# comparative of قليل العقل



## Qureshpor

Is the following sentence is correct?

Zaid qaliilu_l'aqli wa 'Umar aqallu_l'aqli wa Bakr al'aqallu_l'aqli

Zaid is stupid, Umar is more stupid and Bakr is the most stupid.


----------



## rayloom

زيد قليل العقل، وعمر أقل عقلا، وبكر الأقل عقلا

Zaidun qaliilu 'l-3aqli (or 3aqlin), wa 3umaru 2aqallu 3aqlan, wa bakrun il-2aqallu 3aqlan

Second and 3rd 3aql are tamyiz, thus accusative case.
Umar is a diptote, thus it doesn't take tanwiin.
bakrun + 'l (definite article)--> meeting of 2 sukuuns, the _ added in front the definite article._


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> زيد قليل العقل، وعمر أقل عقلا، وبكر الأقل عقلا
> 
> Zaidun qaliilu 'l-3aqli (or 3aqlin), wa 3umaru 2aqallu 3aqlan, wa bakrun il-2aqallu 3aqlan
> 
> Second and 3rd 3aql are tamyiz, thus accusative case.
> Umar is a diptote, thus it doesn't take tanwiin.
> bakrun + 'l (definite article)--> meeting of 2 sukuuns, the _ added in front the definite article._


_

Thank you and I appreciate very much your assistance in my feeble attempts at learning Arabic.

What I actually had in mind was this:

qaliilu_l3aqli (stupid) as the base form

2aqallu_l3aqli (more stupid) as the comparative form

al-2aqallu_l3aqli(most stupid) as the superlative.

Is this format totally wrong?_


----------



## rayloom

In a comparison like in the question, it's wrong.

If it were a different type of sentence, not all is wrong.
For example:
2aqallu_l3aqli 2an tu9addiqa kulla maa tasma3

Here, it's not a comparative statement, you're just stating that "stupidity" is to believe everything you hear.
al3aql here is a muDaaf ilayhi.

As for the form:
al-2aqallu_l3aqli, it's completely wrong.
First it's a superlative only used in comparison. Second, al3aql here is also defined, thus it can't be considered a muDaaf ilayhi.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

rayloom said:


> In a comparison like in the question, it's wrong.
> 
> If it were a different type of sentence, not all is wrong.
> For example:
> 2aqallu_l3aqli 2an tu9addiqa kulla maa tasma3
> 
> Here, it's not a comparative statement, you're just stating that "stupidity" is to believe everything you hear.
> al3aql here is a muDaaf ilayhi.
> 
> As for the form:
> al-2aqallu_l3aqli, it's completely wrong.
> First it's a superlative only used in comparison. Second, al3aql here is also defined, thus it can't be considered a muDaaf ilayhi.



Qureshpor's original sentence struck me as strange but not wrong if we considered أقل العقل "less rational" and الأقل العقل "the least rational" to be إضافة غير حقيقية where the مضاف can be definite. What do think?


----------



## cherine

I agree with Rayloom. We don't say that فلان قليل العقل وفلان الآخر أقل العقل منه but فلان قليل العقل وفلان الآخر أقل منه عقلاً/أقل عقلاً منه or just أقل عقلاً .


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you everybody for your kind help.

OK, a slight variation on the theme.

رجل قليل العقل  A stupid man

الرجل القليل العقل The stupid man

الرجل الأقل العقل The more/most stupid man (depending on context)

Do these sentences make sense?


----------



## clevermizo

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you everybody for your kind help.
> 
> OK, a slight variation on the theme.
> 
> رجل قليل العقل  A stupid man
> 
> الرجل القليل العقل The stupid man
> 
> الرجل الأقل العقل The more/most stupid man (depending on context)
> 
> Do these sentences make sense?



No, again, as others have stated above, your last phrase should be:

الرجل الأقل عقلاً


----------



## lukebeadgcf

clevermizo said:


> No, again, as others have stated above, your last phrase should be:
> 
> الرجل الأقل عقلاً



But why? I don't see why the former is technically incorrect.


----------



## Mazhara

> رجل قليل العقل A stupid man


 
It can perhaps be put in positive manner also

a man of lesser inteligence; in that case it certainly not signifies him as stupid.


----------



## rayloom

lukebeadgcf said:


> But why? I don't see why the former is technically incorrect.



قليل العقل
is إضافة لفظية

أقل العقل
is not.

