# من أدراك أنّ ما تطلب موجودًا؟



## Saley

Hi!

In a grammar book, I found this sentence from “شهرزاد” by توفيق الحكيم with translation:

من أدراكَ أنّ ما تطلب موجودًا؟
_Who told you that what you are looking for exists?_​
Why is the last word in the accusative (منصوب) and not in the nominative (مرفوع)? Is this related in any way to the omission of the pronoun ه after تطلب?


----------



## elroy

It’s a mistake.


----------



## Saley

Do you mean it’s the writer’s mistake? The author of the grammar says: “_Note_ the noun in the accusative in the following example”, so it’s clearly not a misprint in the grammar.


----------



## Matat

It should be nominative. It's the predicate of أنّ. What is the author of the grammar book saying?


----------



## Saley

Matat said:


> What is the author of the grammar book saying?


He doesn’t explain this particular sentence. It’s among the examples he gives where “the governing function of أنّ is [...] directed toward a syntactical equivalent of a noun [...] without any apparent sign of the accusative”. In this sentence, such an equivalent is ما تطلب.


----------



## elroy

I'm confused. 


Saley said:


> It’s among the examples he gives where “the governing function of أنّ is [...] directed toward a syntactical equivalent of a noun [...] without any apparent sign of the accusative”. In this sentence, such an equivalent is ما تطلب.


 This makes sense.


Saley said:


> “_Note_ the noun in the accusative in the following example”


 This doesn't.

If he's talking about syntactic equivalents of nouns _with no overt accusative marking_, why would he point to a regular noun that _does_ have an accusative marking?  In what context does he say this sentence; _why_ does he direct the reader to "note" the noun in the accusative?


----------



## Saley

I’m attaching the relevant opening (V. Cantarino. _Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose_. Vol. 3, pp. 118–119). The sentence is in the middle of the right page.


----------



## elroy

Still makes no sense.  And the grammar is still wrong.

Just ignore it.


----------



## Saley

I’ve just found the place where the author talks about this accusative (vol. 2, p. 229):


> _Note_ that sometimes the particle governs a word different from the one we could consider the logical subject. This seems to be allowed when the subject cannot be in the accusative:


He then gives the same example and one more:

ألعلّه واثق مِن أنّ ما خلف الستار جميلًا كالذي أمامه؟
_Is he so certain that what is behind the curtain (of death) is as beautiful as what is in front of it?_​
As for the correctness of this usage, I think, the following words from the introduction (vol. 1, p. ix) are to be taken into account:


> My intention has consistently been to analyze the structure of literary Arabic as it is used today, independently of the syntactical forms employed in older times. [...] I have intentionally omitted stylistic and syntactical comparisons and traditional or absolute judgments of “right” and “wrong”. [...] In general I have approached the study of the language with the assumption that any expression which contemporary Arabic authors feel to be “right” in usage is worthy of analysis.


So it seems to me that indeed I’d better avoid this construction but be aware that someone might use it.


----------



## elroy

What????


----------



## cherine

So he took typos and grammatical mistakes as choices made by contemporary authors, and went on to study them as representatives of modern usage and syntax?! That's a very unconventional way to talk about Arabic grammar, to put it nicely.
I strongly recommend you to not take this book [too] seriously.


----------



## Saley

OK, when I read some weird things there next time, I’ll certainly ask a new question.  Thank you all!


----------



## Matat

Interestingly, he showed a similarly constructed sentence on the previous page in which the predicate is declined correctly:


> أَفَتَظُنُّ أَنَّ *مَا تَدْفَعُ* إِلَيَّ  فِي كُلِّ شَهْرٍ *أَحَبُّ* إِلَيَّ مِنِ ٱمْرَأَتِي؟



Both sentences he mentions under section C are incorrect. Conventionally, you can't omit اسم أنّ. Moreover, السرير should be declined in the genitive case as ٱلسَّرِيرِ in the first sentence. He correctly puts a footnote for that section saying "It could also perhaps be read as أَنْ". The modification I would make to that is "It could also perhaps must be read as أَنْ".


----------



## fdb

I agree with elroy (and others) that this sentence is not correct Arabic. In Classical Arabic (at least) you would have to say “man ʼadrāka ʼan (not ʼanna!) mā taṭlubu (or: taṭlubuhū) mawjūdun (not -dan!)”. The particle ʼan subordinates the nominal sentence “mā taṭlubu mawjūdun”.


----------



## bearded

To my ears, that (wrong) accusative sounds as if the text were ''who defined as 'existing' the thing you are looking for''? The word 'existing' becomes then a predicate of the accusative 'thing'...(maa is a 'mixed' pronoun: that,which). Maybe it is along this course of thought that the mistake can be understood...?


----------



## Matat

fdb said:


> ʼan (not ʼanna!)


أنّ is fine. ما here is موصولة. An اسم موصول can be placed anywhere any other اسم can, including as اسم أنّ.

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْحَقُّ *وَأَنَّ مَا يَدْعُونَ* مِنْ دُونِهِ هُوَ الْبَاطِلُ
Quran 22:62


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> أنّ is fine.


 Not only that; I would have said أنْ was wrong. 


bearded said:


> Maybe it is along this course of thought that the mistake can be understood...?


 This is not an uncommon error.  Predicates are always in the accusative unless the clause is governed by أن and its sisters, and it's easy to forget that exception.

What's bizarre is to glorify this as "an expression which contemporary Arabic authors feel to be 'right' in usage."


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> I would have said أنْ was wrong.


"Wrong" to me means that it is grammatically incorrect regardless how it's syntactically analyzed. أنْ (i.e. أنّ المخففة) is not grammatically incorrect here; it can theoretically work; it's just not what you'd generally see used for a regular nominal sentence.


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> "Wrong" to me means that it is grammatically incorrect regardless how it's syntactically analyzed.


 That's what I meant; note that I said "would have said," meaning before this thread.

I'm familiar with لكنْ for لكنَّ, but I don't know that I've ever seen/heard/read أنْ for أنَّ, so it _sounds_ wrong.  Additionally, because أنْ already exists as a completely different particle, using it instead of أنَّ is particularly ill-advised (even if it may be technically acceptable).


----------

