# Definite/Indefinite iDafa/iDaafa الإضافة



## uas60

Hi all

I always thought that the Mudaaf in Idafa constructs was ALWAYS definite, which explains why it never takes a tanween (I always thought of tanween=indefinite, no tanween=definite - generally speaking). This would also make sense, because anything with a possessive pronoun attached, eg. كتابه, is definite due to the possession and therefore has no tanween - correct? And doesn't the Mudaaf ilayh just replace that pronoun and nothing more?

To give an example.

كتابُ الرجلِ (The book of the man)
كتابُ رجلٍ (The/A book of a man)

I always thought of it as THE book of a man? If this is not the case, how would you say such a sentence, and how do we explain the lack of tanween and the comparison with the attached pronouns?


----------



## AndyRoo

uas60 said:


> كتابُ رجلٍ (The/A book of a man)
> 
> I always thought of it as THE book of a man? If this is not the case, how would you say such a sentence, and how do we explain the lack of tanween and the comparison with the attached pronouns?



Hello there,

Actually I think كتابُ رجلٍ means "a book of a man". I used to think as you, that it meant "the book of a man", but changed my mind in this (rather lengthy) thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2190261


----------



## Serafín33

Yes, "a book of a man".

"The book of a man" would be الكتابُ لرجلٍ or similar (الكتابُ لدى رجلٍ...)‎.


----------



## إسكندراني

Neqitan said:


> "The book of a man" would be الكتابُ لرجلٍ or similar (الكتابُ لدى رجلٍ...)‎.


Those mean 'the book is for a man'. Maybe we could say الكتاب الذي لرجل.


----------



## uas60

So the fact that the Mudaaf has no tanween is not relevant to its definiteness? I was only slightly confused because saying "kitaabu*hu*" makes kitaab definite, and I thought it doesn't matter what the "hu" is, kitaab will still be definite.


----------



## إسكندراني

Pronouns, like هو/ـه are definite. I don't consider تنوين in these circumstances; all words in the إضافة construct follow the final word's definiteness.


----------



## Abu Talha

I agree with all the above posts, but I'd like to mention that the إضافة is such a convenient construction, that sometimes you're better off translating it saying, e.g., "a man's religion " rather than "a religion of a man" for دِينُ رَجُلٍ. This is obvious for something like دين but I think it is often so for common objects too.


----------



## uas60

OK so conclusion: definiteness of the mudaaf is dependent on definiteness of the mudaaf ilayh


----------



## cherine

Hi guys,

I'm sorry if I'm confused or confusing anyone, but as far as I know, a muDaaf is always definite, regardless of the مضاف إليه being definite or not.

So, in a structure like كتاب رجلٍ (a man's book) the word كتاب is معرَّف بالإضافة even though رجل is a نكرة.


----------



## إسكندراني

Wouldn't this imply that we can use كتاب رجل as a مبتدأ? We cannot, so I always regarded an إضافة's definiteness as determined by the final word.


----------



## Idris

I've noticed that in Arabic, the case in which the mudaaf ilayh is indefinite (as in كتاب رجل) is only found (if at all) in compound words, like غرفة نوم

"A book of a man" is more commonly translated as كتاب لرجل instead of كتاب رجل


----------



## إسكندراني

I don't think an indefinite مضاف إليه is uncommon, Idris; we use it all the time.


----------



## Idris

But it is lot less common than in English.

For example, in "Keep out of reach of children," "children" is indefinite.

In Arabic, this is seen translated as

يحفظ بعيدا عن متناول الأطفال

So why الأطفال is definite? Shouldn't it be متناول أطفال ?


----------



## إسكندراني

It's used in contexts different from English, but is common.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

Can you please give examples of an indefinite مضاف إليه?

I have no doubt that this is common, but examples would be helpful.
----​ 
In french the phrase "*a house of a man*" sounds bad (whithout context),  I think it is possible to translate بيتُ رجلٍ by "*the house of a man*"  but in arabic grammar بيتُ is indefinite.



Idris said:


> I've noticed that in Arabic, the case in which the  mudaaf ilayh is indefinite (as in كتاب رجل) is only found (if at all)  in compound words, like غرفة نوم
> 
> "A book of a man" is more commonly translated as كتاب لرجل instead of كتاب رجل



This construction with the preposition is common? Please do you have any examples?


