# اصطدمت برجلٍ جالسًا



## Ibn Nacer

Bonsoir,

Do you think this sentence is correct اصتدمت برجل جالسا ? If so what is the grammatical function of the word جالسا in your opinion ?

 Thank you.

Est-ce selon vous cette phrase est correcte *اصتدمت برجلٍ جالسًا* ? Si oui quelle est selon vous la fonction grammaticale du mot * جالسًا* ?

Merci.


----------



## shafaq

Ibn Nacer said:


> Bonsoir,
> 
> Do you think this sentence is correct اصتدمت برجل جالسا ? If so what is the grammatical function of the word جالسا in your opinion ?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Est-ce selon vous cette phrase est correcte *اصتدمت برجلٍ جالسًا* ? Si oui quelle est selon vous la fonction grammaticale du mot * جالسًا* ?
> 
> Merci.


To my understanding, unless you intended to say "I  bumped to a man while I was sitting down." ???; it is wrong. So, correct version is جالِـٍسِ .

But; for some reasons; if you have an ability "to dumb someone while you are sitting down" and wanted to express that; it is correct and*جالسًا* is  7aal حال (adverb). 

,


----------



## barkoosh

Using الحال with نكرة is a bit controversial. Some say that صاحب الحال (which is رجل in this case) should be معرفة if it is to have a حال, although they acknowledge that there are specific cases that allow using الحال with a صاحب حال that is نكرة. Meanwhile, others say that صاحب الحال can be معرفة or نكرة:
جاء الضيف مستعجلاً - جاء ضيفٌ مستعجلاً

One thing for sure, is that you can say اصطدمت برجلٍ جالسٍ. For some reason اصطدمت برجل جالساً looks awkward.

PS: it's اصطدم not اصتدم.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you very much for these helpful answers.


----------



## rayloom

اصطدمت برجل جالسا has the meaning "I bumped into a man while I was sitting", which isn't quite logical I have to say.
If you say for example: كتبت في ورقة جالسا, more logical 
Anyways, جالسا is a 7aal, and صاحب الحال is the subject (here the pronoun, not رجل or ورقة).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

rayloom said:


> اصطدمت برجل جالسا has the meaning "I bumped into a man while I was sitting", which isn't quite logical I have to say.
> If you say for example: كتبت في ورقة جالسا, more logical
> Anyways, جالسا is a 7aal, and صاحب الحال is the subject (here the pronoun, not رجل or ورقة).



Merci. Oui c'est clair et c'est bien ce que je pensais mais je voulais avoir une confirmation. 

Il y a apparemment une divergence mais j'ai plus souvent vu l'avis comme quoi le صاحب الحال devait être *défini* sauf cas particulier.


----------



## rayloom

Ibn Nacer said:


> Merci. Oui c'est clair et c'est bien ce que je pensais mais je voulais avoir une confirmation.
> 
> Il y a apparemment une divergence mais j'ai plus souvent vu l'avis comme quoi le صاحب الحال devait être *défini* sauf cas particulier.



Les pronoms sont considérés défini (voir ici).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

rayloom said:


> Les pronoms sont considérés défini (voir ici).



Merci. Oui justement je ne dis pas le contraire. Je disais juste qu'il y a apparemment divergence, certains considèrent que le صاحب الحال peut être défini ou indéfini comme l'a dit Barkoosh :



barkoosh said:


> Using الحال with نكرة is a bit controversial.  Some say that صاحب الحال (which is رجل in this case) should be معرفة if  it is to have a حال, although they acknowledge that there are specific  cases that allow using الحال with a صاحب حال that is نكرة.* Meanwhile,  others say that صاحب الحال can be معرفة or نكرة:
> جاء الضيف مستعجلاً - جاء ضيفٌ مستعجلاً
> *
> One thing for sure, is that you can say اصطدمت برجلٍ جالسٍ. For some reason اصطدمت برجل جالساً looks awkward.
> 
> PS: it's اصطدم not اصتدم.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> اصطدمت برجل جالسا has the meaning "I bumped into a man while I was sitting", which isn't quite logical I have to say.
> If you say for example: كتبت في ورقة جالسا, more logical
> Anyways, جالسا is a 7aal, and صاحب الحال is the subject (here the pronoun, not رجل or ورقة).


