# حدّق - يحدق في ، رنا - يرنو إلى



## lena55313

Hi, in my previous topic we talked about darkness in girl's eyes.
In the next sentence, as I understood it, the author warns the reader against something.
تحدق «فيه» *تحديقك «في» بئر*، ولا ترنو «إليه» كما ترنو «إلى» رسم.
I understood the sentence as: *you will be lost if *you look into it (into the darkness), don't look at it (the darkness of her eyes) as if it is a picture.
If my guess is right, can anybody explain me please the word tahdikika. Literally, as the Lane's Lexicon says, it means "the man who rolled the black of his eyes in looking"
So, the whole phrase would be: you would roll your eyes (and  appear) in the pit, isn't it? Is it an idiom and what is its literal translation?
If I'm completely wrong in interpreting the meaning of the whole sentence, please, correct me. 
Thank you in advance!


----------



## Ghabi

Hello. I read it as: "You look _into_ [this darkness] the way you look _into_ a well; you don't look _at_ it the way you look _at_ a picture."

It seems to be saying that her eyes have a kind of depth, and it's like looking into a well when you look at them.


----------



## lena55313

Hi, Ghabi, thank you. But do you think that لا ترنو is not a negative imperative here? And what do you think about "rolling eyes"?


----------



## Ghabi

A negative imperative would be لا تَرْنُ. I'm not sure what you mean by "rolling eyes"; I'm only familiar with the verb حَدَّقَ (verb noun: تحديق) with the meaning of "look/stare at".


----------



## lena55313

Ghabi said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "rolling eyes"


Can you check the LL? There is the article 2 at the bottom of a page 531 and then at page 532 where is written about these rolling eyes. Maybe I misunderstood it.


----------



## cherine

Hi Lena,

Lane translate the expression حدّق النظر في as to fix one's glance on. You don't need to look too far for other translations that don't make sense in this context. Another translation is "to stare at".
So, the writer here is comparing two ways of looking: staring التحديق and looking الرَنْو/الرُنُوّ.
The prepositions also show the difference in the strength of the gaze. I like Ghabi's rendition because it mirrors the Arabic: into vs. at.


----------



## lena55313

Thank you, Cherine. Now I understood. 
Do you know why the author put the words fi, fihi, ilayhi and ilya inside the inverted commas? Are there any rules?


----------



## Mahaodeh

The general meaning is:
التحديق is to stare at something, it is implied that no emotion is related or a with a negative emotion. It could be out of curiosity or surprise or disapproval or fear or just a blank stare. The root ح د ق gives the meaning of surrounding, hence the word حدقة which is the iris; it's called so because it surrounds the pupil. According to Al-Lisaan, it's called so because the iris is very clear when looking this way.

الرنو is to look at something continuously with a positive emotion such as love or care or affection or admiration...etc.



lena55313 said:


> تحدق «فيه» *تحديقك «في» بئر*، ولا ترنو «إليه» كما ترنو «إلى» رسم.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by the pointed brackets, do they not exist in the original? Is the whole context:
 وهما سوداوان غير أنه سواد فيه من العمق أكثر مما فيه من الالتماع تحدق تحديقك بئر، ولا ترنو كما ترنو رسم.

Or is it:
وهما سوداوان غير أنه سواد فيه من العمق أكثر مما فيه من الالتماع تحدق فيه تحديقك في بئر، ولا ترنو إليه كما ترنو إلى رسم?

Both verbs (حدّق and رنا) were transitive in classical Arabic, but in MSA they are often used as intransitive and would require حرف جر to add an object.

Whichever the case, I feel that the use of حدّق implies a hint of apprehension or awe. I feel that the author means that the depth makes one look with a little bit of fear or anxiety rather than look with admiration. I also believe that the use of the analogies of a well and a painting reinforce this meaning. At least this is how I understand it.


----------



## cherine

lena55313 said:


> Do you know why the author put the words fi, fihi, ilayhi and ilya inside the inverted commas? Are there any rules?


It could be to emphasize the depth of those eyes: you don't just look at them; you dive in them, metaphorically of course.


----------



## lena55313

Mahaodeh said:


> do they not exist in the original?


They do exist in the text. The author put those prepositions in brackets by himself, I've never put any addition to citations.

It's great that you explained the difference of two synonyms. For me it's too hard to read Al-Lisaan. But I've already started to read the article about hadaka. The problem is I have to translate each word in the article)))



cherine said:


> you dive in them


It was my first thought about metaphorical diving into the well or trapping by the pit and I thought it could be there some idiom, but Maha's version is convincing.

But in the sentence there are three words that mean a looking at. What do you think about the first one? Is it a tahdiku or a tuhaddiky. May be the author used three different words hadaka (1 type) - the neutral one, then haddaka(2 type) - the strong one, and then the rana - looking with admiration?


