# وَلَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ يَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ



## dgwp

I have encountered the following sentence in _al-Mostatraf_ (Chapter 59), describing how the soul of a dead person was thought to turn into a bird that left his body, and then stood on his tomb screeching:

وَلَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ يَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ 

However, it seems to be that it can be translated in two ways, depending on what لَا يَزَالُ refers to, i.e. it can have the meanings:

(1) لَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ 'while still appearing in the form of a bird, etc.' (with مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ as a circumstantial accusative that modifies this).

(2) لَا يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ 'it does not cease to screech at his tomb, mourning the loss of him'.

Would be interested to hear some thoughts on which is more likely.


----------



## ayed

Off my head, 
1-The soul of dead still is being evoked/imagined by people as a bird screeching at the dead's grave
2-That bird still is screeching lonesomely(due to loneless)


----------



## cherine

@dgwp, you should always provide sufficient context instead of incomplete sentences like this. Not only is this the rule of the forum, but it also help others understand better and help you better.

Anyway, the sentence is from a chapter about the customs of Arabs before Islam, and the author explains one of those customs: الهامة , he says:

الهامة: كانوا يزعمون أن الإنسان إذا قُتل ولم يؤخذ بثأره يخرج من رأسه طائر يسمى الهامة، وهو كالبومة، فلا يزال يصيح على قبره اسقوني إلى أن يؤخذ بثأره. وكان للعرب مذاهب في الجاهلية في النفس [...] وطائفة منهم يزعمون أن النفس طائر ينشط من جسم الإنسان إذا مات أو قتل، ولا يزال متصورًا في صورة الطائر يصرخ على قبره مستوحشًا له.​



dgwp said:


> it seems to be that it can be translated in two ways, depending on what لَا يَزَالُ refers to, i.e. it can have the meanings:
> 
> (1) لَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ 'while still appearing in the form of a bird, etc.' (with مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ as a circumstantial accusative that modifies this).
> 
> (2) لَا يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ 'it does not cease to screech at his tomb, mourning the loss of him'.


The way I understand it is that the bird that comes out of the dead person's body is the bird mentioned previously, that resembles the owl and that keeps crying over the person's grave.
لا يزال متصورًا في صورة الطائرة they always imagined him in the form of that bird that cries over the grave.


----------



## dgwp

Thank you Cherine, I will try to include more context in future.

However, the verb يزال is singular, and the subject of the verb is surely the bird rather than the people?


----------



## cherine

Yes. أن النفس طائر ولا يزال [الطائر] متصورًا في صورة [ذلك] الطائر [الذي] يصرخ
The other possible reading is لا يزال الإنسان [الميت] متصورًا في صورة الطائر but this is less likely, as the talk is about an-nafs and its bird form, rather than the person himself.


----------



## dgwp

I'm not sure this really answers my initial question. Perhaps I can clarify it by stripping the original sentence down and inserting some commas etc. Basically, I am trying to ascertain which of the following two meanings the original sentence conveys:

(1) لَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ، وَيَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ

(2) لَا يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُعَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ، مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ


----------



## elroy

I don't understand what your confusion is.  Both (1) and (2) mean the same thing; you've only changed the placement of two elements that both refer to the subject of لا يزال.  You've changed the word order but haven't changed the meaning.


cherine said:


> The other possible reading is لا يزال الإنسان [الميت] متصورًا في صورة الطائر


 I don't think so, Cherine.  The only possible antecedent is الطائر, in my opinion.  النفس can't be the antecedent because it's feminine, and I don't think we can assume a subject (like الإنسان) that is not explicitly stated earlier in the sentence, and in reasonable proximity.


----------



## dgwp

OK elroy, please see my original post in that case.


----------



## elroy

I did, but your question is very unclear. 


dgwp said:


> However, it seems to be that it can be translated in two ways, depending on what لَا يَزَالُ refers to


 لا يزال refers to الطائر (see above).  Furthermore, the two readings you provide do not seem to depend on two possible antecedents for لا يزال. 


dgwp said:


> (1) لَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ 'while still appearing in the form of a bird, etc.' (with مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ as a circumstantial accusative that modifies this).


 "While" is not a possible reading, and I'm not sure what led you to entertain that possibility.  Also, what is "this"?  You have repeated the phrase you are talking about.  How can the a phrase modify itself? 


dgwp said:


> (2) لَا يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ 'it does not cease to screech at his tomb, mourning the loss of him'.


 Why did you omit متصورًا في صورة الطائر?

I'm afraid you may need to make another attempt to clarify your question.


----------



## dgwp

In case (1), I was trying to indicate that the adverb مُتَصَوﱢرًا modifies the verb يَزَالُ, whereas in case (2) it modifies يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُ  Apologies for any confusion.

How would you translate the original sentence?


----------



## cherine

elroy said:


> I don't think so, Cherine.


I agree, and this is what I said


cherine said:


> this is less likely, as the talk is about an-nafs and its bird form, rather than the person himself.


I was just trying to figure out if there could be any other reading of the sentence.
I see we agree that there isn't any.



dgwp said:


> In case (1), I was trying to indicate that the adverb مُتَصَوﱢرًا modifies the verb يَزَالُ, whereas in case (2) it modifies يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُ  Apologies for any confusion.
> How would you translate the original sentence?


Could you please read my post above and tell me if it's still not clear?


cherine said:


> The way I understand it is that the bird that comes out of the dead person's body is the bird mentioned previously, that resembles the owl and that keeps crying over the person's grave.
> لا يزال متصورًا في صورة الطائرة they always imagined him in the form of that bird that cries over the grave.


