فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

[Ibn Nacer]

Salut,

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

Does this sentence seem correct to you ?
How would you translate this sentence ?

The use of verbs أتَى and يَمْشِي for the same subject (جُرَذٌ) seems strange (syntactically) to me ...

Thank you.

 

[analeeh]

What's wrong with it? It's a 7aal: 'When he lay down, a rat came to him walking on its back and so he leapt to his feet.' Right?

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Merci.

Yes I also thought it wouldn't be strange if it was a haal but the problem is that the noun جُرَذٌ is undefined, so in this case the sentence would be rather an adjective which is strange ...


Maybe we should add the particle allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???

 

[hokie]

What is the source of this if I may ask?

 

[elroy]

the noun جُرَذٌ is undefined

So what?

 

[Sun-Shine]

يمشي is an adjective.

Merci.
جُرَذٌ is undefined, so in this case the sentence would be rather an adjective which is strange ...

Why do you think it's strange?

Maybe we should add the particle allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???

No. The rat came to walk??

 

[Mahaodeh]

The use of verbs أتَى and يَمْشِي for the same subject (جُرَذٌ) seems strange (syntactically) to me ...

Semantically it's the same subject, which is OK because one subject can do more than one action, right?

Syntactically or technically however it's not. جرذ is the subject of أتى. The subject of يمشي is: ضمير مستتر تقديره هو يعود على الجرذ. I understand that this is only an explanation after the fact (grammar was described after language was invented), and I understand that in English you need an explicit pronoun for the second verb, but in Arabic you don't need one because the pronoun is implied by the form of the verb - and grammarians decided to call it 'a hidden pronoun'.

Yes I also thought it wouldn't be strange if it was a haal

What exactly is a haal? The verb يمشي? I don't see what difference that makes because it still needs a subject regardless of what other functions it may have. By the way, the haal is not just يمشي; it's الجملة الفعلية يمشي على ظهره - the sentence should be complete, hence it includes the implied pronoun that acts as a subject for the verb.

Maybe we should add the particle allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???

I don't understand, how does that help? To me this completely changes the meaning from "a rat came walking on it's back" to "a rat came to walk on it's back". This is a significant change in meaning.

يمشي is an adjective.

يمشي is a verb! Maybe you mean حال جملة فعلية?
Also, I wouldn't describe a haal as an adjective.

 

[elroy]

I think Sun-Shine means that الجملة الفعلية في محل رفع نعت, and I think I agree. نعت seems more plausible to me than حال.

 

[Mahaodeh]

I think Sun-Shine means that الجملة الفعلية في محل رفع نعت

This didn't really occur to me.
I know that both work and I'm not sure whether I have a preference yet, but I'm just wondering, why does an adjective seem more plausible than a haal?

 

[Mahaodeh]

I thought about it, I suppose it didn't need more than a few minutes .

I think it depends on what the ه in ظهره refers to, i.e., whose back are we talking about. If it refers to the rat, that is, the rat is walking on it's own back (somehow able to move while lying on its back maybe?) then the adjective makes sense: we are describing the rat itself not the action of the rat (the action describes the rat).

If it's the other animal's back - the one that is crouching - which is what I understood instinctively (maybe that's why an adjective didn't occur to me), then it makes more sense for it to be a haal. The reason would be because the walking does not describe the rat itself, rather it describes 'how the rat came' or 'the coming of rat'. Hence a haal.

 

[cherine]

Ibn Nacer and Sun-Shine are right in that يمشي or يمشي على ظهره is an adjective not a 7al, because the rule says الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال but from a meaning point of view, this doesn't change anything: يمشي على ظهره still describes the rat walking on the back of [I suppose a lion].

 

[elroy]

the rule says الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال

I wasn't aware of this rule, but I was going to say the same thing based on intuition and reasoning:

أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره
Here يمشي على ظهره describes the state of the rat as he came to him. We could say أتى إليه جرذ كبير and كبير, an obvious نعت, would fulfill the same function as يمشي على ظهره.

أتى إليه الجرذ يمشي على ظهره
Here يمشي على ظهره describes the manner in which the rat came to him. We could say أتى إليه الجرذ ماشيًا and ماشيًا, an obvious حال, would fulfill the same function as يمشي على ظهره.

 

[lukebeadgcf]

أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره

أتى إليه الجرذ يمشي على ظهره

I think that in both sentences يمشي على ظهره can be understood to describe the manner of the coming of the rat.

I'm not aware of a rule that says that حال can't be used when the فاعل of the verb is indefinite. @cherine, the rule you cited is new to me. Could you share the source?

If it were a صفة, an indefinite relative clause, I'm not sure the tense would make sense: "A rat came to him that IS walking on his/its back." In order to use a صفة here, I would rewrite the sentence this way: أتى إليه جرذٌ كان يمشي على ظهره ("A rat came to him that WAS walking..."). On the other hand, حال can clearly be used with a verb in the مضارع to describe the manner in which an action was carried out in the past.

