# من نصب نفسه للناس إماماً



## Aysan

سلام
هو نصب نفسه للناس اماما
Here in this sentence is the اماما object?


----------



## momai

It should be نصّب نفسه *على* الناس إماماً. If I remember correctly, إماماً should be the تمييز in this sentence and the object is نفسه.


----------



## Sun-Shine

I'm uncertain if it is تمييز or مفعول به ثان


----------



## elroy

I think تمييز too.


----------



## Sun-Shine

:ما يجعلني أحتار هو أن
( "يتم تضعيف (شدّة) بعض الأفعال (الأفعال المزيدة بالتضعيف "فعّل
فإن كانت لازمة تصبح متعدية لمفعول و إن كانت متعدية لمفعول تصبح متعدية لمفعولين​


----------



## Ibn Nacer

I would say that the word "إماما" is "*haal*" and that the word "نفس" (in نفسه) is maf'ûl bihi (object).


PS : I have a doubt, is this verb simply transitive or doubly transitive ?
Is it the verb نَصَبَ or نَصَّبَ ?
I ask this because I saw in several site that it was the verb نَصَبَ, example :

مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً فَلْيَبدأ بتعليمِ نَفْسِهِ قَبْلَ تعليمِ غيرِهِ​
Merci.



sun_shine 331995 said:


> I'm uncertain if it is تمييز or مفعول به ثان


For it to be possible that it is "مفعول به ثان" it is necessary that the verb be doubly transitive (that it take two object) but I have a doubt, do you know examples where this verb takes two objects? And what would be the meaning ?


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> I would say that the word "إماما" is "*haal*"


If we asked:كيف نصّب نفسه؟
answer: إماما؟؟
strange so I exclude 7aal.



> Is it the verb نَصَبَ or نَصَّبَ ?


It is نَصَّبَ



> I have a doubt, is this verb simply transitive or doubly transitive ?


The same here,


sun_shine 331995 said:


> (الأفعال المزيدة بالتضعيف ( فعّل
> إن كانت لازمة تصبح متعدية لمفعول و إن كانت متعدية لمفعول تصبح متعدية لمفعولين​


----------



## Ibn Nacer

I modified my message while you answered, I added things to my previous post ...



sun_shine 331995 said:


> It is نَصَّبَ


Thank you. 
Could this be the verb "نَصَبَ"? I ask this because I saw in several site that it was the verb نَصَبَ, example : مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً فَلْيَبدأ بتعليمِ نَفْسِهِ قَبْلَ تعليمِ غيرِهِ


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> Could this be the verb "نَصَبَ"? I ask this because I saw in several site that it was the verb نَصَبَ, example : مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً فَلْيَبدأ بتعليمِ نَفْسِهِ قَبْلَ تعليمِ غيرِهِ


The verb in your example is نَصَبَ
After what you said we should ask Aysan which verb is it?




Aysan said:


> هو نصب نفسه للناس اماما
> Here in this sentence is the اماما object?


Could you tell us the vowels of نصب ?
Is it نَصَبَ or نَصّبَ ?


momai said:


> It should be نصّب نفسه *على* الناس إماماً. If I remember correctly, إماماً should be the تمييز in this sentence and the object is نفسه.


After Ibn Nacer reply, it could be على الناس or للناس depending on the verb نَصَبَ or نَصّبَ .

Thank you Ibn Nacer


----------



## Ibn Nacer

sun_shine 331995 said:


> After what you said we should ask Aysan which verb is it?


For him It seems that this is the verb "نَصّبَ", I say that because I noticed later  the title of this thread : *نصّب نفسه على الناس إماماً*

But the two verbs can have the same meaning, right? 

EDIT : Oh maybe it's a moderator who changed the title ???


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> For him It seems that this is the verb "نَصّبَ", I say that because I noticed later  the title of this thread : *نصّب نفسه على الناس إماماً*


Maybe the title was changed (the first sentence was هو نصب نفسه *للناس* اماما)



> But the two verbs can have the same meaning, right?


Yes, they have the same meaning (as here) but in other example they can be different in meaning.


