# أكلت السمكة حتى رأسها (حتى + noun)



## asadxyz

أكلت السكمة حتى رأسُها 
What does this sentence mean ?
If it is "raasihaa" or raasahaa" that makes sense,but it is "raasuhaa".Anyone to help,please.
I took this sentence from this site:
http://www.alfaseeh.com/vb/archive/index.php?t-7315.html


----------



## clevermizo

It seems that other people on that forum have already answered the question.


> أكلت السمكةَ حتى رأسَها : حتى حرف عطف ( أكلت السمكةَ و رأسَها )
> 
> أكلت السكمة حتى رأسُها : بمعنى ( أكلت السكمة حتى رَأسُها مأكول )
> 
> أكلت السمكة حتى رأسِها : حتى حرف جر ( أكلت السمكة إلى رأسِها )​


1. Ra2sahaa: I ate the fish - (I) even (ate) its head!
2. Ra2suhaa: I ate the fish until its head (was eaten).
3. Ra2sihaa: I ate the fish up to its head.

I don't know what other people on _this_ forum think, but the posters there seemed to be satisfied with this.​


----------



## asadxyz

Would you explain grammaitcally the following sentence?


> 2. Ra2suhaa: I ate the fish until its head (was eaten).


Thanks in advance.


----------



## clevermizo

Like what, syntax trees?

I'm not sure if it's right or not but I'm following the logic from the forum from which your example was originally taken.

Akaltu s-samakata 7atta ra2suhaa ma2kuul.
I ate     the fish      until    its head    was eaten.

'Until' here is introducing a resultative clause. The two clauses are 'akaltu s-samaka' and 'ra2su s-samakati (ra2suhaa) ma2kuul(un).' The 7atta connects the two. (I ate the fish; The fish's head was eaten --> I ate the fish until its head was eaten.) The subject of the first clause is 'I', the subject of the second is 'the fish's head.' The omission of some of the second clause in 'Akaltu s-samakata 7atta ra2suhaa' would then just be ellipsis.

Again I don't know if this use is normal or not, but it seems this was accepted by the folks at that other forum.


----------



## asadxyz

My question is not about what that forum adopted.My question is whether it is really grammatically correct sentence or not.If so,then what is the status of "7attaa" in this sentence.


----------



## Josh_

> أكلت السكمة حتى رأسُها : بمعنى ( أكلت السكمة حتى رَأسُها مأكول )


First, I wanted to say that the explanatory sentence they gave (أكلت السكمة حتى رَأسُها مأكول ) doesn't seem right to me.  مأكول is the passive particle, but it seems to me that the passive verb should have been used since the sentence started out with a verb -- أكلت السمكة حتى أُكِلَ رأسُها  . 

Anyway, looking through a grammar book here is what I found:

حتى الابتدائية
اصطلاحًا:
حرف ابتداء ، يدخل على الجملة الاسمية والفعلية.

نحو:
فوا عجبا حتى كليبٌ يسبُني.
​Hatta al-ibtidaa2iyya
Usage:
Particle of introduction, added to a nominal or verbal sentence.

Example:
How amazing! Even Kulayb is insulting me.

It doesn't explicitly say that the following sentence remains in the nominative, but if the example can be believed then we see that it does.


----------



## asadxyz

Thanks a lot Josh and Clevemizo.
You are really wonderful.


----------



## cherine

I don't have much to add, just a couple of quick notes:


clevermizo said:


> Akaltu s-samakata 7atta ra2suhaa ma2kuul.
> I ate the fish until its head was eaten.


حتى in this sentence should be translated as "even".


> Again I don't know if this use is normal or not, but it seems this was accepted by the folks at that other forum.


It is normal.


Josh_ said:


> First, I wanted to say that the explanatory sentence they gave (أكلت السكمة حتى رَأسُها مأكول ) doesn't seem right to me. مأكول is the passive particle, but it seems to me that the passive verb should have been used since the sentence started out with a verb -- أكلت السمكة حتى أُكِلَ رأسُها .


I guess he was giving the meaning rather than the exact proper rephrasing.
You can also say: أكلتُ السمكةَ حتى رأسُها أكلته


----------



## HotIcyDonut

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
Here's an example of the sentence:

أكلت اللحام حتى العظامها

3 options:

A) To use حتى الإبتدائية

I.e.:

أكلت اللحام حتى العظامُها

My understanding is that it would mean "I ate much meat, and even its bones" (bones included)

B) to use  حتى العاطفة

I.e.: أكلت اللحام حتى العظامَها

Would mean "I ate much meat, and even its bones" (bones included)

C) to use حتى الجارة

I.e. أكلت اللحام حتى العظامِها

Would mean "I ate much meat, except its bones" (bones excluded)

So 2 questions:

1)

My understanding is that حتى الإبتدائية and حتى العاطفة are completely synonymous and mutually interchangable as both have the same meaning before a noun, i.e. inclusionary, at the same time حتى الجارة unlike the first two is exclusionary. Did i get it right?

