# To have another language is to possess a second soul



## mbrynne

Hello!

I would like to translate this famous quote into Modern Standard Arabic, but I'm having some trouble:

"To have another language is to possess a second soul."

I would say something like this:

".لديك لغة أخرى هو ملك قلب ثاني"

But I'm sure there must be a better, more natural way to say it. I'm not sure how to say "to have." Can anyone help? Thank you!


----------



## elroy

My suggestion:

من لديه لغة أخرى يمتلك نفسًا ثانية


----------



## Matat

I would translate it as:
أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية


----------



## elroy

That does not sound natural, Matat.


----------



## Matat

The أن...أن construction is used in quotes in Arabic. There is nothing unnatural about it.

On an unrelated note though, نفس should be accusative in your sentence.


----------



## Abu Talha

Matat said:


> The أن...أن construction is used in quotes in Arabic. There is nothing unnatural about it.


I've seen constructions like أن تفعل كذا خير من أن ... but I haven't seen أن...أن without some word comparing or equalizing the two. Do you happen you to know any such quotes?

What does anyone have to say about these options
علم لغة دون لغتك كملك نفس دون نفسك
إن علمت لغة دون لغتك فكأنك ملكت نفسا دون نفسك
?
I don't have high hopes for them. Just an exercise in creative writing.


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> The أن...أن construction is used in quotes in Arabic. There is nothing unnatural about it.


 It sounds unnatural to me, as a native speaker.  I'd be interested in hearing how other native speakers feel about it. 





> On an unrelated note though, نفس should be accusative in your sentence.


 You are right.  Edited for the original poster's benefit. 


Abu Talha said:


> علم لغة دون لغتك كملك نفس دون نفسك
> إن علمت لغة دون لغتك فكأنك ملكت نفسا دون نفسك


These don't sound very natural to me either.  Particularly the use of دون kind of distances the langauge/soul from the person involved, which is sort of the opposite of what the quote is trying to say.  Also, the repetition of لغة and نفس makes the sentences sound wordy.


----------



## Matat

Abu Talha said:


> Do you happen you to know any such quotes?


I don't happen to know any off the top of my head, though I do recall seeing this form being used before. Using Google, I did find a couple examples. One example here is allegedly quoting an Egyptian author. Another one here is written by a journalist, and one here is written as the title of an article on a poet's blog.
Additionally, from a grammatical point of view, there is nothing wrong with this construction.


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks Elroy, Matat.


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

mbrynne said:


> "To have another language is to possess a second soul."
> ".لديك لغة أخرى هو ملك قلب ثاني"


We often use verbal noun of form 8 (امتلاك)=to possess, own, have.
امتلاك لغة أخرى هو امتلاك نفس ثانية 
I will change two words.
معرفة لغة أخرى تعني امتلاك نفس ثانية
To know another language means to possess a second soul.



Matat said:


> أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية


أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى يعني أنك تملك روحاً ثانية



Abu Talha said:


> علم لغة دون لغتك كملك نفس دون نفسك


تعلم لغة غير لغتك كامتلاك نفس غير نفسك


Abu Talha said:


> إن علمت لغة دون لغتك فكأنك ملكت نفسا دون نفسك


إن تعلمت لغة غير لغتك فكأنك ملكت نفساً غير نفسك


----------



## ahmedu2

إن تعلم لغة ثانية كامتلاك روح أخرى


----------



## Matat

Ashraf Mahmoud said:


> أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى يعني أنك تملك روحاً ثانية


Yes, this also works, but the يعني أنك is not a direct translation. I think my original translation is more direct. 



ahmedu2 said:


> إن تعلم لغة ثانية كامتلاك روح أخرى


This isn't a complete sentence.


----------



## ahmedu2

why do yo say that it's a very complete sentence ?
can you give me the reason that makes you think so and i can help you then?


----------



## Matat

ahmedu2 said:


> why do yo say that it's a very complete sentence ?
> can you give me the reason that makes you think so and i can help you then?



