# The Nile is a long, wide river.



## Su^

Hi there.

I'm doing some translation exercises from Haywood & Nahmad and I have a question about adjectives.

Everytime I translate a sentence with more than one adjective I get a little confused about which one to translate first.

For example, "The Nile is a long wide river"

is it correct to translate it as: النيل نهر طول واسع 


Thanks!

best,/s.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Su^ said:


> Hi there.
> 
> I'm doing some translation exercises from Haywood & Nahmad and I have a question about adjectives.
> 
> Everytime I translate a sentence with more than one adjective I get a little confused about which one to translate first.
> 
> For example, "The Nile is a long wide river"
> 
> is it correct to translate it as: النيل نهر طول واسع
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> best,/s.


Bonjour,

Ne manque-t-il pas un و entre les deux adjectifs : النيل نهر طول وواسع ?


----------



## clevermizo

Ibn Nacer said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> Ne manque-t-il pas un و entre les deux adjectifs : النيل نهر طويــل وواسع ?



Also note the correction in red above.


----------



## Su^

Ibn Nacer said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> Ne manque-t-il pas un و entre les deux adjectifs : النيل نهر طول وواسع ?


 

Hi there, thank you for your help... but I'm afraid I can't understand French........


----------



## clevermizo

Su^ said:


> Hi there, thank you for your help... but I'm afraid I can't understand French........



All he said was "Doesn't it lack a و ('and') between the adjectives?"

My only additional correction was to change طول to طويل. The word طول means "length" but طويل means "long."

النيل نهر طويل وواسع.

Also for added clarity please make sure the title of your thread isn't something like "translation" but rather the word or phrase you're asking about.  . You'll see I've changed it to "The Nile is a long, wide river."


----------



## Su^

clevermizo said:


> All he said was "Doesn't it lack a و ('and') between the adjectives?"
> 
> My only additional correction was to change طول to طويل. The word طول means "length" but طويل means "long."
> 
> النيل نهر طويل وواسع.


 
Oh, ok sorry about the thread title, thanks for changing it. Well I didn't put a waaw there according to what Haywood writes "where two or more adjectives qualify the same noun it is not necessary to put "and" between them"...


----------



## clevermizo

Su^ said:


> Oh, ok sorry about the thread title, thanks for changing it. Well I didn't put a waaw there according to what Haywood writes "where two or more adjectives qualify the same noun it is not necessary to put "and" between them"...



I think that might be right, but hopefully a native speaker can comment.


----------



## Su^

clevermizo said:


> I think that might be right, but hopefully a native speaker can comment.


 

Okay, let's wait and see then ^_^


----------



## cherine

Yes, the waaw is not necessarily at all. You can put a long string of adjectives and not separate them with any thing:
البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها
Note that تحب العلم and تحترم والديها are also adjectives, I added the waaw at the end because it came naturally to me not for any grammatical reasons. Maybe for breath.


----------



## clevermizo

cherine said:


> Yes, the waaw is not necessarily at all. You can put a long string of adjectives and not separate them with any thing:
> البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها
> Note that تحب العلم and تحترم والديها are also adjectives, I added the waaw at the end because it came naturally to me not for any grammatical reasons. Maybe for breath.




I see you called the last two "adjectives" in English. Are the attributive clauses تحب العلم　and تحترم والديها　called صفة in Arabic grammatical terms?


----------



## cherine

Oops! Sorry. That was a mistake. 
Sentences can be adjectives, but here they would be حال .
The rule says الجُمَل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال . Which means that they would have been adjectives (well, صفة but I don't know if "adjective" doesn't make sense in English here) if الموصوف was an indefinite word:
هذه بنتٌ تحب العلم وتحترم والديها . The first sentence is a جملة في محل رفع، صفة لبنت , and the other sentence would be معطوفة على "تحب العلم".


----------



## AndyRoo

I don't think the original question has been answered yet...

I think واسع طويل sounds better than طويل واسع, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Merci Clevermizo.



cherine said:


> Oops! Sorry. That was a mistake.
> Sentences can be adjectives, but here they would be حال .
> The rule says الجُمَل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال . Which means that they would have been adjectives (well, صفة but I don't know if "adjective" doesn't make sense in English here) if الموصوف was an indefinite word:
> هذه بنتٌ تحب العلم وتحترم والديها . The first sentence is a جملة في محل رفع، صفة لبنت , and the other sentence would be معطوفة على "تحب العلم".



Très intéressant, merci.


----------



## Su^

AndyRoo said:


> I don't think the original question has been answered yet...
> 
> I think واسع طويل sounds better than طويل واسع, but I'm not sure.




Yes Andy that's exactly what confuses me, to know which adjective should come first...


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

I'm working out of the same text and did that exercise last night. 

However, I can't help but feel that you're splitting hairs here. Other than placing emphasis, I can't imagine that the order would be of great consequence.


----------



## AndyRoo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> I'm working out of the same text and did that exercise last night.
> 
> However, I can't help but feel that you're splitting hairs here. Other than placing emphasis, I can't imagine that the order would be of great consequence.


 
I think it is a valid question: In English "a long wide river" is more natural than "a wide long river" and I guess in Arabic one is more natural than the other too.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

AndyRoo said:


> In English "a long wide river" is more natural than "a wide long river"



I don't know about that. Is one way better than the other? I don't really notice a difference. If you say either over and over, they both sound OK eventually. 



AndyRoo said:


> I think it is a valid question:....
> and I guess in Arabic one is more natural than the other too.



