# سأل عدة أسئلة



## hasan81

السلام عليكم


Could you please shed some light on the following please:

ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ (this is taken from the madinah book 2 lesson 9)

My question is: is عدةَ in this sentence مفعول مطلق or مفعول بِه?

Wassalam


----------



## elroy

It's a مفعول به.


----------



## hasan81

This is what I thought but someone told me its مفعول مطلق as it deputises the masdar(أسئلةٍ) of the verb سألَ.


----------



## elroy

I don't know what "deputising/deputizing" is, but regardless...

أسئلة is not the masdar of سأل; it's the plural of سؤال in its function as a regular noun ("question").  The i3raab of أسئلة has nothing to do with the verb سأل; it is in the genitive case because it is a مضاف إليه.


----------



## analeeh

I can understand why someone might describe it as a _maf3uul muTlaq, _but I agree with Elroy - at the very least it's not really doing any of the things the cognate accusative normally does (like adding narrative weight or allowing for the addition of an adverbial of some kind).


----------



## elroy

analeeh said:


> I can understand why someone might describe it as a _maf3uul muTlaq_


 Could you elaborate?  As far as I know a مفعول مطلق cannot be a مضاف إليه.  I might understand the confusion if the sentence were سأل سؤالاً, but with عدة?


----------



## hasan81

elroy said:


> I don't know what "deputising/deputizing" is, but regardless...
> 
> أسئلة is not the masdar of سأل; it's the plural of سؤال in its function as a regular noun ("question").  The i3raab of أسئلة has nothing to do with the verb سأل; it is in the genitive case because it is a مضاف إليه.



This is called النَّائِبُ عَنِ المَصدر for example:فَهِمْتُ الدَّرسَ كَلَّ الفَهْمِ here   كَلَّ is مفعول مطلق and it is deputising the masdar(الفَهْمِ which is the actual مفعول مطلق) of the verb فَهِمْتُ and its majroor as it became mudafun ilahi. So based on this, ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ in this sentence also عدةَ is مفعول مطلق as it deputises  أسئلةٍ(which is the plural form of the masdar سُؤَالٌ)  coming as mudafun ilaihi. This is a possible explanation but I am not 100% sure.


----------



## elroy

Oh, I see.  Thanks for explaining.

I'm 100% sure that analysis of the sentence is not valid.


----------



## hasan81

which one? فَهِمْتُ الدَّرسَ كَلَّ الفَهْمِ or this one ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ  based on the preceding one?


----------



## elroy

The analysis of أسئلة as a مفعول مطلق is not valid.


----------



## hasan81

elroy said:


> Could you elaborate?  As far as I know a مفعول مطلق cannot be a مضاف إليه.  I might understand the confusion if the sentence were سأل سؤالاً, but with عدة?



مفعول مطلق is always mansoob but actual مفعول مطلق can become مضاف إليه and another word can take its place. For more detail please read Madina book 3 lesson 28.


elroy said:


> The analysis of أسئلة as a مفعول مطلق is not valid.



أسئلة is not مفعول مطلق but عدةَ based on the rule of النَّائِبُ عَنِ المَصدر. Could you please elaborate as to why it's not a valid analysis?


----------



## elroy

hasan81 said:


> Could you please elaborate as to why it's not a valid analysis?


 Because أسئلة here is being used as a regular noun, meaning "questions."

A مفعول مطلق expresses the idea of doing or being something, which is the basic meaning of a gerund - and that core meaning doesn't change even if you add something like كل.

It is also not used in the plural, and it's not countable.


----------



## hasan81

That makes sense now. Is it possible to quote any reference for "It is also not used in the plural, and it's not countable" from any Arabic grammar books/websites please? I need to explain this to that person as he won't take my explanation on it's face value, if you know what I mean.