----------



## uas60

Ibn Nacer said:


> I think it is possible to translate بيتُ رجلٍ by "*the house of a man*"  but in arabic grammar بيتُ is indefinite.



But why do you say بيتُ is indefinite?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

uas60 said:


> But why do you say بيتُ is indefinite?



C'est une règle en arabe, regarde ici : http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2190261

L'annexion apporte : 

- Soit une détermination (ta3rîf) ce qui est le cas lorsque le mudhâf ilayhi est défini.
- Soit une spécification/particularisation (takhsîs) ce qui est le cas lorsque le mudhâf ilayhi est indéfini

Le mudhâf ne sera défini que si l'annexion apporte une détermination    (ta3rîf) mais si  l'annexion apporte une spécification/particularisation   (takhsîs) alors  le mudhâf sera particularisé/spécifié (مُخَصَّص) mais il ne sera pas défini.

Maintenant effectivement l'expression " بيتُ رجلٍ" est moins vague que "بيتٌ"   car elle nous fournie un    information supplémentaire, il est  question  d'une maison appartenant à un    homme et non à une femme ou  autres.  Ici le mudhâf   ilayhi apporte une "spécificité" ou "particularité" ainsi donc le mudhâf est dit "particularisé" ou "spécifié" (مُخَصَّص) mais il n'est pas dit défini (معرفة).

Read this in arabic :

 أ- الإِضافة نسبة بين اسمين *ليتعرف أولهما بالثاني إن كان الثاني معرفة، أو  يتخصص به إن كان نكرة*،    مثل: (أَحضرْ كتاب سعيد وقلم حبر) فـ(كتاب) نكرة  تعرفت حين أُضيفت إلى    سعيد المعرفة، *و(قلم) نكرة* تخصصت بإضافتها إلى (حبر)  النكرة أيضاً.
​ 
* Source :* http://www.islamguiden.com/arabi/m_a_r_50.htm



> The Status Constructus and the Genitive.
> ​ The idea of one noun is very often more closely determined (يَتَخَصَّصُ) or defined (يَتَعَرَّفُ) by that of another*.
> ...
> 
> * [The* تَخْصيّصٌ* consists in qualifying an *indefinite* noun by an adjective, or an expression equivalent to an adjective, as a preposition with a genitive, or *the genitive of an undefined noun*, *تَعْريفٌ* is the defining of the noun *by the genitive of a defined noun*.].



Source : A Grammar of the Arabic Language - Wright, William, William Robertson Smith, and M J de Goeje p198 V2


----------



## Idris

بيت is definite in both بيت رجل and بيت الرجل

The mudaaf is _always _definite (grammatically, at least).



There could be many examples for "constructions" with li-, Ibn Nacer. Here are two:

هذا البيت لرجل رأيته أمس
This house belongs to a man I saw yesterday.

نفي الرجل للحقيقة
The man's denial of the truth.


----------



## uas60

Ibn Nacer said:


> أ- الإِضافة نسبة بين اسمين *ليتعرف أولهما بالثاني إن كان الثاني معرفة، أو يتخصص به إن كان نكرة*، مثل: (أَحضرْ كتاب سعيد وقلم حبر) فـ(كتاب) نكرة تعرفت حين أُضيفت إلى سعيد المعرفة، *و(قلم) نكرة* تخصصت بإضافتها إلى (حبر) النكرة أيضاً.​


Donc le mudaaf avec un mudaaf ilayh indéfini c'est "mukhaSSaS" - une chose, on peut dire peut etre, entre le défini et l'indéfini, à cause du spécification avec le mudaaf ilayh (meme si indéfini)?


Idris said:


> بيت is definite in both بيت رجل and بيت الرجل
> 
> The mudaaf is _always _definite (grammatically, at least).


There is the argument that the mudaaf is not definite with an indefinite mudaaf ilayh, rather it is just "mukhaSSaS", limited by its specificity to the possessor. But still not definite.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Idris said:


> بيت is definite in both بيت رجل and بيت الرجل
> 
> The mudaaf is _always _definite (grammatically, at least).



I do not think, on this, see my previous post and this thread Genitive of possession.



Idris said:


> There could be many examples for "constructions" with li-, Ibn Nacer. Here are two:
> 
> هذا البيت لرجل رأيته أمس
> This house belongs to a man I saw yesterday.
> 
> نفي الرجل للحقيقة
> The man's denial of the truth.