الجملة التي كتبتها جملة شرطية حيث جواب الشرط جملة اسمية. لذا يجب اقترانها بالفاء ويجب أن يكون لها مبتدأ. فيجب أن تكون الجملة:

إن تعلم لغة ثانية فهو كامتلاك روح أخرى

والأفضل أن يوجه الشرط للمخاطب بدلا من الغائب وأن يضاف (امتلاك) إلى كاف المخاطب نحو:

إن تعلمت لغة ثانية فهو كامتلاكك روحا أخرى

لكن على أية حال فهذه الجملة ليست ترجمة صحيحة للجلمة الأصلية.


----------



## elroy

Matat, you misread ahmedu2's sentence, which is perfectly grammatical.  The first two words are إنَّ تَعَلُّمَ, not إنْ تَعَلَّمَ!  The fact that you thought a native speaker would use an entirely unjustified third-person verb form with no referent (and complete the sentence in an absurdly ungrammatical manner, at that) is pretty insulting, to be honest.


----------



## Matat

Ah, I see. No insult intended. It was an honest mistake on my part. There is no need to dramatize the issue.


----------



## Mazhara

من لديه لغة أخرى يمتلك نفسًا ثانية

Is there no need of "fa" in the apodosis clause!


----------



## ahmedu2

معذرة هذه ليست جمله شرط نهائيا فيوجد فرق بين إنَّ و إن فالاولى حرف ناسخ  للتوكيد والثانية حرف شرط وأنا أقصد الاولى فابالطبع  اذا كنت أريد الثانية لاقترن جواب الشرط بالفاء وايضا تعلُّم و تَعَلَّم وتتعلم فالاولى مصدر خماسى والثانية فعل ماض والثالثة فعل مضارع وأنا أقصد الاولى 

My friend Matat Arabic's my native language and i know definitely what  i write and i'm sorry you have completely misread my  correct sentence whether its grammar or its meaning

لا يصح فى لغتنا العربية ان نقول ان شخص يمتلك لغة فهى ليست شيئا ماديا نمتلكه
بينما يصح ذللك فى الانجليزية ولذلك عبرت عن الامتلاك بالتعلم


----------



## Mazhara

Thanks ahemdu 2

معذرة هذه ليست جمله شرط نهائيا فيوجد فرق بين إنَّ و إن فالاولى حرف ناسخ للتوكيد والثانية حرف شرط وأنا أقصد الاولى

Am I correct in presuming that إنَّ was elided before من but can be estimated in:

من لديه لغة أخرى يمتلك نفسًا ثانية


----------



## Matat

ahmedu2 said:


> My friend Matat Arabic's my native language and i know definitely what i write and i'm sorry you have completely misread my correct sentence whether its grammar or its meaning


Lol. There is no need for you to apologize. It was my mistake. Your sentence was correct.



Mazhara said:


> من لديه لغة أخرى يمتلك نفسًا ثانية
> 
> Is there no need of "fa" in the apodosis clause!



No. I don't know whether you can or can't consider this a conditional sentence, but even assuming that it is, there is no need to use a فـ if the apodosis starts with a verb (with the exception of a few verbs).


----------



## ahmedu2

Never mind! i'm very pleased to help you in any time


----------



## cherine

Hi,

I just want to say that I agree with Elroy and the others who said that the structure أن تفعل أن تفعل doesn't sound natural, and to add that it is not a full sentence like the English one is. This is like saying "to have another language, to have another soul". It could sound poetic, but it is not natural and, again, it feels -and is- incomplete.


----------



## Matat

cherine said:


> and to add that it is not a full sentence like the English one is.


It is a complete sentence. It's a جملة اسمية with a subject (أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى) and a predicate (أن تملك روحا ثانية). Translating it as "to have another language, to have another soul" is a word-for-word translation from Arabic to English. As you are aware, Arabic nominal sentences don't have to have a copula. When I say خالد طويل, this is translated word-for-word as "Khalid tall", but in Arabic it is understood as "Khalid is tall". The same thing would apply with the original sentence I wrote.


