# Passive voice/Active voice



## linguist786

I have just started Arabic classes but it's a class that's been running for just under a year now - so I don't know the "basics" if you like since I wasn't there from the beginning. The class is free and are run by the imaam of our mosque. The thing is, it's a class that's full of middle-aged men who, I must say, learn quite slowly! So I don't think it'll be too hard catching up. (well i hope not!.. i'm prepared to do some intense swotting-up )

Anyway, I had my first lesson a few days ago and I got chucked in the deep end I must say - with the active and passive voice! but amazingly, I think I understood the concept.

So I have some questions.

If you want to say "Muhammad hit Ahmad" (active voice), would this be right:

"dharaba muhammadun ahmadan" ?

what about "Sumayyah, Aishaah and Safiyah (all women) hit Ahmad", would this be right:

"dharabta Summayyatun wa Aishaatun wa Safiyyatun Ahmadan"

(It's the vowel sounds I'm unsure of - the "-an" and "-un")

Just to reinforce it, I made up these sentences. Please can someone check them? (It's not against the rules is it, since I've attempted them first? lol)

1. The messengers were helped - Nusiroo rasoolun
2. Zaid wrote a Qur'aan - kataba Zaidun Qur'aanan
3. Gabriel was sent - bu'itha Jibreelun
4. Summayah was killed - qutilat Summayyatun
5. The door of the house was opened - futihal baabul baytu (?)
6. Zaid drank hot milk - Shariba (??? - not sure at all about last bit)
7. I recited Surah-Kahaf (a chapter in the Qur'aan) on Friday = qaraha Suratul-Kahfee fil jummah
8. We ate fish on Saturday = akalnaa samakun fis-sabtin


----------



## abusaf

salam aleykum!

I would gladly help you out. And since you did not use Arabic letters in your post, neither will I, I think most letters will be understood anyway.



			
				linguist786 said:
			
		

> So I have some questions.
> 
> If you want to say "Muhammad hit Ahmad" (active voice), would this be right:
> 
> "dharaba muhammadun ahmadan" ?


Yes



			
				linguist786 said:
			
		

> what about "Sumayyah, Aishaah and Safiyah (all women) hit Ahmad", would this be right:
> 
> "dharabta Summayyatun wa Aishaatun wa Safiyyatun Ahmadan"
> 
> (It's the vowel sounds I'm unsure of - the "-an" and "-un")


Yes, even though it's Dh-ra-ba-t, but Im sure this was just a sloppy mistake.



> 1. The messengers were helped - Nusiroo rasoolun


The passive voice is correct, however, since the verb is in the beginning, you have to make it masculine singular, even though you are talking about a group, so:

Nu-si-ra ar-Rusulu



> 5. The door of the house was opened - futihal baabul baytu (?)


Fu-ti-hat baab ul bayti (Mudhaaf ilayhi)



> 6. Zaid drank hot milk - Shariba (??? - not sure at all about last bit)


Shariba Zaidun labanan saakhinan



> 7. I recited Surah-Kahaf (a chapter in the Qur'aan) on Friday = qaraha Suratul-Kahfee fil jummah


َQar'atu Suratal - Kahf yawm al jumma3h.

Because the Sura is the one being read, therefore, Mansoob.



> 8. We ate fish on Saturday = akalnaa samakun fis-sabtin


Nahnu Akalna samakan yawm as-sabt

Likewise , the fish is the one being eaten, therefore, Mansoob.

Hope I was of any help.


----------



## linguist786

Thank you so much!! Very helpful indeed.
Can I ask what you mean by:

1. Mudhaaf ilayhi and
2. Mansoob

? I'm not completely savvy about the terminology yet! (but it's good you used them - i've learnt something!)

And also, what about 2/3/4 - were they all OK?


----------



## Josh_

I just have a small comment -- the 'dh' is usually representative of the *ذ* while *ض* is usually represented by a capital 'D', at least on this forum.


