# رأيت السائقان يتشاجران



## Ali Smith

مرحبًا

In the sentence رأيت السائقان يتشاجران is the verb يتشاجران a حال? If so, is السائقان the ذو الحال?

Thanks!


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Yes I would say that  يتشاجران  is a jumlah haaliyyah and the sahibu-l-hâl (or  ذو الحال) is  السائقان ...


----------



## Abbe

It should be السائقين


----------



## Ali Smith

Because it's مفعول به أول?

Ibn Nacer: Maybe يتشاجران could be مفعول به ثانٍ?


----------



## Abbe

Because it is maful bihi. The verb رأى when it means "to see " only has one maful bih


----------



## WadiH

Even though it literally means to "see" here I think يتشاجران is still a second object (to be more specific: a verbal sentence acting as a second subject جملة فعلية في محل نصب معفول به ثان)


----------



## Abbe

Didn't you write this a few years ago?

رأى and أرى are the same verb (the former is second person and the latter is first person). When this verb is used to mean "see", then it takes only one object, but when used to mean "know" or "believe," then it takes two objects (that's why an opinion is called رأي). The word "see" can have both these meanings in English of course


----------



## WadiH

I don't even remember what I wrote last night!

I think this is a good rule of thumb, but it's not decisive.  The line isn't always clear between "vision" and "knowledge".  I would say that it takes one object when the focus is on vision, and it takes two objects when the focus is on the information being conveyed (other than the fact that something has been seen), i.e. رأيت السائقين vs رأيت السائقين يتشاجران.

What else could it be?  A حال is something that relates to the subject/author of a verb (فاعل) not an object describes its action.  Here the subject is the first person pronoun, which يتشاجران is not describing.  So it cannot be a حال.


----------



## Abbe

> I don't even remember what I wrote last night!


 

The حال can describe the مفعول به and yes I would say that يتشاجران is a حال describing the two drivers
رأيت السائقين حال كونهما يتشاجران


----------



## WadiH

That doesn't mean that يتشاجران is a حال though.  I can also say رأيت السائقين حين كونهما يتشاجران.

Do you have a source for this parsing?


----------



## Abbe

If, as the scholars of grammar say, رأى only has one object then it cant be anything else than a حال

I dont think I was clear enough. I was trying to explain that the sahib al-hal can be mafoul bihi.

*صاحِب الحال هو* الاسم الذِي يذكر *الحال* لبيان هيئته، وتكون *الحال* صفة له في المعنى، ولهذا الاسم مواقع إعرابيَّة عديدة في الجملة الفعليَّة أو الاسميَّة.
فهو قَد يأتي:
- *فاعلاً*، مثل: «جَاءَ زَيدٌ مَاشِياً».
- أو نائباً عن الفاعل، مثل: «ضُرِبَ الطِّفلُ بَاكِياً».
- أو مبتدأ.
- أو خبراً.
- أو مُضافاً إليهِ، مثل: «رَاقَبتُ ذَهَابَكَ مُبتَعِداً».
- أو مجروراً بحرف جر، مثل: «مَرَرتُ بِمُحَمَّدٍ قَاعِداً».
- أو أحد المفاعيل كالمفعول به، مثل: «أَكَلتُ الطَّعَامَ سَاخِناً».
- أو*المفعول المطلق*، مثل: «كَتَبتُ الكِتَابَةَ كَبِيرَةً».
- أوالمفعول لأجله، مثل: «هَرَبتُ خَوفَ المَوتِ مُتَعَاظِماً».
- أو*المفعول فيه*، مثل: «خَرَجتُ العَصرَ وَهُوَ مُشمِسٌ».
- أوالمفعول معه، مثل: «سَهَرتُ وَالقَمَرَ مُضِيئاً».


----------



## WadiH

Ok thanks that's interesting to learn.

Perhaps it is a حال then.


----------



## elroy

I agree that it’s a حال.


----------



## Ali Smith

I guess we can all agree that my textbook got it wrong because there's no way السائقان can be مرفوع.


----------



## Matat

I agree that describing يتشاجران as a حال is correct and probably the more standard way, but I can also agree with describing يتشاجران as a second مفعول به and see nothing wrong with that. رأى is among أخوات ظن, also called أفعال القلوب. What that means is that it can enter upon مبتدأ+خبر sentences and make the مبتدأ and خبر accusative. That interpretation can be used here.



Ali Smith said:


> I guess we can all agree that my textbook got it wrong because there's no way السائقان can be مرفوع.


It's best to stick with السائقَيْن, but there is an argument to be made for السائقان as well (in Classical Arabic). However, I don't think I want to muddy up the waters right now and go too deep into it.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,


Ali Smith said:


> Ibn Nacer: Maybe يتشاجران could be مفعول به ثانٍ?


*Abbe *has already answered ... Yes here the verb  رَأَى has the meaning of "to see", it therefore takes only one object ... And the meaning is also clear: the sentence يتشاجران  describes the state of the two drivers (السائقان) *when *they were seen by "me" (the subject of رأيت).



Abbe said:


> It should be السائقين


Bien vu !



Wadi Hanifa said:


> That doesn't mean that يتشاجران is a حال though. I can also say رأيت السائقين حين كونهما يتشاجران.


I find that the use of حين does not contradict the definition of haal, on the contrary it reminds me that hâl often expresses simultaneity and some translate* using a connector which expresses simultaneity as while, when, whereas...

