# سحب حاملة للأمطار



## New Arabic Learner

I came across the word "clouds" modified by what I believe to be an adjective-like participle meaning "carrying or pregnant."  The full context is: 

المشكلة في سماء سورية ان السحب الحاملة للامطار تكون على ارتفاع 7-8 كيلوميرات.​ 
My question is whether the "heavy clouds" would, in this context, mean "thick clouds" or "rain clouds."  

Again, thank you for your time and invaluable advice.  NAL.


----------



## abusaf

It means carrying.


----------



## New Arabic Learner

I was thinking the full translation of the sentence would be:

 "_The problem in the Syrian sky is the heavy clouds over the airport are at an altitude of 7 to 8 kilometers._"



The question I have is "what type of clouds are they":
1.  Is the "sky" "carrying" clouds; or

2.  Are there "carrying clouds" in the sky, which beggs the question, what does "carrying" mean:
     2.1  "carrying"
     2.2  "pregnant" which could mean, to me, at least:
             (a)  thick or "heavy" or

             (b)  rainy; or

3.  something else?



Thank you for your response, but I'm still not clear.  I'm sure it's the problem with my thick head and nuances of a new language.  NAL.


----------



## Josh_

The sentence can be translated:

The problem in the Syrian sky is that rain carrying clouds are at an altitude of 7 to 8 kilometers.

امطار (amTaar) is the plural of مطر (rain), and not مطار (maTaar -- airport).  So the phrase in question is "rain carrying clouds."


----------



## New Arabic Learner

Thank you!  I see now.


----------



## elroy

Josh is right.

Let me try to explain the syntactical struture of the phrase, to help you understand it better:

In الحاملة للأمطار (notice the hamza), there are two nouns and a preposition:

الحاملة + لـ + الأمطار, i.e. carrying + of + the rains _(literal translation)_

This is one way Arabic expresses object-participle constructions such as "an eye-opening experience" - or, in this case, "rain-carrying clouds." 

In my opinion, an إضافة could have also worked in this sentence: السحب الحاملة الأمطار 

By the way, when حامل means "pregnant" it does not take a ـة, even though the subject will logically always be feminine.


----------



## New Arabic Learner

Thank you very much, Elroy.  My basic mistake was, as Josh pointed out, confusing "rains" with "airport."  But, you really hit on a point that was lingering about the use of the preposition ل .  I might be wrong, but the verb "to carry" takes a plain direct object and usually does not need any preposition.  So, I would ask, and you point this out by saying that a plain idafa might do as well, why would the verbal participle derived from "to carry" need a preposition?  In my dictionary, there was no mention of the form "to carry" needing one -- so, I would have never expected it to be there.  Is there a common rule that a present participle "may" use a preposition, even when the transitive verb form does not?  I would think that if you said "the clouds carry rain" there would be no presition.  Why, then, would "rain carrying clouds" have the need for a preposition?


----------



## elroy

You bring up a good point.  The verb حمل certainly does not take a preposition, and I have to say this construction with لـ is unusual.  Normally, when transitive verbs are used with their objects in this adjectival ("participle") form, the direct object becomes a مضاف إلية.

For example,

الأسد يأكل اللحم. = The lion eats meat. 
الأسد الآكل اللحم (_not_ الأسد الآكل للحم) = the meat-eating lion

While I can't say with certainty that the version with لـ is wrong, I would personally avoid it and stick with the إضافة construction.  I'd be interested in what others have to say about this.


----------



## New Arabic Learner

Thank you Elroy.  I decided to "Google" the arabic phrase السحب الحاملة للامطار, and it brought up only two (2) references.  I suppose that would indicate that it is not widely used, at least not as common as the English words "rain clouds."


----------



## ayed

It should be :
_Sohob momtirah"_Rainy clouds_"_*سحب ممطرة*
_Cumulus clouds_


----------



## cherine

> Originally Posted by *Elroy*
> Normally, when transitive verbs are used with their objects in this adjectival ("participle") form, the direct object becomes a مضاف إليه.
> For example,
> الأسد يأكل اللحم. = The lion eats meat.
> الأسد الآكل اللحم (_not_ الأسد الآكل للحم) = the meat-eating lion
> While I can't say with certainty that the version with لـ is wrong, I would personally avoid it and stick with the إضافة construction. I'd be interested in what others have to say about this.