I spoke of instances where both terms are indefinites. 

See this thread too Possession as a nominal predicate, it is interesting



uas60 said:


> Donc le mudaaf avec un mudaaf ilayh indéfini c'est "mukhaSSaS" - une chose, on peut dire peut etre, entre le défini et l'indéfini, à cause du spécification avec le mudaaf ilayh (meme si indéfini)?





uas60 said:


> There is the argument that the mudaaf is not definite with an indefinite mudaaf ilayh, rather it is just "mukhaSSaS", limited by its specificity to the possessor. But still not definite.



Oui c'est ça.


----------



## إسكندراني

Cherine said that the مضاف is always definite but this surprises me. بيت رجل cannot be a مبتدأ, for example, and I always thought this is because the construction is indefinite. I suspect it might be a rule trying to justify why مضافs take no تنوين, or not unlikely something I mis-analysed, but I advise you check back in a couple of days for a more definitive answer.

As for examples, find any article, you should find plenty of indefinite إضافةs. The top article today on AlJazeera.net, for instance (though NOT the best for grammar and such, it's the first thing I came across):
http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A47D0269-EC48-4799-8944-FD471B13E7B9.htm
نتيجة انفجار عبوة
منازل مواطنين
سقوط جرحى
حاوية قمامة
سقوط مسعفين
سقوط خمسين
خروج مظاهرات

By very nature, people talk more in reference to something aforementioned (the), but we often still want to say 'a'. The إضافة doesn't always translate to/from English and French but it's very common, definite and indefinite, long and short. And it's a nice concise way of expressing complex ideas.


----------



## uas60

This is what somebody wrote to me (on Facebook!). The interesting part is where they mention various classical sources. I believe this is an Azhari brother.

There seems to be consensus among the Arabic grammarians (per al-Ajurrumiyya, Qatrunnada, and Ibn `Aqil's commentary on the Alfiyya) that the mudaaf is ma`rifa only when the mudaaf ilayhi is ma`rifa, not when it is a nakira. So from the two following cases:

هذا كتاب الرجل من أمريكا
هذا كتاب رجل من أمريكا

the word "kitaab" is a ma`rifa in the first case, but a nakira in the second, because the mudaaf ilayhi in the first case is a ma`rifa, whereas it's a nakira in the second case.
​


----------



## cherine

I think Ibn Nacer's quote is very important and helpful here. The muDaaf to an indefinite word is مخصص not مُعرَّف (thank you, Ibn Nacer). This is new to me, and very interesting.
Also, Iskandarany's point, that such a structure can't be a mubtada2 is a very good point.

I still don't understand much what a mukhaSSaS is, but at least I learned something new, and I got this part about definite-indefinite clear.

Thanks for an informative discussion, guys.


----------



## Idris

uas60 said:


> There seems to be consensus among the Arabic grammarians (per al-Ajurrumiyya, Qatrunnada, and Ibn `Aqil's commentary on the Alfiyya) that the mudaaf is ma`rifa only when the mudaaf ilayhi is ma`rifa, not when it is a nakira. So from the two following cases:
> 
> هذا كتاب الرجل من أمريكا
> هذا كتاب رجل من أمريكا
> 
> the word "kitaab" is a ma`rifa in the first case, but a nakira in the second, because the mudaaf ilayhi in the first case is a ma`rifa, whereas it's a nakira in the second case.​



If كتاب in the second case is نكرة then why does it not accept تنوين ??


----------



## onesnowman

*This exact discussion was had previously. The two threads have now been merged. Please search through old threads before posting new ones.*
* 
-clevermizo
Moderator
*
I'm not sure how the indefinite idafah construction is translated. Here's one from a textbook:

The book of the man -  كتابُ الرجلِ

The book of a man  - كتابٌ رجلٍ

Using a prepossession:
A book of a man  - كتابٌ من كتبِ الرجلِ

In another textbook I have seen the indefinite translated as 'a book of a man' like the preposition use above. But it doesn't go into explain how I would say 'the book of man'

Which is correct?


----------



## Tensor78

onesnowman said:


> The book of the man -  كتابُ الرجلِ = The man's book
> 
> The A book of a man  - كتابٌ رجلٍ = A man's book (NO NUNATION ON KITAAB!)
> 
> Using a prepossession:
> A book of a the man  - كتابٌ من كتبِ الرجلِ = One of the man's books





> In another textbook I have seen the indefinite translated as 'a book of a man' like the preposition use above. But it doesn't go into explain how I would say 'the book of man'
> 
> Which is correct?


