# فعلتُ.. انفعل/افتعل/تفعَّل



## Abu Bishr

فعلْتُ فانفعل، فعلْتُ فافتعل، فعَّلْتُ فتفعَّلَ

Hi Guys

In a recent thread we came across the verb (انبعث) the VII form of (بعث) and it was mentioned that (انبعث) has a passive meaning (even though its form is active). Now, (انبعث) is not the only verb like that, but rather the socalled "passive meaning" is a peculiar feature of form VII, and this is often the case with form VI (تفعَّل) & form VIII (افتعل) .

The object of this thread is to try and explain how these forms have the socalled "passive meaning" and how we can still salvage them as both active in form and meaning. At the same time I'd like to show how this phenomenon affects the translation of the English verbs "spread", "assemble" or "gather", "open", "broke", "smashed", "spilt", poured, etc. in both their transitive and intransitive forms.

In English we say: 

I spread the news, and so the news spread.

I assembled the students, and so they assembled.

I gathered the people, and so they gathered.

I opened the door, and so it opened.

I broke the glass, and so it broke.

I smashed the glass, and so it smashed.

I spilt the sugar, and so it spilt.

I poured the water, and so it poured.

The verbs in red are used in both a transitive and intransitive sense.

Now, in Arabic we would use different forms for the verbs marked in red in each of the sentences.

Here is the translation:

نشرتُ الخبر فانتشر

جمعتُ الطلابَ فاجتمعوا

جمَّعتُ الناسَ فتجمَّعُوا

فتحتُ البابَ فانفَتَحَ

كسرتُ الزجاجَ فانكسرَ

كسَّرتُ الزجاجَ فتكسَّر

نثرتُ السكّرَ فانتثر

صببْتُ الماء فانصبّ

Now, what the second verb in each sentence shows is that the object (to which the action of the first verb was applied) sort of responds or reacts to that action by actually spreading, or breaking, or assembling, etc. In other words, the objects are'nt passive but actually quite active by responding, and the act of responding is visible and observable, that is, there for everyone to see.

To use another example: What would be the difference between انكسر الزجاجُ and كُسِرَ الزجاجُ ? The first one I would say the focus is on the response of the glass by actually breaking, whereas in the second example the focus is on the act of breaking as applied to the object by the agent who incidentally is not mentioned in the sentence. The reaction or response of the object, however, is not intended. What this means that in the second verb the object of the first verb actually becomes the agent or doer of the second verb. This is clear when we use the English examples and ask for example: Did the glass actually break? I would say "yes" because look at how it first cracked and then exploded into tiny little pieces. This happened to the glass and the agent or person only effected it. Notice that "cracked" and "exploded" are the same as the verbs above. Another question to ask is for example: How do you know the news spread? and I could answer: Well, look at all the people that phoned in.

Even though you might not agree with my explanation because of my highly fertile imagination, you must agree that it is an important topic, and one's knowledge of the subject does show up in his or her translation of these sentences. It is not uncommon for a beginner to translate "the door opened" as فَتَحَ البابُ .

I'm interested to hear your comments?


----------



## abusaf

Does the VII form انفعل ever have a active meaning?


----------



## linguist786

Your latter part of the post can be summed up like so:

If you consider the following sentences:

1. The boy kicked the ball
2. The ball was kicked.

Now clearly (1) is active and (2) is passive. The simple thing is: In a passive sentence, the object becomes the subject. This means the action of the verb is being done _to_ it, rather than _by_ it (as is the case in an active sentence)



			
				Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> It is not uncommon for a beginner to translate "the door opened" as فَتَحَ البابُ .


Yes, but if you remember: "Is the action of the verb being done _to_ the subject, or _by_ the subject?" If it's the former, then you would translate it actively (since it's active!) and if it's the latter, then you would translate it passively (since it's passive!)

It seems to me you understand the concept (clearly, since you've explained so explicitly, but you needn't have made it so complicated lol)


----------



## Abu Bishr

abusaf said:


> Does the VII form انفعل ever have a active meaning?


 
Yes, in the sense in which I explained above for how would you analyse الزجاج in انكسر الزجاجُ as فاعل or مفعول به , and would there be a difference between انكسر الزجاجُ and كُسِر الزجاجُ ? Or let's take English: Is there a difference between "the glass was broken" and "the glass broke".

This response also applies to you, Linguist 786.

Also, we have two actions here: the act of breaking applied to the object by the agent, and the act of breaking that the object then undergoes, making it the agent of the second act of breaking which is conveyed by the verb انكسر and not by the passive كُسِرَ .