@Ibn Nacer, my response to your original question would be that, regardless of how you describe the function of clause beginning with يمشي grammatically, I don't think the use of two verbs here is strange. What I do find strange about this sentence is that there seems to be some ambiguity regarding what the ه in ظهره refers to. It's really creepy for a rat to be walking on its back, but maybe that's what the author is saying if it's that kind of text? But I agree with @Mahaodeh that it seems more likely that the rat walked onto the back of the other animal that had crouched.

 

[elroy]

I think that in both sentences يمشي على ظهره can be understood to describe the manner of the coming of the rat.

I disagree. In the first one, it’s describing the rat’s state. Of course, يمشي semantically describes a manner of coming, but that’s not what the sentence is saying.

If it were a صفة, an indefinite relative clause, I'm not sure the tense would make sense: "A rat came to him that IS walking on his/its back." In order to use a صفة here, I would rewrite the sentence this way: أتى إليه جرذٌ كان يمشي على ظهره ("A rat came to him that WAS walking...").

The tense is correct, and كان doesn’t work. You’re approaching this with an English mindset. Arabic doesn’t do tense congruence. أتى already puts us in the past, so we don’t need to mark the past again: يمشي indicates present at the time of the event, which is past (because of أتى).

 

[lukebeadgcf]

The tense is correct, and كان doesn’t work. You’re approaching this with an English mindset. . Arabic doesn’t do tense congruence: أتى already puts us in the past, so we don’t need to mark the past again: يمشي indicates present at the time of the event, which is past (because of أتى).

Ok, interesting. If "rat" were definite, which sentence would you prefer? And do you sense different meanings between the two sentences?

أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره

OR

أتى إليه الجرذ الذي كان يمشي على ظهره

 

[cherine]

I'm not aware of a rule that says that حال can't be used when the فاعل of the verb is indefinite. @cherine, the rule you cited is new to me. Could you share the source?

I just copied it from my school grammar book, and I'm sure you can find it in any grammar book, either under the chapter tackling sentences الجمل التي لها محل من الإعراب or the chapters about الحال والنعت.

And, like I said, regardless of the إعراب the phrase يمشي على ظهره describes the rat that was walking on the other animal's back.

In order to use a صفة here, I would rewrite the sentence this way: أتى إليه جرذٌ كان يمشي على ظهره ("A rat came to him that WAS walking..."). On the other hand, حال can clearly be used with a verb in the مضارع to describe the manner in which an action was carried out in the past.

You can find this use of كان is some MSA usage, and I think it's an influence of foreign languages. In Arabic, like Elroy said, this كان is not necessary (I wouldn't say it's wrong). consider this:
أرى جرذًا يمشي I see a rat walking (present tense for both actions: the rat walking and me seeing it)
رأيت جرذًا يمشي I saw a rat walking (past tense for both actions)

By the way, the same works with the object in a definite state: أرى الجرذ يمشي، رأيت الجرذ يمشي.

Turning the sentence into a جملة صلة isn't necessary and doesn't change the meaning.

 

[elroy]

This muddies the waters a bit, because aspect is affected, but here goes:

أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره = the rat that walked (habitually)
أتى إليه الجرذ الذي كان يمشي على ظهره = the rat that had been walking or that previously walked (habitually)
أتى إليه الجرذ يمشي على ظهره = the rat, walking

 

[Mahaodeh]

because the rule says الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال

Wow, this completely slipped my mind! We were taught this at school but I forgot it.

I'm not aware of a rule that says that حال can't be used when the فاعل of the verb is indefinite.

It's not about a فاعل; it would be the same if it were a nominal sentence such as أتى إليه جرذ أسنانه حادّة.

 

[Sun-Shine]

يمشي is a verb! Maybe you mean حال جملة فعلية?
Also, I wouldn't describe a haal as an adjective.

I mean يمشي is جملة نعت
يمشي: فعل مضارع والفاعل ضمير مستتر تقديره "هو" والجملة الفعلية في محل رفع نعت

As cherine said "الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال"
(لكن أحيانًا يوجد استثناءات)
أتى جرذ يمشي
يمشي: جملة نعت

أتى الجرذ يمشي
يمشي: جملة حال

 

[ayed]

I understood it as:
The rat walked on the man's back; so, the the man sprang up

 

[Sun-Shine]

How would you translate this sentence ?

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Thank you all for your interesting answers ...

It seems that you understood my problem, this sentence (جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) seems strange to me because syntactically it is an adjective sentence (as has been confirmed by Chérine and SunChine and Elroy seems to agree too) but the meaning corresponds rather to a jumlah haaliyyah...

Generally an adjective sentence is translated by a relative sentence, this sentence describesالمنعوت like any adjective (نعت)...

So for me the sentence (جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) means "un rat qui marche sur son dos"... I'm not sure how to translate it into English, maybe: "a rat that/who walks on his back"...

In this case we could think (as Mahaodeh pointed out) that the rat walks on its own back which seems strange to me...