----------



## Aysan

Ibn Nacer said:


> I modified my message while you answered, I added things to my previous post ...
> 
> Thank you.
> Could this be the verb "نَصَبَ"? I ask this because I saw in several site that it was the verb نَصَبَ, example : مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً فَلْيَبدأ بتعليمِ نَفْسِهِ قَبْلَ تعليمِ غيرِهِ


Yeah,i mean the arabic sentence that you have written


----------



## Ibn Nacer

@Aysan,Thank you.

-------------------------------

How do you understand this sentence (مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً)? How would you translate it?

Can we interchange the verb نَصَبَ by the verb نَصَّبَ ?
If so, is the meaning the same?

Merci.



sun_shine 331995 said:


> If we asked:كيف نصّب نفسه؟
> answer: إماما؟؟
> strange so I exclude 7aal.


I thought this sentence was similar to this verse (S4V79) :

وَأَرْسَلْنَاكَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً
Et Nous t'avons envoyé aux gens *comme* *Messager*.
and We have sent thee *as* *a messenger* to (instruct) mankind.​
Or like these sentences :

وكانت تعمل طاهية في المدرسة التي كنت أتعلم فيها لتعيل العائلة
يعمل سائق حافلة ، فهل يجوز له الفطر؟​
I opened this thread some time ago : وكانت تعمل طاهية


----------



## Sun-Shine

Ibn Nacer said:


> I would say that the word "إماما" is "*haal*



You are right and sorry for confusion.
I asked for help and the answer is *haal* in both cases: نَصَب نفسه *إماما* or نصّب نفسه *إماما
*


> Can we interchange the verb نَصَبَ by the verb نَصَّبَ ?
> If so, is the meaning the same?


Yes, for this verb.
For other verbs the meaning changes.

Merci.


----------



## Aysan

sun_shine 331995 said:


> You are right and sorry for confusion.
> I asked for help and the answer is *haal* in both cases: نَصَب نفسه *إماما* or نصّب نفسه *إماما
> *
> 
> Yes, for this verb.
> For other verbs the meaning changes.
> 
> Merci.


But i have read in my book that حالshould be مشتق but  اماما is جامد
How can it be haal?


----------



## Sun-Shine

Aysan said:


> But i have read in my book that حالshould be مشتق but  اماما is جامد
> How can it be haal?


Yes, you are right haal is مشتق *in most* (not all) cases.

-نَصَب or نصّب if it means وضع then إماما is haal
-If it means جعل/ولّى it would be مفعول به ثان because جعل is doubly transitive.


----------



## Aysan

sun_shine 331995 said:


> Yes, you are right haal is مشتق *in most* (not all) cases.
> 
> -نَصَب or نصّب if it means وضع then إماما is haal
> -If it means جعل/ولّى it would be مفعول به ثان because جعل is doubly transitive.


Thank you


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Ibn Nacer said:


> How do you understand this sentence (مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً)? How would you translate it?


Does someone could translate this sentence? Or can someone explain the meaning he understood?

I found these examples :

نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ مَلِكاً he proclaimed himself king
نَصَب نَفْسَه أَميرًا He set himself prince
نَصَّبَ نَفْسَهُ حَكَمًا ‪s’ériger en juge
نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ مُدَافِعًا عن قَضِيَّةٍ ‪s’instituer le défenseur d’une cause

-------------------------



sun_shine 331995 said:


> I asked for help and the answer is *haal* in both cases: نَصَب نفسه *إماما* or نصّب نفسه *إماما*


Thank you for asking for an answer.



sun_shine 331995 said:


> -نَصَب or نصّب if it means وضع then إماما is haal
> -If it means جعل/ولّى it would be مفعول به ثان because جعل is doubly transitive.


Thank you. So there are several ways to understand the sentence (مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً) ?


----------



## Sun-Shine

نصب نفسه ملكا / أميرا/ حاكما / واليا
(أعتقد أنها تعني أي منصب أو مكانة (على رأس قوم


----------



## Mahaodeh

The verb is نصَّبَ تنصيبا meaning 'gave the position' and not نَصَبَ نصبا meaning 'erected'. 

إماما is definitely not a حال. In addition to being جامد, the حال should answer the question كيف. In this case it answers the question ماذا as a مفعول به would.

