# Adverbs and verbs describing verbs



## TheFriendlyArab

I have a question regarding adverbs. For clarification, an adverb is a word that describes an action much like an adjective is a word that describes a noun. For example: "The boy ran quickly to school" where "quickly" is a word describing the action of running. How would I express this in Arabic? I don't think there's a suffix like the "-ly" that is added in the end of most adjectives to make them adverbs in English.

The second part of my question, and I don't know if this makes sense but, a verb describing a verb? I think an example is necessary here: "I will travel across the land, searching far and wide" (I'd be surprised if anyone here gets the reference) where "searching" is the action describing "travelling". How would I express this in Arabic?

I only ask because I see a common trend of using adjectives in the singular, accusative, indefinite state (double fatha) and I'm not sure if this is how to do it.


----------



## Muwahid

You may commonly find the Adverbial Accusative in this case. 

ركض الولد إلى المدرسة سريعًا

Where _sarii3an _is the accusitive of the word سريع (quick). Another common way to express the same idea might be بسرعة using the preposition بـ with the word سرعة (speed), making a more literal translation of _with speed _which conveys the same meaning. 

As for your second question, if the reference is to what I think it is , a satirical video on youtube translates it as سأسافر عبر الأرض، باحثًا في كل مكان which is the AP in the accusative, maybe others can shed light on the actual rule for it.


----------



## TheFriendlyArab

Muwahid said:


> You may commonly find the Adverbial Accusative in this case.
> 
> ركض الولد إلى المدرسة سريعًا
> 
> Where _sarii3an _is the accusitive of the word سريع (quick). Another common way to express the same idea might be بسرعة using the preposition بـ with the word سرعة (speed), making a more literal translation of _with speed _which conveys the same meaning.
> 
> As for your second question, if the reference is to what I think it is , a satirical video on youtube translates it as سأسافر عبر الأرض، باحثًا في كل مكان which is the AP in the accusative, maybe others can shed light on the actual rule for it.



A satirical video on youtube? No, it was the official Arabic dub for the theme song of Pokemon, a popular cartoon I used to watch as a child. But yes I have also heard the first example.


----------



## TheFriendlyArab

But which is the most common way to express an adverb? I see that people speaking colloquial Arabic use the Accusative case but I thought the use of case endings was absent in colloquial Arabic (or is this just another subject altogether?).


----------



## Arabus

In the spoken dialects most adverbs are of the bi-verbal noun type.

The active participle in Arabic is formed in two ways, either with a mu- prefix or without it. You can look it up.


----------



## Muwahid

Some accusative case ending words are preserved in dialects, like شكرًا or جدًا and many others. To be fair, I hear بسرعة more than سريعًا


----------



## rayloom

The adverb is called in Arabic حال.
There are many ways to form adverbs in Arabic. One that you have noticed is by using a participle in the accusative to describe the verb (hence the name "circumstantial accusative" for the حال).
Example:
ركض الولد مسرعا (musri3an is an active participle in the accusative).
so is باحثا in Muwahid's example.
Other ways to form adverbs in Arabic is to use prepositions :
ركض الولد بسرعة
Or to describe the verb using another verb:
جاء الولد يجري
Also using something called واو الحال :
جاء الولد وهو يجري
Along with other ways of forming adverbs.

P.S. ركض الولد سريعا here سريعا isn't considered a حال in Arabic grammar in the strict sense of the term.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> P.S. ركض الولد سريعا here سريعا isn't considered a حال in Arabic grammar in the strict sense of the term.


Hello Rayloom,
Couldn't سريعًا be حال if it was describing the boy?
I think the other option would be if it were describing the running, i.e. ركض الولد رَكْضًا سريعًا , in which case it would be a صفة or نعت ?


----------



## rayloom

daee said:


> Hello Rayloom,
> Couldn't سريعًا be حال if it was describing the boy?
> I think the other option would be if it were describing the running, i.e. ركض الولد رَكْضًا سريعًا , in which case it would be a صفة or نعت ?