I wasn't aware of this rule, but I was going to say the same thing based on intuition and reasoning:

أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره

Here يمشي على ظهره describes the state of the rat as he came to him. We could say أتى إليه جرذ كبير and كبير, an obvious نعت, would fulfill the same function as يمشي على ظهره.

For me what you say corresponds to the definition of haal but in our case the sentence is not a haal, it is syntactically an adjective sentence.

An adjective sentence describes المنعوت like any adjective (like the example you cited: كبير) and generally it is translated by a relative sentence at least in French ...

I would translate the sentence like this: "un rat qui marche sur son dos est venu à lui" (maybe in english: "a rat that/who walks on his back came to him")...

If the word "rat" was defined we would have used the relative الذي like this : أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره

Here it is clear that (syntactically) the sentence is not a haal (the relative الذي is an adjective) and we would translate this sentence (الذي يمشي على ظهره) by a relative sentence ("le rat qui marche sur son dos" and maybe in english: "the rat that/who walks on his back").

It seems to me that this sentence is similar to the first (without الذي) except that in the first sentence the word "rat" is undefined (so the relative الذي is not necessary).

woh bravo, yes this is one of the french translations, thanks.

What is the source of this if I may ask?

Fables de Lokman expliquées d'après une méthode nouvelle par deux traductions françaises

 

[Sun-Shine]

As @ayed said: The rat walked on the lion's back not its back.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

As @ayed said: The rat walked on the lion's back not its back.

Yes I know and I agree, but it is the meaning (the logic) and the context that makes us think that ...

But I find that the syntax does not correspond to the meaning ...

But maybe this kind of example is an exception ?

I already looked if there was a syntax which allows to describe a state (haal) of an indefinite noun like the haal describes the state of a defined noun (a haal but for an indefinite noun)...

 

[Ibn Nacer]

I already looked if there was a syntax which allows to describe a state (haal) of an indefinite noun like the haal describes the state of a defined noun (a haal but for an indefinite noun)...

I found a thread that I opened a few times ago: Fr: alors que

There are two groups of sentences : in the first group there are sentences with undefined nouns and in the second there are sentences with defined nouns.

At the time Chérine understood that we could translate the sentences of the second group (with defined nouns) with a haal :

Je pense qu'il serait plus simple, et peut-être aussi plus correcte, de traduire le deuxième groupe de phrases avec le حال:

But the translation of the sentences of the first group (with indefinite nouns) seems more difficult... Several connectors have been proposed but today I wonder (as we saw here in this thread) if we can use an adjective sentence* for translate these sentences ...

* As Elroy explained here: #12

 

[cherine]

But I find that the syntax does not correspond to the meaning ...

But maybe this kind of example is an exception ?

It's not a exception, you may just be not used to this structure (which is perfectly fine, no one knows everything). Here are a couple of similar structures from the Qur'an:
ودَخَل المدينةَ على حِينِ غَفْلَةٍ مِن أَهْلِها فَوَجَدَ فيها رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلان (سورة القصص، الآية 15)
Here يقتتلان is a نعت of the two men. And, interestingly, some grammarians are/were of the opinion that this can be considered a حال, like ابن عطية.

From the same surat, verse 20: وجاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَقْصَى المَدِينَةِ يَسْعَى.
Here the sentence يسعى is also an adjective of رجل. And, again, some grammarians say that it can be considered a 7aal:
قوله: {يَسْعَىٰ}: يجوزُ أَنْ يكونَ صفةً، وأَنْ يكونَ حالاً؛ لأنَّ النكرةَ قد تَخَصَّصَتْ بالوصفِ بقولِه: {مِّنْ أَقْصَى ٱلْمَدِينَةِ} فإن جَعَلتْ "مِنْ أَقْصَى" متعلقاً بـ"جاء" فـ"يَسْعَى" صفةٌ ليس إلاَّ. قاله الزمخشريُّ، بناءً منه على مذهب الجمهورِ وقد تقدَّم/ أنَّ سيبويه يجيز ذلك مِنْ غيرِ شرطٍ.
(source) (In case the link doesn't work, it's الدر المصون، للحلبي).

I already looked if there was a syntax which allows to describe a state (haal) of an indefinite noun like the haal describes the state of a defined noun (a haal but for an indefinite noun)...

I hope al-Halaby's parcing answers your question.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Thank you very much, this is very interesting ...

I hope al-Halaby's parcing answers your question.

Yes but he speaks about the indefinite noun which is "particularized" (مُخَصَّص), a state between definition and indefinition... It seems that the majority of grammarians consider that an undefined noun can be a sahibu-l-haal provided that it is "particularized" (مُخَصَّص) (however I note that it is said that سيبويه allowed this without condition).

This is very interesting, if I want to apply this rule, it is enough that I particularize (تخصيص) the undefined noun, for example by adding an adjective :

فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ كَبِيرٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ

But if we follow the opinion of سيبويه the particularization (تخصيص) is not mandatory ... I suppose that for the first example you cited, we must follow the opinion of سيبويه because the word رَجُلَيْنِ is undefined and not "particularized" (مُخَصَّص)...