أرى أن إماما هنا مفعول به ثان لأن نصّب هنا بمعنى صيّر لذا تحتاج إلى مفعولين أصلهما مبتدأ وخبر. تصبح الجملة أوضح إذا غيرناها إلى: نصّب عمروُ زيدا إماما. لو قلنا نصّب عمروٌ زيدا وسكتنا لقيل لنا نصّبه ماذا؟ لأن الجملة غير مفيدة إذ تحتاج إلى مفعول ثان يكملها. ولو أزلنا الفعل والفاعل لجاز أن نقول زيدٌ إمامٌ لأن أصل المفعولين مبتدأ وخبر. أضف إلى ذلك أن التمييز يزيل غموض المميز وليس من مميز هنا ولو فرضنا أن زيد هي المميز فإن الإمام ليس نوع من الزيد حتى يميزه كما نقول اشتريت وقودا خشبا حيث الخشب نوع من الوقود.

هذا ما أراه والله أعلم


----------



## Sun-Shine

Mahaodeh said:


> The verb is نصَّبَ تنصيبا meaning 'gave the position' and not نَصَبَ نصبا meaning 'erected'.
> 
> إماما is definitely not a حال. In addition to being جامد


الحال مشتق في معظم و ليس كل الحالات
يمكن أن يكون جامدًا
I asked someone and he said if نصب means وضع then إمامًا is حال but if it means جعل/ولّى then إمامًا is مفعول به ثان.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> The verb is نصَّبَ تنصيبا meaning 'gave the position' and not نَصَبَ نصبا meaning 'erected'.


I saw in several site that it was the verb نَصَبَ, example : مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً فَلْيَبدأ بتعليمِ نَفْسِهِ قَبْلَ تعليمِ غيرِهِ... But these two verbs can have the same meaning, right?



Mahaodeh said:


> إماما is definitely not a حال. In addition to being جامد, the حال should answer the question كيف. In this case it answers the question ماذا as a مفعول به would.


It seems to me that the question كيف does not always work, besides I find that it is often necessary to add a complement like for example: what was the state (haal) of sahibu-l-haal when he accomplished the action...

Please, how would you analyze the examples (words in blue) I posted in the message #13 :



> I thought this sentence was similar to this verse (S4V79) :
> 
> وَأَرْسَلْنَاكَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً
> Et Nous t'avons envoyé aux gens *comme* *Messager*.
> and We have sent thee *as* *a messenger* to (instruct) mankind.​
> Or like these sentences :
> 
> وكانت تعمل طاهية في المدرسة التي كنت أتعلم فيها لتعيل العائلة
> يعمل سائق حافلة ، فهل يجوز له الفطر؟​
> I opened this thread some time ago : وكانت تعمل طاهية



Thank you.



Mahaodeh said:


> In this case it answers the question ماذا as a مفعول به would.


the object is the one that undergoes the action of the verb, the person or thing affected by the action... (I do not know if this is how it is said in English but in French: l'objet désigne celui qui subit l'action exprimée par le verbe).

Does the word "imaam" correspond to this definition?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> I saw in several site that it was the verb نَصَبَ, example : مَنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً فَلْيَبدأ بتعليمِ نَفْسِهِ قَبْلَ تعليمِ غيرِهِ... But these two verbs can have the same meaning, right?



No, not according to dictionaries. The only exception I found was in Al Maani. نصَبَ in all other dictionaries is to erect, prepare, and/or raise. Examples would be: نصَبَ صنما (ويسمّى أيضا نُصْبا)، نصب فخا، نصب الطعام. A more modern usage for it is to do the act of fraud (نصب على فلان).

However, if the meaning is the quote above is not to appoint, rather to raise (أي أنه ليس نصَّب بمعنى صيّر أو ولّى بل نصَبَ بمعنى أقام), then إماما is not a مفعول به ثان because the meaning in this case does not require a second object to complete the sentence. It all depends on the exact meaning of the word. Just replace the words and it becomes clear: أقام فلان نفسه is a complete sentence or جملة مفيدة: he raised himself. Hence إماما could very well be تمييز although in terms of meaning I feel that it should be حال. In this case I couldn't say with certainty what it is exactly.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> It seems to me that the question كيف does not always work,


I don't know, it always works for me. You could try ما حاله عند فعل الفعل, but basically it's the same as كيف حاله عند فعل الفعل. If you mean the rest of the question sentence then I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I thought it would be automatically understood.