2)

Why is it assumed here that حتى الإبتدائية is to be used only after intransitive verbs and حتى العاطفة after transitive? Verb to eat (أكل) is transitive and yet, contrary to what the book says, both options are possible with it, i know this because i've already seen another example about fish and its head (أكلتُ السمكة حتى رَأسها). I guess the book didn't get it right and i can use حتى الإبتدائية with transitive verbs and حتى العاطفة with intransitive verbs after all?


----------



## Ali Smith

HotIcyDoughnut: I believe you have to get rid of either the ال or the ها in العظامها.


----------



## naureens07

Why do you have to remove the al-?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Either the the ال or the ها. Both of these are methods of making a noun definite, and you can’t have two at the same time. It’s either عظامها or العظام, but never العظامها.

It’s actually the same in English, it’s either _it’s bones_ or _the bones_ but not  _the it’s bones_.


----------



## USani

أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسَها
I ate the fish, even its head.
أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسِها
I ate the fish up to (but not including) its head.
أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسُها
I kept eating the fish until finally its head was eaten too.

In the third sentence we will have to assume that رأس is marfoo because it is a mubtada whose khabar has been omitted. However, there is a problem that I have been unable to solve: is this حتى one of the huroof al-'atf, like wa and fa? If so, how can you have a jumlah ismiyyah on one side and a jumlah fi'liyyah on the other?


----------



## Qureshpor

USani said:


> أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسَها
> I ate the fish, even its head.
> أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسِها
> I ate the fish up to (but not including) its head.
> أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسُها
> I kept eating the fish until finally its head was eaten too.
> 
> In the third sentence we will have to assume that رأس is marfoo because it is a mubtada whose khabar has been omitted. However, there is a problem that I have been unable to solve: is this حتى one of the huroof al-'atf, like wa and fa? If so, how can you have a jumlah ismiyyah on one side and a jumlah fi'liyyah on the other?



أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسِها (Here Hattaa is jaarrah)

I ate the fish up to but not including its head.

أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسَها (Here Hattaa is 3aatifah)

I ate the fish up to and including its head.

أكلتُ السمك، حتى رأسُها (Here Hattaa is ibtidaa2iyyah)

I ate the fish, even its head!


----------



## Ali Smith

Qureshpor said:


> أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسِها (Here Hattaa is jaarrah)
> 
> I ate the fish up to but not including its head.
> 
> أكلتُ السمكة حتى رأسَها (Here Hattaa is 3aatifah)
> 
> I ate the fish up to and including its head.
> 
> أكلتُ السمك، حتى رأسُها (Here Hattaa is ibtidaa2iyyah)
> 
> I ate the fish, even its head!


What is the خبر of the مبتدأ in أكلتُ السمكة، حتى رأسُها?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ali Smith said:


> What is the خبر of the مبتدأ in أكلتُ السمكة، حتى رأسُها?


I thought مبتدأ and خبر concept only applied to jumlah ismiyyah.


----------



## Romeel

أكل + تُ   + السمكةَ
فعل+ فاعل+ مغعول به


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> I thought مبتدأ and خبر concept only applied to jumlah ismiyyah.


As a main principal, yes. However, if you have nested sentences, or connected sentences (جملة معطوفة على جملة مثلا) or otherwise where you have more than one sentence, then one of them could be اسمية and the other فعلية.

In this case you have two sentences connected by حتى الابتدائية, what comes after حتى is a separate sentence مستقلة بالإعراب.



Ali Smith said:


> What is the خبر of the مبتدأ in أكلتُ السمكة، حتى رأسُها?


In this case it’s omitted جوازا because it’s understood from context. The اعراب is: 
رأسُ: مبتدأ مرفوع
ها: ضمير متصل مبني في محل جرّ بالإضافة
والخبر محذوف جوازا لوجود ما يدلّ عليه وتقديره مأكول أو الجملة الفعلية أكلته
The sentence is understood as meaning: أكلت السمكة حتى رأسُها أكلته


----------



## Qureshpor

Mahaodeh said:


> As a main principal, yes. However, if you have nested sentences, or connected sentences (جملة معطوفة على جملة مثلا) or otherwise where you have more than one sentence, then one of them could be اسمية and the other فعلية.


Thank you for this and I was aware of this but did not connect this with @Ali Smith's question.


----------