Thanks again, you taught me something...

 

[Sun-Shine]

if I want to apply this rule, it is enough that I particularize (تخصيص) the undefined noun, for example by adding an adjective :
فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ كَبِيرٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ

نحن لا نأخذ الاستثناءات كقاعدة
:القاعدة المُتَّبَعة هي
"الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال"

جرذ كبير يمشي
يمشي is still an adjective (جملة نعت).

 

[cherine]

Exactly. Classical grammarians had different opinions on several cases, we even had different schools of grammar مدرسة الكوفة ومدرسة البصرة and even one in الأندلس. You can chose to follow the one you prefer, or you can follow the consensus of modern grammarians. And I honestly advise you not to over-think every little detail because sometimes this can only cause confusion when we only need to be "éclairé sur une question".

 

[elroy]

Ibn Nacer, it sounds like you're pretty confused about a number of things, so let me try to make this clear:

So for me the sentence (جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) means "un rat qui marche sur son dos"... I'm not sure how to translate it into English, maybe: "a rat that/who walks on his back"...

Hypothetically, it could refer to habitual walking, or walking at a certain point in time (progressive):
1. un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
2. un rat marchant / qui était en train de marcher / a rat (that was) walking

In this context, 2 seems to be what is meant.

In this case we could think (as Mahaodeh pointed out) that the rat walks on its own back which seems strange to me...

Whose back the rat was walking on has absolutely nothing to do with the syntax or semantics of جرذ يمشي or الجرذ الذي يمشي. I have no idea why you think these two things are related!

If the word "rat" was defined we would have used the relative الذي like this : أتى إليه الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره

Here it is clear that (syntactically) the sentence is not a haal (the relative الذي is an adjective) and we would translate this sentence (الذي يمشي على ظهره) by a relative sentence ("le rat qui marche sur son dos" and maybe in english: "the rat that/who walks on his back").

If we change it to definite, then, in my view, the verb can only have the habitual, not the progressive, meaning.

3. le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)

I have no idea why you think making the noun definite changes the plausibility of the sentence. 1-3 are all perfectly plausible, and there are no issues with the syntax.

But I find that the syntax does not correspond to the meaning

But maybe this kind of example is an exception ?

It's not.

 

[I.K.S.]

When i read أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ for the first time i understood it as; "a rat came to walk on it's own back" by intuition, but the syntactic ambiguity popped up when i discovered that the intended meaning in reality was; ''The rat walked on the lion's back '' according to the obvious context and the famous fable...I would say this sounds incorrect to me and creates a kind of grammatical ambiguity, because it doesn't make sense how a rat came from afar to the lion by crawling on the latter's back in a synchronized action and at the same moment? wasn't it a bit away from the cat before coming close to it in the first place? this is like telling someone: أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها, a question here should be asked; wasn't you already in the city when you was walking down its streets?
I think that's what made you think of adding a logical link such as the لام?

Maybe we should add the particle allâm : أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ ???

So yes, there's a syntactic problem but it is not about the sequence; جرذ يمشي ...and adding الذي to it won't solve anything, rather it's about the grammatical logic of this expression; أتَى إِلَيْهِ] يَمْشِي[ عَلى ظهْرِهِ] ] ??? I'm wondering whether it correct to say that? probably the usage is uncommon in MSA and CA but still correct nevertheless.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Thank you all for your answers and your patience ... Sorry my English is limited so sometimes (often?) I can't explain what I think ...

I see that إتحادية قبائل الشاوية explained one of the points that I did not have the courage to explain because it is difficult for me to explain in English …

Ibn Nacer, it sounds like you're pretty confused about a number of things, so let me try to make this clear:

Hypothetically, it could refer to habitual walking, or walking at a certain point in time (progressive):

1. un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
2. un rat marchant / qui était en train de marcher / a rat (that was) walking

In this context, 2 seems to be what is meant.

Yes in this context several participants understood that it is rather the meaning 2 which is appropriate ...

But it seems to me that the meaning 2 corresponds syntactically to a haal sentence, for example I think it corresponds to the translation proposed by Analeeh and he also thought that it was a haal ...

And the problem is that the rule says that it is not a haal but an adjective sentence ...

And it seems to me that an adjective sentence corresponds to the meaning 1 and not to the meaning 2 (the adjective sentence is generally translated by a relative sentence) ...

Whose back the rat was walking on has absolutely nothing to do with the syntax or semantics of جرذ يمشي or الجرذ الذي يمشي. I have no idea why you think these two things are related!

If we change it to definite, then, in my view, the verb can only have the habitual, not the progressive, meaning.

3. le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)

I have no idea why you think making the noun definite changes the plausibility of the sentence. 1-3 are all perfectly plausible, and there are no issues with the syntax.

I mentioned the sentence with the relative الذي because It seems to me that this sentence is similar to the first (without الذي) except that in the first sentence the word "rat" is undefined (so the relative الذي is not necessary).