Hello Rayloom, Could the صاحب الحال conceivably be the object? As in the sentence,
تأخرت عن الأكل فَجَفَّ الخبزُ فأكلتُه جافًّا
Here could جافًّا be حال for الخبز ?


----------



## rayloom

Abu Talha said:


> Hello Rayloom, Could the صاحب الحال conceivably be the object? As in the sentence,
> تأخرت عن الأكل فَجَفَّ الخبزُ فأكلتُه جافًّا
> Here could جافًّا be حال for الخبز ?



Hello Abu Talha
Yes it can, it can also be other complements of the verbal (even nominative) sentence. See here under حكمه.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> Hello Abu Talha
> Yes it can, it can also be other complements of the verbal (even nominative) sentence. See here under حكمه.


Thanks for the link, Rayloom. So wouldn't you say that in the sentence, اصتدمت برجلٍ جالسًا, the صاحب الحال could be رجل too (possibly), but it would be a rare case because رجل is indefinite?


----------



## rayloom

Abu Talha said:


> Thanks for the link, Rayloom. So wouldn't you say that in the sentence, اصتدمت برجلٍ جالسًا, the صاحب الحال could be رجل too (possibly), but it would be a rare case because رجل is indefinite?



Also very unlikely. See on that same page المسوغات for صاحب الحال to be indefinite, you'll find that the sentence اصطدمت برجل جالسا doesn't fit into any of them.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> Also very unlikely. See on that same page المسوغات for صاحب الحال to be indefinite, you'll find that the sentence اصطدمت برجل جالسا doesn't fit into any of them.


Actually, that's what I had read because he also says that in a few cases, the صاحب الحال can be indefinite without any مسوغات. 





> 7 ـ وقد يكون صاحب الحال نكرة من غير مسوغ ، وهو قليل ، نحو : وعليه مائة بيضاً ، وفى الحديث : " صلى رسول الله قاعداً ، وصلى وراءه رجال قياماً .


So I was wondering if there was anything else because of which you thought the صاحب الحال could not be the object.
I realize that there is little practical value in analyzing this particular sentence, but I just wanted to know if I was mistaken in interpreting these rules. Thanks again!


----------



## rayloom

Abu Talha said:


> Actually, that's what I had read because he also says that in a few cases, the صاحب الحال can be indefinite without any مسوغات. So I was wondering if there was anything else because of which you thought the صاحب الحال could not be the object.
> I realize that there is little practical value in analyzing this particular sentence, but I just wanted to know if I was mistaken in interpreting these rules. Thanks again!



As the French would say: Ouais bof! (I don't know if I'm using it correctly though )
I think it would have to be clear from the sentence (semantically speaking), that in such a case the حال wouldn't be referring to anything else but the indefinite.
Like in صلى وراءه رجال قياما, notice the plural of the حال, which wouldn't refer to a singular.
Also in the phrase of the question, when there is an identifiable صاحب حال, I don't think (grammatically speaking) the حال would refer to the indefinite.


----------



## Paterimon

مرحبًا ابن ناصر
By  اصطدمت برجل  do you literally mean I _bumped into_?  Or simply _passed by ?    _مررتُ برجل


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> As the French would say: Ouais bof! (I don't know if I'm using it correctly though )
> I think it would have to be clear from the sentence (semantically speaking), that in such a case the حال wouldn't be referring to anything else but the indefinite.
> Like in صلى وراءه رجال قياما, notice the plural of the حال, which wouldn't refer to a singular.
> Also in the phrase of the question, when there is an identifiable صاحب حال, I don't think (grammatically speaking) the حال would refer to the indefinite.


Thank you, Rayloom!


----------



## Paterimon

With all my love for classical Arabic and its meticulous grammar,
I think Modern Standard Arabic should be flexible enough to allow
such expressions as: أتاني  صديقٌ شاكيًا  with a حال modifying an indefinite noun.
But I am afraid this consideration belongs to a different thread.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> Like in صلى وراءه رجال قياما, notice the plural of the حال, which wouldn't refer to a singular.


Hello Rayloom, I noticed something which is not relevant to this thread, because as you say, everything points to the صاحب الحال being the subject, but قيام in this sentence seems to be a مصدر, not a broken plural. I opened a new thread to discuss this: Using the مصدر as a حال when the صاحب الحال is plural


----------