You're both right about the use of the lam with the verb. But notice that حاملة *is not* a verb, it's a maSdar.
But, as this maSdar is a definite noun, I think this is why we tend, almost automatically, to add the lam with it.
I'd easily say : السحب حاملة الأمطار
but if I use الحاملة instead of حاملة I think I'd say الحاملة للأمطار 
I'm not sure if there's a rule for this, but I'll try to look and see what I can find.

... And I'd say الأسد الآكل للحم and الأسد آكل اللحم  (but I'll still look for the rule).


----------



## elroy

cherine said:
			
		

> But notice that حاملة *is not* a verb, it's a maSdar.


 Of course.  Even in that case I find the لـ unusual.

Nevertheless, I did consider the definite-indefinite theory and think that you may be on to something.  Using the لـ is definitely _wrong_ if the maSdar is indefinite, but the question that remains is whether both versions are acceptable with a definite maSdar, and if not, which one is and which one is not.


----------



## lonly night`s

It means that (((the problem in the sky of Syria that the rainy clouds are on an altitude of 7-8 kilometers)) that's the translation for it.

Well, hammilah=carrying {{rain-baby}} in this text it means carrying rain you can say hammil or hammilah be tifl for pregnant it depens on what is b4 before it.

Moderator note : Please follow the forum's rules regarding the use of proper writing (i.e. start sentences with capital letters, use punctuation, don't use SM style...)
Thank you. And welcome to the forum


----------



## Josh_

cherine said:
			
		

> You're both right about the use of the lam with the verb. But notice that حاملة *is not* a verb, it's a maSdar.
> But, as this maSdar is a definite noun, I think this is why we tend, almost automatically, to add the lam with it.
> I'd easily say : السحب حاملة الأمطار
> but if I use الحاملة instead of حاملة I think I'd say الحاملة للأمطار
> I'm not sure if there's a rule for this, but I'll try to look and see what I can find.
> 
> ... And I'd say الأسد الآكل للحم and الأسد آكل اللحم  (but I'll still look for the rule).


حاملة is not a مصدر either, its an active verbal adjective ( اسم فاعل ) and since it functions as an adjective it is inflected for gender with its qualifying noun -- in this case it is feminine since سحب is feminine.  I believe the author chose the structure he/she did so as to avoid the use of a false iDaafa (إضافة غير حقيقية ) like the one provided by elroy, "السحب الحاملة الأمطار ."


----------



## cherine

cherine said:
			
		

> ... notice that حاملة *is not* a verb, it's a maSdar.


GUYS  !! I'm so sorry, I made a terribly stupid mistake  
حاملة is *not* a maSdar, it's اسم فاعل .
Thus doing the action of the verb :

اسم الفاعل يقوم بعمل فعله المبني للمعلوم فيرفع الفاعل وينصب مفعولاً به أو أكثر​
Although, I still didn't find the rule about the use of prepositions in such situations. But I wanted to correct my silly mistake before someone took it for correct.


Edit: cross-posting once more Josh 
But, would you please stop using this false iDafa term ? It's so strange, and I always have to go look for what you mean by it  
Thanks


----------



## Josh_

cherine said:
			
		

> Edit: cross-posting once more Josh


We seem to do that a lot.


> But, would you please stop using this false iDafa term ? It's so strange, and I always have to go look for what you mean by it
> Thanks


The false iDaafa is only called that to classify that type of iDaafa and separate it out from other iDaafa constrctions.  The name does not mean to imply that this type of iDaafa is fake or any less of an iDaafa than the normal type, but, like I said, is just used for as a classification.  If you have never heard it maybe it is only used for us non-natives?  And I have a theory as to why. We learn from the outset that the first term of an iDaafa is ALWAYS indefinite.  The teachers (I've had anyway) pound that into our brains.  So, I surmise, that when a student of Arabic comes from that background and then sees a construction like the one elroy provided he/she will have a puzzled look on his/her face and ask why?  So then we can explain that certain iDaafas can function this way under certain conditions.  If "false iDaafa" is not pleasing how would you explain to a learner the concept of an iDaafa in which the first term can take the definite article?


