# Smoking is prohibited (No smoking)



## Qureshpor

Smoking is prohibited. Which is correct?

التدخين ممنوع

at-tadKhiinu mamnuu3-un

ممنوع التدخين

mamnuu3-un_itadKhiinu

ممنوع التدخين

mamnuu3ut_tadKhiini


----------



## shafaq

Both are corrects! Therewith they both have different connotations.

Smoking is prohibited here/*in this location* or simply "No smoking here!" التدخين ممنوع  هنا / في هذا المكان

هذا المكان ممنوع التدخين  فيهHere/*this location* is a place that smoking is prohibited in it!


----------



## Josh_

However, on signs you would most likely see ممنوع التدخين, which seems to be most common.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> Smoking is prohibited. Which is correct?
> 
> التدخين ممنوع
> 
> at-tadKhiinu mamnuu3-un


Correct, but not how this is usually written.


> ممنوع التدخين
> 
> mamnuu3-un_itadKhiinu


Completely correct.


> ممنوع التدخين
> 
> mamnuu3ut_tadKhiini


Incorrect case markings.

This structure is not an إضافة غير حقيقية, as the case markings seem to suggest in your third transcription. Rather, ممنوع is a خبر مقدّم "fronted predicate" and التدخين is a مبتدأ مؤخّر "belated subject." Therefore, the case markings should be as they are in your first example, except the words are usually inverted. Your second example is correct and represents how this phrase would be pronounced if it occurred in the Koran.

ممنوعٌ التدخينُ

Hope that helps.


----------



## Qureshpor

Luke, yes it does help. Thank you and Thanks to Shafaq. However is n't Shafaq's example incorporating my third sentence?

هذا المكان ممنوع التدخين  فيه

In this place, there is prohibition of smoking (?)


----------



## إسكندراني

QURESHPOR said:


> هذا المكان ممنوعٌ التدخين  فيه


No; I added the tanwiin to clarify that it's your second sentence in there.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

QURESHPOR said:


> Luke, yes it does help. Thank you and Thanks to Shafaq. However is n't Shafaq's example incorporating my third sentence?
> 
> هذا المكان ممنوع التدخين  فيه
> 
> In this place, there is prohibition of smoking (?)



No. ممنوع does not mean "prohibition," but rather, "prohibited." In his example, the words are vocalized:

هذا المكانُ ممنوعٌ التدخينُ فيهِ Smoking is prohibited in this place.



> This structure is not an إضافة غير حقيقية, as the case markings seem to  suggest in your third transcription. Rather, ممنوع is a خبر مقدّم  "fronted predicate" and التدخين is a مبتدأ مؤخّر "belated subject."  Therefore, the case markings should be as they are in your first  example, except the words are usually inverted. Your second example is  correct and represents how this phrase would be pronounced if it  occurred in the Koran.
> 
> ممنوعٌ التدخينُ
> 
> Hope that helps.


I would like to add to this analysis, because while it is certainly viable, it is not the only one and it may not be the preferred analysis of the Arab grammarians.

I'll begin with just ممنوع التدخين. As we will see, my first analysis can apply, but there is a different way to look at this structure.

Instead of viewing ممنوع التدخين as a nominal sentence or a جملة اسمية, as my former analysis suggested, we can view this is as a verbal sentence or a جملة فعلية, where the adjective ممنوع carries the verbal force. Wright (Volume II, Page 256-257, §121) says:



> If a sentence consists of a verbal adjective occupying the first place, and a noun occupying the second, it may be regarded as a verbal sentence, the verbal adjective being looked upon as a verb and the noun as its agent.


Wright gives the following examples to convey this point:



> خبيرٌ بنو لهبٍ _the Banu Lihb are skilled (in augury)_
> 
> فخيرٌ نحنُ عندَ الناسِ منكمْ _and so we are better than you in the opinion of men_


According to Wright, in these sentences, خبير and خير are both مبتدأ, while بنو and نحن are both فاعل سادّ مسدّ الخبر _agent supplying the place of the predicate_.

In our sentence:

ممنوعٌ التدخينُ _Smoking is prohibited_.

ممنوع is the مبتدأ and التدخين is the نائب فاعل ساد مسد الخبر _deputy-agent supplying the place of the predicate_. It is نائب فاعل and not simply فاعل because ممنوع is a passive particle and any verbal force it carries remains in the passive voice. Similarly, we would say that التدخين is نائب الفاعل if we were to encounter:

يُمْنَعُ التدخينُ _Smoking is prohibited.
_
Perhaps in ممنوع التدخين, the participle is used instead of the verb to avoid conveying any particular tense.