You can say:
rajulun qaliilu 'l-3aqli
notice that rajulun is indefinite. Described by a seemingly definite  قليل العقل, defined (seemingly) by an iDafa to a definite noun العقل.
And that's why it's possible to define it further into 
القليل العقل
الرجل القليل العقل

Now, can you do the same with أقل العقل?
First, you can't say 
rajulun 2aqallu 'l-3aqli
Because here the iDafa isn't لفظية, and you can't add an indefinite to a definite adjective.
So even if you want to define it, the muDaaf can't take an al- in such  an iDafa. rajulun would become al-rajulu. And with اسم التفضيل, you'd add al-, and 3aql would become tamyiz.


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> قليل العقل
> is إضافة لفظية
> 
> أقل العقل
> is not.
> 
> You can say:
> rajulun qaliilu 'l-3aqli
> notice that rajulun is indefinite. Described by a seemingly definite  قليل العقل, defined (seemingly) by an iDafa to a definite noun العقل.
> And that's why it's possible to define it further into
> القليل العقل
> الرجل القليل العقل
> 
> Now, can you do the same with أقل العقل?
> First, you can't say
> rajulun 2aqallu 'l-3aqli
> Because here the iDafa isn't لفظية, and you can't add an indefinite to a definite adjective.
> So even if you want to define it, the muDaaf can't take an al- in such  an iDafa. rajulun would become al-rajulu. And with اسم التفضيل, you'd add al-, and 3aql would become tamyiz.



Thank you for your detailed explaination.

One could say that a "high part of a tree" is على الشجرة or عالي الشجرة .

higher/highest part could be translated as:أعلي الشجرة 

A site/point at the top of the tree, therefore could be:

موقع/ نقطة أعلي الشجرة  "Top of the tree site/point)

Similarly, one finds..

سفينة اعالي البحار where  اعالي is the plural of أعلي


----------



## rayloom

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you for your detailed explaination.
> 
> One could say that a "high part of a tree" is على الشجرة or عالي الشجرة .
> 
> higher/highest part could be translated as:أعلي الشجرة
> 
> A site/point at the top of the tree, therefore could be:
> 
> موقع/ نقطة أعلي الشجرة  "Top of the tree site/point)
> 
> Similarly, one finds..
> 
> سفينة اعالي البحار where  اعالي is the plural of أعلي



Yes, these are genitival constructions, not a taabi3 (adjectival or badal) constructions.
You pretty much add anything to anything, no need for accordance to gender number or whatever.

It's different to what we have been speaking about.


----------



## Qureshpor

rayloom said:


> Yes, these are genitival constructions, not a taabi3 (adjectival or badal) constructions.
> You pretty much add anything to anything, no need for accordance to gender number or whatever.
> 
> It's different to what we have been speaking about.



Thank you very much indeed. I think its best to draw a curtain on this topic now!


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> I agree with Rayloom. We don't say that فلان قليل العقل وفلان الآخر أقل العقل منه but فلان قليل العقل وفلان الآخر أقل منه عقلاً/أقل عقلاً منه or just أقل عقلاً .


The following sentence is found in Tritton's Teach Yourself Arabic- 1943, exercise 29, page 95

زید قلیل العقلِ و عمر أقلُّ العقلِ منه

It is translated as:

Zaid is stupid but Umar is more stupid than him.


----------



## Ghabi

Qureshpor said:


> The following sentence is found in Tritton's Teach Yourself Arabic- 1943, exercise 29, page 95
> 
> زید قلیل العقلِ و عمر أقلُّ العقلِ منه


Probably just my ignorance, but it doesn't sound right.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ghabi said:


> Probably just my ignorance, but it doesn't sound right.


Perhaps, the sentence would remain grammatically correct without the منه (?)

زید قلیل العقلِ و عمر أقلُّ العقلِ

Zaid is of little intelligence and/but Umar is of the least amout of intelligence.

The correct sentece, as per #2 would therefore be..

زيد قليل العقل وعمر أقل عقلا منه


----------



## Ghabi

Qureshpor said:


> Perhaps, the sentence would remain grammatically correct without the منه (?)
> 
> زید قلیل العقلِ و عمر أقلُّ العقلِ


I think (see also #4 above by rayloom) أقلُّ العقلِ can only mean "the smallest amount of reason"="the most unreasonable [thing]". It represents a part-whole relationship, and constitutes a normal iDaafa structure. It's structurally identical to, say, أجمل البنات, except that عقل can't be pluralised, so it remains in the singular.

عمر أقلُّ العقلِ would be grammatically correct only insofar as the intended meaning is "Umar is the smallest amount of reason".

قلیل العقل and أقل العقل represent two different structures, and the latter cannot be the comparative/superlative form of the former. 

My two cents anyway!


----------

