# جرأة الجنان الذي لا يدري (relative pronoun antecedent)



## lena55313

The pronoun is a word *that* *substitutes* for a noun or noun phrase.
Can anybody help me to understand which noun or a noun phrase is substituted by the each pronoun in the sentence:
وَمِنَ الْفَتَيَاتِ مَنْ لا يَفْطِنُ الْمَرْءُ إلَيْهَا عَلَى فَرْطِ حُسْنِهَا، لأوَّلِ وَهْلَةٍ، وَلَكِنْ صَاحِبَتُنَا هَذِهِ كَانَتْ مِنْ قُوَّةِ الْجَذْبِ بِحَيْثُ لا يَسَعُكَ إلاّ أنْ تُحِسَّ وُجُودَهَا وَتَشْعُرَ بِمَا تُفِيضُهُ حَوْلَهَا، وَلا تَكَادُ تَجْلِسُ إلَيْهَا خَمْسَ دَقَائِقَ حَتَّى تُلِمَّ بِمَا فُطِرَتْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ جُرْأَةِ الْجَنَانِ الَّذِي لا يَدْرِي أنَّ فِي الدُنْيَا مَا يُتَّقَى، وَمِنْ حَرَارَةِ النَّفْسِ الْغَرِيرَةِ الَّتِي لَمْ يَصْدِمْهَا مِنْ التَّجَارِيبِ مَا يُطْفِئُهَا، وَمِنْ خِفَّةِ الرُّوحِ اَلَّتِي لا يُثْقِلُهَا إلْحَاحُ الْلَحْمِ_._
Elroy said here that if the pronoun substitutes the idafa it always takes the gender of the first word (مضاف) e.g. قُوَّةِ الْجَذْبِ takes the feminine ها. 
But I found the phrase in the sentence :  مِنْ جُرْأَةِ الْجَنَانِ الَّذِي لا يَدْرِي أنَّ فِي الدُنْيَا مَا يُتَّقَى that seems as " the braveness of the soul which..." Does this "masculine which"الَّذِي relate to the  جُرْأَةِ or to the الْجَنَانِ or maybe to something else?


----------



## elroy

It refers to الجنان.


----------



## lena55313

I felt that and translated this part right. 
But you said that there was a rule, when idafa while being substituted by the pronoun takes the gender of the first word of the idafa, not of the second. 
الْجَنَانِ is a second word. 
I lost my track)))


----------



## cherine

Here the pronoun is not referring to the whole iDaafa, just the second part of it, which is masculine.


----------



## lena55313

Does it depend on the type of the pronoun? Maybe pronouns written together with a verb or a preposition, depend on the first part of the idafa, but those ones which are separate depend on the second? Are there any general rules?


----------



## Chinguetti

it is very clear and well understood that the writer put the article الذي to refer to the word الجنان ; but I guess that it was better for the writer to use ف instead of الذي to combine the speech.


----------



## cherine

lena55313 said:


> Does it depend on the type of the pronoun?


No, it depends on what we need to express. If we want to talk about the first part of the iDaafa here جُرأة we must use the feminine pronoun. For example جُرأة الجنان التي تُدهشك the boldness that amazes you. But here, the author is talking about the جَنان itself, so he could only used the masculine.
It is not the boldness جُرأة that doesn't understand the outside world, but the girl's mind.



Chinguetti said:


> but I guess that it was better for the writer to use ف instead of الذي to combine the speech.


I don't see how ف would have combined the speech better than الاسم الموصول.


----------



## lena55313

Chinguetti said:


> it is very clear and well understood


Yes, it was clear before I started to look further into the grammar)))


cherine said:


> No, it depends on what we need to express.


So, no any special rules relating to idafa and its pronoun?))) I'm happy. 
But maybe Elroy was right? Can you comment my guess: 


lena55313 said:


> Does it depend on the type of the pronoun? Maybe pronouns written together with a verb or a preposition, depend on the first part of the idafa, but those ones which are separate depend on the second? Are there any general rules?


Can you find any sentences in which there are the pronouns like ها  or ه related to the second part of the idafa?


----------



## cherine

Like I told you, it depends on what you want to express: whether you want to talk about the first part of the iDaafa or the second one. Try to re-read the sentence again, slowly and without over-thinking the grammar, and you will get a better feel for it.


----------



## elroy

Lena, I wish I knew Russian so I could give you Russian examples, because I'm confident this is absolutely the same in Russian.