----------



## Mahaodeh

lena55313 said:


> Is it a tahdiku or a tuhaddiky


I think you mean tuHaddiqu, the verb is never مجرور, and there is no reason here to have it anything other than مرفوع


lena55313 said:


> May be the author used three different words hadaka (1 type) - the neutral one, then haddaka(2 type)


Three? I don't see three? There is only two, and one of them is a maSdar.
تحدق «فيه» تحديقك «في» بئر
I would say that it is definitely tuHaddiqu, the reason is the use of the maSdar, which is taHdeeq - used specifically for this form. The maSdar of Hadaqa yaHduqu is Hadqan or Hadaqan.
The way they are used here gives no doubt about it, it's the same as: يراهُ رأيَ العين or كرهه كره عدّو


----------



## lena55313

Mahaodeh said:


> I think you mean tuHaddiqu, the verb is never مجرور, and there is no reason here to have it anything other than مرفوع


Sorry, maybe I understood you wrong. Did you mean genitive مجرور and nominative مرفوع cases?
I just asked if in the phrase تحدق فيه (because, there are no تشكيل) the verb تحدق was formed from the verb حدق or from the verb حددق. Sorry, I don't know how to put tashkils in my computer. So if it was حدق the present form would be taHdiku. But if it was حددق (the form II) the present form would be tuHaddiqu. Maybe I was wrong with the conjugation? 
I just wondered about the initial form of the verb  (as Infinitive in English) to check it in the dictionary where all verbs are in the Past tense.


----------



## Mahaodeh

lena55313 said:


> Sorry, maybe I understood you wrong. Did you mean genitive مجرور and nominative مرفوع cases?


I'm sorry, I'm used to Arabic terms. I had to look up the English ones to make them out.
My answer is YES, that is what I meant.


lena55313 said:


> I just asked if in the phrase تحدق فيه (because, there are no تشكيل) the verb تحدق was formed from the verb حدق or from the verb حددق. Sorry, I don't know how to put tashkils in my computer. So if it was حدق the present form would be taHdiku. But if it was حددق (the form II) the present form would be tuHaddiqu. Maybe I was wrong with the conjugation?


It is definitely tuHaddiqu (with a shadda or stress on the d) because the following infinitive (also had to look it up ) is mentioned here as taHdeeq, which is the infinitive of Haddaqa.
The Infinitive of Hadaqa (no stress) is Hadq.


----------



## lena55313

Mahaodeh said:


> because the following infinitive (also had to look it up


If you speak about masdar, I think it is more close to the English equivalent of Gerund. Verb+ing. 


Mahaodeh said:


> I'm used to Arabic terms.


I's OK, I just wanted to clarify if I understood you right. And it was a one more reason to open a dictionary - that I always like)))



Mahaodeh said:


> I would say that it is definitely tuHaddiqu, the reason is the use of the maSdar,


So is there a rule in Arabic that if you use one verb, the masdar, if it follows the verb, should be formed only from this verb? And can't we put firstly the verb with neutral meaning like Hadaqa (just to look, with no emotions) and after that put masdar formed from the more strong verb Haddaqa (looking hard) For example: If you just cast a glance on her it will be as the gazing into the abyss. To make a contrast between two verbs and to magnify the strength gradually?


----------



## cherine

Hi,
Let me start with vowelizing the sentence:
تُحَدِّقُ فِيهِ تَحْدِيقَكَ في بِئْرٍ، ولا تَرْنُو إليه كما تَرنو إلى رَسْمٍ.
A translation again: you stare at it the way you stare in a well, and not (i.e. instead of) look at it the way you look at a painting.


lena55313 said:


> I understood the sentence as: *you will be lost if *you look into it (into the darkness), don't look at it (the darkness of her eyes) as if it is a picture.


The problem with your understanding is that you added structures that are not there: the future "you will be lost" and the imperative "don't look", and also the meaning of being "lost" which is not in the sentence. I advise you to be careful with analyzing the sentences on both the grammar and the vocabulary level so that you won't get incorrect meanings.


lena55313 said:


> It was my first thought about metaphorical diving into the well or trapping by the pit and I thought it could be there some idiom, but Maha's version is convincing.


With all due respect to Maha, but I think she went a bit far in analyzing the meaning of تحديق, and bringing up the relation to حدقة (iris) in this already complicated sentence was not necessary 
Either ways, it's still a metaphor and each reader has the freedom to understand and feel the metaphor the way we like or feel more appropriate to the context. 


lena55313 said:


> But in the sentence there are three words that mean a looking at. What do you think about the first one? Is it a tahdiku or a tuhaddiky. May be the author used three different words hadaka (1 type) - the neutral one, then haddaka(2 type) - the strong one, and then the rana - looking with admiration?


The three words are 2 verbs and the maSdar of one of them, so they're actually two words: تَحْدِيق - رُنُوّ and as was said before: حَدَّقَ تَحْدِيق is the stronger one because it has the meaning of staring, not just looking or gazing like رَنَا رُنُوّ.



lena55313 said:


> So is there a rule in Arabic that if you use one verb, the masdar, if it follows the verb, should be formed only from this verb? And can't we put firstly the verb with neutral meaning like Hadaqa (just to look, with no emotions) and after that put masdar formed from the more strong verb Haddaqa (looking hard) For example: If you just cast a glance on her it will be as the gazing into the abyss. To make a contrast between two verbs and to magnify the strength gradually?