----------



## analeeh

There are cases where a _maf3uul muTlaq_ can be the second term of iDaafah:

قوي كل القوّة
أحبني كل الحبّ

etc. Or 

أصبح أسوأ صباحٍ (though this one might be a bit more dubious)


----------



## davoosh

Is it possible this is a bit of an ambiguous case? I'm not very well versed in traditional Arabic grammatical descriptions, but it seems certain things get forced into narrow descriptions in certain cases?

I mostly agree with Elroy that it doesn't seem to be a regular maf3uul mu6laq, like say, فرح فرحا شديدا where the maf3uul mu6laq emphasises the 'action' or 'state' described by the verb rather than adding a new object with true semantic value.

But what about a sentence like: سأل سؤالا? Surely this could be described as both a normal object, as well as a maf3uul mu6laq?


----------



## hasan81

analeeh said:


> There are cases where a _maf3uul muTlaq_ can be the second term of iDaafah:
> 
> قوي كل القوّة
> أحبني كل الحبّ



This is definitely a correct form of مفعول مطلق which is described in Madinah book 3 Lesson 28 but I am still waiting for a reference from elroy for "It is also not used in the plural, and it's not countable"


----------



## elroy

I'm afraid I don't have a reference, but if you think about the _meaning _of a مفعول مطلق, it can't be plural and it can't be countable. 





davoosh said:


> Is it possible this is a bit of an ambiguous case? I'm not very well versed in traditional Arabic grammatical descriptions, but it seems certain things get forced into narrow descriptions in certain cases?


 What exactly do you find ambiguous?  What do you think is being forced into a narrow description?


> I mostly agree with Elroy that it doesn't seem to be a regular maf3uul mu6laq


 I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Do you agree or do you not?   It's either a مفعول مطلق or it's not. 





> But what about a sentence like: سأل سؤالا? Surely this could be described as both a normal object, as well as a maf3uul mu6laq?


 In theory, yes.  In practice, سؤال is not really used as an actual masdar, I'm realizing.  For "I don't like asking questions" I would say لا أحب طرح الأسئلة and not لا أحب سؤال الأسئلة (native speakers would interpret this as "I don't like the question of questions.").  سؤال has pretty much established itself as a regular noun meaning "question," even though morphologically it is the masdar of سأل.  If you were to try to use سؤال as a masdar you would run the large risk of it being understood as "question" by most if not all native speakers.

I need to make one thing clear just in case: In Arabic, morphological masdars get used all the time as regular nouns semantically.  There are certain grammatical categories, like مفعول مطلق, that can _only_ be occupied by masdars that are actually used as masdars semantically.  Just because something looks like a masdar doesn't mean it's behaving like one.  Another example (and there are many): دراسة is the masdar of درس, morphologically.  It is also behaving like one in sentences like أحب دراسة العربية or درست الموضوع دراسةً مكثفةً.  But in تخصصي في الجامعة هو دراسات الشرق الأوسط, دراسات is simply a regular noun meaning "studies," even though it originated from the masdar.  Pluralization in particular is an indication that the masdar has become semantically de-masdarized, if you will.

We have similar things with gerunds in English:

Gerund: "Following orders is important", "I like helping people"
Regular noun: "He has a major following", "That was a large helping of salad"


----------



## davoosh

I meant I found this sentence ambiguous to my limited knowledge of 'traditional' Arabic grammar i.e. that it might be a regular object as well as a maf3uul mu6laq (and as you said theory and practice can differ - I guess this is where traditional grammar and descriptive grammar diverge). I can't offer full agreement because I don't have enough knowledge on the subject. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## elroy

أسئلة is never a masdar semantically, that much I can tell you.  It always means "questions," never "askings" (is that even a word in English?).  In fact, I believe _all_ plural masdars are not being used as masdars (compare "two helpings of salad" in English), which is why I mentioned plurality as evidence against the مفعول مطلق analysis.  The second major clue is عدة, meaning "several."  Semantic masdars are not countable, since they are abstract.

