# Possession as a nominal predicate



## Bilbo Baggins

Hello,

How would I say something like "The cup is the man's." ? I don't want to use an intransitive verb that means possession like "belong" or a verb that means "own"; I just want to use an equational sentence. 

Would I say:     الفِنجانُ هُوَ لِلرَجُل


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Hello,
> 
> How would I say something like "The cup is the man's." ? I don't want to use an intransitive verb that means possession like "belong" or a verb that means "own"; I just want to use an equational sentence.
> 
> Would I say:     الفِنجانُ هُوَ لِلرَجُل



Sure. You could also say. الفِنجانُ لِلرَجُلِ


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

lukebeadgcf said:


> Sure. You could also say. الفِنجانُ لِلرَجُلِ



Really? I was thinking about that, but I thought that maybe your expression would be translated as "The man's cup" i.e. the Li+... construction was another way to denote possession instead of idafa. 

Thanks.


----------



## clevermizo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Really? I was thinking about that, but I thought that maybe your expression would be translated as "The man's cup" i.e. the Li+... construction was another way to denote possession instead of idafa.
> 
> Thanks.



It's true, but context makes it clear. الفنجان للرجل is as much a complete sentence as الفنجان على الطاولة. 

If you wanted to use الفنجان للرجل instead of the إضافة structure فنجان الرجل, again context would determine how we use it.

Here are some things I just thought up:


الفنجان للرجل. 
The cup belongs to the man/is the man's.

الفنجان الذي للرجل كبير
The cup that belongs to the man is big.

which stands as an alternative (though more wordy  ) to:

فنجان الرجل كبير
The man's cup is big.

But I don't think we can say(??):

الفنجان للرجل كبير

because الفنجان is definite. We _can_ however say:

فنجانٌ للرجل كبير
A cup that belongs to the man is big.

because فنجان is indefinite and doesn't require a relative pronoun for the subordinate clause.


Remember although the ال س ل ص stands as an alternative wording for an إضافة occasionally, it's still a prepositional phrase. It works the same way as في، على or any other. For example, what I said above would be true if it were الفنجان على الطاولة instead of الفنجان للرجل:

الفنجان على الطاولة
الفنجان الذي على الطاولة كبير
الفنجان على الطاولة كبير
فنجان على الطاولة كبير


Although I always say that there's never one-to-one translation I think for this example, you can analogize between English " X's Y" and Arabic إضافة  and English "X belongs to Y/belonging to Y" and Arabic س لص. Saying الفنجان للرجل is another way to say فنجان الرجل but functions syntactically like the English "the cup belongs to the man".


----------



## Mahaodeh

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Would I say:     الفِنجانُ هُوَ لِلرَجُل



You don't need to use the hua, actually it seems not so right to me. I would say: الفنجان للرجل.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> You don't need to use the hua, actually it  seems not so right to me. I would say: الفنجان للرجل.





lukebeadgcf said:


> Sure. You could also say. الفِنجانُ لِلرَجُلِ



I think that الفِنجانُ لِلرَجُلِ is equivalent to an annexation فِنجانُ الرَجُلِ.

To express the verb "to have" :  لِلرَجُلِ الفِنجانُ

I read this here : http://www.learnarabicfree.info/begin/tohave.php

What do you think ?


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

clevermizo said:


> It's true, but context makes it clear. الفنجان للرجل is as much a complete sentence as الفنجان على الطاولة.
> 
> If you wanted to use الفنجان للرجل instead of the إضافة structure فنجان الرجل, again context would determine how we use it.
> 
> Here are some things I just thought up:
> 
> 
> الفنجان للرجل.
> The cup belongs to the man/is the man's.
> 
> الفنجان الذي للرجل كبير
> The cup that belongs to the man is big.
> 
> which stands as an alternative (though more wordy  ) to:
> 
> فنجان الرجل كبير
> The man's cup is big.
> 
> But I don't think we can say(??):
> 
> الفنجان للرجل كبير
> 
> because الفنجان is definite. We _can_ however say:
> 
> فنجانٌ للرجل كبير
> A cup that belongs to the man is big.
> 
> because فنجان is indefinite and doesn't require a relative pronoun for the subordinate clause.
> 
> 
> Remember although the ال س ل ص stands as an alternative wording for an إضافة occasionally, it's still a prepositional phrase. It works the same way as في، على or any other. For example, what I said above would be true if it were الفنجان على الطاولة instead of الفنجان للرجل:
> 
> الفنجان على الطاولة
> الفنجان الذي على الطاولة كبير
> الفنجان على الطاولة كبير
> فنجان على الطاولة كبير
> 
> 
> Although I always say that there's never one-to-one translation I think for this example, you can analogize between English " X's Y" and Arabic إضافة  and English "X belongs to Y/belonging to Y" and Arabic س لص.



