# كان يعمل في المطبخ



## Muwahid

Hello,

My question is regarding the sentence كان يعمل في المطبخ does it mean - He used to work in the kitchen - or - He was working in the kitchen? How can we differentiate between the two?

Thanks


----------



## azeid

Hello,
Here's my attempt:
He was working in the kitchen = كان يعمل فى المطبخ
He used to work in the kitchen = اعتاد العمل فى المطبخ


----------



## clevermizo

Muwahid said:


> Hello,
> 
> My question is regarding the sentence كان يعمل في المطبخ does it mean - He used to work in the kitchen - or - He was working in the kitchen? How can we differentiate between the two?
> 
> Thanks



See azeid's post. But according to context I think that كان يعمل في المطبخ can mean both. Again, context would differentiate.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I agree with Clevermizo; you would have to figure that out from the coontext.


----------



## elroy

azeid said:


> He was working in the kitchen = كان يعمل فى المطبخ
> He used to work in the kitchen = اعتاد العمل فى المطبخ


 "He used to work in the kitchen" = كان يعمل في المطبخ (قديمًا/سابقًا)
"He *got *used to work*ing* in the kitchen" = اعتاد العمل في المطبخ

So yes, the original sentence can mean either, as Clevermizo and Mahaodeh said.


----------



## Ghabi

While "got used to" and "used to" are clearly different in English, I wonder if _i3taada_ in Arabic can actually stand for both meanings?


----------



## elroy

It cannot.


----------



## Ghabi

One more question: can we say that in more traditional Arabic a simple _ya3malu_ without _kaana_ can stand for both "was working" and "used to work"?


----------



## cherine

Hi G.,
يعمل في المطبخ means: he works in the kitchen.
It can mean "he is working" if the context indicates so.


----------



## elroy

No, because that would be the present tense ("is working" or "works").

I may have misunderstood your question...


----------



## clevermizo

Ghabi said:


> One more question: can we say that in more traditional Arabic a simple _ya3malu_ without _kaana_ can stand for both "was working" and "used to work"?



I think what you're getting at is a traditional understanding (on part of Western grammarians), that the Arabic verb of the form يفعل is just an aspect and not a tense. This is _not _the case. It has an implied present tense. However, it can be used for just its continuous meaning when some other verb sets the scene in the past. The context dependent understanding of tense is usually called _tense subordination_.



elroy said:


> No, because that would be the present tense ("is working" or "works").
> 
> I may have misunderstood your question...



Well, it could be past tense, but only if there was a past tense verb or كان somewhere else in the sentence or previous to it to set the time.

سمع صرخًا وهو يعمل في المطبخ

Obviously, context is very important. But I don't see how يعمل في المطبخ in isolation could be anything other than present tense.


----------



## Ghabi

Yes, I mean what Mizo says. I always wonder, in a past context, whether it's necessary to add _kaana_ to an _al-marfuu3_ verb to convey the "was doing/used to do" meaning. I know that we don't need _kaana_ when the verb follows وهو. But what about other structures? I guess we don't need _kaana_ in a "subordinate clause" (I don't know how to say that in Arabic), right? Some examples:

From the Fisherman's story (_1,001 Nights_):

وكان من عادته أنه يرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير

From a Qabbani poem:

عندما قلت لك أحبك 
كنت أعرف أني أقود انقلاب على شريعة القبيلة
وأقرع أجراس الفضيحة

From the Holy Qur'an, Sura 12:19:

وَجَاءَتْ سَيَّارَةٌ فَأَرْسَلُوا وَارِدَهُمْ فَأَدْلَى دَلْوَهُ قَالَ يَا بُشْرَى هَذَا غُلَامٌ وَأَسَرُّوهُ بِضَاعَةً وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ


----------



## Xence

clevermizo said:


> I think what you're getting at is a traditional understanding (on part of Western grammarians), that the Arabic verb of the form يفعل is just an aspect and not a tense. This is _not _the case. It has an implied present tense. However, it can be used for just its continuous meaning when some other verb sets the scene in the past.


The "implied present" tense is just the continuous aspect when the present moment is taken as a referent point, by default. In fact, we are getting onto what is called tense values. When you say, for example, that _water boils at 100 degrees Celsius_, even though the verb _boils _is in present tense, that doesn't mean that the boiling phenomenon is only happening in the present. In this case, we say that the present tense denotes a general truth.
To understand tense values, one has to consider three factors: speech time, event time and point of reference.


----------



## Faylasoof

Ghabi said:


> Yes, I mean what Mizo says. I always wonder, in a past context, whether it's necessary to add _kaana_ to an _al-marfuu3_ verb to convey the "was doing/used to do" meaning. I know that we don't need _kaana_ when the verb follows وهو. But what about other structures? I guess we don't need _kaana_ in a "subordinate clause" (I don't know how to say that in Arabic), right?