I may be working out my arguments as I go, but there is absolutely no ambiguity here.  To a native speaker, the meaning and analysis of the sentence are crystal clear and straightforward.


----------



## davoosh

Given the description/usage of a masdar, a plural form does seem odd. I was referring more to the ambiguity in my sentence سأل سؤالا than the OP's, but I suppose insisting on this سؤال also being a masdar rather than a regular noun would be pedantic. Perhaps there are some cases where the boundary between masdar/noun isn't so clear?


----------



## elroy

davoosh said:


> . I was referring more to the ambiguity in my sentence سأل سؤالا than the OP's, but I suppose insisting on this سؤال also being a masdar rather than a regular noun would be pedantic.


 I've been carefully using the qualifiers "morphological" and "semantic" because you can have morphological masdars used as regular nouns semantically (as in this sentence).  Simply saying that سؤالا in سأل سؤالا is a masdar and leaving it at that is potentially misleading, as it may lead someone to assume it is semantically a masdar. 





> Perhaps there are some cases where the boundary between masdar/noun isn't so clear?


 I'm not sure.  I think it's pretty clear in most cases, as long as the meaning is clear.


----------



## cherine

Hi,
I don't know much about morphology and semantics, but if I may suggest something: the confusion in this sentence is caused by the fact that the object (and I agree with Elroy that سؤالاً is a مفعول به) shares the same root with the verb, which is the case with المفعول المطلق.


hasan81 said:


> This is called النَّائِبُ عَنِ المَصدر for example:فَهِمْتُ الدَّرسَ كَلَّ الفَهْمِ here   كَلَّ is مفعول مطلق and it is deputising the masdar(الفَهْمِ which is the actual مفعول مطلق) of the verb فَهِمْتُ and its majroor as it became mudafun ilahi. So based on this, ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ in this sentence also عدةَ is مفعول مطلق as it deputises  أسئلةٍ(which is the plural form of the masdar سُؤَالٌ)  coming as mudafun ilaihi. This is a possible explanation but I am not 100% sure.


I don't think it's safe to compare فهمتُ كلَّ الفهم with سألتُ عدةَ أسئلة because فهم is a verb that takes one object, while سألَ can take two, which is the case here:
سألَ المدرسُ الطلابَ (مفعول به أول) عدةَ (مفعول به ثانٍ) أسئلةٍ
and this is why عدة cannot be a نائب عن المفعول المطلق.


----------



## hasan81

Yes, maSdar as an abstract idea has no plural.

But when it conveys number, it has plural. as :

سجدتُ سجداتٍ
sajadtu sajadaat-in.

حَجَجْتُ خَمْسَ مَرَّاتٍ
means:

حَجَجْتُ خَمْسَ حَجَّاتٍ

So it is maf”uul muTlaq where the number is deputizing the maSdar.

Wassalaam,
abdur rahim(the author of the Madinah books)

So, عدةَ is مفعول مطلق deputising أسئلةٍ which is conveying number not an abstract idea as masdars do normally.


----------



## elroy

Now it's my turn to ask you for a reference.   Do you have one that supports that analysis?


----------



## hasan81

This quotation is a reference. This is not my word, I have quoted Dr Abdur Rahim who is a living scholar of Arabic language. You can check it yourself on his website drvaniya.com


----------



## abdulwahid

I think that you are jumping to conclusions. What dr Abdur Rahim is saying doesn't necessary mean that it can be applied to عدة. I'm not saying that عدة can't be نائب مفعول مطلق I'm just saying that your conclusion isn't necessary correct.


----------



## analeeh

Those aren't masdars in any case are they - they're _ism marra_s, which are distinguished from the masdar in Arabic grammar.


----------



## hasan81

abdulwahid said:


> I think that you are jumping to conclusions. What dr Abdur Rahim is saying doesn't necessary mean that it can be applied to عدة. I'm not saying that عدة can't be نائب مفعول مطلق I'm just saying that your conclusion isn't necessary correct.



