position; نزل منزله اللائق (_manzilahu_) to occupy one's due place.
> 
> With this usage in mind, it appears that this is a clear and simple case of فعل and مفعول به .
> 
> I did notice however, that the word منازلا has تنوين الفتح despite being ممنوع من الصرف . I'll just assume that this is an example of يحق للشاعر ما لا يحق لغيره .



منازل is as you said a diptote, but also as you said يحق للشاعر ما لا يحق لغيره.

As for نزل nazala, it's intransitive.
It excedes to an object by using a preposition, or by omitting a preposition and inflecting the following word for the accusative نزع الخافض

From الغني:





> *نَزَلَ* - [ن ز ل]. (ف: ثلا. لازم، م. بحرف).* نَزَلْتُ*،* أَنْزِلُ*،* اِنْزِلْ*، مص. نُزُولٌ. 1."نَزَلَ مِنْ كَذَا" : هَبَطَ.   "أَنْزِلُ سُلَّماً وَلاَ أَطْلُعُ سُلَّماً". "نَزَلَ بِالسُّلَّمِ". 2."نَزَلَ مِنْ أَعْلَى الْجَبَلِ" : اِنْحَدَرَ. 3."نَزَلَ الْمَطَرُ" : سَقَطَ. 4."نَزَلَ بِهِ الْمَرَضُ" : أَصَابَهُ.   "نَزَلَ بِهِ مَكْرُوهٌ"   "نَزَلَتْ بِهِمُ الكَوَارِثُ وَالْمَصَائِبُ". 5."نَزَلَ عَنِ الْحَقِّ" : تَرَكَهُ، تَخَلَّى. 6."نَزَلَ عِنْدَ رَغْبَتِهِ" : اِسْتَجَابَ لَهَا، لَبَّاهَا.    "نَزَلَ عِنْدَ إِرَادَةِ وَالِدِهِ". 7."نَزَلَ ضَيْفاً عَلَيْهِ" : حَلَّ.   "نَزَلَ بِالْمَدِينَةِ" ‏ "نَزَلَ بِالفُنْدُقِ". 8."نَزَلَ عَلَى حُكْمِهِ" : قَبِلَ حُكْمَهُ. 9."نَزَلَ إِلَى الْمَيْدَانِ" : ظَهَرَ لِلْقِتَالِ. 10."نَزَلَ الجَيْشُ بِسَاحَةِ الْمَعْرَكَةِ" : حَلَّ بِهَا وَدَخَلَهَا. 11."نَزَلَ ثَمَنُ البَضَائِعِ فِي السُّوقِ" : هَبَطَ، اِنْخَفَضَ.​



The first line (ف: ثلا. لازم، م. بحرف) means triliteral verb, intransitive, takes an object using a prepsition. فعل ثلاثي لازم متعد بحرف

Anyways there's a simple way to tell whether a verb in Arabic is transitive or intransitive.
Derive the passive participle form.
If you get a real passive participle, then the word is transitive, if not, then it's intransitive. This site explains it nicely:
http://knol.google.com/k/%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B9%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%85-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%8A/1hjm3hmvav6mj/37#

There is no منزول in Classical Arabic.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

rayloom said:


> منازل is as you said a diptote, but also as you said يحق للشاعر ما لا يحق لغيره.
> 
> As for نزل nazala, it's intransitive.
> It excedes to an object by using a preposition, or by omitting a preposition and inflecting the following word for the accusative نزع الخافض
> 
> From الغني:
> The first line (ف: ثلا. لازم، م. بحرف) means triliteral verb, intransitive, takes an object using a prepsition. فعل ثلاثي لازم متعد بحرف
> 
> Anyways there's a simple way to tell whether a verb in Arabic is transitive or intransitive.
> Derive the passive participle form.
> If you get a real passive participle, then the word is transitive, if not, then it's intransitive. This site explains it nicely:
> http://knol.google.com/k/%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B9%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%85-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%8A/1hjm3hmvav6mj/37#
> 
> There is no منزول in Arabic.



I'm sorry Rayloom, but even in the excerpt you quoted from الغني , there are two examples of نزل being used as فعل متعدٍ. They are:

أنزل سلّما ولا أطلع سلّما

نزل ضيفا عليه

Why are the words staircase/ladder and guest/visitor منصوب ? Because مفعول بهما .

The dictionary you quoted is confusing because it clearly states that نزل is فعل لزام and then proceeds to clearly show that it can be لازم أو متعد . 

There are many verbs that can be both transitive and intransitive. عاش can have the intransitive meaning of, "to be alive", as well as the transitive meaning of, "to live, experience something", and it can take an object.

And furthermore, I don't see a passive participle listed under  عاش . Whether or not it is possible to derive a passive participle (or rather, whether or not that word is used) does not determine the transitivity or intransitivity of a given verb. If the passive participle exists and is used, then most likely one of the meanings of the respective verbs is transitive. If it does not exist or isn't used and we assume that the verb is therefore _only _intransitive, we have committed the fallacy of Questionable Cause, as is corroborated from the examples myself and Rayloom have cited.

According to your dictionary and mine, نزل is unequivocally capable of being transitive.

Edit: Actually, I see what you mean now by نزع الخافض . I've never heard of this before, and while I still prefer to describe نزل in this قصيدة as transitive based on the information in my dictionary, I now understand why you could look at أنزل سلّما and say that the verb is intransitive and that سلّما is منصوب على نزع الخافض .

But really, why not just say that it's transitive; it doesn't change anything what you call it. It doesn't change the meaning or the vowels, so it seems like a useless, subjective label.


----------



## rayloom

lukebeadgcf said:


> Edit: Actually, I see what you mean now by نزع الخافض . I've never heard  of this before, and while I still prefer to describe نزل in this قصيدة  as transitive based on the information in my dictionary, I now  understand why you could look at أنزل سلّما and say that the verb is  intransitive and that سلّما is منصوب على نزع الخافض .
> 
> But really, why not just say that it's transitive; it doesn't change  anything what you call it. It doesn't change the meaning or the vowels,  so it seems like a useless, subjective label.



Hi lukebeadgcf 

These classifications were an attempt by grammarians to clump certain  features together, but there is still much overlapping. Over analysis  you could say grammar-wise. It does have its uses however.

To simplify, some modern linguists just call these words "maf3uul".
Whether an object (maf3uul bihi), adverb (zarf, maf3uul fiihi), maf3uul mu6laq, maf3uul li-2ajlihi. Whereas they clump the tamyiz into a different entity, since it's used in nominal sentences as well.

To add, these differences have been common grounds for debates among Arabic grammarians for the longest time.
It's most apparent when reading a book on the grammatical analysis of the Quran. And you read the different opinions of all the grammatical scholars, when there is no effect on the meaning.

As for the examples, just to correct somethings, not every word in the accusative case in a verbal sentence is considered a maf3uul bihi.
 Actually every word in a verbal  phrase, other than the verb and subject, comes in the accusative case.  Except if there was a preposition and its genitive.

In the examples in the dictionary:
نزل الرجل ضيفا
ضيفا is an adverb 7aal. 

As for سلما
نزل الرجل سلما
سلما is tamyiz. Also as you said it can be regarded as نزع الخافض and considered an object.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

I would like to thank you both, rayloom and lukebeadgcf for the very interesting discussion you had and which taught me a lot. I definitely understand it better now.  

I am extremely impressed by the expressiveness, the flexibility and the eloquence of the Arabic language. A little is said and so much is meant...


----------