I wanted to explain that since the two sentences are similar then the two sentences should be translated by a relative sentence...

I mean : if you translate this sentence "الجرذ الذي يمشي" by "le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / the rat that walked (habitually)" then you should translate this sentence "جرذ يمشي" like this "un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)", no ?

In both cases (1 and 3) we have an adjective (which we translate by a relative sentence)...

And the problem, as explained above, is that it is the meaning 2 that the participants understood and not the meaning 1...

With the meaning 1 the sentence (أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) would be translated like this: "a rat that walked (habitually) on his back came to him", no ?

I would say this sounds incorrect to me and creates a kind of grammatical ambiguity, because it doesn't make sense how a rat came from afar to the lion by crawling on the latter's back in a synchronized action and at the same moment? wasn't it a bit away from the cat before coming close to it in the first place? this is like telling someone: أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها, a question here should be asked; wasn't you already in the city when you was walking down its streets?

I think that's what made you think of adding a logical link such as the لام?

Thanks for explaining this ...

In our example the word "rat" is undefined so according to the rule the sentence cannot be a haal so this is why I said to myself that maybe we had to use the particle al-lâm...

But in your example the sahibu-l-haal is defined so I would say that مشيا is a haal ...

Now the problem is as you said, semantically the simultaneity of the two actions is strange ...

I had already asked* this type of question and subsequently I learned that there are several types of haal ...

The haal which expresses simultaneity is called الحال المقارنة … So in your example I think it’s not a حال مقارنة but I think it can be a حال مقدرة...


* At the time I had several examples: خرجت أطلب ماء | جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأَ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً

I was wondering if the meaning was as if we had the particle al-lâm: خرجت لِأطلب ماء | جَلَسَ وليدٌ ليقرأَ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً

Here are several links:

- خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
- جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأُ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
- Purpose in مضارع

In this post He came riding - الحال Qureshpor, cited several examples from Wright's book... There's this example that looks like your sentence :

اتی الی عین ماء یشرب "He came to a spring of water to drink"

 

[elroy]

And it seems to me that an adjective sentence corresponds to the meaning 1 and not to the meaning 2

No, it doesn’t. Both are possible, depending on context.

And the problem, as explained above, is that it is the meaning 2 that the participants understood and not the meaning 1...

There is no problem.

With the indefinite, 1 and 2 are both possible, and context tells us which is meant.
With the definite, only 3 is possible, in my view.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

With the indefinite, 1 and 2 are both possible, and context tells us which is meant.

According to you in both cases the sentence is an adjective sentence not a haal ?

 

[Ibn Nacer]

If we translate the sentence like this :

"a rat came to him walking on its back" (un rat est venu à lui en marchand sur son dos)

then I understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions: 1- coming to him 2 - walking on his back

---> at the time of his coming he was walking on his back

It seems to me that this corresponds to a haal (الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل)

Can an adjective sentence express simultaneity like haal?

 

[elroy]

According to you in both cases the sentence is an adjective sentence not a haal ?

Yes. You are confusing syntax with semantics. As I said earlier:

Of course, يمشي semantically describes a manner of coming, but that’s not what the sentence is saying.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Yes. You are confusing syntax with semantics. As I said earlier:

For me it's strange when the semantic (meaning) does not correspond to the syntax ...

For example you wrote:

أتى إليه جرذ يمشي على ظهره
Here يمشي على ظهره describes the state of the rat as he came to him.

I find that this meaning corresponds to the definition of haal: الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل

- الحال< --- يمشي على ظهره
- describes the state ---> يبين هيئة
- of the rat ---> صاحب الحال
- as he came to him ---> عند وقوع الفعل

so what troubles me is that semantically it corresponds to a haal but syntactically it is an adjective sentence ...

But it seems that there is something that I misunderstood...

 

[elroy]

We’re going in circles. I have nothing to add to what I’ve already said.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Thank you anyway for your patience ...

I thought there might be a grammar rule that explains this situation ... I will look again ...

Does anyone know of other examples where an adjective sentence seems to have a meaning corresponding to haal?

PS : I just found this article: الفرق بين جملة الحال وجملة النعت - حياتكَ

 

[elroy]

Do you see the difference between the following sentence pairs?

English:
1.) A rat walking on his back came.
2.) A rat came, walking on his back.

French:
1.) Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint.
2.) Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos.

In both languages, we have an adjectival phrase in 1.) and an adverbial phrase in 2.). The meaning is the same / similar, but the syntax is different. It’s the same in Arabic.

I urge you to heed Cherine’s advice and stop over-complicating things.

 

[cherine]

I thought there might be a grammar rule that explains this situation ... I will look again ...

Je pense que tu te casses la tête pour rien, c'est vraiment simple:
Like I said in the post above: some grammarians see that this type of sentence is/can be considered a حال. So you can just follow their opinion. It is not wrong, and it preserves the meaning you're understanding from the sentence.