Your comment is confusing in a way: you're saying that عدة can be نائب مفعول مطلق but at the same time my conclusion isn't necessary correct!!! . Anyway, I am not jumping to conclusion; these are the words of dr Abdur Rahim himself that I quoted above and I'm very sure he knows what he is saying. I have just got another reply from the admin from Dr Abdur Rahim's blog. Just quoting for your information: Is the word *عدة *in this sentence *مفعول مطلق* Or *مفعول به?
The Shaykh was asked a similar question:

What is the إعراب of أسئلةً in:

الطلابُ يسألون المدرِّسَ أسئلةً كثيرةً

The Shaykh replied it is مفعول مطلق.

Admin*

If you guys want to argue your points please do it here Forum 2 |  you can also check this forum Book 2 Lesson 9 عدة - LQ Toronto Forums  I'm off now as I have got the answer from a Scholar.

Thanks for all your contributions.


----------



## abdulwahid

I was saying two things:
1 I'm not sure of the i'rab. It could well be نائب مفول مطلق but I don't know.
2. From what I understand of the quote you made these are the words of Dr Abdur Rahim

*Yes, maSdar as an abstract idea has no plural.

But when it conveys number, it has plural. as :

سجدتُ سجداتٍ
sajadtu sajadaat-in.

حَجَجْتُ خَمْسَ مَرَّاتٍ
means:

حَجَجْتُ خَمْسَ حَجَّاتٍ

So it is maf”uul muTlaq where the number is deputizing the maSdar.

Wassalaam,
abdur rahim(the author of the Madinah books)*

Then you made a jump to this conclusion: *So, عدةَ is مفعول مطلق deputising أسئلةٍ which is conveying number not an abstract idea as masdars do normally.*


----------



## hasan81

If you aren't sure about the I'rab then how can you say I am jumping to conclusion? The conclusion is based upon the answer of Dr Abdur Rahim and the parallel is very obvious to me to understand that it's مفعول مطلق. Moreover, this isn't just my conclusion, I have quoted the conclusion of the admin of Shaykh's blog which should have been good enough to understand that it's مفعول مطلق.


----------



## abdulwahid

I don't need to know the i'rab in order to question the logic of your assumption.

You claim that y=x therefore q=x and I was questioning the comparison between q and y. I'll see if I can find anything more  on the subject


----------



## hasan81

I don't understand how can you question the comparison if you don't know the i'raab? Are you saying that you don't know whether its mafulun mutlaq or mafulun bihi? In any case, would you please tell us why isn't the comparison necessarily correct?


----------



## abdulwahid

You want to prove that حَجَجْتُ خَمْسَ مَرَّاتٍ meaning حَجَجْتُ خَمْسَ حَجَّاتٍ is the same as سألت عدة أسئلة.

Why would they necessarily be the same? In traditional grammar books we find the example of numbers and words such as كل deputizing the masdar . But as far as I know there are a fixed set of words that they use as an example. I haven't come across any text saying something in the lines of "and this goes with all similar words expressing a known or unknown number".

Instead the grammarians say that there is a type of نائب مفعول مطلق that is used in order to clarify a specific number لبيان عدده for example صليت خمس ركعات or صليت ركعتين. But the word عدة represents an unknown number so how can it be used in order to clarify a specific number ,i.e. لبيان العدد?

Once again I'm not saying that it's not a نائب مفعول مطلق but I would like to know two things: 1 What kind of نائب مفعول مطلق is it and 2 references.

[Edit:] And know I found an answer. It's possible to say ضربته ضربات in the plural so a fixed number is not necessary.