----------



## Mazhara

It's a جملة اسمية with a subject (أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى)

Is it a nominal sentence when first word أن is a subjunctive particle? In grand Qur'aan I have not seen it at the beginning of a sentence.


----------



## Matat

Mazhara said:


> Is it a nominal sentence when first word أن is a subjunctive particle?


Yes. The sentence that is part of a masdari particle is a nominal word/phrase in disguise. You can think of the sentence as:
كون لغة أخرى لديك (هو) ملكك روحا ثانية
One would probably add the ضمير الفصل of هو without the masdari particle.



Mazhara said:


> In grand Qur'aan I have not seen it at the beginning of a sentence.


This occurs a few times in the Quran. Example:
وَإِن كَانَ ذُو عُسْرَةٍ فَنَظِرَةٌ إِلَىٰ مَيْسَرَةٍ ۚ *وَأَن تَصَدَّقُوا خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ* ۖ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
2:280


----------



## cherine

Matat said:


> It is a complete sentence. It's a جملة اسمية with a subject (أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى) and a predicate (أن تملك روحا ثانية).


I don't think this is correct, even I can't explain why. Sorry. These just feel like two disjoint phrases and not one full nominal sentence. If there was a pronoun or a verb أن تملك لغة ثانية يعني أن تملك روحًا ثانية or أن تملك لغة ثانية هو امتلاك روح ثانية this would be correct as far as I know.


> Translating it as "to have another language, to have another soul" is a word-for-word translation from Arabic to English. As you are aware, Arabic nominal sentences don't have to have a copula. When I say خالد طويل, this is translated word-for-word as "Khalid tall", but in Arabic it is understood as "Khalid is tall". The same thing would apply with the original sentence I wrote.


I don't think so. خالد طويل does have a مبتدأ وخبر, but the two phrases you proposed don't, and this is why saying that "to have another language, to have another sould" is just a "word-for word translation" is also incorrect, because the Arabic phrases feel exactly like this English translation.


Matat said:


> Yes. The sentence that is part of a masdari particle is a nominal word/phrase in disguise. You can think of the sentence as:
> كون لغة أخرى لديك (هو) ملكك روحا ثانية
> One would probably add the ضمير الفصل of هو without the masdari particle.


Sorry to repeat myself, but without that pronoun the sentence is incomplete.


> This occurs a few times in the Quran. Example:
> وَإِن كَانَ ذُو عُسْرَةٍ فَنَظِرَةٌ إِلَىٰ مَيْسَرَةٍ ۚ *وَأَن تَصَدَّقُوا خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ* ۖ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
> 2:280


Correct. And the verse does have a full sentence with a mubtada2 أن تصدَّقوا and a khabar خير. Which is not the same with your suggested translation. It is not the same structure.


----------



## Matat

cherine said:


> I don't think so. خالد طويل does have a مبتدأ وخبر, but the two phrases you proposed don't,



I don't understand your argument. There is a مبتدأ وخبر in my sentence, as I already pointed out. Where does your disagreement lie? Do you disagree that أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى is the مبتدأ? Or do you disagree that أن تملك روحا ثانية is the خبر? Or both? If so, what conditions of the مبتدأ وخبر is it/are they violating?



cherine said:


> Sorry to repeat myself, but without that pronoun the sentence is incomplete.


ضمير الفصل is never necessary, though it is highly recommended when the predicate is definite in order for one not to confuse the predicate with an adjective. Removing it, however, does not make the sentence incomplete.



cherine said:


> Correct. And the verse does have a full sentence with a mubtada2 أن تصدَّقوا and a khabar خير. Which is not the same with your suggested translation. It is not the same structure.


Yes, it's not the exact same structure, but it's the same concept. The only difference is that with the sentence I presented, it extends to both the مبتدأ وخبر instead of just the مبتدأ. Now, not only is there a masdari sentence which takes the place of the مبتدأ, but now there are masdari sentences which take the place of both the مبتدأ and خبر.