But back to the main point, Wright gives a similar example:



> هلْ مضروبٌ بنوكَ _are thy sons beaten?_


Here, مضروب is the مبتدأ and بنوك is the نائب فاعل ساد مسد الخبر.

With regards to my former analysis (i.e. ممنوع as خبر مقدم and التدخين as مبتدأ مؤخر), Wright (Wright, Volume II, Page 258, §121) states:



> In the case of a singular noun, as أقائمٌ زيدٌ, a double analysis is possible; قائمٌ may be regarded as a مبتدأ, of which زيدٌ is the فاعل ساد مسد الخبر, and this is the preferable view; or قائمٌ may be regarded as a transposed خبر, of which زيدٌ is the transposed مبتدأ.


Now, let us take up:

هذا المكانُ ممنوعٌ التدخينُ فيهِ Smoking is prohibited in this place.

First of all, this sentence presents its own syntactic peculiarity apart from difficulties we encountered earlier while analyzing ممنوع التدخين, which we must understand before we address the latter's role in the sentence as a whole. The "peculiarity" with this sentence is that it is a compound sentence, or in Arabic, جملة ذات وجهين _a sentence with two faces or aspects_, because it "partakes of both the nominal and verbal nature."

Wright (Wright, Volume II, Page 256, §120) describes this type of compound sentence:



> Those sentences are also compound, which are composed of a noun and a nominal sentence or a verbal sentence, consisting of a verb and a following noun.


Wright provides the following examples:



> زيدٌ ابنُهُ حسنٌ _Zeid's son (lit. Zeid, his son) is handsome_
> 
> زيدٌ ماتَ أبوهُ _Zeid's father is dead_
> 
> زيدٌ قُتِلَ أخوهُ _Zeid's brother has been killed_
> 
> زيدٌ جيءَ إليهِ بكتابٍ _a letter has been brought to Zeid_


Wright, on the same page, goes on to say:



> In compound sentences of this sort, there is appended to the subject of the nominal or verbal sentence, which occupies the place of خبر, a pronominal suffix, called الرابط, _the binder_ or _connector_, which represents, and falls back upon, the noun forming the مبتدأ.


In our sentence هذا المكان ممنوع التدخين فيه, the مبتدأ is هذا المكان (which on its own is an example of apposition or البدل) and the خبر is the _sentence _ممنوع التدخين and the رابط is فيه connecting the latter verbal (and/or nominal according to our analysis) sentence to the مبتدأ. (This pronominal suffix does not fall on the subject as Wright describes above, but it clearly connects both ideas of the sentence, similar to Wright's fourth example of compound sentences.)

Wright gives the following similar example:



> زيدٌ ضاربٌ غلامُهُ عمرَ _Zeid's slave is beating 'Omar_


In this sentence, زيدٌ is the مبتدأ and ضاربٌ غلامُهُ عمرَ is the predicate in the form of another sentence. The connector or رابط is, of course, the pronominal suffix on غلامه. The مفعول به of ضاربٌ is عمرَ which lacks the تنوين because it is a diptote or ممنوع من الصرف. In turn, ضاربٌ غلامُهُ عمرَ is very similar to ممنوعٌ التدخينُ فيهِ in that both clauses contain a مبتدأ in the form of a participle with verbal force preceding its agent, which serves as the فاعل/نائب فاعل ساد مسد الخبر.

I hope this analysis makes sense.

I also feel that it is worth mentioning a very similar structure and differentiating between the two. In all of the examples I posited to illustrate how an adjective can carry verbal force, the adjective and the substantive preceding it have been discordant with regards to definiteness.

In contrast, consider these examples from Wright (Wright, Volume II, Page 283, §139):



> رأيتُ رجلًا حسنًا أخوهُ_ I saw a man who's brother is handsome_
> 
> رأيتُ امرأةً حسنًا وجهُها _I saw a women who's face is handsome_
> 
> رأيتُ رجلًا كريمًا آباؤُهُ or كرامًا آباؤُهُ _I saw a man who's forefathers are noble_
> 
> جاءَ الرجلُ الفاضلُ أبواهُ _the man came, whose parents are excellent_
> 
> فويلٌ للقياسةِ قلوبُهُمْ _woe to those who's hearts are hard!_
> 
> الملوكُ المتقدمُ ذكرُهُمْ _the kings who have been mentioned before_


In each of these examples, the adjective and the preceding substantive are concordant in definiteness. There is still a sense that the adjective carries a verbal or predicative force, but Wright describes this structure differently, saying:



> ...the adjective [called المسبَّب _the connected_] belongs, as a prefixed predicate, to the following noun [called السبب _the connecting_], which is its subject, and the two together form a صفة, or qualitative clause, of the preceding substantive, with which the adjective agrees in _case_ only by attraction;