Great input, thanks. 

Interesting rule concerning the relative pronouns; I'll get to those in time. I'm looking forward to using more complex sentence structure.


----------



## Mahaodeh

No, it's not. الفنجان للرجل is مبتدأ وخبر, it's a complete sentence. While فنجان الرجل is إضافة and it's not a complete sentence (I wouldn't even call it a sentence).

Actually there is a difference between الفنجان للرجل and للرجل الفنجان. The difference is emphases, the first answers the question: who does the cup belong to or who gets the cup or who's cup is this; while the second answers the question: what does the man get. I don't know if this example clarifies the difference, but you can say something like: الفنجان للرجل وللمرأة القدح; "the cup is for the man, the woman gets the glass".

Notice that the main difference in the example given in your link is that the cup there is indefinite, so it would be correct to say: للرجل فنجان, but it means "the man has a cup", not "the cup is the man's".


----------



## clevermizo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Great input, thanks.
> 
> Interesting rule concerning the relative pronouns; I'll get to those in time. I'm looking forward to using more complex sentence structure.



Yeah I wouldn't worry too much about that if you're still in an early stage. But suffice to say, when you use لـ　it's a subordinate clause in a way. So just like in English, you can't say "The cup belongs to the man is big", but you have to change it to something like "The cup that belongs/belonging to the man is big", etc. The Arabic syntax also has to be changed to suit the context.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

clevermizo said:


> Yeah I wouldn't worry too much about that if you're still in an early stage. But suffice to say, when you use لـ　it's a subordinate clause in a way. So just like in English, you can't say "The cup belongs to the man is big", but you have to change it to something like "The cup that belongs/belonging to the man is big", etc. The Arabic syntax also has to be changed to suit the context.



Yes, that's the core of my reservations. Because the present indicative of "to be" is usually elided, I wonder how to distinguish between phrases and complete statements. I suppose that many can be interpreted either way depending on the context. However, I assume that some can not. For example, with my original attempt, if I used the huwa between the two definite nouns I assume that that would have to be interpreted as the complete sentence "The cup is the man's." and could not mean anything else. Is this correct?

Thanks.


----------



## clevermizo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Yes, that's the core of my reservations. Because the present indicative of "to be" is usually elided, I wonder how to distinguish between phrases and complete statements.



Context! 



> I suppose that many can be interpreted either way depending on the context.



Yup! 



> However, I assume that some can not. For example, with my original attempt, if I used the huwa between the two definite nouns I assume that that would have to be interpreted as the complete sentence "The cup is the man's." and could not mean anything else. Is this correct?
> 
> Thanks.



Yes that's right. When necessary there are ways to disambiguate and that's one of them. And it's always done in certain circumstances that you've learned already (like when you connect two definite nouns: الرجل هو الطبيب, etc.).


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Awesome! Thanks.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> No, it's not. الفنجان للرجل is مبتدأ وخبر, it's a complete sentence. While فنجان الرجل is إضافة and it's not a complete sentence (I wouldn't even call it a sentence).
> 
> Actually there is a difference between الفنجان للرجل and للرجل الفنجان. The difference is emphases, the first answers the question: who does the cup belong to or who gets the cup or who's cup is this; while the second answers the question: what does the man get. I don't know if this example clarifies the difference, but you can say something like: الفنجان للرجل وللمرأة القدح; "the cup is for the man, the woman gets the glass".
> 
> Notice that the main difference in the example given in your link is that the cup there is indefinite, so it would be correct to say: للرجل فنجان, but it means "the man has a cup", not "the cup is the man's".



It is a useful and clear explanation, thank you.

The source of my confusion is this http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=10975620&postcount=4

What do you think ?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Well, there's more than one way to express possession; just like in English: the man's cup, the cup of the man, the cup belongs to the man, the cup is the man's, the cup is owned by the man...etc. Choosing which to use depends on context, emphases and the style you use in speaking.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

clevermizo said:


> because الفنجان is definite. We _can_ however say:
> 
> فنجانٌ للرجل كبير
> A cup that belongs to the man is big.