----------



## elroy

Cherine's argument is that it sounds unnatural and incomplete and is not used in _Modern _Standard Arabic, whether or not it appears to fit into a neat grammatical category that is far removed from everyday usage.  I fully agree with Cherine that it definitely sounds _exactly_ like "to have X, to have Y."  I also take issue with your claim that ضمير الفصل is "never necessary"; _no _native speaker would every say or write, for example, الرئيس القائد, to mean "The president _is_ the leader."   So if you want to use the language _the way it's used today by native speakers_, then yes, it _is_ necessary in certain situations.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> Cherine's argument is that it sounds unnatural and incomplete and is not used in _Modern _Standard Arabic,


Maybe in normal conversations this is true. When speaking about quotes, this kind of artistic style is not unnatural. The original English sentence "To have another language is to possess a second soul" sounds unnatural to me. The construction "to....is to" sounds like much more of something I'd here in a poem than something I'd hear anyone actually say in a conversation. This is different than saying you can't use it at all in the context of quotes.

Moreover, I've personally seen this instruction used by native speakers a few times. I even did a quick Google Search and provided a few examples above (keep in mind that trying to find a certain construction is not an easy thing to do), including this one:
أن تعرف أكثر أن تحزن أكثر
written by not simply any journalist, but one who happens to be the most followed Arab journalist on Facebook in the entire Middle-East. Reading through the comments on Facebook, his followers comprehended what was being said. In fact, some of the comments on that same page by native speakers included responses using a similar أن...أن construction. Examples include:
ان نفرح أكثر ان تعرف اقل
ان تعرف أكثر ألا تتفاجأ
ان تكذب أكثر ان تنافق أكثر
ان تخون اكثر يا فيصل القاسم ان تسقط اكثر

It might not be a common conversation starter, but it certainly has been used and I've seen it used enough times to disagree with your assertion that it is unnatural. I was certainly not the first one to use such a construction. This is in addition to it satisfying the necessary grammatical criteria.



elroy said:


> I also take issue with your claim that ضمير الفصل is "never necessary";


I was speaking from a technical and purely grammatical side. I didn't fully insert ضمير الفصل because I was showing Mazhara the conversion from (أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية) to (كون لغة لديك (هو) ملكك روحا ثانية). I would agree that you should put it in the second sentence, but I didn't so that he wouldn't wonder where that extra هو would come from. As for the original sentence, I don't think the conditions are satisfied for ضمير الفصل to be placed before a masdari particle, but I'm not completely certain of this. The commoner form is not to put it. Even in MSA, saying ...المشكلة أنّ is more common than ...المشكلة هي أن.


----------



## elroy

MSA is not used in normal conversations.  The English sentence is not an everyday utterance, but it's not syntactically jarring, as your suggestion is.  Yes, you've presented all of three Google results, but that's hardly enough evidence to support your claim that there is "nothing unnatural" about it.

You can choose to continue to discredit the intuitions of native speakers, but that doesn't change the fact that your suggestion is decidedly unnatural and non-native.  If you use it, you're likely to give yourself away as a non-native speaker. 

Whether I would use المشكلة هي أن or المشكلة أن depends on the context and the overall structure of what I was saying/writing.  I don't think we can categorically say that one is more common than the other.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> You can choose to continue to discredit the intuitions of native speakers, but that doesn't change the fact that your suggestion is decidedly unnatural and non-native. If you use it, you're likely to give yourself away as a non-native speaker.


Elroy, I edited my comment recently and provided five examples written by the intuition of native speakers. This is in addition to two other examples written by poets which I cited in a much earlier comment. How can I be discrediting native speakers and have my suggestion be non-native when I'm citing numerous examples written by native speakers, including one by the most followed journalist in the middle-east, using the same construction? 
This is on top of the fact that there is nothing grammatically incorrect about the sentence in the first place.


