# يرعى في إفراط الحرية الفردية



## jack_1313

Hello.

The following sentence appears in a Tunisian court ruling. It's criticizing the principle of عدم رجعية القوانين الجزائية, i.e. the principle that a person can't be convicted under a law that didn't exist at the time he or she committed the supposed crime.

ذاك المبدأ أصبح اليوم محل نظر وأصبح علماء القانون الجنائي يشككون في صلاحيته نظرا لأنه يغلب جانب الفرد على جانب المجتمع و*يرعى في* إفراط الحرية الفردية
_Today, that principle has come under examination, and criminal law scholars now question its validity as it puts the individual before society and ... excess of individual freedom._

I'm stuck trying to figure out what يرعى في means here. From the context and the usual meaning of the word, I would guess "foster" (i.e. allows or encourages), but I can't work out why the verb is followed by a preposition (في) rather than a direct object.

Any thoughts? Thanks


----------



## WadiH

Here يرعى في is more in the sense of "ventures into".  Basically it's saying "it goes too far in the direction of unfettered personal freedom".


----------



## jack_1313

Thanks very much for explaining that! Do you know how - or whether - this usage connects to the verb's basic meaning of looking after/fostering/tending to/governing something?


----------



## elroy

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Here يرعى في is more in the sense of "ventures into".  Basically it's saying "it goes too far in the direction of unfettered personal freedom".


 I wasn't familiar with this usage in Arabic.  Your explanation reminds me of "basks in" or "revels in" in English, although I'm not sure either would work very well in this particular case ("basks in / revels in excessive personal freedom" would sound odd to me in this context).  Maybe something like "gratuitously promotes personal freedom"?


----------



## WadiH

The image I get from it is of a shepherd venturing too deep in the desert with his flock.*  I agree that it could also be read as "grazing" rather than "shepherding" (hence the suggestion of "basking" or "reveling"), but it's a court judgment discussing the scope of a certain legal principle, so I don't  think the sense of "grazing", "basking" or "reveling" is what they had in mind here.

"_gratuitously promotes personal freedom_" can work if you want to convey the meaning without sticking too closely to the original.

* another popular expression in the same vein: لقد أبعدت النجعة, meaning "you've missed the point" or "you've strayed too far from the answer".  The literal meaning is "you've made your spring encampment too far".


----------



## elroy

Wadi Hanifa said:


> venturing too deep


 In that case, إفراط is redundant!

Maybe we can say “goes too far in valuing individual freedom” or “overvalues individual freedom.”


----------



## WadiH

I think إفراط here means "to relax" (e.g. relaxing your hold on a leash or rope) or to release (e.g. فرط السبحة, releasing the beads in a rosary), i.e. "it goes too far in allowing personal freedom".  Notice it says إفراط الحرية الشخصية ("allowing personal freedom") not الإفراط في الحرية الشخصية ("allowing excessive personal freedom").  So I don't think it has to be redundant.

Basically it's saying it indulges personal freedom too much.  There are of course many ways to express this idea in English whether more or less close to Arabic expression, so "overvalues individual freedom" might work (though I feel the issue of value isn't really there in the Arabic -- you could indulge or permit something without necessarily believing it is more valuable).


----------



## djara

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Here يرعى في is more in the sense of "ventures into". Basically it's saying "it goes too far in the direction of unfettered personal freedom".


َيرعى, here, means to protect, to safeguard (as in الله يحفظك ويرعاك) Cf. راعى، يراعي take into consideration



elroy said:


> “goes too far in valuing individual freedom ” or “overvalues individual freedom.”


Much closer to the meaning



jack_1313 said:


> و*يرعى في* إفراط الحرية الفردية


The way I personally read this is as follows (punctuation mine): ويرعى*، *في إفراط ، الحرية الفردية 

literally: it protects, to excess, individual freedom.


----------



## rajulbat

Based on Wadi's explanation, I might suggest for the translation:

_scholars now question its validity as it puts the individual before society and *crosses the line into an excess of* individual freedom._


----------



## djara

rajulbat said:


> crosses the line into


Please have a look at post #8. يرعى doesn't mean to cross the line. It means to protect, safeguard


----------



## rajulbat

djara said:


> Please have a look at post #8. يرعى doesn't mean to cross the line. It means to protect, safeguard


We cross-posted. But assuming you're right and Wadi is wrong, we are back at the original question, why the "fi" in "يرعى في"

Edit: cross-out based on second reading of # 8.