----------



## elroy

Josh,

I think I finally understand what a "false iDaafa" is supposed to be, but I'm not completely convinced that الحاملة الأمطار is one.

I've been racking my brain trying to figure this out because since Cherine's post I'm not sure الحاملة الأمطار is correct. As I was thinking about it I realized that the first word (which, yes, it's not a maSdar - I was so quick to agree with Cherine because the point was that it was not a verb!) was definite and thought, "Hey, maybe this is what a false iDaafa is supposed to be!" So I read up on "false iDaafas" but all the examples given seemed to be of a different type, namely things like "الرجل الهولندي الأصل" or "الرجل الرفيع المقام" in which the second word is a normal adjective and not اسم الفاعل. The second word actually modifies the third word (the مضاف إليه) and both words together modify the first. In our situation, the second word is a verbal, and the third word is its object. That is, if I were to rewrite our sentence I'd have a verb and an object, whereas if I were to rewrite the false iDaafa sentences given as examples I'd have a noun and an adjective (مبتدأ وخبر):

أصل الرجل هولندي
السحب تحمل الأمطار

So all I could conclude was that my sentence did not necessarily fit into the category "false iDaafa."

Now, Cherine's recent comments have shed some light on things. She said that an اسم الفاعل behaves like a verb, which means that if السحب الحاملة الأمطار is correct, then الأمطار is a مفعول به and not a مضاف إليه!  Which would mean that it would be منصوب (الأمطارَ)  and not مجرور (الأمطارِ). After all, if an اسم الفاعل behaves like a verb then it can't be a مضاف.

BUT it is still an اسم! Which means that if we consider it a plain ol' اسم (a نعت in this case) then it could be a مضاف إليه - which begs the question: Would it still be ok for it to be definite since it does not work like a false iDaafa? If so, then maybe this is "another kind" of false iDaafa. If not, then maybe that's why the لـ was used.

Personally, I lean toward the "مفعول به" theory - which both sounds more convincing and confirms my feeling that الحاملة الأمطار is not incorrect.

But who knows - I certainly don't. I hope someone better versed in the subtleties of nitty-gritty Arabic grammar can help solve the mystery for all of us.

PS: Yes, we are never taught the term إضافة غير حقيقية. Things like الرجل الهولندي الأصل sound completely natural to us so there's no need to place them in a separate category.


----------



## Josh_

I still think your sentence is a (false) iDaafa.  In English the اسم فاعل is called (active) verbal adjective because it shows elements of both the verbs and adjectives.  The word is derived directly from the verb and functions, and is inflected, like an adjective.  It can behave similar to a verb, adjective, or noun.  Further, I don't think an اسم فاعل takes an object in the same way a verb does, but I guess I've never really thought about it.  I mean the object of an اسم فاعل  would not be منصوب , that is, you would not say الرجل حامل حقيبةً , right?  But, alas, I am no grammarian either and still get confused.


----------



## elroy

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> ... that is, you would not say الرجل حامل حقيبةً , right? But, alas, I am no grammarian either and still get confused.


 Well, it would be either الرجل الحامل الحقيبة or الرجل حامل الحقيبة - and as for the inflection, I'm not sure anymore!

As you can see in post #6, I spontaneously called the structure an إضافة but now I'm not so sure.  I still maintain that we have no evidence that it's a "false iDaafa" because it's structurally very different from the others.  

So let's just wait for the grammarians; in the meantime, I'll try to ask around and report back with any information that I may glean.


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:
			
		

> Well, it would be either الرجل الحامل الحقيبة or الرجل حامل الحقيبة - and as for the inflection, I'm not sure anymore!