----------



## cherine

Matat said:


> Where does your disagreement lie? Do you disagree that أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى is the مبتدأ? Or do you disagree that أن تملك روحا ثانية is the خبر? Or both? If so, what conditions of the مبتدأ وخبر is it/are they violating?


I disagree with the second phrase being a khabar. What condition does it violate? I wasn't sure how to express this, so I went back to an elementary grammar book, and here is what it says about الخبر الجملة (there are 3 types of khabars: مفرد، جملة، شبه جملة for those who don't know):
لا بد أن تشتمل جملة الخبر على ضمير يربطها بالمبتدأ ويطابقه في النوع والعدد
I don't see any pronoun in the second phrase. It's that missing link that makes the two parts unrelated in one full sentence.



Matat said:


> Maybe in normal conversations this is true. When speaking about quotes, this kind of artistic style is not unnatural.


Artistic license is just that, a license, we can't go from there to say that something used for artistic effect is a natural thing that can be used in every situation and still sound natural.


> أن تعرف أكثر أن تحزن أكثر
> written by not simply any journalist, but one who happens to be the most followed Arab journalist on Facebook in the entire Middle-East. Reading through the comments on Facebook, his followers were comprehended what was being said. In fact, some of the comments on that same page by native speakers included responses using a similar أن...أن construction. Examples include:
> ان نفرح أكثر ان تعرف اقل
> ان تعرف أكثر ألا تتفاجأ
> ان تكذب أكثر ان تنافق أكثر
> ان تخون اكثر يا فيصل القاسم ان تسقط اكثر
> It might not be a common conversation starter, but it certainly has been used and I've seen it used enough times to disagree with your assertion that it is unnatural. I was certainly not the first one to use such a construction. This is in addition to it satisfying the necessary grammatical criteria.


I won't comment on Faysal as I've never seen him and maybe also never read anything written by him, but the sentence he wrote is surely made with that artistic license we/I mentioned. It does not make it a natural and common structure. Another proof is that some of the replies are so artificial they barely make any sense.
Imagine someone thinking he's following Shakespeare's example and comes up with what he believes he something literary, or even poetic, like: to eat or not to eat, to sleep or not to sleep, to leave or not leave....etc. Would that sound natural to you?


----------



## Mazhara

cherine,

Thanks. It is educative for me, non Arab. Would this become a proper sentence:

أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى كذالك أن تملك روحا ثانية

أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى قد أخذت روحا ثانية


----------



## elroy

Mazhara said:


> أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى كذالك أن تملك روحا ثانية
> 
> أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى قد أخذت روحا ثانية


 No, neither of these works.

I still think my suggestion in #2 fits the bill: 

من لديه لغة أخرى يمتلك نفسًا ثانية


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> Whether I would use المشكلة هي أن or المشكلة أن depends on the context and the overall structure of what I was saying/writing. I don't think we can categorically say that one is more common than the other.



I don't see how the context would in any way change the effect of the sentence between المشكلة أن and المشكلة هي أن. Can you give me an example where you would use the first, but not the second? And one where you would use the second, but not the first? I searched on Google News for "المشكلة أن" here and 33,400 results came up compared to "المشكلة هي أن" here which got only 5,140 results. Similarly, I searched for "المشكلة أنه" here and "المشكلة هي أنه" here and got 5187 results vs. 1110 results.  It's about a 6:1 and 5:1 ratio of without the ضمير الفصل compared to with it, so I think it's safe to say that in MSA, the more common form is not to include ضمير الفصل. This is irrespective of whether or not it is grammatically correct to even include, which I'm not certain of.


cherine said:


> I disagree with the second phrase being a khabar. What condition does it violate? I wasn't sure how to express this, so I went back to an elementary grammar book, and here is what it says about الخبر الجملة (there are 3 types of khabars: مفرد، جملة، شبه جملة for those who don't know):
> لا بد أن تشتمل جملة الخبر على ضمير يربطها بالمبتدأ ويطابقه في النوع والعدد
> I don't see any pronoun in the second phrase. It's that missing link that makes the two parts unrelated in one full sentence.



