# Egyptian Arabic: b- ب with attributive verbs (حاجة تنرفز)



## makala

Why is the follOwing sentence without ''bi'' ''DI HAGA TINARFIS'' and not ''DI HAGA BITNARFIS''  ? ''This thing is annoying''


----------



## clevermizo

There is some more flexibility in Egyptian Arabic with using the _b-_ prefix in contexts which in, say, Levantine Arabic, it would be mandatory.

However, it's hard to tell from such a short phrase. Do you have a larger context?


----------



## makala

I am not sure that context would help, but here it is:
يا صلاح, الحنفيه بتاعه المطبخ خسرانه. طول الليل وهي بتنقط,ومش مخليه حد ينام. دي حاجه تنرفس.


----------



## clevermizo

So I was curious about this. In a Levantine dialect I would say _shi binarvez _شي ب(يـ)نرفز. I did some searching on Google with حاجة ترنفز vs. حاجة بتنرفز. I was only able to find it without _b-_.

We should obviously wait for someone who speaks Egyptian natively or is otherwise more knowledgeable, but my immediate hypothesis was that if you are going to use a verb almost as if it is صفة - meaning describing the quality of an object versus an actual "action", then you don't use _b-_.

To test this, I "Egyptian"ized some things from Levantine Arabic to see whether I could find them on the Internet with or without _b-_. (**I list transliteration below for clarity, but all my searches were in Arabic. The reason is I tried a variety of spellings for words, so there's no need to list them all here.)

1. _shī ma byin2āl_: Something which is not said/unspeakable
I tried _7āga ma btet2alsh_ and _7āga ma tet2alsh_ (with a variety of spellings like حاجة ما بتتقالش and حاجة مبتتقلش or حاجة متتقالش etc.) and I was only able to find examples without _b-_.

2. _shī bijannen_: Something "maddening"
I tried _7āga tejannen_ and _7āga betjannen_ and I was only able to find _7āga tejannen_.

3. _shī ma btitsadda2_: Something "unbelievable"
I tried _7āga ma tetsadda2sh _as well as _7āga ma btetsadda2sh_. I could only find ما تتسدقش or متتسدقش.

So again my theory is that in Egyptian, if you are using a verb to qualify a noun (like an adjective), rather than describe "what it's doing" (like a verb), then you don't use this _b-_ prefix. However I'm sure this is subject to variation because there is not just one "Egyptian dialect" but many.

Just a theory. How do other Egyptian-speaking foreros like it?


----------



## Rosamond

Hello, Clevermizo,

I had a hard time getting my head around your theory. It is laudable, though. The problem is that Egyptians do not follow "rules" when they speak in colloquial. It is one of the deformities of the beautiful classical Arabic; that's all.

Well, realistically speaking, it needs not concern you, Makala. Yes, we usually use the form without "bi", but if you use it the meaning will not be altered and you will be equally understood.In fact, I can safely assure you, no one would notice the difference to begin with! We smoothly shift between all forms and even come up with queer ones as we speak, and it is still okay. So this is not quite the thing to busy yourself with, if I may have a say.



By the way, it is *حاجة تنرف**ز *''DI HAGA TINARFIz'' (you can eve omit "Di")

Fragrant Regards,,,


----------



## clevermizo

Rosamond said:


> In fact, I can safely assure you, no one would notice the difference to begin with! We smoothly shift between all forms and even come up with queer one as we speak.



So, I can say عايز بَروح المطعم and it does not sound strange?

 Or you mean specifically in the case of حاجة ما تتسدقش or حاجة تنرفز, etc it would not sound strange?


----------



## Josh_

Rosamond said:


> Hello, Clevermizo,
> 
> I had a hard time getting my head around your theory. It is laudable, though. The problem is that Egyptians do not follow "rules" when they speak in colloquial. It is one of the deformities of the beautiful classical Arabic; that's all.


This is off topic for this thread, but I feel compelled to respond anyway.  I hear the claim that colloquial language has no rules every so often and it bothers me because it is absolutely untrue.  Speaking specifically about the Egyptian dialect, I can say for sure that it has rules that are followed. 

If a language truly had no rules and anything could go I imagine it would be quite difficult to understand what a speaker says.

I wonder if the idea that dialects don't have rules stems from the fact that colloquial is not formally taught in schools the way fusHa is. Thus students do not associate rules with colloquial speech which in turn leads to the erroneous notion that there are no rules.  Who knows.