----------



## djara

rajulbat said:


> why the "fi" in "يرعى في"


The whole point is that it isn't يرعى في, it is يرعى (في افراط) الحرية الفردية. 
في افراط is in apposition
As to the meaning of يرعى the following from Lisaan could maybe convince you:
رَعاه يَرْعاه رَعْياً ورِعايَةً: *حَفِظَه*. وكلّ مَنْ وَلِيَ أَمرَ قومٍ فهو راعِيهم وهُم رَعِيَّته

and the following from Lane's Lexicon:
You say, رَعَيْتُهُ I kept, or *guarded*, him, as a ruler or governor, or a prince or commander, who manages, conducts, orders, or regulates, the affairs of the people: (Msb and رَعَى الأَمِيرُ رَعِيَّتَهُ [The prince ruled, or governed, his subjects], inf. n. رِعَايَةٌ. (S.) And رَعْيًا لَكَ [I beg God's *keeping, or guarding*, for thee]; meaning رَعَاكَ اللّٰهُ *May God keep thee, or guard thee*. (Har p. 617.) And رَعَى أَمْرَهُ, (K,) inf. n. رَعْىٌ (TA) [and رِعَايَةٌ], He was mindful, or regardful, of his affair, or case; as also امره ↓ راعى, (K, TA,) inf. n. مُرَاعَاةٌ.


----------



## rajulbat

So, essentially,  "protects to [the point of] excess individual freedom."


----------



## djara

rajulbat said:


> So, essentially, "protects to [the point of] excess individual freedom."


Yes, that's how I read it in Arabic. Now maybe you, as a native speaker, could find a better wording in English, especially one that doesn't separate the verb from it's direct object (or is that acceptable?)


----------



## elroy

djara said:


> ويرعى*، *في إفراط ، الحرية الفردية


 If that’s the intended meaning I think it should be بإفراط.


----------



## WadiH

djara said:


> The whole point is that it isn't يرعى في, it is يرعى (في افراط) الحرية الفردية.
> في افراط is in apposition
> As to the meaning of يرعى the following from Lisaan could maybe convince you:
> رَعاه يَرْعاه رَعْياً ورِعايَةً: *حَفِظَه*. وكلّ مَنْ وَلِيَ أَمرَ قومٍ فهو راعِيهم وهُم رَعِيَّته
> 
> and the following from Lane's Lexicon:
> You say, رَعَيْتُهُ I kept, or *guarded*, him, as a ruler or governor, or a prince or commander, who manages, conducts, orders, or regulates, the affairs of the people: (Msb and رَعَى الأَمِيرُ رَعِيَّتَهُ [The prince ruled, or governed, his subjects], inf. n. رِعَايَةٌ. (S.) And رَعْيًا لَكَ [I beg God's *keeping, or guarding*, for thee]; meaning رَعَاكَ اللّٰهُ *May God keep thee, or guard thee*. (Har p. 617.) And رَعَى أَمْرَهُ, (K,) inf. n. رَعْىٌ (TA) [and رِعَايَةٌ], He was mindful, or regardful, of his affair, or case; as also امره ↓ راعى, (K, TA,) inf. n. مُرَاعَاةٌ.



Sorry I don't get this.  There is clearly a في in the text -- we can't just ignore it.  And رعى also means taking your flock to graze (and can also mean to graze).  What you've quoted is not exhaustive.


----------



## djara

elroy said:


> If that’s the intended meaning I think it should be بإفراط.


Maybe في here is a Tunisianism


----------



## rajulbat

djara said:


> As to the meaning of يرعى the following from Lisaan could maybe convince you...


I don't have any doubt that رعى has to do with grazing, and by extension shepherding, and by extension from that guarding or taking care of or watching over.



djara said:


> The way I personally read this is as follows (punctuation mine): ويرعى*، *في إفراط ، الحرية الفردية
> literally: it protects, to excess, individual freedom.



With all the respect that is due a speaker of the language who is native to the source country, I'm not completely convinced your personal reading of the sentence is accurate.

If your personal reading is correct, then ifraT is in the indefinite genitive case, such that we are no longer talking about "an excess of personal freedom" but rather "an excess *in shepherding*" (or whatever meaning we assign to ra3a in this sentence). In other words, the relevant grammatical diacritics would be:

يرعى في افراطٍ الحريةَ الفرديةَ

whereas if the sentence is talking about an excess of personal freedom, it would be:


يرعى في افراطِ الحريةِ الفرديةِ


because then we have an idhafa that forms between ifraT and hurriyya fardiyya.

But it seems to me that your personal reading is an awkward reading. I wonder if it might be more accurate to assume that the author is under the impression that yar3a fi has the same meaning as


يقود إلى
يؤدي إلى

much like

"يسبب في"
"يتسبب في"


or if perhaps the "fi" is completely superfluous and OP was correct in his initial assumption based on context that the author means "fosters an excess of individual freedom."