Yes, I suppose that it is a valid question. However, this is not a grammar issue; it's a "ring-to-it" issue with which experienced language speakers tussle. I know the book she is using, and she is on the second lesson. My point is simply that with so much exciting grammar ahead of her, why should she focus on something relatively inconsequential that only experienced Arabic speakers worry about?


----------



## AndyRoo

Yes it's probably not of major importance, but it would be nice to know which, if any, is more correct.


----------



## Su^

Bilbo Baggins said:


> I don't know about that. Is one way better than the other? I don't really notice a difference. If you say either over and over, they both sound OK eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose that it is a valid question. However, this is not a grammar issue; it's a "ring-to-it" issue with which experienced language speakers tussle. I know the book she is using, and she is on the second lesson. My point is simply that with so much exciting grammar ahead of her, why should she focus on something relatively inconsequential that only experienced Arabic speakers worry about?






Well I guess that being a newbie language learner doesn't really prevent you from asking or wondering about issues that "only experienced Arabic speakers worry about"...  

And I was asking because I thought that one of them might be more correct. And that perhaps the order of the adjectives might be important.


----------



## rayloom

النيل نهر طويل عريض
(تعدد النعوت)
النيل نهر طويل وعريض
(عطف نعت)
نهر النيل طويل عريض
(تعدد الخبر)
نهر النيل طويل وعريض
(عطف خبر)
All forms are correct.

As for 
الجُمَل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال
It's a simplification rule and depends on whether the نكرة or معرفة are نكرة/معرفة محضة. Otherwise depends on the syntactic position of the jumlah.
In  البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها
تحب العلم here is a predicate also.
Just like saying:
البنت تحب العلم


----------



## cherine

Regading the order of the adjectives, I don't think there's a rule for it. Just put them in the order that sounds best to you.
To Andy, it was واسع طويل , to me طويل واسع came more naturally. Both are fine.

Rayloom, do you mean that تحب العلم is خبر ?


----------



## rayloom

cherine said:


> Rayloom, do you mean that تحب العلم is خبر ?



Yes. In both our examples, تحب العلم comes as a خبر


----------



## cherine

Ah! Ok. Thanks  It's embarrassing to make such a mistake. But thanks for the correction.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

rayloom said:


> As for
> الجُمَل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال
> It's a simplification rule and depends on whether the نكرة or معرفة are نكرة/معرفة محضة. Otherwise depends on the syntactic position of the jumlah.
> In  البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها
> تحب العلم here is a predicate *also*.
> Just like saying:
> البنت تحب العلم



Tu as rajouté "*also*", faut-il comprendre que تحب العلم est *aussi *autre chose ? Est-il *aussi *hâl ?



cherine said:


> Ah! Ok. Thanks  It's embarrassing to make such a mistake. But thanks for the correction.



Je n'ai pas compris de quelle erreur tu parles, dans ton exemple هذه بنتٌ تحب العلم وتحترم والديها la phrase  تحب العلم est bien صفة لبنت comme tu l'as dit, non ? 

تحب العلم et بنتٌ sont tous les deux *indéfinis*, non ?

Dans l'exemple de Rayloom  البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها c'est différent car تحب العلم est *indéfini* alors que البنت est  *défini*, il n'y a donc pas d'accord et par conséquent تحب العلم ne peut pas être صفة للبنت.

Ou peut-être que j'ai mal compris...


----------



## rayloom

Ibn Nacer said:


> Tu as rajouté "*also*", faut-il comprendre que تحب العلم est *aussi *autre chose ? Est-il *aussi *hâl ?



Non, il est seulement un khabar.



> Je n'ai pas compris de quelle erreur tu parles, dans ton exemple هذه بنتٌ تحب العلم وتحترم والديها la phrase  تحب العلم est bien صفة لبنت comme tu l'as dit, non ?
> 
> تحب العلم et بنتٌ sont tous les deux *indéfinis*, non ?
> 
> Dans l'exemple de Rayloom  البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها c'est différent car تحب العلم est *indéfini* alors que البنت est  *défini*, il n'y a donc pas d'accord et par conséquent تحب العلم ne peut pas être صفة للبنت.
> 
> Ou peut-être que j'ai mal compris...


Oui, dans la phrase هذه بنتٌ تحب العلم وتحترم والديها, ici تحب العلم est un صفة. Mais dans l'autre phrase (qui était la première phrase donnée par Cherine) البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها, ici تحب العلم est un khabar. (Juste comme البنت تحب العلم).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

rayloom said:


> Non, il est seulement un khabar.
> 
> Oui, dans la phrase هذه بنتٌ تحب العلم وتحترم والديها, ici تحب العلم est un صفة. Mais dans l'autre phrase (qui était la première phrase donnée par Cherine) البنت جميلة ذكية مهذبة مجتهدة تحب العلم وتحترم والديها, ici تحب العلم est un khabar. (Juste comme البنت تحب العلم).



Ah d'accord je n'avais pas fait attention à la première phrase de Chérine qui est dans un autre message (je pensais que c'était ton exemple).

Merci pour tes réponses.


----------



## rayloom

Ibn Nacer said:


> Ah d'accord je n'avais pas fait attention à la première phrase de Chérine qui est dans un autre message (je pensais que c'était ton exemple).
> 
> Merci pour tes réponses.



Je t'en prie


----------



## Su^

cherine said:


> Regading the order of the adjectives, I don't think there's a rule for it. Just put them in the order that sounds best to you.
> To Andy, it was واسع طويل , to me طويل واسع came more naturally. Both are fine.
> 
> Rayloom, do you mean that تحب العلم is خبر ?




thank you cherine and rayloom!


----------