----------



## hasan81

abdulwahid 

There are a number of reasons why عدةَ is نائب مفعول مطلق in this sentence 
ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ:

1. سجدتُ سجداتٍ here سجداتٍ is مفعول مطلق plural and it conveys unknown number
2. الطلابُ يسألون المدرِّسَ أسئلةً كثيرةً here أسئلةً is مفعول مطلق plural and it conveys unknown number
3. your example ضربته ضربات here ضربات is مفعول مطلق plural and it conveys unknown number

ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ can be rewritten as ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ أسئلةً making أسئلةً as proper مفعول مطلق. Therefore, عدةَ is نائب مفعول مطلق which has replaced/deputised the actual مفعول مطلق i.e أسئلةً. Had it not been أسئلةً it would have been مفوعل بِهِ number two e.g 
سألَ الولدُ أمـَّــه عصيراً

As for your question "What kind of نائب مفعول مطلق is it" - I don't know, as for the reference- I have already quoted in my previous replies. If you want to learn more about it just ask your question on Dr Abdur Rahim's blog you will get an answer inshaAllah. 

Wassalam


----------



## abdulwahid

*ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ can be rewritten as ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ أسئلةً making أسئلةً as proper مفعول مطلق. Therefore, عدةَ is نائب مفعول مطلق which has replaced/deputised the actual مفعول مطلق i.e أسئلةً. Had it not been أسئلةً it would have been مفوعل بِهِ number two e.g 
سألَ الولدُ أمـَّــه عصيراً*

The sentence سأل المعدرس الطلاب أسئلة containts two objects (sa'ala is doubble transitive) tullab an as'ila. It doesn't become a mafoul mutlaq just because it shares the same root as the verb in the same way that kutuban is an object and not a mafoul mutlaq in the following sentence: كتبت كتبا. When the مفول مطلق is not deputized it's a masdar.


----------



## davoosh

Repeating what Elroy said earlier, is this a question of form only, or do semantics play a part? 

In other words, in 'سأل سؤألا/أسئلة' the object is a noun in its own right and doesn't mean 'he asked an asking' (or at least no native speaker would take it to mean that). If the only requirement is that the noun be from the same root of the verb in order to be a maf3uul mu6laq, then كتب in كتب كتبا should also be regarded as a maf3uul mu6laq, it seems.

On a (probably uninmportant) side note, the author of the madiina series does not seem to be a native speaker.


----------



## hasan81

abdulwahid

الطلابُ يسألون المدرِّسَ أسئلةً كثيرةً here أسئلةً is مفعول مطلق this is what Dr Abdur Rahim said. Now I can't take your answer over a scholar's. Why don't you post your argument on Dr Abdur Rahim's blog? We can be enlightened as well after all there is nothing harm in asking.


----------



## abdulwahid

You are correct not to take my answer over a scholar's and I just asked a question on the forum. I'll get back to you when I'll get an answer in sha Allah


----------



## hasan81

davoosh said:


> On a (probably uninmportant) side note, the author of the madiina series does not seem to be a native speaker.



Many of the Arabic Gramarians were non Arabs foremost amongst them is Sibawayh who was an ethnic Persian and wasn't a native speaker of Arabic! He has been referred to as the greatest of all Arabic linguists and one of the greatest linguists of all time in any language. Being a native speaker doesn't necessarily mean being grammatically correct. For example in English many native speakers say "it don't matter" but it's grammatically wrong and there are many other examples that we can give. For me the original question is answered, if anyone of you want to argue your cases please do it on Dr Abdur Rahim's blog so that He can give you more clarification if needed.


abdulwahid said:


> You are correct not to take my answer over a scholar's and I just asked a question on the forum. I'll get back to you when I'll get an answer in sha Allah



InshaAllah. If I were you, I would ask Dr Abdur Rahim himself on his blog as my original question is from his book.


----------



## davoosh

I prefer to take native speakers as the primary point of reference in ambiguous linguistic matters for many reasons, especially if several educated native speakers have agreed on the same point (as they have on this thread).

Of course, if the status of being a scholar determines which answer you prefer that is fine, however I am interested in current usage and description and I would like to hear native's opinions on my previous question as to whether كتب in كتب كتبا should also be regarded as a maf3uul mu6laq (which going by Dr Abdur Rahim's analysis, it should).