----------



## elroy

dgwp said:


> the adverb مُتَصَوﱢرًا


 Ah -- this is the source of the confusion!  متصورًا is not an adverb here; it's the predicate/خبر of لا يزال, i.e. it's an adjective.  Does that help?


----------



## dgwp

I see. However, earlier in the text we have لا يزال يصيح, which is why I thought we had لا يزال يَصْرُخُ here, but modified by the adverbial clause مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ  between the two verbs.

So is it not possible to split the two verbs with an adverbial clause like this?


----------



## elroy

dgwp said:


> earlier in the text we have لا يزال يصيح, which is why I thought we had لا يزال يَصْرُخُ here, but modified by the adverbial clause مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ between the two verbs.


 I don't see what لا يزال يصيح has to do with the part we're analyzing. 


dgwp said:


> So is it not possible to split the two verbs with an adverbial clause like this?


 I'm not ready to make any blanket statements -- all I can tell you is that it's not an adverbial clause in this sentence.


----------



## dgwp

elroy said:


> I don't see what لا يزال يصيح has to do with the part we're analyzing.



Because the whole point of the text after لا يزال يصيح is to expand on this, and لا يزال يَصْرُخُ is pretty much identical in form and meaning to لا يزال يصيح, which suggests that the author intended it to have the same meaning!


----------



## elroy

Sorry, I have no idea why that would lead you to think it was an adverbial phrase.  

Anyway, do you have any further questions?


----------



## dgwp

The plot thickens! I have managed to locate a French translation of the text by G. Rat (1899), which DOES treat it as an adverbial phrase:

"D'autres prétendaient que l'âme était un oiseau qui s'échappait du corps de l'homme, lorsqu'il mourait ou qu'il était victime d'un meurtre, et qu'elle ne cessait, sous la l'orme d'un oiseau, de crier auprès de la tombe du défunt, dans sa douleur de l'avoir perdu."

with approximate English translation:

"Others claimed that the soul was a bird escaping from the body of the man, when he had died or was murdered, and did not cease,
in the form of a bird, shouting at the grave of the deceased from the pain of loss."


----------



## elroy

That doesn’t prove anything.  The translator chose what he or she felt worked best in _French_.  This doesn’t tell us anything about the _Arabic_ syntax.


----------



## dgwp

I think perhaps it would be good to get the opinions of some other native Arabic speakers on this?


----------



## elroy

If any of them post, they will tell you the same thing I did.  It is *definitely* not an adverbial in Arabic.  This is an absolutely basic and straightforward structure; there is nothing tricky about it.

It’s time to accept that your analysis was wrong and move on.


----------



## ayed

dgwp said:


> The plot thickens! I have managed to locate a French translation of the text by G. Rat (1899), which DOES treat it as an adverbial phrase:
> 
> "D'autres prétendaient que l'âme était un oiseau qui s'échappait du corps de l'homme, lorsqu'il mourait ou qu'il était victime d'un meurtre, et qu'elle ne cessait, sous la l'orme d'un oiseau, de crier auprès de la tombe du défunt, dans sa douleur de l'avoir perdu."
> 
> with approximate English translation:
> 
> "Others claimed that the soul was a bird escaping from the body of the man, when he had died or was murdered, and did not cease,
> in the form of a bird, shouting at the grave of the deceased from the pain of loss."


Arabs before Islam believed that when a person killed and interred in the grave, something looked like a worm would emerge from the corpse and develop into a bird called” Hamah”. It perched on the grave screeching “water..water[give me water]) meaning to take revenge for the corpse.


----------



## Mahaodeh

dgwp said:


> I'm not sure this really answers my initial question. Perhaps I can clarify it by stripping the original sentence down and inserting some commas etc. Basically, I am trying to ascertain which of the following two meanings the original sentence conveys:
> 
> (1) لَا يَزَالُ مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ، وَيَصْرُخُ عَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ
> 
> (2) لَا يَزَالُ يَصْرُخُعَلَى قَبْـرِهِ مُسْتَوْحِشًا لَهُ، مُتَصَوﱢرًا فِـي صُورَةِ ٱلطَّائِرِ



I don't understand the confusion, it clearly states "it still takes the form of a bird [that is] screeching at his grave"

By the way, I don't believe that it is متصوَّر with a fatHa (اسم مفعول), I believe it's متصوِّر with a kasra (اسم فاعل) meaning "take the form". The book was written over a thousand years ago so it's very likely that the words had CA meanings!

لا يزال refers to 'taking the form' not the screeching, as elroy said earlier:


elroy said:


> متصورًا is not an adverb here; it's the predicate/خبر of لا يزال,





dgwp said:


> The plot thickens!



I don't see that, it seems to me that the French guy understood it the way cherine and I did - if I understood cherine correctly of course.



elroy said:


> لا يزال refers to الطائر (see above). Furthermore, the two readings you provide do not seem to depend on two possible antecedents for لا يزال.



I don't think so, I think it refers to the dead person. I don't think it refers to the bird because he is saying that 'it is taking the form of a bird' so it's not a bird. As you said, it's unlikely that it refers to النفس because the latter is feminine, so the context gives only one option left: the dead person.



elroy said:


> It is *definitely* not an adverbial in Arabic.


Agreed.


----------



## ayed

I am suspicious of  متصوراً might be in passive voice
That Hama is *still seen/pictured *by people as a bird floating over and perch on the grave


----------



## dgwp

Should it not be في صورة الطائر الذي يصرخ, since الطائر is definite, not indefinite?


----------



## elroy

dgwp said:


> Should it not be في صورة الطائر الذي يصرخ, since الطائر is definite, not indefinite?


 That's one possibility, but the sentence is correct as is: يصرخ goes with the subject of لا يزال.


----------