Mahaodeh said:


> Well, there's more than one way to express  possession; just like in English: the man's cup, the cup of the man, the  cup belongs to the man, the cup is the man's, the cup is owned by the  man...etc. Choosing which to use depends on context, emphases and the  style you use in speaking.


 
 Thank you.

Can you translate "فنجانٌ للرجل" by "a cup of the man" ? I think  "فنجانٌ للرجل" can not be regarded as a nominale sentence because the word "فنجانٌ" is undefined. What do you think?

I think  كَأْسُ فِضَّةٍ = كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ but how do you see the phrase "الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" ? Is "الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" = "كَأْسُ الفِضَّةِ"?

Thank you.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Can you translate "فنجانٌ للرجل" by "a cup of the man" ? I think  "فنجانٌ للرجل" can not be regarded as a nominal sentence because the word "فنجانٌ" is undefined. What do you think?
> Thank you.



This is a nominal sentence, but the subject and the predicate should be reversed للرجل فنجانٌ. The subject فنجان is مبتدأ مؤخّر وجوبا "subject necessarily put later" because it is undefined. للرجل is called خبر مقدَّم "fronted predicate."


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> I think  كَأْسُ فِضَّةٍ = كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ but how do you see the phrase "الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" ? Is "الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" = "كَأْسُ الفِضَّةِ"?
> 
> Thank you.



كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ a cup of silver "made of silver"

كَأْسُ فِضَّةٍ This can mean the same as the latter, since one of the functions of the إضافة is explication or البيان. This is called an إضافة بيانيّة and it describes "the form of the material."

I would also assume that "الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" = "كَأْسُ الفِضَّةِ" meaning "the cup of silver/silver cup."


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> This is a nominal sentence, but the subject and the predicate should be reversed للرجل فنجانٌ. The subject فنجان is مبتدأ مؤخّر وجوبا "subject necessarily put later" because it is undefined. للرجل is called خبر مقدَّم "fronted predicate."



Ok, but I think that "فنجانٌ للرجل" is also correct, it is similar to قصر للملك فهد (found on the internet). Also look at this (*رأَيٌ لخالد* , *دارٌ لي*) :

-*اللام* المفيدة للملك أو الاختصاص، كقولك (*داري = دارٌ لي*)، (*رأي خالد = رأَيٌ لخالد*) وهذا أكثر ما يقع في الإضافات.​*
Source :* http://www.islamguiden.com/arabi/m_a_r_50.htm

But there is a problem in this passage: the words "*دار*"  and " "*رأي*"are defined in the phrases "*داري*" and "*رأي خالد*" but they are undefined in the phrases *دارٌ لي* and *رأَيٌ لخالد*. I'm confused.



lukebeadgcf said:


> كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ a cup of silver "made of silver"
> 
> كَأْسُ فِضَّةٍ This can mean the same as the latter, since one of the functions of the إضافة is explication or البيان. This is called an إضافة بيانيّة and it describes "the form of the material."
> 
> I would also assume that "الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" = "كَأْسُ الفِضَّةِ" meaning "the cup of silver/silver cup."



Thank you for these details, I wonder if الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ is a nominal sentence because *Mahaodeh* said "...الفنجان للرجل is مبتدأ وخبر, it's a complete sentence".

What do you think ?


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> Ok, but I think that "فنجانٌ للرجل" is also correct, it is similar to قصر للملك فهد (found on the internet). Also look at this (*رأَيٌ لخالد* , *دارٌ لي*) :
> 
> -*اللام* المفيدة للملك أو الاختصاص، كقولك (*داري = دارٌ لي*)، (*رأي خالد = رأَيٌ لخالد*) وهذا أكثر ما يقع في الإضافات.​*
> Source :* http://www.islamguiden.com/arabi/m_a_r_50.htm
> 
> But there is a problem in this passage: the words "*دار*"  and " "*رأي*"are defined in the phrases "*داري*" and "*رأي خالد*" but they are undefined in the phrases *دارٌ لي* and *رأَيٌ لخالد*. I'm confused.



I think they are just trying to describe the relationship between the مضاف and the مضاف إليه to be one of possession (الملك), and so they used ل to illustrate that. Nonetheless, رأي لخالد and دار لي are, according to my sources, incorrect.



> Thank you for these details, I wonder if الكَأْسُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ is a nominal sentence because *Mahaodeh* said "...الفنجان للرجل is مبتدأ وخبر, it's a complete sentence".
> 
> What do you think ?