Ibn Nacer said:


> Please, how would you analyze the examples (words in blue) I posted in the message #13 :


وأرسلناك للناس رسولا: أرسل فعل والفاعل ضمير مستتر والمفعول به ضمير متصل للناس جار ومجرور ورسولا حال. In this case it seems obvious to me that it's a haal.

The other two are less straightforward. I believe that it should be مفعول به because the verb عمل is transitive and requires a مفعول به but also because it's part of the act of the verb: ماذا تعمل؟ تعمل طاهية; the 'cook' is not her state while she is performing her job, it's her actual job and this makes it part of the act of the verb. However, I can understand the confusion, mainly because in this case the verb is slightly nuanced from the original meaning of 'to do something' and the word طاهية can be used as a haal in a different contexts. In the case of سائق حافلة you have an added reason why it's not a haal, it's the fact that سائق is معرّف بالإضافة, while technically the iDaafa does not prevent the word from being haal, in this case the way it's constructed makes it very unlikely. If you change the sentence to make it clearly a haal, you would say something like: جاء فلان سائقا حافلةً and not جاء فلان سائقَ حافلةٍ - having said that, I'm not 100% sure about the last note and could be wrong so take it with a grain of salt.



Ibn Nacer said:


> the object is the one that undergoes the action of the verb, the person or thing affected by the action



Agreed. Going back to the original sentence, then it depends on the exact meaning of the verb. Frankly, it didn't occur to me before that the meaning could be anything other than 'appointed' but when I was looking up the meanings in dictionaries I found that there is in fact another possibility as I mentioned in #23. If the meaning is raised, then the action of the verb falls only on one thing, hence you need only one مفعول به, and hence إماما is not a مفعول به. But if the meaning is 'appointed' then the action falls on two things not on one: the person that was appointed, and whatever he was appointed as. Even in English, if you say: I appointed X and said nothing more it would make everyone one wonder "what did you appoint him?", you need to clarify that. If you said: I raised him, it could very well be enough and if any questions are asked the questions would be either "where to?" (needing ظرف مكان to answer), or "how much?" (needing تمييز عددي to answer) but in both cases this is additional information not part of the action of the verb.

Personally, my first instinct was to understand the verb to mean 'appoint' or in Arabic: صيّر أو ولّى أو جعل, which makes it require a second object to complete the verb.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,



Mahaodeh said:


> No, not according to dictionaries. The only exception I found was in Al Maani. نصَبَ in all other dictionaries is to erect, prepare, and/or raise. Examples would be: نصَبَ صنما (ويسمّى أيضا نُصْبا)، نصب فخا، نصب الطعام. A more modern usage for it is to do the act of fraud (نصب على فلان).
> 
> However, if the meaning is the quote above is not to appoint, rather to raise (أي أنه ليس نصَّب بمعنى صيّر أو ولّى بل نصَبَ بمعنى أقام), then إماما is not a مفعول به ثان because the meaning in this case does not require a second object to complete the sentence. It all depends on the exact meaning of the word. Just replace the words and it becomes clear: أقام فلان نفسه is a complete sentence or جملة مفيدة: he raised himself. Hence إماما could very well be تمييز although in terms of meaning I feel that it should be حال. In this case I couldn't say with certainty what it is exactly.


Thank you.

Yes I too have looked at several dictionaries (ar-ar, ar-en, ar-fr) and it seemed to me that both verbs could have the same meaning.

1- In Lane's lexicon we have (entry نَصَبَ) :


> *نَصَبَ*, aor. ـُ {يَنْصُبُ}, inf. n. نَصْبٌ; (Ṣ, Ḳ) and *نصّب*↓; (Ḳ) _He set up, put up, set upright, erected,_ a thing: (Ṣ) _he elevated, raised, reared,_ a thing. (Ḳ)


Above he mentions the two verbs and he explains the difference just after (entry نصّب):


> نصّبت الخَيْلُ آذَانَهَا _The horses erected their ears often,_ or _exceedingly._ *The teshdeed is to render the signification frequentative or intensive*. (Ṣ.)