Well, for certain temporal situations you’ll need كان (and her sisters) in subordinate clauses (الجُمَل الفَرعِيَّة). 

  E.g. clauses introduced by either عندما, بينما  etc. can form the main or the subordinate clause, and both can use كان  in the subordinate clause to give the sense of past continuous:

    جاء صديقي عندما كنت أشرب 
  My friend came when I was drinking

      فعلت هذا بينما كان حاضراً 
  I did this while he was present.

As for this verse:


> From the Holy Qur'an, Sura 12:19:
> 
> وَجَاءَتْ سَيَّارَةٌ فَأَرْسَلُوا وَارِدَهُمْ فَأَدْلَى دَلْوَهُ قَالَ يَا بُشْرَى هَذَا غُلَامٌ وَأَسَرُّوهُ بِضَاعَةً وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ



You could be right, but it has been variously translated as:

 ...but God knew what they were doing. - Arberry

But Allah knoweth well all that they do! - Yusuf Ali

..and Allah was Aware of what they did. - Pickthal


----------



## clevermizo

Xence said:


> The "implied present" tense is just the continuous aspect when the present moment is taken as a referent point, by default. In fact, we are getting onto what is called tense values. When you say, for example, that _water boils at 100 degrees Celsius_, even though the verb _boils _is in present tense, that doesn't mean that the boiling phenomenon is only happening in the present. In this case, we say that the present tense denotes a general truth.
> To understand tense values, one has to consider three factors: speech time, event time and point of reference.



Yes of course. I think in some languages however, the "tense value" is actually pre-packaged into the verb. For example, in Spanish "el imperfecto" always has a past tense meaning implied, and that can't be changed by point of reference. You can't put "hablaba" (was talking/used to talk) after a present tense verb or time adverb and have a present utterance.

I think the point is that in Arabic, verbs (especially the present tense/imperfect whatever you want to call it) are simply more subject (or completely subject) to time point of reference. However I think you would agree that without a stated time point of reference, يعمل في المطبخ means either "he works in the kitchen" (which as you state is not technically "present time") or "he is working in the kitchen." And I think although you're right that "he works in the kitchen" or "water boils at 100C" are not "present time" per se, we tend to regard those things as "present tense" because they have _relevance_ in present time. "He works in the kitchen" - and therefore he could be working there right at the present moment.


----------



## Ghabi

Faylasoof said:


> Well, for certain temporal situations you’ll need كان (and her sisters) in subordinate clauses (الجُمَل الفَرعِيَّة).
> 
> E.g. clauses introduced by either عندما, بينما  etc. can form the main or the subordinate clause, and both can use كان  in the subordinate clause to give the sense of past continuous ...


Thanks for the explanation, Faylasoof. I've got some further inquiries regarding the examples I cite above:

1) The whole opening of the story goes:

قالت: بلغني أيها الملك السعيد أنه كان رجل صياد وكان طاعنًا في السن وله زوجة وثلاثة أولاد وهو فقير الحال وكان من عادته أنه يرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير
Is it okay to re-write the blue part as: ويرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير? Written this way, does it suffice to mean "he used to cast his net four times and only four times every day"?

2) Is it okay to insert _kaana_ before the verbs (grammatically speaking, ignoring any rhetorical consideration), thus becoming:

كنت أعرف أني كنت أقود انقلاب على شريعة القبيلة
وكنت أقرع أجراس الفضيحة

3) Is the structure _kaana_ + _al-marfuu3 _common in the Qur'an?


----------



## elroy

Ghabi said:


> قالت: بلغني أيها الملك السعيد أنه كان رجل صياد وكان طاعنًا في السن وله زوجة وثلاثة أولاد وهو فقير الحال وكان من عادته أنه يرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير
> Is it okay to re-write the blue part as: ويرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير? Written this way, does it suffice to mean "he used to cast his net four times and only four times every day"?


 Yes, because you already have a couple of كان's earlier in the sentence. 





> 2) Is it okay to insert _kaana_ before the verbs (grammatically speaking, ignoring any rhetorical consideration), thus becoming:
> 
> كنت أعرف أني كنت أقود انقلاب على شريعة القبيلة
> وكنت أقرع أجراس الفضيحة


 No, this would not work.



> 3) Is the structure _kaana_ + _al-marfuu3 _common in the Qur'an?


 That I don't know.

The thing to understand about the مضارع is that it refers to the present _at a certain time_, but that time need not be the actual present.  Other words in the sentence can situate it in the past or the future.

So really, كان يعمل works the same way as كان فقيرًا.  In both sentences, كان puts us in the past, and then what follows refers to "the present in the past," if that makes any sense.  هو فقير is to كان فقيرًا what هو يعمل is to كان يعمل.