----------



## linguist786

Can I ask a question before I respond?
Do you speak Urdu/Hindi?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Unfortunately, I don't speak any of the two but I would like to. I do know a couple of words here and there and I have a lot of Indian & Pakistani friends. So would Urdu or Hindi be similar?


----------



## linguist786

Abu Bishr said:


> Unfortunately, no I don't speak any of the two but I would like to. I do know a couple of words here and there and I have a lot Indian & Pakistani friends. So would Urdu or Hindi be similar?


Ah OK. Well I won't bother explaining in UR/HI then hehe. Just for the record, in UR/HI, it is sort of "half way" between the English and Arabic concept (I think anyway - that's just my opinion ). Anyway:



			
				Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> Or let's take English: Is there a difference between "the glass was broken" and "the glass broke


Well to me, it's like this:

"The glass was broken" could _either_ mean would mean "the state of the glass was _broken_" - "broken" here is a sifat (adjective) to _describe_ the state of the glass _OR _it could be used in the passive sense that "somebody broke the glass" hence "the glass was broken"

"The glass broke" is an active sentence, with the verb being intransitive. However in Arabic, it must be translated passively. (This is what I think anyway..)

I would translate it thus (in Arabic):
The glass was broken - الزجاج كان مكسور _az-zujaaju kaana maksuurun _OR كُسِرَ الزجاج _kusira 'z-zujaaju_
The glass broke - just كُسِرَ الزجاج _kusira 'z-zujaaju_

Notice how "az-zujaaju" has a dammah in "kusira 'z-zujaaju". This is not because it is the subject of the sentence (فاعل) but because it is, what we call in Arabic, the نائب فاعل _naaib faa3il_ (because in a passive sentence, the subject becomes the object - in any language).

Does that answer the query (kind of?).


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:


> The glass was broken - الزجاج كان مكسورا _az-zujaaju kaana maksuur*an*_


----------



## abusaf

Abu Bishr said:


> Yes, in the sense in which I explained above for how would you analyse الزجاج in انكسر الزجاجُ as فاعل or مفعول به , and would there be a difference between انكسر الزجاجُ and كُسِر الزجاجُ ? Or let's take English: Is there a difference between "the glass was broken" and "the glass broke".



I don't agree. In this sentence انكسر الزجاج , the زجاج is not doing anything, rather something is being done to it. So the فاعل is passive.

So my question is, is there any Arabic VII verb that has a real active meaning?


----------



## linguist786

abusaf said:
			
		

> The glass was broken - الزجاج كان مكسورا _az-zujaaju kaana maksuur*an*_


Ah yes, it slipped my mind that كان is one of those words after which the noun must be مرفوع.

شكراً لك!


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:


> Ah yes, it slipped my mind that كان is one of those words after which the noun must be *منصوب*.


----------



## elroy

Here is the difference I feel between the two structures:

فُتح الباب. - The opening of the door was accomplished (by a certain agent). _(emphasizes the completion of the action)_
انفتح الباب. - The door underwent a process of being opened. _(emphasizes the process of the door's being opened.) _

In neither case is the door actively doing anything.  The reason the second one is more suitable in Abu Bishr's sentences is that the emphasis is on the process of the door's being opened, the sugar's being spilled, etc. (as a response to a stimulus, granted). The first form is more appropriate when you wish to emphasize the completion of an action - for example, افتتحت هذه المؤسسة قبل عامين. 

By the way, Abu Bishr, I'm unclear as to what you meant by this: 





> What this means that in the second verb the object of the first verb actually becomes the agent or doer of the second verb.


 A clarification would be appreciated.


----------



## elroy

linguist786 said:


> Ah yes, it slipped my mind that كان is one of those words after which the noun must be مرفوع.





abusaf said:


> *منصوب*.


 This is a little off-topic, but I'd like to settle this debate.

Neither of these rules is correct.  كان governs _two_ nouns (or noun substitutes), one of which (اسم كان) is مرفوع and one of which (خبر كان) is منصوب.  The normal word order is كان - اسم كان - خبر كان, in which case the following word is مرفوع.  However, sometimes اسم كان is understood (a ضمير مستتر) as in Linguist's sentence, in which case the following noun is the خبر كان so it is منصوب.

Further questions about this are welcome in a new thread.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Sorry Guys for not being able to respond promptly.

This is my case:

(1) When you break a glass, what is actually breaking?

