امتد

Josh_

Senior Member
U.S., English
I have an Arabic textbook in which the verb إمتد is given with the translation of:

"to extend, stretch (for distance or a period of time)."

Then there is an example:
امتد الاجتماع اربع ساعات ونصف.

After thinking about it the professor said that that is wrong -- that امتد is really only used for stretches of distance.

She said the other word إستغرق is more appropriately used for stretches of time.

So I was just wondering what your thoughts are. Is امتد not appropriately used with periods of time? IS the above sentence wrong then?
 
  • cherine

    Moderator
    Arabic (Egypt).
    Hi Josh,
    the verb imtadda is used with both time and space. The examples I found in the dictionaries may not be very clear, so I'll give you the "other way round" definitions :) i.e. definitions where the verb is used to explain other words :
    from القاموس المحيط :
    تَمَطَّى النهارُ وغيرُهُ: امْتَدَّ
    from تاج العروس :
    انجَرَدَ به السَّيْر: امْتَدَّ وطالَ من غير لَيٍّ على شَيْءٍ

    i.e. kept on walking aimlessly. (I think this gives the meaning of time, no?)


    You can also find this verb used in the newspaper in the articles concerning negotiations, for example, like امتدت المباحثات بين الرئيسين عدة ساعات ناقشا فيها....

    The verb استغرق can mean "lasted for", so the two are almost equal with a slight difference in connotations maybe.

    One last comment : please note that the verbs امتد and استغرق are written without a hamza.
     

    Josh_

    Senior Member
    U.S., English
    So they can be used as perfect synonyms or is one better than the other? If you were to choose one, which would you choose? Like my professor (who is a native Arabic speaker) said, she felt that istaghraqa is better with time, but she almost couldn't explain why. Maybe something to do with the different connotations, not necessarily the denotations? She said she would look into it more for me. This arose in class when I used the verb imtadda in this sentence:

    (Talking about Marco Polo)
    His journey through Asia lasted 24 years.
    امتدت رحلته في أسيا ٢٤ سنة.
     

    zooz

    Senior Member
    Arabic & Syrian Arabic
    they're synoyms in my eyes. maybe imtadda in the global meaning gives the sense of relatively long peroid or that the action has been extended once or few times. however, IMO the differnce is negligible.
     

    cherine

    Moderator
    Arabic (Egypt).
    Josh Adkins said:
    So they can be used as perfect synonyms or is one better than the other? If you were to choose one, which would you choose? Like my professor (who is a native Arabic speaker) said, she felt that istaghraqa is better with time, but she almost couldn't explain why.
    ...
    His journey through Asia lasted 24 years.
    امتدت رحلته في أسيا ٢٤ سنة.
    Let's say that استغرق is strictly about stating a period of time, while امتد gives a connotation of a "prolonged" action. This is why I like your using it in your example, it really gives the feeling of a long journey.
    I can't tell if one of the verbs is "better", I think it may be a matter of connotation, or maybe "feelings" like your teacher said :)

    P.S. As I have this عقدة الهمزات allow me to remind you that Asia is written with a "madd" آسيا

    Thank you :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top