أن تملك روحا ثانية is not a خبر الجملة.  A property of الخبر الجملة is that if you were take out the مبتدأ, then the خبر could act as a sentence by itself. For example:
Example #1. السيارة لم تعمل
Example #2. السيارة لا أريد أن أركبها
Example #3. السيارة لونها أخضر
In each of these cases, if we were to take out the مبتدأ (which is السيارة), we would be left with a complete sentence. The خبر in each of these sentences are examples of الخبر الجملة.
With أن تملك روحا ثانية, this is not a complete sentence on its own and thus not a خبر الجملة.

Second, you didn't claim this, but just in case, I would like to point out that the ضمير being referenced in the grammar book you quoted is not ضمير الفصل. Rather, it's referring to a pronoun within the sentence of the predicate itself which links back to the subject (e.g. السيارة). Using the three examples I just gave, in example #1, that pronoun the book is talking about is the فاعل of تعمل, which is a ضمير مستتر of the form هي. In example #2, that ضمير is the ـها of أركبها. In the example #3, it's the ـها of لونها.

Third, consider the following verse:
*قَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ آيَةَ مُلْكِهِ أَن يَأْتِيَكُمُ التَّابُوتُ فِيهِ سَكِينَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَبَقِيَّةٌ مِّمَّا تَرَكَ آلُ مُوسَىٰ وَآلُ هَارُونَ تَحْمِلُهُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ 
Quran 2:48*
Here is the I3raab provided from a book:


> (إِنَّ آيَةَ) إن واسمها (مُلْكِهِ) مضاف إليه (أَنْ يَأْتِيَكُمُ) *المصدر المؤول في محل رفع خبر إن *وجملة (إِنَّ آيَةَ) مقول القول: (التَّابُوتُ)فاعل (فِيهِ) متعلقان بمحذوف خبر مقدم (سَكِينَةٌ) مبتدأ مؤخر (مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ) متعلقان بمحذوف صفة سكينة والجملة في محل نصب حال من التابوت (وَبَقِيَّةٌ) عطف على سكينة(مِمَّا) ما اسم موصول في محل جر بحرف الجر والجار والمجرور متعلقان بمحذوف صفة لبقية



Consider إن آية ملكه أن يأتيكم التابوت. Here, أن يأتيكم التابوت is the predicate of the sentence (note the part after it, فيه سكينة, is a حال) as referenced in the book. The predicate أن يأتكيم التابوت does not have a pronoun which refers back to آية ملكه. Nor is there a ضمير الفضل before أن. This predicate is also an incomplete sentence by itself so it would not be classified as a خبر جملة. It is actually a مفرد in disguise, because you would think of it using المصدر المؤول.

Using this concept, أن تملك روحا ثانية is also the خبر and is a مفرد. It is like saying ملكك روحا ثانية.
The full sentence أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية is grammatically sound.


cherine said:


> Artistic license is just that, a license, we can't go from there to say that something used for artistic effect is a natural thing that can be used in every situation and still sound natural. I won't comment on Faysal as I've never seen him and maybe also never read anything written by him, but the sentence he wrote is surely made with that artistic license we/I mentioned. It does not make it a natural and common structure. Another proof is that some of the replies are so artificial they barely make any sense.
> Imagine someone thinking he's following Shakespeare's example and comes up with what he believes he something literary, or even poetic, like: to eat or not to eat, to sleep or not to sleep, to leave or not leave....etc. Would that sound natural to you?



There are common artistic styles and there are unique ones used by certain individuals. The original English sentence is itself artistic. It is not natural for one to say "To have another language is to possess a second soul" in English outside of one using a rhythmic tone such as what one might post as a Facebook status. This "To...is to..." structure also doesn't have a particular source. It is a stylistic structure that anyone can use and one that has been used. This is not comparable to a structure which has a unique source like Shakespeare's constructions. In Arabic, the same thing is argued. The أن...أن structure is not unique to a particular individual. I have myself seen it used on occasion, and I pointed out different sources which have used it. It is a stylistic structure that can be used and has been used by many people.