(2) If something breaks by itself, for example, would you say: كُسِرَ (it was broken as if by someone) or would you rather say: انْكَسَرَ (it broke), or if something changes colour by itself without someone actively changing it, we would say: تغيَّر لونُ الشيءِ (its colour chaged) and not غُيِّرَ لونُ الشيءِ (its colour was changed). In the latter case someone actually changed the colour but the speaker prefers not to mention him. In the former case there is no active agent or فاعل involved so as to make the thing's colour (that is changing) a mere passive recipient but rather the colour itself changed, so the colour is active in changing its own state in a manner of speaking.

(3) How, would you translate: "This thing is breaking apart", so to say, by itself. Nothing is affecting it or acting in it (bearing in mind that we won't use انكسر necessarily)

(4) If a man is breaking down, we say for example: هو في حالة الانهيار (النفسي or something like that.

(5) If someone explodes a bomb, what is actually exploding? Should a bomb explode by itself, can you say: فُجِّرَت القنبلة (the bomb was exploded)? "The bomb exploded" and "the bomb was exploded" are two different sentences. In English, would you say the first sentence is actually a passive construction? I don't think so. 

(6) The difference between كسر and انكسر is that the first is transitive and the second intransitive like the two types of "break" in English. I do accept that an object can sometimes be a recipient of an action, but then that object itself undergoes "something" (call it a change) which makes it the agent of the change that it is undergoing.

(7) Finally, in the case where the object is responding to an agent, is its response or reaction something that it is doing in an active sense, e.g. the door responded by opening, its resonse was that it opened. If the door was really passive and the mere object of the agent's action, then there would not have been any response or reaction. Even the word "reaction" contains the word "action" but one in return and from the there the word "active". My point is that if you cannot use كُسِر in place of انكسر all the time, then the two forms are not the same.

I admit that I've repeated myself a couple of times in this post, but I'm trying very hard to get my point across. At the end of the day people are entitled to their opinions and the point can only be argued so far.


----------



## Abu Bishr

linguist786 said:


> Your latter part of the post can be summed up like so:
> 
> If you consider the following sentences:
> 
> 1. The boy kicked the ball
> 2. The ball was kicked.
> 
> Now clearly (1) is active and (2) is passive. The simple thing is: In a passive sentence, the object becomes the subject. This means the action of the verb is being done _to_ it, rather than _by_ it (as is the case in an active sentence)


 
What do you think about these sentences, Linguist 786:

(1) The boy kicked the ball, and the ball bounced off.

(2) The boy bounced the ball, and the ball bounced.

(3) The boy bounced the ball, and the ball was bounced.

(4) The ball bounced twice. The ball was bounced twice.

I think the last pair of sentences (4) seems to show a very clear difference between the two sentences.

"The ball bounced twice" means that it bounced twice by itself, whereas "the ball was bounced twice" tell us that the ball was bounced by someone who has been left out in the sentence.These two sentences illustrate, in my view, the difference between كُسِر الزجاجُ مرتين (the glass was broken twice) and انكسر الزجاجُ (the glass broke twice).


----------



## linguist786

If I'm very honest Abu Bishr, I haven't come across sentences like انكسر الزجاجُ yet. I am just a beginner and started about a month and a half ago! Although, it seems to me that those kinds of sentences are used to show verbs with an intransitive quality (judging from what's been said on this thread) I have however come across sentences like كُسِر الزجاجُ which are used for the passive voice. I _can_ say:

The difference between "The ball bounced twice" and "The ball was bounced twice" is the following:

The ball bounced twice = This is a normal active sentence, with the ball _itself_ doing the bouncing. Since it can't have a direct object in this sentence, the verb "bounce" here is intransitive.

The ball was bounced twice = Like you said, this means the ball was bounced by _someone_ but we don't know who. This is clearly a passive sentence. 

It's the same thing with "the glass was broken twice" and "the glass broke twice".

When you said:


> "the ball was bounced twice" tell us that the ball was bounced by someone who has been left out in the sentence


this is because that kind of construction is _not possible_ in Arabic. In English we say "The ball was kicked _by_ the boy" but in Arabic, this would _not_ be possible since the _whole point_ of the passive in Arabic is that the فاعل (doer of the verb) is not known. This is why it is called "المجهول" - the word itself comes from the root ج-ه-ل which means "to be unknowing/to be unaware". Hence the sentence would have to be translated actively.


----------



## elroy

I understand your point, Abu Bishr, and - without splitting hairs about the semantic and grammatical meanings of the word "active" - I would say that I generally agree with you.