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Thank you so much!! Very helpful indeed.
> Can I ask what you mean by:
> 
> 1. Mudhaaf ilayhi and
> 2. Mansoob
> 
> ? I'm not completely savvy about the terminology yet! (but it's good you used them - i've learnt something!)
> 
> And also, what about 2/3/4 - were they all OK?



The sentences I did not comment on were all correct.  

1. *Mudhaaf ilayhi*
Mudhaaf ilayhi is generally the owner of something.

I.e: Kitabu Bilaalin : Bilals book.

Or: 

Kam ul-Qameesi : The sleeve of the shirt. 

So the thing that is owned is Marfoo3 (Dammah = KamU, KitabU) and the owner is Majroor (Kasrah = BilalIN, al-QameesI)

2. *Mansoob
*This word is too big to just explain in a few sentences, but generally, there are 3 forms the noun can be in. 

Marfoo3 
Which is classified by the Dammah. The U.
Allah*u* Akbar.
This is the standard form.

Mansoob
Which is classified by the Fathah. The A.
Inna Allaah*a* akbar.

Majroor
Which is classified by the Kasrah. The I.
Al Hamdu Lillah*i

*So when are these tre forms used? Thats something you have to learn, khabar al inna, khabar al kana, etc. The book Arabic Course from Medinah, SAU, explains this very well in clear english.

Woohooo speaking of Saudi, today is the game versus Tunisia. Saudiiii!!

See ya


----------



## cherine

abusaf said:
			
		

> 1. *Mudhaaf ilayhi*
> Mudhaaf ilayhi is generally the owner of something.


Abusaf, you made a great effort to summarise most of the Arabic grammar in few lines  

May I just remind you that the use of "dh" in transliteration leads to think that the Arabic letter is ذ not ض ?
Thank you.


----------



## abusaf

Do I detect sarcasm? :/


----------



## cherine

sorry, it wasn't meant (really).
What I meant to say is that we can't really explain grammar this "summarisingly" (I'm not even sure this word exist).

Please forgive an unintentional irony, I haven't been really nice to many people lately (even my closest friends).
Thank you.


----------



## abusaf

I never said I was going to explain grammar, برمتها

I just provided a short briefing. If there was any mistake in what I wrote and summarized, a correction would be in place.


----------



## cherine

Ok, fair enough. Here are some slight corrections or comments.


			
				abusaf said:
			
		

> 1. *Mudhaaf ilayhi*
> Mudhaaf ilayhi is generally the owner of something.


I hope we already agree on the use of "dh" to transliterate the letter ذ and the "D" for the ض .
You're right about the muDaf ilayhi being "generally" the owner of something, but this can be misleading.
In a structure like قائمة الأسماءِ qaa2imatu 'l-asmaa2i (list of names) the word asmaa2i is a muDaaf ilayhi, but it's not an owner.
The same goes for al-madrasati in finaa2u 'l-madrasati فناء المدرسة (the school's playground); and with "an-na7wi" in "kitaabu 'n-na7wi" كتاب النحو ... and many other sentences.



> So *the thing that is owned is Marfoo3* (Dammah = KamU, KitabU) and the owner is Majroor (Kasrah = BilalIN, al-QameesI)


This is the most risky : saying that the owned is marfoo3 means it's always marfoo3, which is not correct at all. And I'm sure you don't need examples for that. And I also think you already know it. What I mean to say, is to remind you that for us natives some things don't need to much explanations, but we can easily mislead learner (I think I've done so myslef more than once, so I'm speaking out of personal experience  )



> .... So when are these three forms used? That's something you have to learn, khabar al inna, khabar al kana, etc.


Of course you know that النصب والرفع والجر is not only caused (grammatically I mean) by the use of inna and kana, so you could've said that such things are learnt through grammar (grammatical positions and parsing).