I meant my sentence as a translation of "The man is carrying a bag," or literally in MSA, "the man is a carrier of a bag."  In the same way that الرجل ساكن في نيو يورك means either "the man lives in New York" or "the man is a resident of New York."


----------



## elroy

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> I meant my sentence as a translation of "The man is carrying a bag," or literally in MSA, "the man is a carrier of a bag." In the same way that الرجل ساكن في نيو يورك means either "the man lives in New York" or "the man is a resident of New York."


 Ok, I see what you mean.  Yes, in that case it would be مجرور.


----------



## Mery_Dian

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> We learn from the outset that the first term of an iDaafa is ALWAYS indefinite.The teachers (I've had anyway) pound that into our brains.



your teachers are right Josh ! 
I'm unfortunately terrible at memorizing grammar rules, but I'm sure of one thing: there is a common mistake (in the media and even among supposedly eminent writers) of adding the definite article ال  to the first term of iDaafa (or whatever you call it) when the muDaaf ilayh is definite. 
For instance, most people would say :
لقد قابلت المرأة الكثيرة الكلام (I have met the talkative woman), while they should say : لقد قابلت المرأة كثيرة الكلام. (I don't know why I chose this silly example  ). It is true that the first sentence sounds more acceptable, but the second one is the correct Arabic form. The same thing applies to السحب الحاملة الأمطار : we need to add an *ل *to الأمطار or else say السحب حاملة الأمطار. 
Anyway, I'm still waiting for grammarians to validate or refute what I said.


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, I see what you mean.  Yes, in that case it would be مجرور.


Exactly.  So why would it be different the other way?  All you're doing is making the اسم فاعل and the object definite.  I still think it is a false iDaafa.  I will try to do some more research.


----------



## elroy

Mery_Dian said:
			
		

> your teachers are right Josh !
> I'm unfortunately terrible at memorizing grammar rules, but I'm sure of one thing: there is a common mistake (in the media and even among supposedly eminent writers) of adding the definite article ال to the first term of iDaafa (or whatever you call it) when the muDaaf ilayh is definite.
> For instance, most people would say :
> لقد قابلت المرأة الكثيرة الكلام (I have met the talkative woman), while they should say : لقد قابلت المرأة كثيرة الكلام. (I don't know why I chose this silly example  ). It is true that the first sentence sounds more acceptable, but the second one is the correct Arabic form. The same thing applies to السحب الحاملة الأمطار : we need to add an *ل *to الأمطار or else say السحب حاملة الأمطار.
> Anyway, I'm still waiting for grammarians to validate or refute what I said.


 Are you sure you're not thinking of غير?

I've heard that it's wrong to say الرجل الغير المتعلم (although many people say and write that) and that it should be الرجل غير المتعلم - but I don't think that applies to actual adjectives.


----------



## elroy

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> Exactly. So why would it be different the other way? All you're doing is making the اسم فاعل and the object definite. I still think it is a false iDaafa. I will try to do some more research.


 Josh, at this point we're not even sure it's correct. I don't know why you keep insisting it's a false iDaafa when I've explained to you why the explanation of the false iDaafa found in your grammar book does not prove that it is one (surely there would have been _one_ example similar to this one on one of the five pages full of examples!). 

If we find out for sure that it's correct then I'm happy to consider it a false iDaafa but until then I would hesitate to make any definitive statements about the structure.

I am also going to do some research.


----------



## cherine

Today's discovery (I'm copying this from a grammar book I borrowed from a friend) :

إذا كان المضاف مشتقًا (أى اسم فاعل أو اسم مفعول أو صفة مشبهة) فيجوز تعريفه بأداة التعريف ال
مثل: قابلتُ الرجلَ الطويلَ القامةِ الجعدَ الشَّعْرِ​
(The book is ملخَّص قواعد اللغة العربية، تأليف فؤاد نعمة )
So, if we apply this to our sentence :
السحب الحاملة الأمطار 
the word حاملة is an "ism faa3il", hence we can add the "al" to it , and it's a muDaaf, and the "amTaar" is a muDaaf ilayhi.