Yes, this is a nominal sentence. The مبتدأ is الكأس and the خبر is من فضة which is متعلق بمحذوف "attached to an omitted word;" namely, كائن or another derivative of ك و ن.

I have reservations about this sentence though. It would make more sense to me من الفضّة


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> I think they are just trying to describe the relationship between the مضاف and the مضاف إليه to be one of possession (الملك), and so they used ل to illustrate that. Nonetheless, رأي لخالد and دار لي are, according to my sources, incorrect.
> 
> Yes, this is a nominal sentence. The مبتدأ is الكأس and the خبر is من فضة which is متعلق بمحذوف "attached to an omitted word;" namely, كائن or another derivative of ك و ن.
> 
> I have reservations about this sentence though. It would make more sense to me من الفضّة



Thank you. Please what are the sources of which you speak?


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> Thank you. Please what are the sources of which you speak?



William Wright _A Grammar of the Arabic Language_


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> William Wright _A Grammar of the Arabic Language_



Thank you, if you have pages that would be good, otherwise I'll look in the book ...


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> Thank you, if you have pages that would be good, otherwise I'll look in the book ...



vol. ii pg. 253 §116


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> vol. ii pg. 253 §116


Thank you. Ok but this passage concerns the nominal sentence, if the mubtada is undefined and the khabar is a shibhu jumlah then the inversion is required.

But I think the phrase "فنجانٌ للرجل" is not a nominal sentence. But the question is "Is it correct?"

Why the phrase "كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" would be correct and the phrase "فنجانٌ للرجل" would be incorrect?

The phrase "كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" is from the book you mentioned.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

> But I think the phrase "فنجانٌ للرجل" is not a nominal sentence. But the question is "Is it correct?"



It is not correct as a sentence. It WOULD be considered a nominal sentence but it is not correct.



> Why the phrase "كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" would be correct and the phrase "فنجانٌ للرجل" would be incorrect?



Wright uses كأس من فضة to describe the meaning of كأس فضة and to illustrate the nature of the relationship between the مضاف and the مضاف إليه here. But just like فنجانٌ للرجل, it could not stand alone as a sentence. By the way, من does not work the same way as ل. In للرجل فنجان, the particle ل denotes possession, whereas in كأس من فضة, the particle من denotes "the relationship which subsists between the part and the whole, the species and the genus" (a cup of (composed of) silver).



> The phrase "كَأْسٌ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ" is from the book you mentioned.



I still think it's strange that فضة isn't الفضة. It's as if the cup were made of a single piece of silver.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> It is not correct as a sentence. It WOULD be considered a nominal sentence but it is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Wright uses كأس من فضة to describe the meaning of كأس فضة and to illustrate the nature of the relationship between the مضاف and the مضاف إليه here. But just like فنجانٌ للرجل, it could not stand alone as a sentence. By the way, من does not work the same way as ل. In للرجل فنجان, the particle ل denotes possession, whereas in كأس من فضة, the particle من denotes "the relationship which subsists between the part and the whole, the species and the genus" (a cup of (composed of) silver).
> 
> 
> 
> I still think it's strange that فضة isn't الفضة. It's as if the cup were made of a single piece of silver.



Thank you. This phrase is used : http://www.google.fr/#sclient=psy&hl=fr&source=hp&q=%22%D9%83%D8%A3%D8%B3+%D9%85%D9%86+%D9%81%D8%B6%D8%A9%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b29f1ce6351728e8&biw=1488&bih=830

and "كأس من الفضة" is used also : http://www.google.fr/#q="كأس من الف...gc.r_pw.&fp=b29f1ce6351728e8&biw=1488&bih=830

So Why the phrase "كأس من الفضة" would be correct and the phrase "فنجانٌ للرجل" would be incorrect?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Question to all (lukebeadgcf, clevermizo, Mahaodeh...) :

 How you please translate these phrases :

 A friend of Zaid.
 A book of the teacher.
 A palace of the king of France.
 A student of this school.

And how to distinguish / to translate these phrases :

 A door of a house.
 The door of the house.
 The door of a house.
 A door of the house.

Thank you.


----------



## clevermizo

Ibn Nacer said:


> Question to all (lukebeadgcf, clevermizo, Mahaodeh...) :
> 
> How you please translate these phrases :
> 
> A friend of Zaid.
> A book of the teacher.
> A palace of the king of France.
> A student of this school.
> 
> Thank you.