I hope my comments are ok. We can always discuss them if you want 
Cherine


----------



## Whodunit

As I am a beginner of Arabic, too, I always translate the terms. If you know languages other than English, you'll have enough knowledge to understand most of the Arabic terms, when they are translated:



			
				abusaf said:
			
		

> 1. *Mudhaaf ilayhi*
> Mudhaaf ilayhi is generally the owner of something.
> 
> I.e: Kitabu Bilaalin : Bilals book.
> Kam ul-Qameesi : The sleeve of the shirt.
> 
> So the thing that is owned is Marfoo3 (Dammah = KamU, KitabU) and the owner is Majroor (Kasrah = BilalIN, al-QameesI)


 
The "muDaaf ilayhi" is the first noun of a genitive construction. A genitive construction is the one we represent by merging nouns in German, or by combining two nouns with "de" in French (di in Italian), and so on.



> Marfoo3
> Which is classified by the Dammah. The U.
> Allah*u* Akbar.
> This is the standard form.


 
This is the nominative. Example: "The man is dead" = ar-radjulu mayyitun"

The "u" can also be "un", it just depends on whether or not  it is determined by the definite article.

So, "the dead man" would be ar-radjulu al-mayyitu".
And "a dead man" would be radjulun mayyitun.



> Majroor
> Which is classified by the Kasrah. The I.
> Al Hamdu Lillah*i*


 
This is usually called the genitive in most languages:

The mother's child = waladu 'l-ummi
A mother's child. = waladu ummin



> Mansoob
> Which is classified by the Fathah. The A.
> Inna Allaah*a* akbar.


 
This is the acccusative.

I bought a book. = ishtaraytu kitaaban (pay attention to the spelling! كتبا)
I bought the book. ishtaraytu 'l-kitaaba (no change in spelling)



> Woohooo speaking of Saudi, today is the game versus Tunisia. Saudiiii!!


 
Germany won against Saudi by 8:0 four years ago.


----------



## cherine

Whodunit said:
			
		

> The "muDaaf ilayhi" is the first noun of a genitive construction.


Are you sure it's the first ?
Just to make sure we're speaking of the same thing :
كتابُ الرجلِ the second word of this structure is the muDaaf ilayhi, the first one is the muDaf.



> I bought a book. = ishtaraytu kitaaban (pay attention to the spelling! كتبا)


Please pay attention too  كتابًا you forgot the first alef, though you've put it in the transliteration, so I think it's just a typo 



> Germany won against Saudi by 8:0 four years ago.


Guys !! Could we keep the football things out of here ? You can discuss sports by PM, no ?
Thanks for understanding 
Cherine.


----------



## Josh_

cherine said:
			
		

> Whodunit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "muDaaf ilayhi" is the first noun of a genitive construction.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it's the first ?
> Just to make sure we're speaking of the same thing :
> كتابُ الرجلِ the second word of this structure is the muDaaf ilayhi, the first one is the muDaf.
Click to expand...


I used to have trouble remembering which one was which, but I use little memory tricks to do it now. For this one I just remember the "muDaaf" is one word and thus is the first term if the iDaafa, and "muDaaf ilayhi" is two words, so it is the second word of an iDaafa.


----------



## linguist786

omg - You guys are unbelievably helpful!!
I cannot begin to describe how much i've learnt just by reading all the posts in _one _thread.

This has encouraged me _even_ more to learn Arabic (faster!)

شكرا جزيلا.


----------



## linguist786

I am going to try a few more, just to be even sure:

9. Hamid's brother cooked meat = tabakha 'l-akhul hameedi (muDaaf ilayhi ) lahmun.

10. The angels lifted up the sky (for those who know Urdu. i want to say: Farishto ne aasmaan uthaayaa):
???u malaa'ikatun asmaa'an

Oh by the way - thanks for pointing out the "dh" and "D" thing - I'll make sure I be careful in future 
And don't worry - i'm sure I know what muDaaf ilayhi is now


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:
			
		

> I am going to try a few more, just to be even sure:
> 
> 9. Hamid's brother cooked meat = tabakha 'l-akhul hameedi (muDaaf ilayhi ) lahmun.