----------



## cherine

Matat said:


> With أن تملك روحا ثانية, this is not a complete sentence on its own and thus not a خبر الجملة.


Yes. So where is the khabar of the sentence?  Isn't this what I've been trying to say; that we don't have a full sentence here?


> Second, you didn't claim this, but just in case, I would like to point out that the ضمير being referenced in the grammar book you quoted is not ضمير الفصل.


Yes, I didn't claim this, nor did the book. But there has to be a pronoun to link the two parts of the sentence. Something we don't have which, again, makes this an incomplete sentence.


> Using this concept, أن تملك روحا ثانية is also the خبر and is a مفرد. It is like saying ملكك روحا ثانية.
> The full sentence أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية is grammatically sound.


I think I understand what you want to say here, but this still is, or at least feels, an incomplete sentence. And you cannot compare this odd structure to the one in the verse you quoted. Because while the second part is slightly similar, the first part is not, so the comparison doesn't stand.


> There are common artistic styles and there are unique ones used by certain individuals. The original English sentence is itself artistic. It is not natural for one to say "To have another language is to possess a second soul" in English outside of one using a rhythmic tone such as what one might post as a Facebook status. This "To...is to..." structure also doesn't have a particular source. It is a stylistic structure that anyone can use and one that has been used. This is not comparable to a structure which has a unique source like Shakespeare's constructions. In Arabic, the same thing is argued. The أن...أن structure is not unique to a particular individual. I have myself seen it used on occasion, and I pointed out different sources which have used it. It is a stylistic structure that can be used and has been used by many people.


I believe we won't reach any point of agreement here. You still believe you're right, I still disagree, so let's drop this here.

But from my point of view, and based on what I believe is correct, I'll reply to Mazhara's post:


Mazhara said:


> Would this become a proper sentence:
> أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى كذالك أن تملك روحا ثانية
> أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى قد أخذت روحا ثانية


For the first sentence, you can say أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى كأن تملك روحًا ثانية or even better أن تملك/تعرف لغة ثانية كأنك ملكت روحًا ثانية
For the second sentence, you better not use أخذ with روح because "taking a soul" is widely used to mean to kill or to cause the death of someone.

The sentence can be translated in so many ways. Here are a few other suggestions:
إذا عَرِفْتَ لغةً ثانيةً مَلَكْتَ روحًا/نَفْسًا ثانية
أن تعرف لغة أخرى فكأنك ملكتَ روحًا/نفسًا أخرى
إذا عرفتَ لغة أخرى فكأنك ملكت روحًا/نفسًا أخرى
....etc


----------



## Mazhara

Thanks cherine


----------



## Matat

cherine said:


> I believe we won't reach any point of agreement here. You still believe you're right, I still disagree, so let's drop this here.


Don't drop it here. Part of the lack of agreement is that, based on your response, I don't think you followed my logic and what I was attempting to say. So, also based on your response, I'll clarify what I was trying to say and articulate it as best I can. Please read my comment fully and carefully. If you do, I'm hopeful we can reach an agreement by the time you finish reading this comment that it is a grammatically correct sentence, regardless whether we agree about it being natural or not.



cherine said:


> Yes. So where is the khabar of the sentence?


The full sentence is أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية. The khabar is أن تملك روحا ثانية.



cherine said:


> Isn't this what I've been trying to say; that we don't have a full sentence here?


No. You misunderstood.
Let's summarize:
Facts about the خبر we agree on:
1. The خبر can be of three forms, either a مفرد or شبه جملة or جملة.

2. A خبر الجملة is one of the three types of خبر which has properties of
a) it has a pronoun within the predicate itself which links back to the مبتدأ and
b) if you were to take out the مبتدأ from the sentence, the خبر by itself could be a complete sentence.