The masDar used here works as a مفعول مُطْلَق (check your grammar books and the forum threads about this grammatical function). I don't know if there's a rule about this, but as far as a I know, a مفعول مطلق should be formed from the same verb it's emphasizing, unless it's used to mark the way the action is made, in which case it can be formed from another verb.

But in the sentence we have, it's one verb and its maSdar حَدَّقَ Haddaqa (notice the doubled د) and its maSdar تَحديق.


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> The three words are 2 verbs and the maSdar of one of them


I see.


cherine said:


> but I think she went a bit far in analyzing the meaning of تحديق, and bringing up the relation to حدقة (iris) in this already complicated sentence was not necessary



Sorry, I suppose teaching has taught me to explain in depth until it became and habit and I sometimes forget that not everyone needs a lot of explanation.


----------



## lena55313

cherine said:


> Let me start with vowelizing the sentence:
> تُحَدِّقُ فِيهِ *تَحْدِيقَكَ* في بِئْرٍ، ولا تَرْنُو إليه كما تَرنو إلى رَسْمٍ.


Cherine, you put fat-ha in the taHdiqaka. Shouldn't it be a damma - taHdiquka - here? I thought it was a Nominative case here, wasn't it?



cherine said:


> The problem with your understanding is that you added structures that are not there


Yes, It's my problem. When I read, my mind tries to find the easiest way and brings entrenched patterns. Thank you for saying that, now I would control myself.



Mahaodeh said:


> Sorry, I suppose teaching has taught me to explain in depth until it became and habit and I sometimes forget that not everyone needs a lot of explanation.


Maha, I need! Thank you very much for your bright and memorable explanations.


----------



## cherine

Mahaodeh said:


> Sorry, I suppose teaching has taught me to explain in depth until it became and habit and I sometimes forget that not everyone needs a lot of explanation.


That's not what I meant, Maha.  We all appreciate a bit of extra information, especially when it helps clarifies a point. It's just that in this particular part I think it could have added a bit to the confusion of someone who was already looking at the meaning of "the man who rolled the black of his eyes in looking", instead of the straight forward meaning also provided by the same dictionary. So, I wasn't blaming you, really. Just saying that we need to be careful when someone is already confused with extra information. 


lena55313 said:


> Cherine, you put fat-ha in the taHdiqaka. Shouldn't it be a damma - taHdiquka - here? I thought it was a Nominative case here, wasn't it?


No, it's a fatHa because the word works as a مفعول مُطْلَق as I mentioned in my previous post. Did you try to look up that grammatical term?


----------



## lena55313

cherine said:


> The masDar used here works as a مفعول مُطْلَق


How very interesting! In Russian we used to avoid repeating words. We even have a phrase масло масляное (oily oil) that used when somebody says the noun and its adjective and both of them have the same roots.
But in Arabic it's like a rule to emphasize the verb. انتصر الجيش انتصاراً. And it is written that the masdar in that case is the object. Maybe it was the reason why you wrote taHdiqaka not taHdiquka - because it was not a subject, it was an object?

"Did you try to look up that grammatical term?"
Yes, I found one but without vowels - only explanation of using

"the man who rolled the black of his eyes in looking" 
By the way, there is not such expression in English. I"ve already asked people in the English thread))) They don't roll the blacks of their eyes, they roll all parts of the eye - black and white together)))


----------



## cherine

lena55313 said:


> How very interesting! In Russian we used to avoid repeating words. We even have a phrase масло масляное (oily oil) that used when somebody says the noun and its adjective and both of them have the same roots.
> But in Arabic it's like a rule to emphasize the verb. انتصر الجيش انتصاراً. And it is written that the masdar in that case is the object. Maybe it was the reason why you wrote taHdiqaka not taHdiquka - because it was not a subject, it was an object?


تحديقَكَ is not a subject for sure, it is a مفعول مطلق. It's a grammatical term and function that has a certain value when used correctly. Discussing this here would be going off-topic, so please check these threads (and search the forum for more):
Origin of شكرا
عاش عيشة رغدة (here, you'll also find explanation of the case where another word is used, from a different root but with a similar or close meaning, so it's called a نائب عن المفعول المطلق)


> By the way, there is not such expression in English. I"ve already asked people in the English thread))) They don't roll the blacks of their eyes, they roll all parts of the eye - black and white together)))


That's what I mean. The Arabic text is so difficult that you get confused trying to understand it, and I didn't want you to get more confused.
I hope it's getting easier for you to deal with this text. Otherwise, I strongly suggest you study with another one that would still be helpful for you in learning but without giving you such a hard time. But good luck with whichever you chose


----------