Hello daee,
Yes it's considered in this sentence نائب عن المفعول المطلق, i.e. ركضا is the مفعول مطلق but is omitted, and its adjective remains. ركض الولد سريعا. It's like زرتك كثيرا or كلمته طويلا, you can see how that differs from what is typically considered a حال in Arabic.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> Hello daee,
> Yes it's considered in this sentence نائب عن المفعول المطلق, i.e. ركضا is the مفعول مطلق but is omitted, and its adjective remains. ركض الولد سريعا. It's like زرتك كثيرا or كلمته طويلا, you can see how that differs from what is typically considered a حال in Arabic.


Thank you, Rayloom, for the explanation. If I may take advantage of your kindness some more, could I ask if both حال and نائب عن المفعول المطلق are possible?
In the حال case the plural would be ركض الأولاد سِراعًا
while in the نائب عن المفعول المطلق case, it would remain ركض الأولاد سريعًا .
Is that possible, do you think?


----------



## rayloom

daee said:


> Thank you, Rayloom, for the explanation. If I may take advantage of your kindness some more, could I ask if both حال and نائب عن المفعول المطلق are possible?
> In the حال case the plural would be ركض الأولاد سِراعًا
> while in the نائب عن المفعول المطلق case, it would remain ركض الأولاد سريعًا .
> Is that possible, do you think?



I think it depends really on how one understands the sentence.
If سريعا is used as an adjective of صاحب الحال, then it would be considered a حال and not a نائب عن المفعول المطلق.
For example:
خُلق الفهد سريعا here سريعا is حال غير منتقلة. (That's if we understand it as "the panther was created fast", fast referring to the panther)
If we understand it as "the panther was created quickly" then سريعا would be نائب عن المفعول المطلق. 
So I don't think a حال and نائب عن المفعول المطلق can be applicable to the same word at the same time to give the same meaning.

Same for ركض الولد سريعا, most probably it would be understood that سريعا refers to the running, not to the kid being (inherently if one could say) fast.
It's more clear though with ركض الأولاد سراعا that سراعا refers to the (inherent) speed of the kids, and not to the running itself, so here it's a حال غير منتقلة.

And thanks for your kind words


----------



## Abu Talha

عفوًا يا أخي الكريم ، بل أنا المتشكر على إضافتك النافعة !


----------



## Lark-lover

> Muwahid:سأسافر عبر الأرض، باحثًا في كل مكان


I will roam over the earth; searching everywehre.


----------



## Abu Talha

rayloom said:


> I think it depends really on how one understands the sentence.
> If سريعا is used as an adjective of صاحب الحال, then it would be considered a حال and not a نائب عن المفعول المطلق.



I was thinking about the sentence, "They live near here." Which of these would be correct or preferred
هم يسكنون قريبا من هنا
or
هم يسكنون قريبين من هنا

? Thanks!


----------



## إسكندراني

قريباً which is a نعت for مكاناً


----------



## Abu Talha

إسكندراني said:


> قريباً which is a نعت for مكاناً


Thank you إسكندراني. 

One last question. For the sentence "They are near here." I think one can say either
هم قريبا من هنا
or
هم قريبون من هنا
or
هم قريبين من هنا

but not هم قريبٌ من هنا

Is that right? In any case, what is the preferred way to say it?

Thanks.


----------



## إسكندراني

هم قريبون
رأيت قريبين
جاء من قريبين


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

In this sentence جئتُ مشياً the word in red is maf3ûl mutlaq or hâl ?

Thank you.



rayloom said:


> Hello daee,
> Yes it's considered in this sentence نائب عن المفعول المطلق, i.e. ركضا  is the مفعول مطلق but is omitted, and its adjective remains. ركض الولد  سريعا. It's like زرتك كثيرا or كلمته طويلا, you can see how that differs from what is typically considered a حال in Arabic.