Your argument:
So what you're saying is that the خبر (i.e. أن تملك روحا ثانية) is a خبر الجملة. What you're then arguing is that because a) it _*does not*_ have a pronoun within the predicate which links back to the مبتدأ and b) because it *can not* act as a full sentence on its own without a مبتدأ,
⇒ then the خبر is incorrect because it violates the properties of الخبر الجملة (and thus the full sentence of is incorrect).

The issue with your argument:
The problem with your argument is that you incorrectly classified the خبر of the sentence as a خبر الجملة. *The خبر is actually a مفرد, not خبر الجملة *(we'll get to this in a moment), nor is it intended as being a خبر الجملة.
The خبر has to have a pronoun which links back to the مبتدأ and has to be complete sentence on its own *only if *it is a خبر الجملة.
If it is a مفرد, then the خبر does not have to be a complete sentence on its own nor have a pronoun which links back to the مبتدأ. 
When one says خالد طويل, the word طويل is the خبر. The word طويل does not have a pronoun which links back to the مبتدأ. Nor is طويل a complete sentence on its own. This is absolutely fine, because طويل is not a خبر الجملة; it is a مفرد.


The Example and Conclusion:
I presented the following verse in the Quran:
إنّ آية ملكه أنْ يأتيكم التابوت

The predicate of the verse is أن يأتيكم التابوت.
The predicate of the sentence we are looking at is أن تملك روحا ثانية.
These are predicates of similar structures, the structure which you said you have a problem with being a khabar.

1. You said that أن تملك روحا ثانية is an invalid khabar because it is an incomplete sentence on its own when the subject is taken away.
------*The predicate of the verse (i.e. أن يأتيكم التابوت) is also an incomplete sentence on its own when the subject is taken away.*

2. You said that أن تملك روحا ثانية is an invalid khabar because it does not have a pronoun which links back to the مبتدأ.
------*The predicate of the verse (i.e. أن يأتيكم التابوت) also doesn't have a pronoun which links back to the مبتدأ.*

.......Why is the predicate of the verse like this and why is the predicate of my sentence like this?* Because they are not a خبر الجملة. They are both a مفرد. This is because you would consider the masdari phrase as if it was a single masdar/word in disguise. The مفرد is المصدر المؤول. *

Going by the premise that the Quranic verse's predicate is valid, the predicate in the sentence we are discussing is also valid.



cherine said:


> I think I understand what you want to say here, but this still is, or at least feels, an incomplete sentence. And you cannot compare this odd structure to the one in the verse you quoted. Because while the second part is slightly similar, the first part is not, so the comparison doesn't stand.



The second part was the point. You didn't have a problem with my subject. You agreed that you can have a masdari phrase as the subject. You had a problem with my predicate. You said the problem with my sentence was with the predicate because the predicate didn't have a pronoun which links back to the subject. I thus showed you a verse which has a predicate of a similar structure which also doesn't have a pronoun which links back to the subject. You also have a problem with the predicate in my sentence being an incomplete sentence on its own. I thus showed you that same verse whose predicate is of a similar structure as my sentence is an incomplete sentence on its own without a subject. The comparison is quite valid.

Moreover, there are two verses now that we have considered. It has been shown that a masdari sentence can take the place of the subject:
وأنْ تصدقوا خير لكم
which you agreed to.
It has also been shown that a masdari sentence can take the place of the predicate, without having a pronoun which links back to the subject, and without the predicate being a complete sentence on its own:
إن آية ملكه أن يأتيكم التابوت

Now, instead of just putting a masdari sentence only in the subject (like the first verse), and instead of putting it only in the predicate (like the second verse), since I can put in both, I did just that. This is not a stretch of logic. This is a simple derivation and extrapolation which follows logically. It's the exact same concept.
أن تكون لديك لغة أخرى أن تملك روحا ثانية is a nominal sentence with a valid subject and a valid predicate, thus completing the requirements for a nominal sentence, and does not violate the properties of a nominal sentence. 

Regardless of your gut feeling about the sentence, I hope we can at least agree that there is no clear grammatical violation which can be argued, unless you have other thoughts or any counter-arguments to what was just said.


----------