At any rate, to the topic at hand:

Clevermizo,
As _Haaga_ is feminine it should be used with the feminine conjugation of the verbs -- _Haaga ma-tit2alsh/ma-btit2alsh, Haaga tigannin/bitgannin_, etc.   When I did some searches I got different numbers of returns, but it seems like it didn't matter whether I searched with or without the bi- prefix -- searching with bi- I would still get results that did not have the bi- prefix.

At any rate, I am not sure how to account for this other then saying it might be an exception.  Perhaps the presence of _Haaga_ before the verb affects it some how.

I will think about this more and respond again if I have any new thoughts.


----------



## clevermizo

Josh_ said:


> As _Haaga_ is feminine it should be used with the feminine conjugation of the verbs -- _Haaga ma-tit2alsh/ma-btit2alsh, Haaga tigannin/bitgannin_, etc.



Oops!! Actually when I did my searches I _did_ in fact use the correct feminine form. When I was composing my post however, I think I still had the word _shī_ شي on my mind which is masculine! I corrected my post above. And I found the same thing you did - even when I searched adding ب into the spelling, I still got results without it.

I have a feeling that this is just an exception with this particular sort of structure and has less to do with the word حاجة itself. Suppose I replaced it with something else. What about قصة? If I want to say: That's an unbelievable story! Would I say: دي قصة ما تتصدّقش or دي قصة ما بتتصدّقش? (I did some searching and I only found قصة ما تتصدقش or spelled متتصدقش. Interestingly I didn't not find متتسدقش as common a spelling with س although I thought it was pronounced this way. In any case, I didn't find the structure with بـ).


----------



## Egyptlover

Well, as an Egyptian, may I have a word here? First of all, I want to say that in this context we won't say “بتنرفز” but definitely “تنرفز”. Now, let me explain it (I’ll try my best and I hope it’ll be clear). When we say:  “حاجة تنرفز”, “حاجة تضايق”, “حاجة متتصدقش”, “حاجة تشرح القلب”, “حاجة تجنن” ….. etc. we’re talking about something generally feels that way :  “That's irritating”, “That's annoying”, “That's unbelievable”, “That's cheerful”, “That's maddening”,….etc . I mean it's not that it seems so only to someone in particular, but anyone will feel the same way about it, but when I say: “بتضايق”, “بتنرفز”, …. ,I’ll have to mention the person who feels like that about it, like: “الحكاية دي بتجنني، بتضايقني، بتنرفزني،...... إلخ” (Note: this's different from the context in question); so we can say that the “بـ” is added when we’re talking about certain person and then we should mention this person as in the examples above. That was the first difference. Another one is…umm….well, I’ll give an example first:
1)	“إنت مبتتكلمش” e.g. إنت مبتتكلمش ليه؟
2)	 “إنت متتكلمش” e.g. إنت متتكلمش خالص!
The first one means “you are not talking” while the second means “Don’t talk!”, so they are very different; the first is like “present continuous” and sometimes is like “present simple”  e.g.(إنت مبتروحش النادي ليه؟) while the second is used for giving orders or advices.

Hope this helps


----------



## makala

Thank you all, especially egyptlover.


----------



## clevermizo

Egyptlover said:


> Well, as an Egyptian, may I have a word here?



Yes, in fact we have been waiting patiently. I hope you don't think it rude of me to try to make a guess. I think of it as an exercise for myself. Thank you so much for your contribution.



> First of all, I want to say that in this context we won't say “بتنرفز” but definitely “تنرفز”. Now, let me explain it (I’ll try my best and I hope it’ll be clear). When we say:  “حاجة تنرفز”, “حاجة تضايق”, “حاجة متتصدقش”, “حاجة تشرح القلب”, “حاجة تجنن” ….. etc. we’re talking about something generally feels that way :  “That's irritating”, “That's annoying”, “That's unbelievable”, “That's cheerful”, “That's maddening”,….etc .



That's very interesting. In Levantine Arabic all these examples would use بـ because بـ is used exactly when something is describing something in a very general way.

Thanks again.


----------



## cherine

I agree with Egyptlover and Clevermizo.


clevermizo said:


> my immediate hypothesis was that if you are going to use a verb almost as if it is صفة - meaning describing the quality of an object versus an actual "action", then you don't use _b-_.