----------



## elroy

Well, the examples given here also don't correspond to our sentence but the rule just states that an اسم الفاعل can be defined so I guess it doesn't matter what particular linguistic relationship exists between it and the following noun.

I guess that means I was right after all.  

And Josh, I guess that means we could indeed consider this structure a false iDaafa.

This has definitely been an informative thread!


----------



## Mery_Dian

cherine said:
			
		

> Today's discovery (I'm copying this from a grammar book I borrowed from a friend) :
> 
> إذا كان المضاف مشتقًا (أى اسم فاعل أو اسم مفعول أو صفة مشبهة) فيجوز تعريفه بأداة التعريف ال
> مثل: قابلتُ الرجلَ الطويلَ القامةِ الجعدَ الشَّعْرِ​
> (The book is ملخَّص قواعد اللغة العربية، تأليف فؤاد نعمة )
> So, if we apply this to our sentence :
> السحب الحاملة الأمطار
> the word حاملة is an "ism faa3il", hence we can add the "al" to it , and it's a muDaaf, and the "amTaar" is a muDaaf ilayhi.



I couldn't help considering the sentence in analogy with various examples I came across in literratture as well as verse 4, Surat 111 from the Koran : 

"وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ"​ 
(حَمَّالَةَ being مبالغة إسم الفاعل ).
But I have checked a grammar book too (جامع دروس اللغة العربية ) and you are right Cherine : in some cases (as you stated peviously) you may add "al" to Ism alfaa3il. 
I have to admit, therefore, that the sentence السحب الحاملة الأمطار is grammatically correct, even though it still sounds awkward to me, and though I still consider that it would be redundant to add the definite article to the muDaaf which is already معرف بالإضافة.  
To sum up what I understood : there are 2 kinds of iDaafa : إضافة معنوية in which you _must not _add the definite article to the muDaaf, and the إضافة لفظية or إضافة غير حقيقية  (false iDaafa as Josh rightly called it) in which you _may _add ال to the muDaaf.



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> I guess that means I was right after all.


Yes, you were indeed!


----------



## cherine

Thanks for the addition Mery_Dian 
I'd like to add a little thing myself.


			
				Mery_Dian said:
			
		

> I have to admit, therefore, that the sentence السحب الحاملة الأمطار is grammatically correct, even though it still sounds awkward to me, and though I still consider that it would be redundant to add the definite article to the muDaaf which is already معرف بالإضافة.


I discussed this sentence with a colleague of mine (specially about the correctness of adding للأمطار instead of الأمطار ) but before I ask him about that extra "laam", he sead that three consecutive definite words sound very heavy (al-al-al). So I thought that maybe we, sort of automatically- add that laam to the last definite word to "alleviate" a bit السحب الحاملة للأمطار Otherwise, the correct form should be السحب حاملة الأمطار .


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi All

On the issue of the Lam attached to الحاملة للأمطار
The Lam in الحاملة للأمطار has classically been regarded as a semantically redudant Lam often added to the direct objects of active particples (Ism Fa-il), infinitives (Masdar), etc. as these - compared to their verbs - are regarded as weak governors and require the addition of a Lam to strengthen their governance of their direct objects. In other words, verbs do not require this Lam since according to classical grammatical theory the verb is a strong governor and all other governors are weak in comparison to it. What proves that this Lam is redudant in this context is that it can be elided with no change in meaning.

Thus we can say:
السحب الحاملة الأمطارَ (with الأمطار in the accusative, & which is also the original construction)

السحب الحاملة للأمطارِ (with the addition of the redudant Lam)

Both these constructions are optional.