Ok so I would either do the following:

صديق زيد، كتاب المعلم، قصر ملك فرنسا، طالب هذه المدرسة

However, I think you're asking because you want to make sure you can say for sure that صديق، كتاب، قصر and طالب are interpreted as not معروفة.

To be sure they are "indefinite" (to be emphatic), I would say صديقٌ لزيد, كتابٌ للمعلم　إلخ. These are not normal as _nominal sentences_ I guess, but I think they're fine as a phrase where the prepositional phrase is attributive to the indefinite noun. For example

على الطاولة كتاب للمعلم

There is _a book of the teacher('s) _on the table.

There's also the expression فعل من أفعاله, for example:

رأيت صديق من أصدقاء زيد في الشارع أمس
Yesterday, I saw _a friend of Zaid's_ on the street.

هذا هو قصرٌ لملك فرنسا
This is a castle belonging to the king of France.

ليس أحمد طالبا لهذه المدرسة
Ahmad is not a student of this school.


However, I *would not* say, and I think this conforms with Luke's comments above:

صديقٌ لزيد

for: Zaid has a friend.
but: لزيد صديقٌ.

Similarly, I would not say كتابٌ للمعلم　to mean "A book belongs to the teacher." I would say للمعلم كتابٌ　in inverted structure.

To me كتاب للمعلم　is not a complete sentence, but للمعلم كتاب is a complete sentence.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> And how to distinguish / to translate these phrases :
> 
> A door of a house.
> The door of the house.
> The door of a house.
> A door of the house.
> 
> Thank you.



بابُ بيتٍ
بابُ البيتِ
البابُ لبيتٍ
بابٌ للبيتِ


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Thank you very much for your helpful answers.

I did not say that "فنجانٌ للرجل"  was correct as a complete sentence (nominal sentence). On the contrary, I mentioned this rule : “if the mubtada is undefined and the khabar is a shibhu jumlah then the inversion is required.” But I wanted to know if "فنجانٌ للرجل"  was correct as a phrase (incomplete sentence) meaning "a cup of the man".

I'm sorry for my bad English.  



clevermizo said:


> Ok so I would either do the following:
> 
> صديق زيد، كتاب المعلم، قصر ملك فرنسا، طالب هذه المدرسة
> However, I think you're asking because you want to make sure you can say for sure that صديق، كتاب، قصر and طالب are interpreted as not معروفة.


 

  The problem is that the rule says that the mudhaaf is defined if the mudhaaf ilayhi is defined, therefore the words صديق، كتاب، قصر and طالب are necessarily interpreted as معروفة and your annexations mean:

*The* friend of Zaid.
*The* book of the teacher.
*The* palace of the king of France.
*The* student of this school.  



clevermizo said:


> However, I *would not* say, and I think this conforms with Luke's comments above:
> 
> صديقٌ لزيد
> 
> for: Zaid has a friend.
> but: لزيد صديقٌ.
> 
> Similarly, I would not say كتابٌ للمعلم　to mean "A book belongs to the teacher." I would say للمعلم كتابٌ　in inverted structure.
> 
> To me كتاب للمعلم　is not a complete sentence, but للمعلم كتاب is a complete sentence.


 I agree with that. صديقٌ لزيد  means "a friend of Zaid" and كتابٌ للمعلم means "a book of the teacher".



clevermizo said:


> To beTo be sure they are "indefinite" (to be emphatic), I would say صديقٌ لزيد, كتابٌ للمعلم　إلخ. These are not normal as nominal sentences I guess, but I think they're fine as a phrase where the prepositional phrase is attributive to the indefinite noun. For example
> على الطاولة كتاب للمعلم
> 
> There is _a book of the teacher('s) _on the table.
> 
> There's also the expression فعل من أفعاله, for example:
> 
> رأيت صديق من أصدقاء زيد في الشارع أمس
> Yesterday, I saw _a friend of Zaid's_ on the street.
> 
> هذا هو قصرٌ لملك فرنسا
> This is a castle belonging to the king of France.
> 
> ليس أحمد طالبا لهذه المدرسة
> Ahmad is not a student of this school.



 Ok, Thank you.  “a castle belonging to the king of France” is equivalent to “a castle *of* the king of France” ? (un château/palais du roi de France). C'est vrai que c'est mieux de dire “un château/palais appartenant au roi de France")...