Just one thing, Linguist:


> this is because that kind of construction is _not possible_ in Arabic. In English we say "The ball was kicked _by_ the boy" but in Arabic, this would _not_ be possible since the _whole point_ of the passive in Arabic is that the فاعل (doer of the verb) is not known. This is why it is called "المجهول" - the word itself comes from the root ج-ه-ل which means "to be unknowing/to be unaware". Hence the sentence would have to be translated actively.


 It is actually positive to express the agent of a passive sentence in Arabic, as in English.  Normally one uses من قبل.

.رُكلت الكرة من قبل الفتى

Yes, it sounds a little awkward in Arabic, but it _is_ possible.  Even in English it's generally not advisable to use the passive voice when the agent is known - unless specific emphasis is to be placed on the receiver of the action.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Lingistic 786

There are three terms in Arabic that I know for المجهول:

المجهول
المبني للمجهول
المبني للمفعول

The نائب الفعال is often called (المفعول الذي لم يسم فاعله) (the object whose فاعل is not named or mentioned in the sentence.

Now, it is not true that the الفاعل is always unknown but that this is just one of many reasons why it is dropped in the sentence. Other reasons are:

(1) knowing the Agent, and that mentioning him would be redudant
(2) preferring not to mention the Agent out of fear for him or for yourself, should he know that you spilled the beans
(3) focusing on the object rather than the agent, and so on.

This clear from an example like: خُلِقَ الإِنْسَانُ ضَعِيْفاً (Man was created weak) where it is known to God-believing people that the agent is God but because it is common knowledge that He is the Creator it is not necessary to mention His Name.

In MSA they have resorted to a style similar to that in English where in a passive sentence you can actually mention the agent or subject by using the expression (... مِنْ قِبَلِ ) (min qibali ...) e.g. أُخْبِرَ المدرسون من قبل الطلاب (the teachers have been informed by the students or from the students' side). Needless, to say it is not exactly the same but that is how you would translate a English passive sentence in which the agent is mention using "by".


----------



## linguist786

Thanks for that elroy. It does say in the Madinah University books that it's "not possible" - which is where I got it from.

But yes, I also wondered about that when I thought of the Qur'aanic aayah: 

إتَّبِعُوْا مَا اُنْزِلَ إلَيْكُمْ مِن رَّبِّكُم...
(سورة الأءراف - 3)

which uses the المجهول but with the فاعل mentioned (i.e. رَبِّكُم)
So yes, as you said, it's not _im_possible.

Thanks


----------



## linguist786

Abu Bishr said:


> Lingistic 786
> 
> There are three terms in Arabic that I know for المجهول:
> 
> المجهول
> المبني للمجهول
> المبني للمفعول


Would it be possible to explain what each one means/is used for? 


			
				Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> The نائب الفعال is often called (المفعول الذي لم يسم فاعله) (the object whose فاعل is not named or mentioned in the sentence.
> 
> Now, it is not true that the الفاعل is always unknown but that this is just one of many reasons why it is dropped in the sentence. Other reasons are:
> 
> (1) knowing the Agent, and that mentioning him would be redudant
> (2) preferring not to mention the Agent out of fear for him or for yourself, should he know that you spilled the beans
> (3) focusing on the object rather than the agent, and so on.
> 
> This clear from an example like: خُلِقَ الإِنْسَانُ ضَعِيْفاً (Man was created weak) where it is known to God-believing people that the agent is God but because it is common knowledge that He is the Creator it is not necessary to mention His Name.
> 
> In MSA they have resorted to a style similar to that in English where in a passive sentence you can actually mention the agent or subject by using the expression (... مِنْ قِبَلِ ) (min qibali ...) e.g. أُخْبِرَ المدرسون من قبل الطلاب (the teachers have been informed by the students or from the students' side). Needless, to say it is not exactly the same but that is how you would translate a English passive sentence in which the agent is mention using "by".


Wow! I learnt something new today  Very interesting indeed!

Oh - and please call me Mohammed lol


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Elroy, we seem to have thought about the same thing.

And Linguist 786, the Qur'anic verse is not exactly the same as (من قِبَلِ) but rather أنزل like أرسل is a verb that indicates movement *from* s.o or s.th. *to* s.o. or s.th. So the prepositions here are part of the verb's valencies.


----------



## Abu Bishr

linguist786 said:


> Would it be possible to explain what each one means/is used for?