I think we can also rephrase the sentence using a wâw-l-haal : رأيت السائقين *و*هما يتشاجران

* Example :


> A hal clause is a special kind of Arabic construction that allows you to indicate that the action (or event or state) mentioned in the hal clause is occurring *at the same time* as the action (or event or state) mentioned in the main clause. It can be translated many ways into English, but most often you can use the conjunctions *while *or *when *at the beginning of the English subordinate clause. The English equivalents of hal clauses also frequently begin with anactive participle (the "-ing" adjective form: the "talking" dog, the "working" man). The English sentences below would all probably be translated into Arabic using a hal clause. The word in italics signals the beginning of the hal clause:
> 
> He arrived *while *carrying a book.
> He arrived *carrying *a book.
> He arrived *with *a book in his hand.
> I met Anwar Sadat _*while/when*_ he was president.
> 
> Source : http://faculty.washington.edu/tdeyoung/HalClause.pdf





Ali Smith said:


> I guess we can all agree that my textbook got it wrong because there's no way السائقان can be مرفوع.


This book is in French (I didn't know you read French), do you have the references?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Matat said:


> I agree that describing يتشاجران as a حال is correct and probably the more standard way, but I can also agree with describing يتشاجران as a second مفعول به and see nothing wrong with that. رأى is among أخوات ظن, also called أفعال القلوب.


Yes syntactically/grammatically the verb رأى can take two objects but here, if it was the case, what would be its meaning ?

It seems to me that when the verb رأى takes two objects it has the meaning of: consider, esteem, to percieve, to think, to regard...


----------



## Matat

Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes grammatically the verb رأى can take two objects but here, if it was the case, what would be its meaning ?


I don't think the meaning changes with the different interpretation of the syntax.


Ibn Nacer said:


> It seems to me that when the verb رأى takes two objects it has the meaning of: consider, esteem, to percieve, to think, to regard...


رأى can certainly mean all those things, but that is more dependent on the context of the sentence than the interpretation of the syntax.


----------



## Abbe

Matat said:


> I agree that describing يتشاجران as a حال is correct and probably the more standard way, but I can also agree with describing يتشاجران as a second مفعول به and see nothing wrong with that. رأى is among أخوات ظن, also called أفعال القلوب. What that means is that it can enter upon مبتدأ+خبر sentences and make the مبتدأ and خبر accusative. That interpretation can be used here



Are you sure about that?  I thought that رأى البصرية is not considered to be one of the أفعال القلوب


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Matat said:


> I don't think the meaning changes with the different interpretation of the syntax.
> 
> رأى can certainly mean all those things, but that is more dependent on the context of the sentence than the interpretation of the syntax.


Ah I thought the grammar analysis depended on how the sentence understood. And in principle, grammatical functions are associated with a specific meaning, right ? Otherwise why make the difference between hâl, tamyiiz, maf'uul bihi, maf'uul fihi ... These are all accusative nouns, right?

Edit : Finally, I think I understand better what you mean: yes the meaning does not change because of the different syntactic interpretations (grammar analysis) but do you agree that the syntactic interpretation (grammatical analysis) depends on our understanding of the sentence ? (The grammar analysis is made according to the meaning of the sentence).


----------



## Matat

@Abbe and @Ibn Nacer, it looks like you two are correct. I was thinking of the Quranic verses like فلما رأى القمر بازغا and thought that both opinions would apply on those types of verses, then used that standard and applied it to this sentence, but it seems my original premise about these verses was wrong to begin with.


> «فلما رأى القمر» سبق اعراب مثلها وكذلك «قال هذا ربي فلما أفل قال..» «بازغا» حال منصوبة لأن رأى بصرية وليست قلبية


----------



## Ali Smith

Matat said:


> It's best to stick with السائقَيْن, but there is an argument to be made for السائقان as well (in Classical Arabic). However, I don't think I want to muddy up the waters right now and go too deep into it.



I am very interested! Please tell me more.


----------



## Abbe

Ali Smith said:


> I am very interested! Please tell me more.


I think Matat was talking about some Arab tribes that used the dual in the same way as the الاسم المقصور i.e. that the harakat cant be seen on the alif.
They would say: جاء الرجلان ورأيت الرجلان ومررت بالرجلان in the same way you say رأيت الفتى وجاء الفتى ومررت بالفتى
Although this is never used in a book for beginners


----------



## Matat

@Abbe, I had actually not considered that, but that's a good point.

The argument I was going to make was different; it was that you can keep both the مبتدأ+خبر as nominative when you have one of the أفعال القلوب enter on it, but that argument is invalid here for two reasons. The first reason it's invalid is what Ibn Nacer and Abbe pointed to in that رأى here is not used as a فعل قلبي since it's referring to physically seeing. The second reason it's invalid is, after looking back through my references, it turns out that what I was thinking of is when there is a لام الابتداء attached to the nominal sentence, so had the sentence been ظننت لَلسائقان يتشاجران, it must be nominative here, but without the لام, it would be accusative and you'd say ظننت السائقين يتشاجران.


----------



## Ali Smith

So, لام الابتداء turns the مفعول به أول and ثاني both into مبتدأ خبر? Is that why they're both مرفوع?


----------



## Matat

The إعراب would be {اللام لام الابتداء و{السائقان} مبتدأ مرفوع و{يتشاجران} في محل رفع خبر وجملة {للسائقان يتشاجران} سدت مسد مفعولي {ظننت. Though I can understand why introducing the لَـ would force this i3raab, I must say that I don't see why using a nominative مبتدأ+خبر combo couldn't also be an acceptable variant without the لَـ. No doubt ظننت السائقين يتشاجران would be more conventional, but I feel like the logic should make ظننت السائقان يتشاجران acceptable as well, but I could not find any source to validate this. Nevertheless, this logic would not work in your original رأيت sentence for the reason already discussed, mainly that we're not using رأيت as a فعل قلبي.


----------