 
Tabakha Akhu Hamidin lahman

Cherine

1. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the English word *etc*. With regards to the examples of khabar inna and kana I gave.

2. If you look up the definition of Mudhaaf ilayhi in any grammar book you will find that it says it is Majroor. Sure there might be exceptions, but the basis is majroor. 
و الله المستعان


----------



## linguist786

Having thought about this one:

"Sumayyah, Aishah and Safiyah (all females) hit Ahmad"

would it not be:

"Darab*na* Sumayyatun wa Aishatun wa Safiyyatun Ahmadan"

?


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> "Sumayyah, Aishah and Safiyah (all females) hit Ahmad"
> would it not be:
> "Darab*na* Sumayyatun wa Aishatun wa Safiyyatun Ahmadan"?


We use Darabna when the verb follows the subject :
Sumayyatu wa Aa2ishatu wa Safiyyatu Darab*na* Ahmadan.
But when the sentence starts with the verb, it takes the form of the singular feminine :
Darabat Sumayyatu wa Aa2ishatu wa Safiyyatu Ahmadan 
And don't ask me why 
Also for the tanwiin "un", I don't remember the exact rule, but I have this feeling that not using it is better with those proper names.


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> 9. Hamid's brother cooked meat = tabakha 'l-akhul hameedi (muDaaf ilayhi ) lahmun.


Tabakha akhu hamiidin lahman. طبخَ أخو حميدٍ لحمًا
the word "lahm*a*n" should take a fat7a not a Damma, because it's مفعول به (object of the verb).
And if you say al-akhu hamiid it would mean : Brother Hameed, not Hameed's brother. So to say Hameed's brother we put the word brother as indefinite akh-kh أخّ and the addition إضافة of Hammeed is what makes it definite.



> 10. The angels lifted up the sky :
> ???u malaa'ikatun asmaa'an


Rafa3at 'lmalaa2ikatu 's-samaa2a رفعت الملائكةُ السماءَ
(by the way, Islamwise, it's God who's lifting the sky  )
In this sentence, as you defined the sky "*as*-samaa2a" you don't use tanween, for at-tanween is only used with indefinite words (i.e. words that don't start with "al").
And the use of the article "al" with "malaa2ka" is better الملائكة.

Good work Linguist  
Could I only suggest we keep this thread for the passive voice sentences, so we can focus on one topic per thread ?
Thank you


----------



## abusaf

ًWhy is Hameed ممنوع من الصرف?

It is not so according to most dictionaries, especially Hans Wehr.


----------



## cherine

Sorry Abusaf, that was a mistake, I doubted it myself and edited my post while you were writing yours.


----------



## linguist786

Thanks people!!
Another thing - can somebody check whether I've written some out correctly in Arabic?

For some reason, my Arabic letters come out backwards here, so I will attach the file.
(I did this all on paint so my writing is awful! I hope it is legible enough for you!)


----------



## abusaf

Good. But I must ask, what do you mean by the first sentence?
I ask because you write in English "The messengers were helped", but in arabic you wrote "The messenger was helped".
So do you want to write the plural form or is is just a sloppy mistake?


----------



## linguist786

abusaf said:
			
		

> Good. But I must ask, what do you mean by the first sentence?
> I ask because you write in English "The messengers were helped", but in arabic you wrote "The messenger was helped".
> So do you want to write the plural form or is is just a sloppy mistake?


