# ثوب يضيء في الظلام



## Sidjanga

Hi all,

Could you please give me a hand with this phrase?: *ثوب يضيء في الظلام*

It's part of a story I'm reading, where at one point a king is prophesied to receive loads of valuable gifts.

I haven't been able to find *يضيء *in the dictionary.

Does it mean something like _to shine_ [in the dark]?

And what would its root be?


Thanks.


----------



## zăpadă

Exactly ! it means : to shine , to glisten

The root would be :*أضاء*


----------



## Josh_

You mean the past tense masculine singular form is أضاء.  The root is ض-و-ء.


----------



## Masjeen

Josh_ said:


> You mean the past tense masculine singular form is أضاء. The root is ض-و-ء.


 
well done josh


----------



## Sidjanga

Thanks for your answers!


----------



## psxws

Is this the same verb used for when the sun shines?


----------



## Faylasoof

أضاء (form IV) can have both intransitive and transitive uses so it can have the same meaning as ضاء (form I) = to shine, radiate; but it can also mean <to shed / cast light (on), to illuminate>. So we do say:

تضیء الشمس لاهل الدنیا

(The sun is of course feminine in Arabic!)


----------



## cherine

Faylasoof said:


> أضاء (form IV) can have both intransitive and transitive uses so it can have the same meaning as ضاء (form I) = to shine, radiate; but it can also mean <to shed / cast light (on), to illuminate>. So we do say:
> 
> تضیء الشمس لأهل الدنیا


I don't remember seeing the form ضاء , but I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not commonly used.

The most common verb used for "to shine", specially when talking about the sun, is أشرقت .


----------



## Faylasoof

Yes, it is لأهل ! If only the text editor I used allowed me the hamzated alif ! But it is important to note this.


cherine said:


> I don't remember seeing the form ضاء , but I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not commonly used..


 I wasn't suggesting the use of ضاء . Only that form IV and form I here can share a meaning and be used the same way, i.e. IV used like I.


> The most common verb used for "to shine", specially when talking about the sun, is أشرقت .


I agree, but this is a quote (from a _hadeeth_, I think - well, definitely classical literature). Can't recall the whole thing so just presented what I could recall well.


----------



## cherine

Faylasoof said:


> Yes, it is لأهل ! If only the text editor I used allowed me the hamzated alif ! But it is important to note this.


I was sure you knew there should be a hamza. I only couldn't stop myself from correcting it, you don't know how "allergic" I am to missing and/or misplaced hamzas. 


> I wasn't suggesting the use of ضاء . Only that form IV and form I here can share a meaning and be used the same way, i.e. IV used like I.


Yes, yes, I understood this too. I was just noting that the form Daa2a is not commonly -if ever- used.


> I agree, but this is a quote (from a _hadeeth_, I think - well, definitely classical literature). Can't recall the whole thing so just presented what I could recall well.


Again, I didn't say that it's wrong, I was only saying that أشرقت is more commonly used with the sun.


----------



## Faylasoof

cherine said:


> I was sure you knew there should be a hamza. I only couldn't stop myself from correcting it, you don't know how "allergic" I am to missing and/or misplaced hamzas.


 
Yes I know you to be a keen _hamzaphile_ !  

I'm too but sometimes give in to my software.



> Yes, yes, I understood this too. I was just noting that the form Daa2a is not commonly -if ever- used.
> 
> Again, I didn't say that it's wrong, I was only saying that أشرقت is more commonly used with the sun.


 
Sure! Sure! All is understood! _Geen probleme_ (= no problem in Dutch! I've started learning Dutch now!)


----------



## Sidjanga

Faylasoof said:


> I wasn't suggesting the use of ضاء . Only that form IV and form I here can share a meaning and be used the same way, i.e. IV used like I.(...)


Hi again,

We talked about that part of the story in class today, and our teacher said that, at least to him, the crucial difference between the two forms is that ضاء means just "to shine" or "to be bright", whereas أضاء actually means "to illuminate" the space around itself/oneself (i.e., in the context of the dress, that it doesn't "just" shine in the darkness but actually illuminate the night).

Do you agree? 
(I am basically collecting opinions - I am aware that it's rather normal to hear different views when you ask several people; I am just not sure if his are always the most widespread ones ).


----------



## Faylasoof

Hi,



Sigianga said:


> Hi again,
> We talked about that part of the story in class today, and our teacher said that, at least to him, the crucial difference between the two forms is that ضاء means just "to shine" or "to be bright", whereas أضاء actually means "to illuminate" the space around itself/oneself (i.e., in the context of the dress, that it doesn't "just" shine in the darkness but actually illuminate the night).