The book of man? Do you mean "the book of _a_ man"? What would the context be exactly?

The phrase " the book of a man" is a bit strange. I can't think of a situation really in English where I would say something like that.

If you want to talk about men's book in general, and you're saying "the book of a man is....." then I guess you would say: kutubu alrajuli.... = men's books..... (In Arabic, the article used with nouns can be used to address those nouns in a general sense, a bit like in Spanish.)

If, however, you're talking about one certain book that belongs to some man and you want to talk about that book, then you would just say: kitaabu rajulin = a man's book. It means the same thing in this context.

This is just my two cents, though. I'm still new myself, so you should wait for someone with more experience for the final word.


----------



## onesnowman

Sorry for the errors. I don't wish to say 'a book of a man' at all. I meant this:

The book of the man - كتابُ الرجلِ

The book of a man - كتابٌ رجلِ

Using a preposition:
A book of the man (a book out of the books of the man) - كتابٌ من كتبِ الرجلِ

In another textbook I have seen the indefinite translated as 'a book of a man' like the preposition use above. But it doesn't go onto explain how I would say 'the book of the man'


----------



## Tensor78

Your translation and use of nunation are off. Look at my editing in red below.


onesnowman said:


> Sorry for the errors. I don't wish to say 'a book of a man' at all. I meant this:
> 
> The book of the man - كتابُ الرجلِ Better translated as: The man's book
> 
> The A book of a man - كتابٌ رجلِ "rajul" gets nunation here as it is indefinite. This is best translated as: A man's book
> 
> Using a preposition:
> A book of the man (a book out of the books of the man) - كتابٌ من كتبِ الرجلِ
> 
> In another textbook I have seen the indefinite translated as 'a book of a man' like the preposition use above. But it doesn't go onto explain how I would say 'the book of the man'


Look at what I highlighted in blue above; you already have the answer to your question.

Generally, the definiteness of the possessor noun determines the definiteness of the entire construction.  If the possessor is definite, then the whole idafa is definite. If it is indefinite, then the entire construction is indefinite.

kitaabu alrajuli = the man's book
kitaabu rajulin = a man's book

If you want to mix definiteness, then you use intervening prepositional phrases.


----------



## Qureshpor

kitaabu_rrajuli = The book of the man = The man's book

kitaabu rajul-in - The book of a man = a man's book

kitaab-un li-rajul-in = a book of a man

kitaab-un li_rrajuli = a book of the man

I hope this clarifies the position and covers all the possibilities. I don't know how to type the nunation. That's why I have n't typed the sentences in Arabic.


----------



## Tensor78

QURESHPOR said:


> kitaabu rajul-in - The book of a man = a man's book



You have more experience than me. But, doesn't "kitaabu rajul-in" mean a book of a man? That is, doesn't the definiteness of the possessor transfer over to the possession?


----------



## fdb

Yes, you are right
kitaabu rajul-in = a book of a man = a man's book


----------



## Qureshpor

Tensor78 said:


> You have more experience than me. But, doesn't "kitaabu rajul-in" mean a book of a man? That is, doesn't the definiteness of the possessor transfer over to the possession?


I don't have any experience, let alone more experience! However, I would still insist that "kitaabu rajul-in" means "The book of a man", i.e a man's book.


----------



## onesnowman

Sorry I got confused in writing this thread. I'll clarify it:

From a textbook:
The book of the man - كتابُ الرجلِ

The book of a man - كتابُ رجلٍ

A book of the man (a book out of the books of the man) - كتابٌ من كتبِ الرجلِ

A book of a man - not in textbook 


Textbook 2: 

A book of a man - كتابُ رجلٍ

The book of a man - not in textbook

A book of the man (a book out of the books of the man) - not in textbook


So my question is:

 كتابُ رجلٍ - does it mean ''the book of a man" or "a book of a man"


----------



## Abu Talha

onesnowman said:


> كتابُ رجلٍ - does it mean ''the book of a man" or "a book of a man"


It is best to think of this as "a man's book". Technically however, book is indefinite. 

A man's big book is كتابُ رجلٍ كبيرٌ. Notice the nunation on the adjective.