2- The verb نصّب can also (like نَصَبَ) mean "to raise, to erect..." :


> معجم الغني : نَصَّبَ [ن ص ب]. (ف: ربا. متعد). نَصَّبْتُ، أُنَصِّبُ، نَصِّبْ، مص. تَنْصِيبٌ نَصَّبَ الْخَيْمَةَ: رَفَعَهَا نَصَّبَ الوَزِيرُ الْمُدِيرَ: وَلاَّهُ مَنْصِبَ... "نَصَّبَهُ قَاضِياً".ا​
> 
> 
> معجم اللغة العربية المعاصرة : نصَّبَ ينصِّب، تنصيبًا، فهو مُنصِّب، والمفعول مُنصَّب ، نصَّب الشّيءَ : نصَبه؛ رفعه وأقامه "نصَّب عمودًا/ الأشرعَة/ الرّايةَ". ، *نصَّب الشَّخصَ : نَصَبَه*؛ أسند إليه مَنْصِبًا "نصَّب المديرَ الجديدَ- نصَّبه/ نصَّب قاضِيًا- نصّبوه مَلِكًا- نصّب الوزيرُ أحدَ مساعديه مديرًا عامًّا" ، خطاب التَّنصيب : خطاب يُلْقيه شخْص عند تولِّيه منصبًا​


​look also at this passage "*نصَّب الشَّخصَ : نَصَبَه*" and "نصَّب الشّيءَ : نصَبه"...
This suggests that both verbs may have the same meaning

3- The verb نَصَبَ can also (like نصّب) mean "to appoint, to nominate, to assign" (بمعنى ولّى) :


> معجم الغني : نَصَبَ [ن ص ب]. (ف: ثلا. لازمتع. م. بحرف). نَصَبْتُ، أَنْصِبُ، اِنْصِبْ، مص. نَصْبٌ نَصَبَ تِمْثَالاً: وَضَعَهُ، أَقَامَهُ، أَثْبَتَهُ. "نَصَبَ الرُّمْحَ"l "نَصَبَ الْحَجَرَ" "نَصَبَ الْخَيْمَةَ"l "نَصَبَ العَلَمَ" يَنْصِبُ الشَّجَرَةَ: يَغْرِسُهَا فِي الأَرْضِ نَصَبَ الكَلِمَةَ: وَضَعَ عَلَيْهَا النَّصْبَ، الفَتْحَةَ لِتُلْفَظَ مَنْصُوبَةً نَصَبَ لَهُ الشَّرَّ: أَظْهَرَهُ لَهُ. "نَصَبَ لَهُ العَدَاءَ" نَصَبَ لَهُ كَمِيناً: أَقَامَ لَهُ كَمِيناً لِيَقَعَ فِيهِ، أَوْقَعَهُ فِيهِ. "نَصَبَ لَهُ فَخّاً" نَصَبَهُ الْمَرَضُ: أَتْعَبَهُ، أَوْجَعَهُ، آلَمَهُ نَصَبَ عَلَيْهِ: اِحْتَالَ عَلَيْهِ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ مُحَامِياً: تَقَدَّمَ لِيُدَافِعَ عَنْهُ مُتَطَوِّعاً نَصَبَهُ الرَّئِيسُ: وَلاَّهُ مَنْصِباً نَصَبَ لَهُ رَأْياً: أَشَارَ عَلَيْهِ بِهِ لِكَيْ لاَ يَعْدِلَ عَنْهُ. إغلاق



But maybe this is theoretical, in practice maybe we make the difference and that each verb is used with a specific meaning...
It is not easy...



Mahaodeh said:


> Personally, my first instinct was to understand the verb to mean 'appoint' or in Arabic: صيّر أو ولّى أو جعل, which makes it require a second object to complete the verb.


I feel that this corresponds to the meaning of the examples I quoted :


Ibn Nacer said:


> نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ مَلِكاً he proclaimed himself king
> نَصَب نَفْسَه أَميرًا He set himself prince
> نَصَّبَ نَفْسَهُ حَكَمًا ‪s’ériger en juge
> نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ مُدَافِعًا عن قَضِيَّةٍ ‪s’instituer le défenseur d’une cause





I'll try to answer the other message later ...


----------