That was what I going to say myself. The verb is used more as an adjective, even if we don't stop to think about it this way. And Egyptlover's post clarifies this:


Egyptlover said:


> I want to say that in this context we won't say “بتنرفز” but definitely “تنرفز”. Now, let me explain it (I’ll try my best and I hope it’ll be clear). When we say: “حاجة تنرفز”, “حاجة تضايق”, “حاجة متتصدقش”, “حاجة تشرح القلب”, “حاجة تجنن” ….. etc. we’re talking about something generally feels that way : “That's irritating”, “That's annoying”, “That's unbelievable”, “That's cheerful”, “That's maddening”,….etc .


Your examples and the smart comparison you made between حاجة تنرفز (in the absolute) and بتنرفزني (=a special or individual reaction) makes it very clear


----------



## Rosamond

Egyptlover said:


> Well, as an Egyptian, may I have a word here? First of all, I want to say that in this context we won't say “بتنرفز” but definitely “تنرفز”. Now, let me explain it (I’ll try my best and I hope it’ll be clear). When we say: “حاجة تنرفز”, “حاجة تضايق”, “حاجة متتصدقش”, “حاجة تشرح القلب”, “حاجة تجنن” ….. etc. we’re talking about something generally feels that way : “That's irritating”, “That's annoying”, “That's unbelievable”, “That's cheerful”, “That's maddening”,….etc . I mean it's not that it seems so only to someone in particular, but anyone will feel the same way about it, but when I say: “بتضايق”, “بتنرفز”, …. ,I’ll have to mention the person who feels like that about it, like: “الحكاية دي بتجنني، بتضايقني، بتنرفزني،...... إلخ” (Note: this's different from the context in question); so we can say that the “بـ” is added when we’re talking about certain person and then we should mention this person as in the examples above. That was the first difference. Another one is…umm….well, I’ll give an example first:
> 1)    “إنت مبتتكلمش” e.g. إنت مبتتكلمش ليه؟
> 2)     “إنت متتكلمش” e.g. إنت متتكلمش خالص!
> The first one means “you are not talking” while the second means “Don’t talk!”, so they are very different; the first is like “present continuous” and sometimes is like “present simple” e.g.(إنت مبتروحش النادي ليه؟) while the second is used for giving orders or advices.
> 
> Hope this helps


 
Upon second thought, it does follow a rule after all!! Thank you, Egyptlover. It is just that I have been teaching Fusha only, so I always thought of colloquial as merely"a deviation." Yet even deviations have their own rules all the same 

@ other users: sorry for the hasty, unstudied reply!


----------



## Egyptlover

Thank you all for your feedback and you're welcome! I'm glad that you found it clear and useful 



clevermizo said:


> I hope you don't think it rude of me to try to make a guess. I think of it as an exercise for myself.



I never think that way  and I always think that we can't learn without trying.
Thanks.


----------



## londonmasri

Josh_ said:


> This is off topic for this thread, but I feel compelled to respond anyway. I hear the claim that colloquial language has no rules every so often and it bothers me because it is absolutely untrue. Speaking specifically about the Egyptian dialect, I can say for sure that it has rules that are followed.
> 
> If a language truly had no rules and anything could go I imagine it would be quite difficult to understand what a speaker says.
> 
> I wonder if the idea that dialects don't have rules stems from the fact that colloquial is not formally taught in schools the way fusHa is. Thus students do not associate rules with colloquial speech which in turn leads to the erroneous notion that there are no rules. Who knows.


 

I have actually had some Egyptians tell me very flippantly that EA has no rules and that it's 'ayye kalam'. 

This is as you say Josh completely untrue; even the most slight regional variations have their own rules, in the sense that if you speak in a way which does not adhere to what is considered 'the norm' you will bring attention to yourself (e.g. think of undercover cops who must not blow their cover). 

Regarding the topic, are both these pronounciations acceptable?

7aga tinarfez
7aga-t-narfez

7aga te7azzen
7aga-t-7azzen

Thanks


----------



## Josh_

Yes, both are acceptable.  As i's in open syllables are often elided it would be more common to hear "Haaga tnarfiz," but Haaga tinarfiz is possible as well.  You will most likely hear natives saying the former, but I suggest, as a learner of Arabic, go with whichever is more comfortable.

Thanks for the confirmation Egyptlover and Cherine.  Believe it or not, I had actually thought of the explanation you gave and even wrote it out, but then felt unsure about it and deleted it before posting.  It is nice to know that my intuition about Egyptian Arabic works, at least some of the time.


----------