 

[elroy]

some grammarians see that this type of sentence is/can be considered a حال. So you can just follow their opinion.

The point, though, is that a نعت can express all kinds of different meanings, some of which may overlap with what a حال might express. Ibn Nacer’s inability or refusal to accept this is what is needlessly giving him a headache.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Thank you Chérine and Elroy for your patience, sorry I know that I am stubborn and that it is not easy for you ...

Do you see the difference between the following sentence pairs?

To be honest yes I see a difference :

French:
1.) Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint.
2.) Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos.

Here "en marchant" is a gerund which expresses a simultaneity, the two actions ("the coming" and "the walking on his back") take place at the same time...

This gerund does not describe the rat, rather it describes the action of coming of the rat, it expresses the manner of coming of the rat... This description (of the coming) exists only during a specific time (the time of the action).

And the relative sentence "qui marchait sur son dos" describes the rat, so this description can exist even outside of the time of the action of coming...

I find that it corresponds to what Mahaodeh explained :

I think it depends on what the ه in ظهره refers to, i.e., whose back are we talking about. If it refers to the rat, that is, the rat is walking on it's own back (somehow able to move while lying on its back maybe?) then the adjective makes sense: we are describing the rat itself not the action of the rat (the action describes the rat).

If it's the other animal's back - the one that is crouching - which is what I understood instinctively (maybe that's why an adjective didn't occur to me), then it makes more sense for it to be a haal. The reason would be because the walking does not describe the rat itself, rather it describes 'how the rat came' or 'the coming of rat'. Hence a haal.

I think that when you used the word "habitually" to explain the different meanings it was a way of saying that this description does not only exist during the time of the action (it can exist even outside the time of action).

It is just a parenthesis because in fact I reread your messages and I think that I may be starting to understand, here is the rule that I think I have understood (correct me if I am wrong):

A- The meanings 1 and 2 are different but in Arabic they can be translated by the same structure : "an undefined noun + a sentence".

This is one of the points that disturbed me because I did not think that this structure could express both meanings (In French we have two different structures to express each of the two meanings). Thank you for having the patience to explain this.

With regard to grammatical analysis, perhaps the sentence is adjective in both cases or perhaps it is adjective in the first case and haal in the second case ... In all cases, it should above all be noted that it is the same structure.

B- If the word "rat" was defined, this time we can use two different structures:

For the meaning 1, we use a relative : أتى الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره
For the meaning 2, we use a haal : أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره

This time, we have a different structure for each meaning (like in french), so it is easier to distinguish the two cases.

What do you think ? Did I understand correctly this time?

Thanks again for your patience, I know I am not easy to bear (je ne suis pas facile à supporter).

 

[Sun-Shine]

For the meaning 1, we use a relative : أتى الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره

Here, the relative pronoun الذي is an adjective and يمشي is a relative clause جملة صلة الموصول.

For the meaning 2, we use a haal : أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره

يمشي is جملة حال.

 

[Mahaodeh]

I think that when you used the word "habitually" to explain the different meanings it was a way of saying that this description does not only exist during the time of the action (it can exist even outside the time of action).

Did I use the word habitually? I couldn't really find it and I can't remember whether I wrote it or not at the time. But no, I did not mean something that does not only exist during the time of the action.

A- The meanings 1 and 2 are different but in Arabic they can be translated by the same structure : "an undefined noun + a sentence".

Can you? I don't think so. In both cases (whether the word rat was definite or indefinite), nothing implies that the action happens outside the time in which the action happened. In fact, I was explaining something else (obsolete as it may be now). Why would you think that this is what I was saying? I mean, on what basis do you conclude that the rat was walking on the lion's back before the rat came? I'm confused, maybe I misunderstood you.

perhaps the sentence is adjective in both cases or perhaps it is adjective in the first case and haal in the second case ... In all cases, it should above all be noted that it is the same structure.

I'm sorry but I made a mistake in that post, it is not a haal, it's only an adjective. Maybe you didn't notice that I later agreed with Cherine and Sunshine.

What do you think ? Did I understand correctly this time?

Hard to say, because I'm not sure I understand you . Sorry.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

@Sun-Shine, thank you...

Did I use the word habitually? I couldn't really find it and I can't remember whether I wrote it or not at the time.

I spoke to Elroy...

But no, I did not mean something that does not only exist during the time of the action.

Sorry my English is limited, I have difficulty explaining this point... I thought it was a known concept and therefore I thought you would have understood even if I express myself poorly.

I wanted to explain one of the differences between an adjective and a haal ...

An adjective is a description, this description is an inherent quality. If I say "a big rat came", I don't mean that the rat was big only when it came, this description is an inherent quality, it was big before coming, it will probably be big after...

However if I say "Zaid came smiling", I don't mean that Zaid smiles all the time (it is not a habit nor an inherent quality), what I mean is that Zaid was smiling when he came.