Secondly, it is also permissible thereafter to convert the expression السحب الحاملة الأمطارَ into the genitive construct السحب الحاملة الأمطارِ in accordance with the so-called false idafah.In conclusion, there are three ways of constructing this expression:

السحب الحاملة الأمطارَ (with الأمطار in the accusative)

السحب الحاملة الأمطارِ (with الأمطار in the genitive as the mudaf ilayh)

السحب الحاملة للأمطار (with the semantically redudant Lam added to strengthen an otherwise weak governor)

I hope this all makes sense.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Everybody

It is important to note that in the non-real idafah the mudaf does not become definte through a definite mudaf ilayh. This is borne out by two Quranic verses:

The first is (Quran 5:95)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَقْتُلُواْ الصَّيْدَ وَأَنتُمْ حُرُمٌ وَمَن قَتَلَهُ مِنكُم مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاء مِّثْلُ مَا قَتَلَ مِنَ النَّعَمِ يَحْكُمُ بِهِ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ هَدْيًا بَالِغَ الْكَعْبَةِ أَوْ كَفَّارَةٌ طَعَامُ مَسَاكِينَ أَو عَدْلُ ذَلِكَ صِيَامًا لِّيَذُوقَ وَبَالَ أَمْرِهِ عَفَا اللّهُ عَمَّا سَلَف وَمَنْ عَادَ فَيَنتَقِمُ اللّهُ مِنْهُ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ ذُو انْتِقَامٍ ​
The second is (Quran 46:24)

فَلَمَّا رَأَوْهُ عَارِضًا مُّسْتَقْبِلَ أَوْدِيَتِهِمْ قَالُوا هَذَا عَارِضٌ مُّمْطِرُنَا بَلْ هُوَ مَا اسْتَعْجَلْتُم بِهِ رِيحٌ فِيهَا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ​
Note that both بالغ and ممطر are mudaf to definite nouns, the first being الكعبة and the second the pronominal suffix نا but at the same بالغ and ممطر are also adjectives of هدياً and عارض respectively both of which are indefinite, so it follows that their descriptive adjectives must also be indefinite.

This therefore proves that the mudaf in the case of non-real idafah remains indefinite. Hence, to make it definite you will have to add the definite article (al). Moreover, this idafah is non-real in the sense that the mudaf does not gain definiteness or specificity from the mudaf ilayh should the latter be definite or indefinite respectively. This happens in your real and normal idafah. In real idafah when the mudaf is without both the tanwin and (al) it follows that it requires a different way to show its definiteness, and that is through a definite mudaf ilayh. This, however, is only the case if your idafah is real. if it is non-real then the mudaf does not gain anything from the mudaf ilay, neither definiteness nor specificity but rather easement in pronunciation.

I hope this clarifies the issue somewhat.


----------



## المستعرب

I am very sorry to react to this very confused thread five years after  its death, but its final conclusion was wrong and I feel an urging need  to correct it. Please forgive me.

In the sentence "السحب الحاملة  الأمطار" the word الأمطار actually is the object of the active  participle حاملة, and therefore is منصوب and takes a fatha: السحبُ  الحاملةُ الأمطارَ.

Active participles (اسم فاعل) in Arabic can take an object in two ways:

1) by putting the object in the accusative/نصب 
2) by using the particle ل (so السحب الحاملة للأمطار is also correct)

Remember that the active participle in Arabic has three verbal uses:

1) as an alternative for a conjugated verb: الرجل ساكن في القاهرة equals الرجل يسكن في القاهرة
2) as an alternative for a relative clause: الرجل الساكن في الفاهرة equals الرجل الذي يسكن في القاهرة
3) as a so called حال accussative: دخل الرجل ضاحكا equals دخل الرجل وهو يضحك (the man entered laughing)

It  is obvious that our sentence is an example of the second use: السحب  الحاملة الأمطار equals السحب التي تحمل الأمطار (the clouds that carry  the rains).