In their textbook series _Al-Kitaab_, Kristen Brustad and Mahmoud Al-Batal give a similar construction (_Al-Kitaab_, Part III, Page 299):

كانت الدولة تتدخل ... فتفرض المواصفاتِ الواجبَ اتّباعُها في إنتاج السلع الصناعية _The state intervened ... imposing mandatory specifications for the production of manufactured commodities._

However, the authors of _Al-Kitaab _describe اتّباعُها here as the فاعل of الواجبَ, instead of using the السبب/المسبب interpretation. They call the underlying concept behind this:

الفاعل لاسم الفاعل أو اسم المفعول أو الصفة _The agent for the active participle, or passive participle, or adjective_

I think both references accurately describe this structure, but I think the description that الكتاب presents is more specific in describing the relationship between the two words, rather than simply saying that they are "connected."

Hope that helps!


----------



## abbythepotter

I am trying to make a "no smoking" sign for my office that is in Arabic. I know very little about the language, and I want to have the correct wording on the sign. I want people to read it and understand that they are not allowed to smoke in this spot.

The options I have found are

استعمال دخانيات ممنوع است

    and

لا تدخن Are either of these correct? What should go on the sign?


  Thank you!


----------



## Matat

Your first one is incorrect.
لا تدخن is correct but it's more of a command. It's like saying in English "Don't Smoke"

If you want "No Smoking", I would go with
التدخين ممنوع


----------



## Finland

FYI, the first option is not Arabic but Persian.

HTH
S


----------



## ajamiyya عجمية

I suggest that you go to yamli.com, cut-and-paste the following words الرجاء عدم التدخين (which is, itself, a very polite way of saying "No smoking, please") and then press "images".  
It should provide you with a great many examples of no-smoking signs.  Some of the examples are not actually in Arabic, but other languages which use a modified Arabic script.  Some of them specify local laws and regulations which the place of business is complying with.


----------



## akhooha

It is phrased as "ممنوع التدخين" on most signs in the Arab world.


----------



## Qureshpor

lukebeadgcf said:


> Hope that helps!


Thank you @lukebeadgcf  for the detailed reply. It was indeed very helpful. Apologies for the extremely  belated reply. I don't know what happened but I have failed to reply promptly.


----------



## elroy

akhooha said:


> It is phrased as "ممنوع التدخين" on most signs in the Arab world.


 I can't speak for the whole Arab World, but this is definitely the only version I've seen in Palestine. 


Matat said:


> If you want "No Smoking", I would go with
> التدخين ممنوع


 Not idiomatic in Palestine.


----------



## Mahaodeh

elroy said:


> but this is definitely the only version I've seen in Palestine.


While I can't say with 100% certainty that I haven't seen the opposite, I can say that ممنوع التدخين is what seem idiomatic to me. The opposite seems to me that it would be used for specific purposes only, such as answering the question "may I smoke here?" with the answer being: لا، التدخين ممنوع هنا.


----------



## ayed

The typical version would be :
يُمنع التدخين


----------



## elroy

ayed said:


> The typical version would be :
> يُمنع التدخين


 Is this the most common version used in Saudi Arabia?

It's not used in Palestine, as far as I know.


----------



## ayed

No, some people still use ممنوع التدخينbut if you would want to use it in fus.ha, يمنع التدخينis the best one


----------



## Mahaodeh

ayed said:


> but if you would want to use it in fus.ha, يمنع التدخينis the best one


Is it though? I mean, what makes one fus7a and the other not?


----------



## ayed

If you shifted to the active voice, it would be:
نحن نمنع التدخين


----------



## Matat

Both are proper FusHaa. The i3raabs of the two are actually more or less the same.

يمنع التدخين
يمنع: فعل ماض مبني للمجهول
التدخين: نائب فاعل

ممنوع التدخين
ممنوع: مبتدأ مرفوع وهو اسم مفعول عمل عمل فعله
التدخين: نائب فاعل سد مسد الخبر


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> ممنوع التدخين
> ممنوع: مبتدأ مرفوع وهو اسم مفعول عمل عمل فعله
> التدخين: نائب فاعل سد مسد الخبر


 I would have said ممنوع خبر مقدم والتدخين مبتدأ مؤخر.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> I would have said ممنوع خبر مقدم والتدخين مبتدأ مؤخر.


This works too as lukebeadgcf mentioned above.


----------



## apricots

ayed said:


> The typical version would be :
> يُمنع التدخين



Is this a Riyadh thing? I only remember seeing ممنوع التدخين in Jeddah.


----------



## elroy

I think Ayed is being prescriptive — this is what he thinks it _should_ be.


----------



## ayed

The same thing is applied to ممنوع الوقوف


----------