----------



## hasan81

davoosh

If you have access to native scholars(which I believe you have) then I would request you to seek more clarification from them and let us know the outcome here.


----------



## analeeh

I think the issue at heart here is ultimately who has authority over correctness in language. Somebody who prefers a scholar's approach over actual usage is never going to agree with somebody who prefers to learn based on how native speakers use their language.


----------



## hasan81

So do you want me to agree with "it don't matter" is correct based on the usage of the native speakers?


----------



## abdulwahid

I really don't think there is an issue here between native versus non-native speakers. I think that everyone agrees on the meaning but not the grammar and therefore a scholars opinion is of more interest than the opinion of a layman.


----------



## hasan81

Exactly!


----------



## abdulwahid

I got the same reply as hasan81:

Salamu aleykum

I would like to know how it can be *مفعول مطلق* when it’s not a masdar and it’s not deputized?

Jazakumu Allahu khayran!

Reply

dr.vaniya says:
December 25, 2015 at 9:46 pm
*وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله*

*Our Shaykh addressed this in another reply.

A مصدر as an abstract idea has no plural. But when it conveys number, then it has a plural and grammatically can be a مفعول مطلق e.g.:

سجدتُ سجداتٍ.

That is the Shaykh’s example.

Admin*


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

hasan81 said:


> ثم سألَ المدرس الطلابَ عدةَ أسئلةٍ
> My question is: is عدةَ in this sentence مفعول مطلق or مفعول بِه?



(عدة) is (مفعول به) , because the sentence can not work without it.
We can not say: The teacher asked the student (no full stop)
(we can not put full stop because the words are not a complete sentence. It is a broken sentence)



hasan81 said:


> for example:فَهِمْتُ الدَّرسَ كَلَّ الفَهْمِ here   كَلَّ is مفعول مطلق


Yes (كل) is (مفعول مطلق)
And the sentence can work with or without it.
We can say
فهمت الدرس
I understood the lesson.
أو
فهمت الدرس كل الفهم
I fully understood the lesson.
Both is a complete sentence.

Conclusion : We can drop (المفعول المطلق) from any sentence and the sentence is still a complete sentence. But when we drop (المفعول به), the sentence will be a broken sentence.
Again, (المفعول به) is an essential part of the sentence, and can not be delayed. But (المفعول المطلق) can be delayed. 



hasan81 said:


> This is not my word, I have quoted Dr Abdur Rahim who is a living scholar of Arabic language.


That means Dr. Abdur Rahim is not a scholar, he is a student and acting as a scholar.



hasan81 said:


> I'm off now as I have got the answer from a Scholar.


You have got the wrong answer from a student acting as a scholar.


----------



## elroy

That's a great point, Ashraf Mahmoud!

hasan81, what exactly is your position here, and what are you looking for in this thread?  Initially, it seemed that you were looking for evidence to prove the مفعول مطلق analysis wrong; now it seems that, on the contrary, you are invested in defending that analysis and rejecting any contrary arguments unless they come from someone you classify as a scholar according to criteria unknown to the rest of us.


----------



## hasan81

I just reconfirmed with an Egyptian native Arabic teacher who on the face of it thought عدة is المفعول به but then, after I told him that can it be a mafulun mutlaq?, he said its actually grammatically المفعول المطلق with the same reasons as I gave above. Just being a native speaker doesn't you guys a licence over the Arabic grammar; Arabic grammar is something to be learnt and its an ocean. I find it very disrespectful of you that you're not giving a second thought and bothering to ask someone who knows better than you. 

elroy
Yes, at first I myself thought it was المفعول به but I can't be stubborn in my position when a scholar has clarified the issue, can I?


----------



## Ghabi

Moderator's Note: Thanks for the stimulating discussion. We're sure every thoughtful reader can learn a lot from it. This thread has served its purpose and is now closed.


----------