The confusion that might lead some to believe that الأمطار  is a مضاف إليه results from a flawed reasoning: the rule that Cherine  extracted from the grammar book:

إذا كان المضاف مشتقًا (أى اسم فاعل أو اسم مفعول أو صفة مشبهة) فيجوز تعريفه بأداة التعريف ال
مثل: قابلتُ الرجلَ الطويلَ القامةِ الجعدَ الشَّعْرِ​






states  that if the مضاف is an active participle, it can take the definite noun  ال. I'm sure that all will agree that this does not mean that if we  encounter an active participle with the definite noun ال, it must be a  مضاف... This rule is actually a good example of the descriptive nature  of much Arabic language based grammar books: it only describes which  words can take the definite noun ال as a مضاف, but it doesn't analyse  (like in western analytical grammar) in what context this can happen,  namely what western Arabic grammars call false idafa's. Now these false  idafa's always convey a very specific meaning. Consider the following  examples:

المرأة الجميلة اليدين - the woman whose hands are beautiful
الكتاب الكثير الصفحات - the book of which the pages are many
المشكلة العديدة الأبعاد - the problem of which the dimensions are countless

They all clearly share the same semantics: the x of which the/whose y is z.

As the rule states, this can be done too with passive participles/اسم مفعول 

الرجل المسلوب العقل - the man whose brains are stolen
الأقمصة المقطوعة الأطراف - the shirts of which the ends are cut. 

... and with active participles:

السيارة المتحركة العجلات - the car of which the wheels are moving
المشكلة المتعددة الأبعاد - the problem of which the dimensions are multiple
المرأة الذابلة الجمال - the woman whose beauty is withering

Now  if we would take our sentence and try to translate it according to the  semantics of the false idafa, we would get the following:

السحب الحاملة الأمطارٍ - the clouds of which the rains are carrying

Although  from a purely grammatical perspective the sentence could take on that  meaning, it is clear from the content that it means something very  different, namely "the clouds that carry the rains", which is a construction  with an active participle and an object in the accusative case.

PS: Josh, your sentence الرجل حاملٌ حقيبةً  would indeed not be used by a native speaker of Arabic, but only out  of idiomatic reasons: from a grammatical standpoint it is correct,  meaning: the man is carrying a bag. Idiomatically this type of sentence  is normally used an idafa: الرجل حاملُ حقيبةٍ : the man is a bag carrier  (like, the type of guy that carries a bag).


----------



## إسكندراني

المستعرب said:


> PS: Josh, your sentence الرجل حاملٌ حقيبةً  would indeed not be used by a native speaker of Arabic, but only out  of idiomatic reasons: from a grammatical standpoint it is correct,  meaning: the man is carrying a bag. Idiomatically this type of sentence  is normally used an idafa: الرجل حاملُ حقيبةٍ : the man is a bag carrier  (like, the type of guy that carries a bag).


In fact, this is how we *usually* say it in many dialects! And it is totally acceptable in formal Arabic too - and oft-used! So thanks for reviving the thread to correct its conclusions.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

> Now these false  idafa's always convey a very specific meaning. Consider the following  examples:
> 
> المرأة الجميلة اليدين - the woman whose hands are beautiful
> الكتاب الكثير الصفحات - the book of which the pages are many
> المشكلة العديدة الأبعاد - the problem of which the dimensions are countless
> 
> They all clearly share the same semantics: the x of which the/whose y is z.



Actually, they are not limited as such:

You can also have:

زيدٌ الضاربُ الرأسِ الجاني Zeid, who smites the head of the offender.

الضرّابُ الرجلِ Those who strike the man.



> I am very sorry to react to this very confused thread five years after   its death, but its final conclusion was wrong and I feel an urging need   to correct it. Please forgive me.
> 
> In the sentence "السحب الحاملة  الأمطار" the word الأمطار actually is  the object of the active  participle حاملة, and therefore is منصوب and  takes a fatha: السحبُ  الحاملةُ الأمطارَ.



