# tanwiin تنوين in a proper name



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

Proper names are defined by nature, so what are the reasons why the Proper names have tanwîn or not?

Les noms propres sont définis par nature alors je me demande quelles sont les raisons pour lesquelles ils ont ou non un tanwîn, quelles sont les causes grammaticales ?


Merci.


----------



## WadiH

They are semantically definite but grammatically they can be either definite (الزبير، الطفيل، عبد الله، صلاح الدين) or indefinite (محمد، هند، خالد).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

The grammatical reasons are the same as any common noun? (Les raisons grammaticales sont-elles les mêmes que pour n'importe quel nom commun ?)

Proper names can not have the definite article or am I wrong? الزبير and الطفيل are proper names with the definite article?
Can they be Mudhaf?

*EDIT :*
Exemples tirés d'ici :  http://www.madinaharabic.com/Arabic_.../L004_009.html : مُحَمَّدٌ   طَالِبٌ et أَحْمَدُ طَالِبٌ

Les deux noms propres ont la même fonction grammaticale, ils sont sujets d'une phrase nominale (c'est-à-dire  مُبْتَدأ)   mais pourtant seul un des deux a un tanwîn, ceci me fait penser que le   fait qu'un nom propre ait ou non un tanwîn n'est pas lié à sa fonction   grammaticale, c'est du moins vrai dans cet exemple.

Du coup je me demande si cela n'est pas lié au nom  lui même ce qui impliquerait que certains noms propres ont toujours un  tanwîn et que d'autres n'en ont jamais. Par exemple est-ce qu'il est  possible que Ahmad ait le tanwîn et que Muhammad ne l'ait pas  contrairement aux exemples cités ?

Qu'en pensez-vous ?


----------



## kid koodii

I do not speak French but it would seem that many common names are in idaafa construct (salah addin, 3abd allah as given by Wadi Hanafa). However names are grammatically definite no matter what their construct-- "kitaabu muhammad" means "the book of muhammad", no matter what, and "al" is never necessary before the proper noun. aleisa kathalik?


----------



## psxws

Essentially the difference is the origin of the name, some names have tanwiin because they are words already in Arabic. Muhammad for example is an اسم مفعول and Khalid an اسم فاعل, they are both regularly constructed from their roots so that, even if you might not think of it as such, it was originally simply an adjective that came to be used as a proper name, so that grammatically it is still treated as such. Ahmad comes from the verb conjugation and so does not fall under these same rules.


----------



## Mahaodeh

kid koodii said:


> However names are grammatically definite no matter what their construct-- "kitaabu muhammad" means "the book of muhammad", no matter what, and "al" is never necessary before the proper noun. aleisa kathalik?



I don't agree, they are semantically definite but why should they be grammatically definite? Let's just look at my name and say something like: هذه مها, semantically, if you are referring to me then sure it's definite but if you are referring to that group of Oryx then it's not. So, if we need more context to decide whether it's semantically definite or not how can we be so positive that it's grammatically definite?

If there is no iDafa and there is no definite article then it's not definite grammatically. Of course you can't always have tanween because many (if not most) nouns used as proper names are ممنوع من الصرف.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

kid koodii said:


> I do not speak French...


Sorry I'm not English so my English is very bad :

Examples from this site: http://www.madinaharabic.com/Arabic_.../L004_009.html : مُحَمَّدٌ   طَالِبٌ et أَحْمَدُ طَالِبٌ

Both  names have the same grammatical function, they are subject to a nominal  sentence (مبتدأ) but only one has a tanwîn, so it seems that this is  not the grammatical function of the name that determines whether or not  it must have a tanwîn. So now I think it depends solely on the name independently of any context.

What do you think?



psxws said:


> Essentially the difference is the origin of the name, some names have tanwiin because they are words already in Arabic. Muhammad for example is an اسم مفعول and Khalid an اسم فاعل, they are both regularly constructed from their roots so that, even if you might not think of it as such, it was originally simply an adjective that came to be used as a proper name, so that grammatically it is still treated as such. Ahmad comes from the verb conjugation and so does not fall under these same rules.





Mahaodeh said:


> I don't agree, they are semantically definite but why should they be grammatically definite? Let's just look at my name and say something like: هذه مها, semantically, if you are referring to me then sure it's definite but if you are referring to that group of Oryx then it's not. So, if we need more context to decide whether it's semantically definite or not how can we be so positive that it's grammatically definite?
> 
> If there is no iDafa and there is no definite article then it's not definite grammatically. Of course you can't always have tanween because many (if not most) nouns used as proper names are ممنوع من الصرف.



Thank you very much to both.

So if I understand this is not the grammatical function of the name that determines whether or not  it must have a tanwîn. This depends solely on the name independently of any context, is that correct?

So there are only two cases:

1 - The proper name has* always* tanwîn independently of any context.
2 - The proper name has *never* tanwîn independently of any context.

For example, Ahmad can not have tanwîn, is this correct?

How to distinguish between the two categories? Is that the criterion is that the names of the second category are diptote (ممنوع من الصرف)? Ahmad is a diptote ?

thank you very much.



Mahaodeh said:


> I don't agree, they are semantically definite  but why should they be grammatically definite?


I do not understand the difference between "grammatically definite" and "semantically definite". If  "grammatically definite" means "without tanwîn" then how to consider  the  Mudhaf defined by the Mudhaf ilayhi and diptote with the definite  article?