See here also: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2331996&highlight=إضافة+نكرة


----------



## fdb

Your first textbook is wrong, and I am afraid that our esteemed friend Qoreshpor is wrong as well. Put an adjective to it:

baytu malikin kabīrun means a big house belonging to an (unspecified) king = a big palace

baytu l-maliki l-kabīru means the big house belonging to the (specified) king = the big palace.

PS: Overlap with Abu Talha.


----------



## Tensor78

onesnowman said:


> So my question is:
> 
> كتابُ رجلٍ - does it mean ''the book of a man" or "a book of a man"



I and many others would say: a book of a man.  However, there are some who disagree. (Look at Qoreshpor's post.)

In any event, the whole a/the noun #1 of a/the noun #2 translation is awkward. The best way to translate that phrase is: a man's book. The point is that you have a book and it belongs to an indefinite man. 

Further, "the book of a man" isn't really used much in English. Unless, you're talking about men's books in general.


----------



## dkarjala

I, for one, feel that "a book of a man" is ungrammatical. I would say "While walking in the woods today, I came across the body of a dead fox"*. *Once removed from the genitive construction, though, I would say "While walking in the woods, I came across a body".

Even though the possessor here is indefinite, it is though we are looking at a depiction of that indefinite thing and pointing out *the* parts of it which are relevant. I know that both options happen, e.g. "At Subway today, the worker showed me the inside of a sandwich/the worker showed me an inside of a sandwich", but in my personal dialect, the last option seems awkward. I think it is because we have both the Germanic genitive (a man's book) and the analytical influence (from French?) with 'of', so we can avoid dealing with the articles altogether.

In French, do you say "un livre d'un homme" or "le livre d'un homme"?

In Arabic, it is clear that adjectives of the mudaaf of an indefinite idaafa are indefinite. I think it's hard to argue around this. In Akkadian, there is a form with no case vowel at all used for what would be the mudaaf in Arabic (bit- awil-im = bayt-u rajul-in/baytu r-rajuli, and there are no definite/indefinite distinctions. Perhaps as Arabic was developing its definite/indefinite system with al- and nunation, it had to compromise here to avoid ambiguity while retaining a rigorous case system - but the adjectives, in my mind, settle the argument of whether or not the word is definite.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> Your first textbook is wrong, and I am afraid that our esteemed friend Qoreshpor is wrong as well. Put an adjective to it:
> 
> baytu malikin kabīrun means a big house belonging to an (unspecified) king = a big palace
> 
> baytu l-maliki l-kabīru means the big house belonging to the (specified) king = the big palace.


Thank you for the esteem being conferred upon me but as you can tell from my ignorance, it is not warranted.

Thank you also for your explanation and I accept the logic behind adding an adjective. It is just that I remember reading in a grammar book that the first noun is always considered as definite, even though it does not have the definite article attached to it. That explanation, it seems, is wrong.

Looking at the construct below, I would translate it as "The book of this teacher" or "This teacher's book". Would you say this could also mean "A book of this teacher" or does the possessor need to be always indefinite for this interpretation?

*كتاب هذا المدرس *


----------



## dkarjala

كتاب هذا المدرّس means either "This teachers book" or "the book of this teacher"

"A book of this teacher's" would be كتابٌ لهذا المدرس


----------



## fdb

Or you could say _kitābun min kutubi hāδā l-mudarrisi_.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I believe my construction is correct and "haadha" (like other demonstratives) is allowed to come between an iDhaafah.


----------



## dkarjala

Qureshpor, you're right, I was in a rush. The only time you can't prepose the demonstrative is when there is no alif-laam, which you clearly have. I'll edit my post.


----------



## Qureshpor

That's no problem dkarjala. Your "challenge" made me go and look this up and before I could reply to you, you had already responded!

My reason for asking the question was linked to whether the first part of the construct should be thought of as definite or indefinite. It was asked as a consequence of a previous discussion (post 32 onwards). So, if "kitaabu" in "kitaabu haadhaa_lmuddaris" is considered indefinite in meaning, then we can say this translates to "a book of this teacher".


----------



## dkarjala

The problem is that it is still a _muDaaf_ in a definite _iDaafa_, so it must be translated as "the book" of whatever. This is not one of the gray areas from various discussions.

Let me put it another way - if _this _doesn't mean THE book of this teacher, what _does_?