What is the analysis of these two examples in blue ?

Thank you.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

> In this sentence جئتُ مشياً the word in red is maf3ûl mutlaq or hâl ?



This is حال. It describes the state of the agent of the verb جئت.



> What is the analysis of these two examples in blue?



Both of the accusatives in these two examples ينوبان; that is, they stand in as a صفة for another omitted accusative. The question is, "Is this omitted accusative a مفعول مطلق or a ظرف زمان?"

In the first example, I think it is clear. It is a نائب عن المفعول المطلق صفة لمصدر محذوف. The original, or the تقدير, is:

زرتك زيارةً كثيرةً

In the second example, I think it is less clear, and it could be considered either a نائب عن المفعول المطلق صفة لمصدر محذوف or a نائب عن ظرف زمان. That is, the تقدير could either be:

كلمته كلاما طويلا 

or

كلمته وقتا طويلا

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

Thank you very much for these helpful answers.




lukebeadgcf said:


> This is حال. It describes the state of the agent of the verb جئت.



Yes I also think it is a haal but I have doubts because someone told me that the haal can not be a masdar*** (مشياً is masdar) and he gave this analysis :

مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف تقديره أمشي: جئت أمشي مشيا.الجملة "أمشي" في محل نصب على الحال​
If this is correct then it seems that the meaning of the following sentences is different:

With the masdar مشياً :f

 1- جئت أمشي مشيا  I came walking. (action of walking with emphasis, I do not know how to translate this emphasis in English).

 And with the Ismu-l-faa3il ماشٍ :f 

 2-I جئت ماشا  I came walking (ماش is a haal). I do not know how to write the word "ماشٍ" when it is mansûb, I am not sure.

I do not know if this analysis is correct, it's a difficult question.




lukebeadgcf said:


> Both of the accusatives in these two examples ينوبان; that is, they  stand in as a صفة for another omitted accusative. The question is, "Is  this omitted accusative a مفعول مطلق or a ظرف زمان?"
> 
> In the first example, I think it is clear. It is a نائب عن المفعول المطلق صفة لمصدر محذوف. The original, or the تقدير, is:
> 
> زرتك زيارةً كثيرةً
> 
> In the second example, I think it is less clear, and it could be  considered either a نائب عن المفعول المطلق صفة لمصدر محذوف or a نائب عن  ظرف زمان. That is, the تقدير could either be:
> 
> كلمته كلاما طويلا
> 
> or
> 
> كلمته وقتا طويلا
> 
> I hope that answers your question.



Very good, thank you very much for these helpful answers.

*-------- Edit :*

*** Ici http://www.arabtranslators.org/atn_g...g_noun_hal.htm il est dit qu'un masdar (indéfini) peut être hâl (un exemple est donné) :

*الحال ثلاثة أنواع: *
*1- اسم ظاهر: *
*- اسم ظاهر: *الحال الذي هو اسم ظاهر يكون وصفًا نكرة, يـبـين هيئة  صاحب الحال وقت حدوث الفعل ولا يكون ملازمًا له وهو يطابقه في النوع  والعدد: عادت الفتاة منـتصرةً, عادت الفتيات منـتصراتٍ, عاد الرجل  منـتصرًا. 
- *مصدر نكرة أو اسم جامد نكرة :*أتى الولد راكضًا (راكضًا: حال منصوب بالفتحة, مصدر) 
- سرنا يدًا بيد (يدًا: حال منصوبة بالفتحة, وهي اسم جامد).​


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Sorry for the delay.