 Well, this is what I was trying to say. أضاء(form IV) is a causative, transitive verb i.e. to shed light and illuminate. But the way it is sometimes used is more like an intransitive. This (below) is what I said - now highlighted: 



Faylasoof said:


> أضاء(form IV) can have both intransitive and transitive uses so it can have the same meaning as ضاء (form I) = to shine, radiate; but it can also mean <to shed / cast light (on), to illuminate>….


 Hence my example above (post # 7).  


> Do you agree?
> (I am basically collecting opinions - I am aware that it's rather normal to hear different views when you ask several people; I am just not sure if his are always the most widespread ones ).


 Basically, yes! I also looked at a number of lexicons and they also show that there is a shared meaning between ضاء and  أضاء. However, as Cherine reminded us, ضاء is hardly used. So we are left with أضاء. You see more of this.


----------



## Sidjanga

Thank you, Faylasoof.

So what do speakers of Arabic actually understand this sentence to mean?: *ثوب يضيء في الظلا*

Basically that the dress _shines _in the dark, i.e. that it's bright and well visible, but not much more (maybe like, say, a television screen or something),
or that it actually _illuminates _the darkness/the night?


----------



## cherine

Your teacher's words make sense, but again -and unfortunately- the form Daa2a is not commonly used, at least as far as I know.

How would I understand ثوب يضيء في الظلام ? I'd understand as the example you gave: like a tv screen, not as a lamp. I think this is because of the preposition في ; if there was no preposition: ثوب يضيء الظلام (direct object) it would be understood that it is shedding light in the darkness.

Coming to think of it, I think this is how the difference between ضاء and أضاء is marked in MSA: with or without the preposition.


----------



## Sidjanga

cherine said:


> (...) I think this is because of the preposition في ; if there was no preposition: ثوب يضيء الظلام (direct object) it would be understood that it is shedding light in the darkness.
> 
> Coming to think of it, I think this is how the difference between ضاء and أضاء is marked in MSA: with or without the preposition.


That's a very good point, Cherine. Thanks.


----------



## Faylasoof

cherine said:


> Your teacher's words make sense, but again -and unfortunately- the form Daa2a is not commonly used, at least as far as I know.





cherine said:


> How would I understand ثوب يضيء في الظلام ? I'd understand as the example you gave: like a tv screen, not as a lamp. I think this is because of the preposition في ; if there was no preposition: ثوب يضيء الظلام (direct object) it would be understood that it is shedding light in the darkness.
> 
> Coming to think of it, I think this is how the difference between ضاء and أضاء is marked in MSA: with or without the preposition.


 Yes Cherine, this is what I was trying to say and the point about prepositions is very important though I have added a corollary. I think when the preposition علی is used then أضاء becomes transitive and causative, same as when no preposition is used.

As you very rightly point, in MSA the presence or absence of prepositions with verbs makes all the difference as to how we translate a sentence and here the two sentences, Sigianga and mine above, will be understood quite differently depending. That is how I too understand it.

-_with_ the prepositions لِ and في, then أضاء  is _intransitive_ and is translated the same as ضاء = to shine , glitter. In fact, one always sees أضاء instead of ضاء.
 
-_without_ a preposition *or* _with_ علی as a preposition, أضاء acts as a _transitive_ verb with the meaning to illuminate / shed light (on) / enlighten, i.e.  


_Intransitive_
يضيء في = it / he shines in
يضيء لِ  = it / he shines for

_Transitive_
Either without any preposition or with علی.
يضيء علی= it / he sheds light upon / illuminates / lights up / enlightens – the exact meaning will depend, as usual, on the context.


Hence:  ثوب يضيء الظلامَ = a dress illuminating / lighting up darkness / the dark – very different from ثوب يضيء في الظلام  =  a dress shining in darkness / the dark .

Similarly, تضیء الشمس  ل أهل الدنیا  = تضیء الشمس لأهل الدنیا = The sun shines for / for the sake of the people of the world. 

But, تضیء الشمس أهلَ الدنیا would be translated like: _the_ _sun illuminates / lights up the people of the world_.

… and تضیء الشمس على الدنیا would be translated as:
_ the sun sheds light upon / shines upon the earth._


----------



## elroy

I'm surprised no one suggested the most idiomatic translation: _a dress that *glows *in the dark._


----------