While I agree that this is a confused thread, Abu Bishr was correct in his conclusions:

As Abu Bishr clarified, there is another possibility:



> Secondly, it is also permissible thereafter to convert the expression  السحب الحاملة الأمطارَ into the genitive construct السحب الحاملة  الأمطارِ in accordance with the so-called false idafah.In conclusion,  there are three ways of constructing this expression:
> 
> السحب الحاملة الأمطارَ (with الأمطار in the accusative)
> 
> السحب الحاملة الأمطارِ (with الأمطار in the genitive as the mudaf ilayh)



Here is the quote from Wright (vol. ii §30 pg. 64) that should clear this up:



> The nomina agentis of directly transitive verbs admit of being construed, in so far as they have verbal power, either with the accusative or with the genitive, provided they have the meaning of the _imperfect _(الْمُضَارِعُ, historical imperfect, present, future).  As the genitive connection is in this case غَيْرُ الْحَقِيقِيَّةِ, improper or representative (see § 75, rem.), the governing word may be defined by the article: قَاتِلُ النَّاسِ, or قاتلٌ النَّاسَ, _one who kills people_; الْقَاتِلُ النَّاسِ or الْقَاتِلُ النَّاسَ, _he who kills people=_اَلَّذِي يَقْتُلُ; as, according to another reading, كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتَ (see above); الْوَاهِبِ الْمِائَةِ الْبِجَانِ _of him who gives a hundred fine white (camels)_; وَالْمُقِيمِي الصَّلوةِ _and those who perform the (prescribed) prayers_; أَلَا أَيُّهَا الْبَاغِي الْبِرَازَ تَقَرَّبَنْ _O thou that desirest single combat, draw nigh_.



So if were to insist, we could certainly have:

السحبُ الحاملةُ الأمطارِ

or in our particular sentence:

السحبَ الحاملةَ الأمطارِ



> The confusion that might lead some to believe that الأمطار  is a مضاف  إليه results from a flawed reasoning: the rule that Cherine  extracted  from the grammar book:
> 
> إذا كان المضاف مشتقًا (أى اسم فاعل أو اسم مفعول أو صفة مشبهة) فيجوز تعريفه بأداة التعريف ال
> مثل: قابلتُ الرجلَ الطويلَ القامةِ الجعدَ الشَّعْرِ



I agree that this is not only confusing, but wrong and misleading.



> For instance, most people would say :
> لقد قابلت المرأة الكثيرة الكلام (I have met the talkative woman)



This is the correct version.



> Otherwise, the correct form should be السحب حاملة الأمطار .



This would change the meaning. Now we have, "the clouds _are _bearing rain," instead of, "the rainbearing clouds."



> I've heard that it's wrong to say الرجل الغير المتعلم (although many  people say and write that) and that it should be الرجلُ غيرُ المتعلمِ - but  I don't think that applies to actual adjectives.



You are right. Although this is a different issue altogether, it is incorrect to put ال on غير in this context.



> I couldn't help considering the sentence in analogy with various  examples I came across in literratture as well as verse 4, Surat 111  from the Koran :
> 
> "وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ"​
> 
> (حَمَّالَةَ being مبالغة إسم الفاعل ).



No. This is something else entirely. امرأة is part of the فاعل for the verb يصلى which comes earlier in the آية, while حمّالة is a حال describing, how/in what state the امرأة was in while performing the action of the verb.


----------



## المستعرب

Thanks lukebeadgcf for clearing that up using Wright.

As for your confirmation



lukebeadgcf said:


> You are right. Although this is a different issue altogether, it is incorrect to put ال on غير in this context.



I'm wondering if you would take a look at the wordreference thread called 

Can غير take the article "al"  (as a new member, i can't post links on this forum, but a simple google search should get it up quickly)

, where it is claimed that al-Qamus al-Muhit actually contains instances of غير being used with ال in exactly this context. Is al-Qamus al-Muhit using a wrong construction or does it just follow another grammatical poetics? I've heard others argue before that while it's considered wrong by most grammars, it is considered right by others. What does Wright have to say on this topic?


----------



## lukebeadgcf

This is turning out to be a very difficult question to answer. I've spent a good amount of time with very little progress. I'll post when I find something.


----------



## Lark-lover

If I were to render this phrase to English, I would say:" rain-carrying clouds"?What do you think then?


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Lark-lover said:


> If I were to render this phrase to English, I would say:" rain-carrying clouds"?What do you think then?



"Rain-bearing" sounds more idiomatic to me. 

By the way, I've spent the day in the stacks and have nothing new to say about غير.


----------