And an adjective that  describes the proper name without tanwîn (semantically definite) must be grammatically definite then why this proper name is not considered grammatically definite ?

Thank you very much for your help.


----------



## cherine

I don't understand the idea of semantically vs. grammatically definite either, but I'd say that this question could have a simpler answer: A name does not take tanwiin if it's a ممنوع من الصرف .
Name like أحمد، أمجد، أسعد .... are ممنوع من الصرف , while names like محمد، عمرو، عادل، كريم ... are not.


----------



## clevermizo

Do modern Arabic dialects that still employ tanwīn as an indefinite marker also use tanwīn with proper names like محمّد?


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> Do modern Arabic dialects that still employ tanwīn as an indefinite marker also use tanwīn with proper names like محمّد?



According to one scholar (I think it was Bruce Ingham), only the bedouins of southern Najd did this in their normal speech (the other bedouins were cognizant of this and told Ingham that their southern neighbors ينوّنون الأسامي).

Of course, all Arabian dialects use tanwiin with proper names _in poetry_ (which gives poets an obvious metrical advantage).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

Do you all agree with Cherine?



cherine said:


> I don't understand the idea of semantically vs. grammatically definite either, but I'd say that this question could have a simpler answer: A name does not take tanwiin if it's a ممنوع من الصرف .
> Name like أحمد، أمجد، أسعد .... are ممنوع من الصرف , while names like محمد، عمرو، عادل، كريم ... are not.



Merci Cherine, ta réponse est claire. Donc si je comprends bien la règle c'est que tous les noms propres ont un tanwîn sauf ceux qui sont diptotes (ممنوع من الصرف), c'est bien ça ?

Donc cela n'a rien à voir avec la fonction grammaticale du nom propre. Par exemple محمد doit toujours avoir un tanwîn qu'il soit mubtada, khabar, mudhaf ilayhi ou autres fonctions grammaticales, c'est bien ça ?

Est-ce correct ? Merci.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Of course Cherine is correct. But she doesn't address the fact that names, whether or not they are ممنوع من الصرف , are treated as if they were definite with regard to agreement with the surrounding syntactic elements, but at the same time, they lack the definite article and can take تنوين (if they aren't ممنوع من الصرف). For example:

محمدٌ النبيُّ The prophet Mohammed

These two words are in apposition and they therefore agree in definiteness. However, محمد takes تنوين in spite of this. It is this contradiction I believe, which led to the terms, "grammatically definite," and, "semantically definite."



> So there are only two cases:
> 
> 1 - The proper name has* always* tanwîn independently of any context.
> 2 - The proper name has *never* tanwîn independently of any context.


This is not the case. The name محمد , as we've seen, can take تنوين , but it can also lose its تنوين if it's syntactic role forbids تنوين . For example,

محمدُ الإسلامِ Mohammed of Islam

يا محمدُ Oh Mohammed!

So in the latter cases, محمد is both semantically and grammatically definite, while in the former (e.g. محمدٌ النبيُّ) the name is semantically definite and grammatically INDEFINITE. Surrounding syntactic elements (i.e. adjectives or other nouns in apposition) will always agree with names' semantic definiteness, but the grammatical definiteness or lack thereof must be determined from a given name's syntactic context. Only once we've determined the grammatical definiteness do we take into consideration whether or not the name is diptotal (since diptotes only show limited declensions when they are grammatically indefinite), and we can decide whether or not to give the name تنوين .

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello *Lukebeadgcf*,

Thank you very much for your helpful answer.


----------



## Serafín33

Guys... Please don't use words incorrectly. 

Arabic names are always definite *semantically *and *syntactically*, hence you can say هذه مها (demonstratives have to be followed by definite nouns) and محمدٌ النبيُّ (appositions have to agree in definiteness).

However, Arabic names can be either definite or indefinite *morphologically*, e.g. أحمدُ,‎ محمدٌ,‎ زيدٌ,‎ فاطمةُ (‎indefinite); الزبيرُ,‎ عبد اللهِ (definite).

This is important in order to write sentences in Arabic that are *grammatically *correct. 



Ibn Nacer said:


> How to distinguish between the two categories? Is that the criterion is that the names of the second category are diptote (ممنوع من الصرف)? Ahmad is a diptote ?


Whether indefinite names take تنوين when they're not مضاف, that depends on their gender, origin or pattern. 

All feminine names are diptotes (فاطمةُ,‎ زينبُ,‎ عائشةُ), as well as all those from foreign sources (سليمانُ,‎ إبراهيمُ,‎ يسوفُ). This implies that the only ones that can take nunation have to be native male names. It seems it depends on their pattern, being diptotes if they resemble diptote patterns (أجمدُ, like colours e.g. أحمرُ or elatives أكبرُ), verbal patterns (يزيدُ, like the verb يبيعُ "he buys"), or even feminine names at that (نَخلةُ). But in the end there's still some rote memorization to this, like عَمْرُو and عُمَرُ.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

> However, Arabic names can be either definite or indefinite *morphologically*, e.g. أحمدُ,‎ محمدٌ,‎ زيدٌ,‎ فاطمةُ (‎indefinite); الزبيرُ,‎ عبد اللهِ (definite).



I agree. That seems like a more helpful way to put it.


----------



## cherine

Thanks Neqitan! That's a very well put explanation.


----------