This meaning corresponds to the definition of haal: الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل

I think this part : عند وقوع الفعل is one of the important differences between the adjective and the haal.
But as Elroy said:

The point, though, is that a نعت can express all kinds of different meanings, some of which may overlap with what a حال might express. Ibn Nacer’s inability or refusal to accept this is what is needlessly giving him a headache.

So I tried to understand in which case the adjective can express the meaning of haal ... And then I made a summary of what I had understood so that someone would tell me if I understood correctly.

I'm sorry but I made a mistake in that post, it is not a haal, it's only an adjective. Maybe you didn't notice that I later agreed with Cherine and Sunshine.

Haal or adjective, it's a matter of syntax ... Does that change anything about your understanding of the sentence?

Since you are now saying that this sentence is an adjective does that mean that the meaning is this:

I think it depends on what the ه in ظهره refers to, i.e., whose back are we talking about. If it refers to the rat, that is, the rat is walking on it's own back (somehow able to move while lying on its back maybe?) then the adjective makes sense: we are describing the rat itself not the action of the rat (the action describes the rat).

If your understanding has changed, can you tell me how you understand the sentence now?

Can you? I don't think so.

Yes of course you can, but did you understand what I meant? I explained what I understood from Elroy's messages. Maybe I misunderstood, that's why I asked him to tell me if I misunderstood. I don't know if you followed the discussion ?


Elroy quoted this passage:

And it seems to me that an adjective sentence corresponds to the meaning 1 and not to the meaning 2 (the adjective sentence is generally translated by a relative sentence) ...

And he replied:

No, it doesn’t. Both are possible, depending on context.

The two meanings we are talking about are these:

Hypothetically, it could refer to habitual walking, or walking at a certain point in time (progressive):
1. un rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)
2. un rat marchant / qui était en train de marcher / a rat (that was) walking

In this context, 2 seems to be what is meant.

I logically deduced that for him the adjective sentence (structure : "an undefined noun + a sentence") could have two meanings (1 and 2) and that it is the context which allows us to know which of the two meanings the sentence has.

So this meaning depends on the context and not on the syntactic structure since it is the same in both cases.

---> However If the word "rat" was defined, this time we can use two different structures:

For the meaning 1 (the rat that walked (habitually) came) , we use a relative : أتى الجرذ الذي يمشي على ظهره
For the meaning 2 (the rat (that was) walking came), we use a haal : أتى الجرذ يمشي على ظهره

This deduction (for the meaning 1) corresponds to what I understood from this passage (among others):

If we change it to definite, then, in my view, the verb can only have the habitual, not the progressive, meaning.

3. le rat qui marchait (d'habitude) / a rat that walked (habitually)

But there too, I may have misunderstood...

Hard to say, because I'm not sure I understand you . Sorry.

Sorry, I make a lot of effort to explain, it is difficult for me because my English is limited.
I hope my message is clearer this time ...

 

[Ibn Nacer]

I'm sorry but I made a mistake in that post, it is not a haal, it's only an adjective. Maybe you didn't notice that I later agreed with Cherine and Sunshine.

Just a parenthesis:

I knew the rule mentioned by Chérine but did you read her message number 26 and my reply (message #27)?
Some grammarians consider that the sahibu-l-haal can be undefined...

here is another link : هل يكون صاحب الحال نكرة؟

The questioner also mentioned this rule but ...

 

[cherine]

Hi,

I don't know if I can answer all your questions, but here's a try:

I wanted to explain one of the differences between an adjective and a haal ...
An adjective is a description, this description is an inherent quality. If I say "a big rat came", I don't mean that the rat was big only when it came, this description is an inherent quality, it was big before coming, it will probably be big after...
However if I say "Zaid came smiling", I don't mean that Zaid smiles all the time (it is not a habit nor an inherent quality), what I mean is that Zaid was smiling when he came.

Good point. But let's not focus too much on the inherence of the quality and look at both الحال والصفة as descriptions.
Once more, there are grammarians who accept that a حال can describe an indefinite noun. And I think this solves your problem with this structure.
Other people don't mind the technicalities that much and don't have a problem with a phrase being an adjective or a 7aal, because either ways it describes a noun. The description being temporary or permanent doesn't matter that much either in many cases.

This meaning corresponds to the definition of haal: الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل

True. And it's also true with adjectives except that الصفة أيضًا تبيّن حال الموصوف both at the time of the action and the rest of the times. So the difference isn't really that big, except for certain contexts, of course, but even there the context, as usualy, is a key element to get the meaning which is the most important thing. Meaning is what matters, and if the meaning is conveyed, than the communication is established, the idea is transmitted, and the technicalities shouldn't matter this much. I'm not belitteling your interest in the grammatical details, I'm just worried that caring too much about them can take a big amount of time and energy that could (and I dare say should) be spent in acquiring more knowledge in the language itself (like reading the language itself and its literature more than its grammatical intricacies). But it is of course your time, and your energy and you're absolutely free to spend them the way you want. This is just a sisterly advise, from someone who also loves languages and love learning them.

So I tried to understand in which case the adjective can express the meaning of haal ... And then I made a summary of what I had understood so that someone would tell me if I understood correctly.