As you all have discussed, definiteness/indefiniteness is not a black and white affair. Especially when it comes to specifying or referring to mutually known items or parts of a whole. That being said, the only ambiguity, in my mind, lies with indefinite _iDaafa_s, like كتاب مدرّس "a book of a teacher" (to me, this is not something a native speaker would ever choose) or "the book of a teacher". Both are correct. In a definite _iDaafa_, however, like yours, everything must be definite. I can't think of a counterexample, but would love to see one.


----------



## Qureshpor

إسكندراني said:


> Wouldn't this imply that we can use كتاب رجل as a مبتدأ? We cannot, so I always regarded an إضافة's definiteness as determined by the final word.


Here is an example of an indefinite subject in a nominal sentence. ( I could n't type shayy-in correctly)

...أسد مرة شاخ و ضعف و لم يقدر علي شيئ من الوحوش 

Once upon a time a lion grew old and weak and had no longer any power over the wild beasts..


----------



## dkarjala

It does happen sometimes that a grammatically indefinite word acts as a مبتدأ, however this does not constitute evidence concerning the definiteness of 1) the _muDaaf_ alone, since it is the whole _iDaafa_ which plays a nominal role in the sentence nor does it 2) provide a statistically relevant situation.

The example you give is a story, and the noun is the protagonist. What follows is, of course, my theory but it is based on my current knowledge. This kind of subject, the subject of a joke or an anecdote, is often subject to unusual syntax. This is a quality that is sometimes called 'salience'. It is almost as if all stories like this begin with an omitted كان هناك. Also, compare how this is handled in some dialects. If you were telling a joke, for example, in quite a few dialects you would use the atypical construction _waaHid _+ noun., واحد صعيدي، واحد بدوي etc. Because the character is _new_ to the listener, it needs to be indefinite - but because of its salience as the main character, it is treated as the topic and put out front - in dialect, by switching the adjective واحد to the front, you are sort of 'protecting' the indefinite noun. drawing attention to it, and using the indefinite idea of 'one' as a sort of article; not definite, but specifying.

Other grammatically indefinite things can be a مبتدأ , too, such as the superlative construction with _iDaafa_.

اكبر رجل، اجمل بنت، الخ

But these are semantically definite and therefore psychologically easy to use after انّ and even as nominal subjects.

In any case, it would be better to see an example of an indefinite _iDaafa_ as a nominal subject.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you for your detailed response, it is much appreciated.

Iskandarani seems to have indicated that in his opinion if a construct such as "kitaabu rajul-in" is definite, then it should be allowed to become the subject (mubtada) of a nominal sentence. One can then extrapolate the implication that for a nominal sentence, one must have a definite subject. I have provided an example of a nominal sentence with an indefinite subject.It is as simple as this.


----------



## dkarjala

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ Thank you for your detailed response, it is much appreciated.



My pleasure. I'm actually very interested in this topic as you might be able to tell.



> One can then extrapolate the implication that for a nominal sentence, one must have a definite subject



No extrapolation needed, it is a well-established and commonly known rule of the Arabic language that المبتدأ must be معرفة.

The example you provided, as I explained, is, outside of storytelling, an ungrammatical construction and best understood as an omitted كان هناك , used for narrative effect. There are exceptions to the rule of a definite مبتدأ (they are complex but mainly if the indefinite noun has an adj. or a relative clause or is in a parallel construction with another indefinite, it is permissible), but these exceptions are not met in the fable excerpt.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Well, I did provide another indefinite subject example in another thread, from the Qur'an.

لعبد مؤمن خير من مشرك

The noun in this example indeed has an adjective but I have seen many examples without an adjective. That these examples are fables does not render them "ungrammatical" in my opinion. One example (from "Practical Arabic Grammar pt 2 by A.O. Green 1885, p32) that I am looking at begins the sentence..

rajal-un a3maa marrat-an fii_lailati muZlimah 2axadha nuur-an wa....

I personally don't see anything ungrammatical about it. Would it be acceptable if it was Naguib Mahfouz using such a construction when he is relating a story?


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Iskandarani seems to have indicated that in his opinion if a construct such as "kitaabu rajul-in" is definite, then it should be allowed to become the subject (mubtada) of a nominal sentence. One can then extrapolate the implication that for a nominal sentence, one must have a definite subject. I have provided an example of a nominal sentence with an indefinite subject.It is as simple as this.