No i _do_ want to write the plural form! Did i not write that in the first post? hmm.. *goes to check*

edit - yes i did


----------



## abusaf

Tayyib, 

So it's :

Rasool : رسول Singular
Rusul: رسل  Plural


----------



## cherine

Ok Linguist, that's a very good work you've done here, and with Paint ! Bravo.
Now the corrections/comments :
The plural of rasuul رسول is rusul رُسُـل 
So your sentence should go : نُصِرَ الرُّسُلُ
2- كتب زيدٌ قرآنًا
 You only forgot to add the final alef after the tanween.
And one more thing : if you want to say "a copy of the Qur'an" you better say "mus7af" مصحـفًا and use the verb "nasakha" نـَسَخَ which means copied, because "katab" is like put/creat... ألّف which I don't think you mean.
3- بُعِثَ جبريلُ 
Now Jibril is a ممنوع من الصرف because it is a non-Arabic name علم أعجمي so we don't put tanween with it.
4- قُتِلَت سُميةُ 
Sumayya is in the passive voice, so it should have been sumayyatu not sumayyata.
5- فتح بابُ البيتِ 
You put البابُ البيتِ but the correct is to put the word "baab" without the article.
6- for the last sentence, only lacks the "alef" at the end of "laban*an* saakhin*an*"

Overall, very good work  
But I hope you're aware that the second and sixth sentences are not in the passive voice.

Cherine


----------



## linguist786

cherine said:
			
		

> Ok Linguist, that's a very good work you've done here, and with Paint ! Bravo.
> Now the corrections/comments :
> The plural of rasuul رسول is rusul رُسُـل
> So your sentence should go : نُصِرَ الرُّسُلُ
> 2- كتب زيدٌ قرآنًا
> You only forgot to add the final alef after the tanween.
> And one more thing : if you want to say "a copy of the Qur'an" you better say "mus7af" مصحـفًا and use the verb "nasakha" نـَسَخَ which means copied, because "katab" is like put/creat... ألّف which I don't think you mean.
> 3- بُعِثَ جبريلُ
> Now Jibril is a ممنوع من الصرف because it is a non-Arabic name علم أعجمي so we don't put tanween with it.
> 4- قُتِلَت سُميةُ
> Sumayya is in the passive voice, so it should have been sumayyatu not sumayyata.
> 5- فتح بابُ البيتِ
> You put البابُ البيتِ but the correct is to put the word "baab" without the article.
> 6- for the last sentence, only lacks the "alef" at the end of "laban*an* saakhin*an*"
> 
> Overall, very good work
> But I hope you're aware that the second and sixth sentences are not in the passive voice.
> 
> Cherine


Thank you very very much!!
Yes, some of them are in the passive and some in the active - hence the title of the thread. 
Thanks again - you're very helpful!!


----------



## cherine

You're most welcome 
By the way, I recommend you still write in the forum,I've seen in other threads you're complaining about letters showing reversed, but to me they were fine.
So you could always try typing directly in the forum, it must be very tiring to write with the Paint program


----------



## linguist786

cherine said:
			
		

> You're most welcome
> By the way, I recommend you still write in the forum,I've seen in other threads you're complaining about letters showing reversed, but to me they were fine.
> So you could always try typing directly in the forum, it must be very tiring to write with the Paint program


oh absolutely! It's just that panjabigator seems to be seeing them backwards, so i thought maybe other users may too. Well next time I know! 
Thanks cherine.

oh by the way - how do _you_ type in Arabic? I do it in Microsoft word first and then i copy and paste it - it's still a bit of a headache!


----------



## linguist786

cherine said:
			
		

> 5- فتح بابُ البيتِ
> You put البابُ البيتِ but the correct is to put the word "baab" without the article.


Why is this so? I want it to be the definite article, don't I? (*the* door of *the* house?)


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> how do _you_ type in Arabic? I do it in Microsoft word first and then i copy and paste it - it's still a bit of a headache!


I just press right alt+shift and start typing 
But you need to set or download the Arabic keyboard first. See this sticky, prepared by Elroy.


----------



## cherine

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Why is this so? I want it to be the definite article, don't I? (*the* door of *the* house?)