That's why كان قد عمل means "he had worked," because عمل refers to the "past in the past."  سوف يعمل means "he will work" because سوف puts us in the future.  كان سوف يعمل means "he was going to work," because سوف puts us in the future, and كان puts us in the past.  So in this case, يعمل refers to "the present in the future, in relation to the past."

On its own, though, يعمل refers to the present.


----------



## cherine

Hi,
Allow me to confirm what Elroy said:


Ghabi said:


> 1) The whole opening of the story goes:
> 
> قالت: بلغني أيها الملك السعيد أنه كان رجل صياد وكان طاعنًا في السن وله زوجة وثلاثة أولاد وهو فقير الحال وكان من عادته أنه يرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير
> Is it okay to re-write the blue part as: ويرمي شبكته كل يوم أربع مرات لا غير? Written this way, does it suffice to mean "he used to cast his net four times and only four times every day"?


It's ok, but I'd leave out the و for stylistic reasons: كان رجل صياد يرمي شبكته كل يوم I don't think it could be understood anyway else than: there was a fisherman who threw/used to throw his net everyday... because, as Elroy said, كان in the begining puts what follows in the context of the past (be it a continuous past, a future in the past -conditionnel in Romance languages- or past perfct) it would only depend on what elements are added to كان to create those other tenses. But always in the past.


> 2) Is it okay to insert _kaana_ before the verbs (grammatically speaking, ignoring any rhetorical consideration), thus becoming:
> 
> كنت أعرف أني كنت أقود انقلاب على شريعة القبيلة
> وكنت أقرع أجراس الفضيحة


I would consider it a redundancy. The first kuntu is largely enough to place the action in the past.


> 3) Is the structure _kaana_ + _al-marfuu3 _common in the Qur'an?


I don't get this question, sorry. What do you mean by kaana+marfuu3?


----------



## Ghabi

Thanks Elias and Cherine.


cherine said:


> I don't get this question, sorry. What do you mean by kaana+marfuu3?


I must have used the wrong term ...  I just mean the كان يعمل structure.


----------



## elroy

I figured you meant مضارع.


----------



## cherine

Ah ok! 
There are many examples of كان+الفعل المضارع in the Qur'an, here are some:

كُونُواْ رَبَّـٰنِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ (آل عمران، 79)
قَالُوۤاْ أَجِئْتَنَا لِنَعْبُدَ ٱللَّهَ وَحْدَهُ وَنَذَرَ مَا كَانَ يَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُنَا (الأعراف، 70)
وَأَوْرَثْنَا ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَانُواْ يُسْتَضْعَفُونَ مَشَارِقَ ٱلأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا ٱلَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ ٱلْحُسْنَىٰعَلَىٰ بَنِيۤ إِسْرَآئِيلَ بِمَا صَبَرُواْ وَدَمَّرْنَا مَا كَانَ يَصْنَعُ فِرْعَوْنُ وَقَوْمُهُ وَمَا كَانُواْ يَعْرِشُونَ(الأعراف، 137)
أَمَّا ٱلسَّفِينَةُ فَكَانَتْ لِمَسَاكِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ فِي ٱلْبَحْرِ فَأَرَدتُّ أَنْ أَعِيبَهَا وَكَانَ وَرَآءَهُم مَّلِكٌ يَأْخُذُ كُلَّ سَفِينَةٍ غَصْباً (الكهف، 79)
وَكَانَ يَأْمُرُ أَهْلَهُ بِٱلصَّـلاَةِ وَٱلزَّكَـاةِ (مريم، 55)
إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنْ عِبَادِي يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَآ آمَنَّا فَٱغْفِرْ لَنَا وَٱرْحَمْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ ٱلرَّاحِمِينَ (المؤمنون، 109)​
There's also the negation of kaana -> لم يكن like here:

وَأَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَابَ وَٱلْحِكْمَةَ وَعَلَّمَكَ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ تَعْلَمُ (النساء، 113)
وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ فِئَةٌ يَنصُرُونَهُ (الكهف، 43)​
And there is the conditional case:


وَلَمَّا دَخَلُواْ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَمَرَهُمْ أَبُوهُم مَّا كَانَ يُغْنِي عَنْهُمْ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ مِن شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ حَاجَةً فِي نَفْسِ يَعْقُوبَ قَضَاهَا (يوسف، 68)
قُل لَوْ كَانَ فِي ٱلأَرْضِ مَلاۤئِكَةٌ يَمْشُونَ مُطْمَئِنِّينَ لَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَلَكاً رَّسُولاً (الإسراء، 95)​

I found these from searching this site, which also provides translations (there's even the Chinese translation, but I think it's Mandarin not Cantonese).


----------