Wright says in vol. 2, §127, p. 260D: "The inchoative or subject of a nominal sentence cannot, according to the Arab grammarians, consist of an indefinite* noun, or one which is not qualified by an adjective, or an expression equivalent to an adjective, ..., except in certain cases." He explains in a footnote that "Indefinite (نكرة) is here to be taken in the sense [not only of not being defined by the article or the genitive of a defined word, but even] of not having a genitive after it, for such phrases as عَمَلُ بِرٍّ يَزِينُ, ..., are quite admissible, and yet the governing noun is indefinite, according to §92."

He lists exceptions to the requirement that the subject be definite. Among them is (b) when the subject is preceded by the affirmative لَ; as in  لَرَجُلٌ قَائِمٌ.


----------



## dkarjala

QURESHPOR said:


> rajal-un a3maa marrat-an fii_lailati muZlimah 2axadha nuur-an wa....



Since 'man' is qualified by 'blind' it fits the exceptions list. Abu Talha addressed the Qur'anic example.

I also notice that the Qur'anic example fits the pattern of having an adjective as well as being in a parallel clause with another indefinite noun. You should check out the section in volume II of Wright dealing with this.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> Wright says in vol. 2, §127, p. 260D: "The inchoative or subject of a nominal sentence cannot, according to the Arab grammarians, consist of an indefinite* noun, or one which is not qualified by an adjective, or an expression equivalent to an adjective, ..., except in certain cases." He explains in a footnote that "Indefinite (نكرة) is here to be taken in the sense [not only of not being defined by the article or the genitive of a defined word, but even] of not having a genitive after it, for such phrases as عَمَلُ بِرٍّ يَزِينُ, ..., are quite admissible, and yet the governing noun is indefinite, according to §92."
> 
> He lists exceptions to the requirement that the subject be definite. Among them is (b) when the subject is preceded by the affirmative لَ; as in  لَرَجُلٌ قَائِمٌ.


Than you, Abu Talha. From what I've been able to gather, an indefinite construct can act as a mubtada in a nominal sentence. Correct?

In conclusion, I would like to thank you and all other participants who have offered their expertise on the question of whether a construct such as

kitaabu rajul-in is

the book of a man or

a book of a man.

Grammar books, it seems, have been giving conflicting explanations. Till very recently, I had always been led to believe that no matter what the "possessed" is always definite. Now, having been persuaded by convincing arguments provided by forum friends and seeing it for myself in one or two well known grammar books, we can tell uas60 that kitaabu rajul-in means *"a book of a man"*. Here is an example from the book I have been quoting in this thread (Fischer)..

kalbu daar-in naabiH-un (a barking dog of a dwelling) [ a barking house dog/a barking domestic dog]

Now, a possible spanner in the works! If I have understood you correctly and an indefinite construct CAN act as a subject/mubtada of a nominal sentence, then why can't we interpret this example as..

A dog of a man/A man's dog *is* barking (?)


----------



## dkarjala

QURESHPOR said:


> Than you, Abu Talha. From what I've been able to gather, an indefinite construct can act as a mubtada in a nominal sentence. Correct?



Actually, according to Wright, just about anything BUT an _iDaafa_ is mentioned as an exception. Check on pp. 260 ff. online in the second volume.



> In conclusion, I would like to thank you and all other participants who have offered their expertise on the question of whether a construct such as
> 
> kitaabu rajul-in is
> 
> a book of the man or
> 
> a book of a man.



I think you mean _'the_ book of a man' vs. '_a_ book of a man'. These are synonymous to my ear, the 'the' is not 'definite' like other nouns, but refers to an expected/known item as a specification.



> kalbu daar-in naabiH-un (a barking dog of a dwelling) [ a barking house dog/a barking domestic dog]
> 
> Now, a possible spanner in the works! If I have understood you correctly and an indefinite construct CAN act as a subject/mubtada of a nominal sentence, then why can't we interpret this example as..
> 
> A dog of a man/A man's dog *is* barking (?)



Again, no one said an indefinite construct can be a mubtada bihi. In order for these to function as subject/predicate you would need to add and إنّ to the front.

Even if it were the case otherwise, it would be as unusual as seeing رجل جميل and thinking 'a man is beautiful' rather than 'a beautiful man'.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you for pointing out my not so deliberate mistake. I have rectified my post. I have n't had the time to check out Wright but I shall take your word for it. So, an indefinite construct can not form a subject of a nominal sentence. Thanks for this.