If either of these two possibilities is true, then we should be able to find evidence of other Arabic speakers who write under the same impression. So, I looked for such evidence, "يرعى في" - Google Search ,

and did not find much, if anything. Most of the instances dealt with sponsoring an event *at *(fi) a particular place or *on *(fi) a particular day or grazing livestock *in *(fi) a particular area or field.

However, there were some instances where it ("yar3a fi") apparently meant "takes care of" -- and the fi was not part of a prepositional phrase such as fi ifraTin, which in any case to me would seem to be written bil-ifraT (again, with the respect due those of superior knowledge and experience). They are pasted below:



دير الحطب : راعي من القرية يرعى في اغنامه = A pastor *watches over *his sheep. (Palestine) - or perhaps -* grazes/pastors his sheep.*
هذا رجل تعيش معه زوجته حياة صاخبة، قائمة على التسلط والسب والشتم واللعن، والضرب المبرح، وتنجب منه عدداً من الأولاد وهي ترجو أن تصلح أحواله،... وتمضي الحياة بهذه الزوجة سنوات موحشات مع رجل لا يخاف الله في أهله، ولا يرعى في زوجته وأولاده إلاً ولا ذِمَّة،... = a man who does not fear God and who *does not take care of (watch over)* his wife and children... (Saudi Arabia)


My guess is that the "fi" is accidental or erroneous.


----------



## djara

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Sorry I don't get this. There is clearly a في in the text -- we can't just ignore it. And رعى also means taking your flock to graze (and can also mean to graze). What you've quoted is not exhaustive.


I don't ignore the في. For me, it belongs to إفراط not to رعى. My reading is: رعى الحرية الفردية بإفراط that is أفرط في رعايته للحرية الفردية
If you look carefully, in the passage you quoted from my post في is there, along with إفراط, between brackets to show how I personally parse the sentence
As to the meaning of رعى, obviously its first meaning is to take to pasture. I was simply arguing that, in the sentence under consideration, it's the figurative meaning of protect and safeguard that should be envisaged.
The author of this sentence was not talking about sheep and pastures, he was talking about how the law overprotects individual freedom at the expense of the needs of society


----------



## djara

rajulbat said:


> So, I looked for such evidence, "يرعى في" - Google Search ,
> 
> and did not find much, if anything.


No wonder! because, as I keep saying, it's not يرعى في
Now, you're obviously free to read the sentence the way you want. I may be wrong, but that's the way I read this sentence.
Unfortunately, I don't have any other arguments to continue this debate.


----------



## rajulbat

djara said:


> No wonder! because, as I keep saying, it's not يرعى في


I know!

I'm not disagreeing with you or misinterpreting (anymore) your proffer that fi is the first part of an adverbial prepositional phrase of unconventional (or regionalist) formation, "fi ifraT." I was simply reporting the results of my research to add to the information available in the thread. Perhaps there are other foreros who do have other theories that would advance the discussion and the ideas I posed in my previous response will be helpful.

I don't have a dog in this non-fight.


----------



## djara

elroy said:


> If that’s the intended meaning I think it should be بإفراط.


It seems that it isn't a Tunisianism after all. I googled قال في اصرار and قال في اعتزاز (instead of the expected باصرار and باعتزاز) and found quite a few examples for في اصرار (more than 20,000) and much less for في اعتزاز (some 8, mostly from 3ammiyya) 
I added قال to my search to eliminate other possible uses of في (e.g. رأى في إصرار الحكومة...)


----------



## rajulbat

And this phrase keeps coming up:

" لا يرعى في * إلاً ولا ذمة "

مجلة البيان
الأساتذة المتدربون ينتقدون "خرق اتفاق 21 أبريل" ويلوّحون بالاحتجاج
" لا يرعى في * إلاً ولا ذمة " - Google Search


----------



## elroy

I think at least prescriptively, بـ can always replace في and not vice versa.  I would wager that these are most likely misuses due to confusing the two prepositions.


----------



## cherine

Hi,

I'm sorry I didn't read every word in this thread, but I just wanted to say that I understood the sentence the same way Djara did: it exaggerates in protecting/taking into account individual freedom. And I think it also more fitting to the context: protecting the individual [almost] at the expense of the society.


----------



## WadiH

rajulbat said:


> And this phrase keeps coming up:
> 
> " لا يرعى في * إلاً ولا ذمة "
> 
> مجلة البيان
> الأساتذة المتدربون ينتقدون "خرق اتفاق 21 أبريل" ويلوّحون بالاحتجاج
> " لا يرعى في * إلاً ولا ذمة " - Google Search



This is a different construction though.


----------



## rajulbat

Wadi Hanifa said:


> This is a different construction though.


وما معناه لو سمحت


----------