If you put two definite words, one following the other, the second one will be an adjective, not a مضاف-مضاف إليه 
The "muDaaf ilayhi" itself plays the role of defining the word preceding it باب البيت is actually translated as the door of the house, but الباب البيت won't really have a meaning, you can replace the second word "al-bayt" with any other adjective الكبير - الصغير - الطويل - القصير 

If I'm not clear, please let me know.


----------



## linguist786

cherine said:
			
		

> If you put two definite words, one following the other, the second one will be an adjective, not a مضاف-مضاف إليه
> The "muDaaf ilayhi" itself plays the role of defining the word preceding it باب البيت is actually translated as the door of the house, but الباب البيت won't really have a meaning, you can replace the second word "al-bayt" with any other adjective الكبير - الصغير - الطويل - القصير
> 
> If I'm not clear, please let me know.


I think I know what you mean. It's sort of like "the door of the house" - the "of the house" bit is "describing" what sort of door it is. Would that be right?
So "baab al-kabeer" means "the big door"?

Thanks for the advice on installing the Arabic keyboard - I'll consider it!

I'm gonna try transcribing some others later on.


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:
			
		

> I think I know what you mean. It's sort of like "the door of the house" - the "of the house" bit is "describing" what sort of door it is. Would that be right?
> So "baab al-kabeer" means "the big door"?



Not really. When you say the door of the house, you are saying, the houses door, i.e the door belongs to the house. 
Like you say Mohammeds Book, you can also say The Book of Mohammed, but the meaning changes alittle bit. 

Mohammeds book : The book which belongs to Mohammed.

The Book of Mohammed: Could be the book which belongs to Mohammed, but also; the book which talks about Mohammed.

So when you are saying Baab ul bayti, you are saying the houses door, you are telling whos door it is. 

But when you say The big door, you are describing the door. When you say "baab ul kabeer" it means, the bigs door, i.e the door which belongs to the big, which is illogical of course.

Hope this clears it up a little bit? It's so hard to explain.


----------



## linguist786

abusaf said:
			
		

> Not really. When you say the door of the house, you are saying, the houses door, i.e the door belongs to the house.
> Like you say Mohammeds Book, you can also say The Book of Mohammed, but the meaning changes alittle bit.
> 
> Mohammeds book : The book which belongs to Mohammed.
> 
> The Book of Mohammed: Could be the book which belongs to Mohammed, but also; the book which talks about Mohammed.
> 
> So when you are saying Baab ul bayti, you are saying the houses door, you are telling whos door it is.
> 
> But when you say The big door, you are describing the door. When you say "baab ul kabeer" it means, the bigs door, i.e the door which belongs to the big, which is illogical of course.
> 
> Hope this clears it up a little bit? It's so hard to explain.


Oh no - absolutely! I can see what you're getting at.

Anyway, I have attached the last two sentences for checking - can you check them please?


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Oh no - absolutely! I can see what you're getting at.
> 
> Anyway, I have attached the last two sentences for checking - can you check them please?


Yes, but remember, in these two sentences, the word Soorah, and Samak, are both the direct object of the verb, so they must be Mansoob, i.e with fathah.

قرأت سورةَ الكهفِ


Edit: Sorry, I wrote the wrong vowel.


----------



## linguist786

OK thanks again!

one question - would "The door of the house was opened" then be "futi7a baabul bayti"?

and another thing - you said for "We ate fish on Saturday" it is "nahnu akalnaa samak*a*n yawm as sabt" - is it not samak*u*n?


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:
			
		

> OK thanks again!
> 
> one question - would "The door of the house was opened" then be "futi7a baabul bayti"?
> 
> and another thing - you said for "We ate fish on Saturday" it is "nahnu akalnaa samak*a*n yawm as sabt" - is it not samak*u*n?



No it is samakan, because it is the direct object.

We ate fish. 

Someone/something is eating (We), and someone/something is being eaten (the fish).

So the fish becomes the direct object of the verb and hence Mansoob, i.e with a fathah.