If "the book of a man" and "a book of a man" are synonymous to your "ear", then what's all this fuss about?  I agree with you that as soon as an object is linked in a genitive context, it becomes specific. Talking about this..

mithlu haadhaa ( An example of this). haadhaa is definitely definite, so mithlu should also be definite. What's happening here? Why is n't this, "The example of this" even though this sounds totally odd?!

Regarding "rajul-un jamiil-un", this is not construct of course. Besides, the consensus seems to be that for an indefinite subject to act as a subject in a nominal sentence, it needs to be defined in some way, e.g. an adjective. And the examples of the "fable" kind that I have provided, you have discarded them as non-grammatical and outside the sphere of correct usage.


----------



## Abu Talha

dkarjala said:


> Actually, according to Wright, just about anything BUT an _iDaafa_ is mentioned as an exception. Check on pp. 260 ff. online in the second volume.


From what I understand from Wright's footnote on page 260, the first term of an iDaafa, even if indefinite can be a مبتدأ. He gives examples like عَمَلُ بِرٍّ يَزِينُ and عَدْلُ ساعةٍ خيرٌ من عبادةِ ألفِ شهرٍ.





QURESHPOR said:


> Talking about this..
> 
> mithlu haadhaa ( An example of this). haadhaa is definitely definite, so mithlu should also be definite. What's happening here? Why is n't this, "The example of this" even though this sounds totally odd?!


Wright refers to this in the same footnote. He says in vol. 2, §92, p. 119C: In the proper annexation, if the second noun be indefinite, the first is too; but if the second be definite, so is the first likewise. ... There are some nouns however, of a wide and general signification, which remain indefinite even when followed by a definite genitive; for instance [شبيهه], نظيره, نحوه, مثله ...


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you Abu Talha. Can this be summarised as follows.

1) An indefinite مبتدأ does exist and is acceptable mainly in the following circumstances.

a) A noun that has a following adjective (e.g. qaul-un ma3ruuf-un  wa maGhfirat-un xair-un min ...)

b) A noun without an adjective in fables

c) An indefinite construct (3amalu barr-in yaziinu)

2) We know that a construct is indefinite because it can have an indefinite adjective (kalbu daar-in naabiH-un

But, there still seems to be a problem..

kalbu daar-in naabiH-un....on its own could therefore mean..

i) A barking house dog

ii) A house dog is barking


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you Abu Talha. Can this be summarised as follows.
> 
> 1) An indefinite مبتدأ does exist and is acceptable mainly in the following circumstances.
> 
> a) A noun that has a following adjective (e.g. qaul-un ma3ruuf-un  wa maGhfirat-un xair-un min ...)
> 
> b) A noun without an adjective in fables
> 
> c) An indefinite construct (3amalu barr-in yaziinu)


Regarding (b) I could not find it listed in grammar books (or it may be included in one of the categories but I misinterpreted them). But there are many more categories. See the relevant section in Wright or here: http://www.drmosad.com/index29.htm 

Now, total conjecture here: It seems to me that the Arab grammarians analyzed all the sentences they could get their hands on and came up with a list of conditions for indefinite subjects. It seems to me that the underlying principle is that there must be _something_ that gives the subject sufficient weight. This something could be an adjective, multiple words, إنّ, some form of تخصيص, etc., or even, failing all else, emphasis. So, if you want to be unscientific about it you may take this as a principle...


> 2) We know that a construct is indefinite because it can have an indefinite adjective (kalbu daar-in naabiH-un


Not sure which way the logical implication is going here. كلب الدار نابح has نابح as indefinite but here the إضافة is definite. In that case, نابح can only be a predicate.





> But, there still seems to be a problem..
> 
> kalbu daar-in naabiH-un....on its own could therefore mean..
> 
> i) A barking house dog
> 
> ii) A house dog is barking


I hesitate to answer this because I will have to analyze this only based on the grammar that I know (which is lacking). But yes, based on my current understanding I agree. It could mean either of the two. But again, I could be wrong. Hopefully some others can chip in.


----------



## إسكندراني

i) would be كلب دار نابحٍ


----------



## Qureshpor

Yes, but would you agree it can mean two things.

i) A barking house dog

ii) A house dog is barking


----------



## إسكندراني

Sorry, I misunderstood . Yes, probably.


----------