 It is not possible to say “ رأيت صديقٌ لزيد في الشارع أمس ” ?



lukebeadgcf said:


> بابُ بيتٍ
> بابُ البيتِ
> البابُ لبيتٍ
> بابٌ للبيتِ



Thank you very much, I would say the same thing.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

> I did not say that "فنجانٌ للرجل"  was correct as a complete sentence (nominal sentence). On the contrary, I mentioned this rule : “if the mubtada is undefined and the khabar is a shibhu jumlah then the inversion is required.” But I wanted to know if "فنجانٌ للرجل"  was correct as a phrase (incomplete sentence) meaning "a cup of the man".
> 
> It is not possible to say “ رأيت صديقا لزيد في الشارع أمس ” ?


Meaning "I saw a friend of Zeid's..." with "friend" in the accusative, this is correct.

I think you could probably use فنجان للرجل the same way. As a phrase it is valid depending on the context. Maybe it couldn't occur with فنجان in the nominative, but I haven't thought about it.



> I'm sorry for my bad English.



No worries! It's not bad.

Désolé pour le mauvais français


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> Meaning "I saw a friend of Zeid's..." with "friend" in the accusative, this is correct.



Yes you are right, I repeated the error ! Thank you.



lukebeadgcf said:


> I think you could probably use فنجان للرجل the same way. As a phrase it  is valid depending on the context. Maybe it couldn't occur with فنجان in  the nominative, but I haven't thought about it.



Clevermizo said "على الطاولة كتاب للمعلم" so why not this "على الطاولة فنجان للرجل" ?




lukebeadgcf said:


> No worries! It's not bad.
> 
> Désolé pour le mauvais français



Votre français est correct, pas d'inquiétudes !


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> Clevermizo said "على الطاولة كتاب للمعلم" so why not this "على الطاولة فنجان للرجل" ?



Yes, you could say that. The difference is that in these sentences, كتاب and فنجان respectively are the subjects, على الطاولة is the fronted predicate and للرجل and للمعلم respectively are added descriptive phrases or شبه جلمة متعلقة بكتاب/فنجان.

In للرجل فنجان, the phrase للرجل is considered the خبر متعلق بحذوف. I'm not sure my إعراب is perfect--maybe Rayloom can check it--but my point is that between the two sentences (للرجل فنجان and على الطاولة فنجان للرجل), the syntactic relationships are different, which is what allows for the difference in word order, and what makes the rules Wright describes regarding predicate/subject inversion inapplicable.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> Yes, you could say that. The difference is that in these sentences, كتاب and فنجان respectively are the subjects, على الطاولة is the fronted predicate and للرجل and للمعلم respectively are added descriptive phrases or شبه جلمة متعلقة بكتاب/فنجان.
> 
> In للرجل فنجان, the phrase للرجل is considered the خبر متعلق بحذوف. I'm not sure my إعراب is perfect--maybe Rayloom can check it--but my point is that between the two sentences (للرجل فنجان and على الطاولة فنجان للرجل), the syntactic relationships are different, which is what allows for the difference in word order, and what makes the rules Wright describes regarding predicate/subject inversion inapplicable.


I have not yet studied this part of the grammar but thank you very much for your helpful answers.

....


> "A" Thing of a Thing
> A final issue about        the genitive construction is how we translate the following sentence to        Arabic:​ _*A* door of a house_​ We know that it is        impossible in Arabic for the first part of a genitive construction to be        indefinite. Thus, this kind of sentences is usually translated in Arabic        to:​            بَاْبُ مَنْزِلٍ​ _ baab(u)            manzil(in)_​ _*(The)* door (of) a house_​ ​ There is not really        that much of a difference between the two. However, if you were insisting        on having the first part indefinite, there is one trick that could be used,        which is to use a preposition other than the hidden "of" of the genitive        construction. Usually that would be the particle   _li-_        لِـ = "for/to."​            بَاْبٌ        لِمَنْزِلٍ​ _ baab(un)       li-manzil(in)_​ _*A* door        for a house_​ This is not a genitive        construction. The word after _li-_       is in the ablative case, which is        the same in Arabic as the genitive case (_'al-jarr_).​


​ Source : http://arabic.tripod.com/GenitiveConstruction.htm


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ibn Nacer said:


> ....
> 
> [/LEFT]
> Source : http://arabic.tripod.com/GenitiveConstruction.htm



Yes I agree. I actually put بابٌ لمنزلٍ first, then changed it to بابُ منزلٍ because I thought it simpler, but both are correct.


----------



## Lark-lover

فنجان للرجل  if used as a single unit out of its context, it suggests this:
_*a cup of coffee for a man*_. It seesm to be a quantity specified for each man.


----------