> Yes I also think it is a haal but I have doubts because someone told me that the haal can not be a masdar*** (مشياً is masdar) and he gave this analysis :
> 
> مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف تقديره أمشي: جئت أمشي مشيا.الجملة "أمشي" في محل نصب على الحال



In turns out that there are different ways to interpret this construction. On this page (http://www.drmosad.com/index50.htm), Dr. مسعد محمد زياد states:
قد تأتي الحال مصدرا ، والتخريج لها في ذلك ، أن تكون مؤولة بالوصف ،  نحو : حضر الولد جريا ، ومات قهرا ، والتقدير : حضر الولد جاريا ، ومات مقهوراً ، وهو سماعي عند كثير من النحاة ، وقد قاسه البعض ، وهناك من جعل المصدر في هذا الباب منصوبا على المفعولية المطلقة ، والعامل فيه محذوف ، والتقدير : حضر الولد يجري جريا ، ونحوه . 

​A rough translation:


The حال may occur as a مصدر, and the justification for this is that it be interpreted as having an adjectival function. For example: [I will omit the example sentences. See above]. This is sanctioned as common convention by many philologists. However, there are those who consider the مصدر in this case to be منصوب by virtue of its being a مفعول مطلق, and have considered the عامل [the verb which "يعمل" in the حال to make it منصوب] to be omitted, which the implied sentence being: [See above for the example sentences].


So to summarize, it can either be a حال, standing in for a صفة, or it can be a مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف. 





> If this is correct then it seems that the meaning of the following sentences is different:
> 
> With the masdar مشياً :f
> 
> 1- جئت أمشي مشيا  I came walking. (action of walking with emphasis, I do not know how to translate this emphasis in English).
> 
> And with the Ismu-l-faa3il ماشٍ :f
> 
> 2-I جئت ماشيا  I came walking (ماشيا is a haal).
> 
> I do not know if this analysis is correct, it's a difficult question.



This is an interesting point about emphasis. When المفعول المطلق comes alone without a qualifying adjective, such as in أمشي مشيا, it is usually for التوكيد, or emphasis. So if we were to assume that مشيا is not حال but a مفعول مطلق, then جئت مشيا should somehow be more emphasized than جئت ماشيا, but I'm not sure this is the case as I have never read or heard such a thing. Ideas?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

lukebeadgcf said:


> Sorry for the delay.



No there is no reason to be sorry, on the contrary I thank you for your answers.



lukebeadgcf said:


> In turns out that there are different ways to interpret this construction. On this page (http://www.drmosad.com/index50.htm), Dr. مسعد محمد زياد states:
> قد تأتي الحال مصدرا ، والتخريج لها في ذلك ، أن تكون مؤولة بالوصف ،  نحو :  حضر الولد جريا ، ومات قهرا ، والتقدير : حضر الولد جاريا ، ومات مقهوراً ،  وهو سماعي عند كثير من النحاة ، وقد قاسه البعض ، وهناك من جعل المصدر في  هذا الباب منصوبا على المفعولية المطلقة ، والعامل فيه محذوف ، والتقدير :  حضر الولد يجري جريا ، ونحوه .
> 
> ​A rough translation:
> 
> 
> The حال may occur as a مصدر, and the justification for this is that it  be interpreted as having an adjectival function. For example: [I will  omit the example sentences. See above]. This is sanctioned as common  convention by many philologists. However, there are those who consider  the مصدر in this case to be منصوب by virtue of its being a مفعول مطلق,  and have considered the عامل [the verb which "يعمل" in the حال to make  it منصوب] to be omitted, which the implied sentence being: [See above  for the example sentences].
> 
> 
> So to summarize, it can either be a حال, standing in for a صفة, or it can be a مفعول مطلق لفعل محذوف.



 Thank you very much for this interesting passage.



lukebeadgcf said:


> This is an interesting point about emphasis. When المفعول المطلق comes  alone without a qualifying adjective, such as in أمشي مشيا, it is  usually for التوكيد, or emphasis. So if we were to assume that مشيا is  not حال but a مفعول مطلق, then جئت مشيا should somehow be more  emphasized than جئت ماشيا, but I'm not sure this is the case as I have  never read or heard such a thing. Ideas?



 No unfortunately I have no ideas.


----------