----------



## linguist786

abusaf said:
			
		

> No it is samakan, because it is the direct object.
> 
> We ate fish.
> 
> Someone/something is eating (We), and someone/something is being eaten (the fish).
> 
> So the fish becomes the direct object of the verb and hence Mansoob, i.e with a fathah.


Right OK. If I'm honest, I'm still a bit muddled up lol.. i'm gonna have to read all the posts again. But Thanks!!  

and what about the door question?

edit - so if i wanted to say "the fish was eaten" - would this be "ukila samak*u*n"?


----------



## abusaf

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Right OK. If I'm honest, I'm still a bit muddled up lol.. i'm gonna have to read all the posts again. But Thanks!!
> 
> and what about the door question?
> 
> edit - so if i wanted to say "the fish was eaten" - would this be "ukila samak*u*n"?



Yes its a complicated issue, but think of it like this:

You have a verb. Run, scream, dance, talk, look, eat, etc.

I.e: The man ate a banana

Who is the person doing the verb? The eater, i.e the man.

What is the victim of the verb? The one being eaten, i.e the banana.

So the eater, is the marfoo3, i.e with the UN ending, and the victim of the verb is the Mansoob, i.e with the AN ending.

The man beat his friend

Who is doing the verb? The beater, i.e the man.

Who is the victim of the verb? The beaten, i.e the friend. 



> and what about the door question?



Yes you were correct.



> edit - so if i wanted to say "the fish was eaten" - would this be "ukila samak*u*n"?



Yes, because he is doing the verb here


----------



## linguist786

ah!! You know, I think I've got it!
Thank You Jazeelan! 

oh by the way - the person who i get taught by calls the "marfoo3" the "faa'il" - does that mean anything to you? I think it means "do-er"


----------



## Josh_

linguist786 said:
			
		

> ah!! You know, I think I've got it!
> Thank You Jazeelan!
> 
> oh by the way - the person who i get taught by calls the "marfoo3" the "faa'il" - does that mean anything to you? I think it means "do-er"


Actually, the way abusaf explained it might have been a little confusing.  The doer or subject of the verb is the faa3il, and it is in marfuu3 case, that is, it takes the Damma.  The thing having the action done to it, or the object, is the maf3uul bihi and it is in manSuub case, i.e takes the fatHa.


----------



## linguist786

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> Actually, the way abusaf explained it might have been a little confusing. The doer or subject of the verb is the faa3il, and it is in marfuu3 case, that is, it takes the Damma. The thing having the action done to it, or the object, is the maf3uul bihi and it is in manSuub case, i.e takes the fatHa.


Thank you for such an excellent explanation. I totally understand an active sentence in Arabic now!


----------



## elroy

Since people have asked others to point out mistakes or ambiguities, I'd like to do so myself, in the interest of helping out our learners:



			
				abusaf said:
			
		

> Fu-ti-hat baab ul bayti (Mudhaaf ilayhi)


"Baab" is masculine so it should be "fu-ti-ha."


			
				abusaf said:
			
		

> 2. If you look up the definition of Mudhaaf ilayhi in any grammar book you will find that it says it is Majroor. Sure there might be exceptions,...


Cherine was referring to the "muDaaf" and not the "muDaaf ilayhi," in response to this statement of yours:


> So *the thing that is owned is Marfoo3* (Dammah = KamU, KitabU)...


The "thing that is owned" is the "muDaaf" - which can be marfuu3, majruur, or manSuub." You are right about the "muDaaf ilayhi," which is *always* majruur.


			
				abusaf said:
			
		

> When you say "baab ul kabeer" it means, the bigs door, i.e the door which belongs to the big, which is illogical of course.


Well, actually, it would mean "the door of the big one" or "the big one's door."

Moderator Note: Please remember that personal attacks are not allowed in the forum. That includes posting presumptuous comments about people's intentions. Thanks.


----------