In German:

_die Schwester des Lehrers, *der* in Germersheim arbeitet_
_die Schwester des Lehrers, *die* in Germersheim arbeitet _
Gloss: _the sister of-the male-teacher, *who* in Germersheim works 
_
In 1, the male teacher works in Germersheim; in 2, the sister does.  "Who" is masculine in the first sentence ("der") because it refers to the male teacher, and it's feminine in the second sentence ("die") because it refers to the sister.

If you translate this into Russian, I'm *sure* you'll see the same exact thing going on.


----------



## lena55313

elroy said:


> I'm *sure* you'll see the same exact thing going on.


Yes, of course, I see the difference. The problem appeared when I misunderstood the meaning: إلاّ أنْ تُحِسَّ وُجُودَهَا I thought that it meant "you feel the presence, the existence of the power of attraction" But everybody here told me that the haa in this case meant the existence of the sahiba.
Then I asked if it was possible or not to substitute the idafa by the pronoun, related to the second word. You told that, no, it was impossible. I was absolutely agree with you, because in my language we have the same rules, the pronoun relates only to the first word of the idafa. In Russian we have the idafa, similar to arabic idafa, even under the same cases Nominative+Genitive. But then, following reading, I noticed another pronoun, which was related to the second part of idafa.
Now I have a theory, that in Arabic the relative pronouns can relate to both parts of the idafa, but the pronouns like haa or hu only to the first part of it.
And, of course, the splitting of the topic into 5 parts confused me a lot))) Can I ask all my questions here?
By the way, Russian and Arabic have much more similarities that Russian and English.


----------



## elroy

lena55313 said:


> Elroy said here that if the pronoun substitutes the idafa it always takes the gender of the first word (مضاف)


 Your question in that thread was 





lena55313 said:


> What pronoun would substitute this *collocation*, ha or hu, if we'd like to mention this collocation later in the sentence?


 If you're referring to the _collocation_, then you're referring to the phrase as a whole, and the gender will be determined by the مضاف.

رأس السنة هو عيد يحتفل فيه المسيحيون في جميع أنحاء العالم
_New Year's Day is a holiday celebrated by Christians all over the world._
Here you're referring to "New Year's Day" as a single unit.  Its gender is determined by the مضاف (رأس), which, in linguistic terminology, is called the _head_ of the phrase.

رأيته في رأس السنة التي ولد فيها أخي
_I saw him on New Year's the year my brother was born. _[literally _on the head of the year in which my brother was born_]
This is an admittedly somewhat contrived sentence, but I'm using it to make a point.  Here you're referring to "the year" (السنة), so the gender is feminine. 





lena55313 said:


> Now I have a theory, that in Arabic the relative pronouns can relate to both parts of the idafa, but the pronouns like haa or hu only to the first part of it.


 This is false.  None of this has anything to do with whether you're dealing with a relative pronoun or a different type of pronoun.  It all has to do with what you're referring to, i.e. with what the antecedent of the pronoun is.

ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي الذي بُنِي قبل عام
ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي التي تعمل طبيبة
ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي ووجدته جميلاً
ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي وقضيت يومًا كاملاً معها


----------



## lena55313

Elroy, thank you very much!!! Your examples made everything clear. Sometimes I go too down into theory and turn off common sense. I should stop to consider arabic language as a formula kit.  ))) 


elroy said:


> If you're referring to the _collocation_


When I said _collocation_ I meant just "more than one word". I think it was misunderstanding between us. 
Thank you for your help.


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> Here the pronoun is not referring to the whole iDaafa, just the second part of it, which is masculine.



Actually, in cases like this it always refers to the first part. The point of the second part of the idafa is to define or specify the first part. In this case it's specifying what daringness is meant, it is the daring of the heart.

As for why it is masculine while جرأة is feminine, it is because الجرأة is inanimate and does not have an inherent gender hence you can refer to it as feminine or masculine. There was a discussion about this in the Arabic only section which, as has happened before, I lost to Matat because I too at first claimed that it must follow the word but then realized that I was affected by what is common in MSA and confused it with a rule.



elroy said:


> رأيته في رأس السنة التي ولد فيها أخي


This not the same, التي here is another idafa.
رأس: اسم مجرور بحرف الجر وهو مضاف
السنة: مضاف إليه مجرور وهو مضاف
التي: اسم موصول في محل جر مضاف اليه
ولد فيها اخي: جملة فعلية وهي صلة الموصول لا محل لها من الاعراب

Any further reference other than صلة الموصول would refer to رأس exclusively.