 
Here you go Muhammad:

الفعل المجهول (فاعله a verb whose subject is dropped in the sentence (literally: whose subject is unknown)

الفعل المبني للمجهول (the verb that has been formed or structured for that whose subject is not stated in the sentence)

الفعل المبني للمفعول (the verb that is formed or structured to give information about the object rather than the subject)


----------



## Outsider

It seems to me that you are asking about unaccusative verbs, Abu. "I broke the glass"  "The glass broke [= was broken]".


----------



## linguist786

Outsider said:


> It seems to me that you are asking about unaccusative verbs, Abu. "I broke the glass"  "The glass broke [= was broken]".


Well "unaccusative" and "intransitive" are the same thing, aren't they?


----------



## linguist786

Abu Bishr said:


> Here you go Muhammad:
> 
> الفعل المجهول (فاعله a verb whose subject is dropped in the sentence (literally: whose subject is unknown)
> 
> الفعل المبني للمجهول (the verb that has been formed or structured for that whose subject is not stated in the sentence)
> 
> 
> الفعل المبني للمفعول (the verb that is formed or structured to give information about the object rather than the subject)


شكراً جزيلاً. أفهم الآن ​


----------



## Outsider

linguist786 said:


> Well "unaccusative" and "intransitive" are the same thing, aren't they?


Not necessarily.


----------



## linguist786

Outsider said:


> Not necessarily.


Fair enough  I guess I just said that judging by simply looking at the words. "unaccusative" basically implies that the verb wouldn't have a direct object, which is exactly what an intransitive verb is. but oh well


----------



## abusaf

على فِكرة, خَطَرَ على بالي فِعْلٌ مِن وَزْنِ "ينفعل اِنفَعَلَ" يَحمِلُ معنى عاملاً, وهو فِعْلُ *يَنصرِفُ اِنصَرَفَ*. هل أخطأتُ التعبيرَ لو قلتُ أنَ هذا الفِعلَ يَختَلِفُ عَن غيرِهِ مِن نَفسِ الوَزْنِ مِن حيث عَمل الفاعِلِ؟​


----------



## Josh_

Here's my take. I like the way Abu Bishr explained that these verbs react or respond, because in effect, that is what they do -- they are resultative verbs. Form V is resultative of form II, and forms VII and VIII are resultative of form I. Abu Bishr's examples in his first post are excellent example of this (I broke the glass and so (the result it broke). In this respect they are active verbs grammatically, but can have passive (and are often translated into English as such), reflexive, or resultative meaning. Like I said, they are active (but they can have passive meaning, and thus cannot be in the same classification as verbs such as كُسِرَ and وُلِد which are pure passives -- categorized as مجهول . Rather, their meaning is categorized as مطاوعة (obedience) because it is, as it were, obedient to the previous form (form VII and VII obedient to form I and form V obedient to form II), i.e. it shows the result, or consequence, of the form I or II action. A verb is thus مطاوع (obedient, conforming) because it shows the result of form I (or form II). I hope I've made some sense.

To sum up the meanings:

فَعَلَ : Active meaning; فاعل
فُعِلَ : Passive meaning; مجهول
تفعّلَ : resultative meaning in some cases (in the instances described in this thread anyway) 
انفعل : resultative/consequential meaning; مطاوع


----------



## Ali Smith

I might add that sometimes باب الانفعال serves as the middle voice of a verb from باب الإفعال rather than الثلاثي المجرد. For instance,

أغلق - to bolt
انغلق - to be bolted

أطفأ - to extinguish
انطفأ - to be extinguished


----------



## mspears

I think it's only in modern Arabic that you can have infi'aal coming from if'aal rather than thulathi mujarrad.


----------



## Ali Smith

Not true. What about انزعج 'to be(come) disquieted/disturbed'? It is obviously the middle voice of أزعج. It cannot be the middle voice of زعج, can it?


----------



## Mahaodeh

mspears said:


> I think it's only in modern Arabic that you can have infi'aal coming from if'aal rather than thulathi mujarrad.


I wouldn’t make such assumptions, افعال المطاوعة generally come from specific forms but that rule is not set in stone, sometimes they come from others. I can’t think of an example right now and there may not be one, but my point is: don’t dismiss the idea in Classical Arabic.


Ali Smith said:


> Not true. What about انزعج 'to be(come) disquieted/disturbed'? It is obviously the middle voice of أزعج. It cannot be the middle voice of زعج, can it?


In fact, انزعج is فعل مطاوعة لزَعَجَ. The verb زَعَجَ and the verb أزعج have identical meanings in Classical Arabic, but don’t confuse it with زَعِجَ. It’s similar to راد وأراد. The verb زَعَجَ is not very common in MSA.


----------