----------



## elroy

I’m sorry, Maha, but I completely disagree with your post.


----------



## cherine

Mahaodeh said:


> Actually, in cases like this it always refers to the first part.


I'm sorry too, Maha, but I really can't agree with this.
It is clear, to me at least, that the pronoun refers to الجنان not الجرأة. It is الجنان that is oblivious of the world around it (and that is what's making it bold) but not the boldness itself that is oblivious.

Even Elroy's examples in post #12 confirm that the pronoun can refer to either the first or the second part of an iDaafa, depending on what do we want to talk about



elroy said:


> ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي الذي بُنِي قبل عام
> ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي التي تعمل طبيبة


The iDaafa is the same بيت صديقتي, with the first part being masculine and the second feminine. Choosing the gender of the pronoun الذي - التي depends entirely on which element of the iDaafa we want to talk about: the house or the friend.


----------



## Chinguetti

lena55313 said:


> مِنْ جُرْأَةِ الْجَنَانِ الَّذِي لا يَدْرِي أنَّ فِي الدُنْيَا مَا يُتَّقَى



Finally and after looking into grammar rules I noticed that الذي here (may) refer to جرأة and the rule says that you have the choice in Idafa to refer to the first idafa using masculine if the last idafa is masculine and (*if and only if *the first idafa is *non real* feminine) like: جرأة / شجاعة /رحمة etc
(real feminine like: بنت أم أخت ) 
example: we can say شجاعة أحمد الذي لم أعرف لها مثيلا and here you mean شجاعة or شجاعة أحمد التي لم أعرف لها مثيلا both are correct but when you use الذي you must use ه
and when you use التي you must use ها 

other example: جرأة أحمد قاتل or جرأة أحمد قاتلة both are grammatically correct

the most obvious example from the Holy Quran is: إن رحمت الله قريب and here the Quran uses قريب not قريبة to describe the word رحمة 

.


----------



## Mahaodeh

elroy said:


> I’m sorry, Maha, but I completely disagree with your post.


You have every right to disagree, but it would be nice to point out a few things to enhance the discussion. 


cherine said:


> It is clear, to me at least, that the pronoun refers to الجنان not الجرأة. It is الجنان that is oblivious of the world around it (and that is what's making it bold) but not the boldness itself that is oblivious.


While I still stand by my statement that in general any reference is related to the first part of the idafa, but once I re-read the sentence I now realize that I was a little hasty and that this example is actually similar to elroy's example in that الذي is في محل جر صفة making it part of the idafa similar to saying جرأة الجنان الساذج by removing الاسم الموصول وصلته and replacing it with an adjective that gives a close meaning if not identical. However, this still does not mean that it can't possibly refer to جرأة based on the rule. If it were جرأة النفس التي لا يوقفها شيء we would assume that التي refers to الجرأة even though النفس is also feminine and can also be unstoppable.

I have to also admit that I missed the second part of Elroy's post and didn't see it until you pointed it out. However, with regards to it, we have to distinguish between a direct reference in a sentence and a new sentence with a personal pronoun that may or may not come directly after it. There could be several sentences between them. Consider this, if we said رأيت قطة صديقتي وقضيت معها وقتا جميلا, in this case we would know that the personal pronoun refers to the cat. If we say ذهبت الى بيت صديقتي وأكلنا طعاما وتابعنا فيلما ورأيت قطة صديقتي وقضيت معها وقتا جميلا , here it becomes less clear who the one I had a good time with is, the cat or my friend. The context would make the reader understand that it was my friend not the cat. We use personal pronouns because we know who is meant by context and it's not a direct reference to the last applicable noun even if it usually is.


elroy said:


> ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي الذي بُنِي قبل عام
> ذهبت إلى بيت صديقتي التي تعمل طبيبة


Again, you have اسم موصول here that makes the sentence part of an idafa.


Chinguetti said:


> Finally and after looking into grammar rules I noticed that الذي here (may) refer to جرأة and the rule says that you have the choice in Idafa to refer to the first idafa using masculine if the last idafa is masculine and (*if and only if *the first idafa is *non real* feminine) like: جرأة / شجاعة /رحمة etc


Exactly, this is my point.


----------



## lena55313

Ah, my topic was cut)))
Here the link1 and the link 2 if anybody lost the end as I did. 
Both links relate to the relative pronouns which are so difficult to understand what nouns they substitute.


----------