Frankly, I think we're going in circles now and just repeat ourselves. I did tell you that you understood correctly, according to a number of grammarians, so what more doubts do you still have?

Haal or adjective, it's a matter of syntax ... Does that change anything about your understanding of the sentence?

Absolutely not. The lion was laying رابض and a rat came and walked on the lion's back. It's a very simple sentence, really. The meaning doesn't change, even if or when we reword the sentence.

Si tu préfère que j'écrive en français, dis-le moi (mon français n'est plus ce qu'il était, mais peut-être ce serait mieux pour toi que l'anglais).

 

[Interprete]

Si on veut utiliser la terminologie de la grammaire indo-européenne, il est quand même difficile de parler ici d'un adjectif alors qu'il s'agit clairement d'un complément de manière. Un rat est venu COMMENT ? en marchant sur le dos du lion. Il y a précision de la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue.
Après avoir lu l'ensemble du fil (ou presque), j'avoue ne pas trop comprendre quelle est la question que tu te poses, ni quel est le problème que tu crois discerner ici.
Je pense qu'il faut éviter de mélanger la classification grammaticale indo-européenne avec celle de la grammaire classique arabe, et qu'il ne vaut mieux pas comparer les deux langues, sinon on ne s'en sort plus.

 

[Ibn Nacer]

Thank you very much Chérine, for your explanations, your patience and your advice ...

Si on veut utiliser la terminologie de la grammaire indo-européenne, il est quand même difficile de parler ici d'un adjectif alors qu'il s'agit clairement d'un complément de manière.

C'est amusant que tu dises cela car justement la plupart des participants ont considéré qu'il s’agissait d'un adjectif... Il y a Mahaodeh qui pensait au début que c'était haal mais elle s'est ravisée par la suite lorsque Chérine (au message #11) a rappelé la fameuse règle de grammaire : الجمل بعد النكرات صفات وبعد المعارف أحوال … Ainsi d’après cette règle la phrase (يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) occupe la fonction d'adjectif car le mot جُرَذٌ est indéfini... Par contre si le mot "rat" (qu'on appelle sahibu-l-haal en grammaire arabe) était défini alors la phrase serait haal.

Par contre analeeh a bien considéré qu'il s'agissait d'un haal et sa traduction correspond bien à cela... J'avais compris comme lui, je pensais aussi qu'il s’agissait d'un haal d’après le sens de la phrase mais le problème c'est que d’après la fameuse règle (que je connaissais justement), il ne s'agit pas d'un haal mais d'un adjectif ! Mais comme toi je trouvais que parler d’adjectif ici ne collait pas alors étant donné que je trouvais que le sens ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe, j'ai essayé de comprendre, peut-être qu'il y a une erreur ou peut-être que l'adjectif peut aussi exprimer un sens correspondant à celui du haal ???

Mais malheureusement on a eu du mal à se comprendre (en partie parce que je m'exprime mal en anglais), je pensais entre autres que la différence entre l'adjectif et le haal était bien connu mais j'ai dû la rappeler... Le haal exprime entre autres une simultanéité, il indique l'état du sahibu-l-haal durant l’accomplissement de l'action (par exemple l'action exprimée par le verbe de la phrase principale) en arabe on a : الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل... Il s'agit donc d'un état temporaire, spécifique au temps de l'action principale... Alors que l'adjectif est une description exprimant une qualité inhérente indépendante du temps de l'action, la phrase adjective est souvent traduite par une phrase relative et non par un gérondif (qui indique une simultanéité)...

Ensuite à un moment donné Chérine a posté un message (#26) où elle donne deux exemples de versets dans lesquels on a un nom indéfini suivit d'une phrase or bien que ce nom soit indéfini certains ont été d'avis que la phrase était un haal... Alors j'ai cherché et trouvé d'autres explications et effectivement on trouve dans certains cours un chapitre qui explique que sous certaines conditions le sahibu-l-haal peut être indéfini.

A ce niveau, on peut choisir cet avis afin de faire correspondre le sens et la fonction grammaticale (sémantique et syntaxe)... Bien sûr chacun est libre, d'ailleurs certains ont continué de penser qu'il s’agissait d'un adjectif malgré que le sens correspondait plutôt à celui d'un haal... Alors comme c'est le sens qui importe le plus finalement, j'ai voulu laisser de côté la question de la fonction grammaticale et j'ai parlé de la structure "nom indéfini + phrase", j'ai voulu savoir quel pouvait être le sens de cette structure...

Ce que j'ai compris des propos d'Elroy c'est que cette structure peut avoir deux sens selon lui et que le choix entre les deux se fait d’après le contexte, si tu as un avis cela m'intéresse, voir la dernière partie du message #43.

en marchant sur le dos du lion. Il y a précision de la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue.

Ben justement j'ai aussi essayé d'expliquer le sens de ce gérondif "en marchant" (qui n'a justement pas le même sens qu'une phrase relative selon moi) :

To be honest yes I see a difference :

French:
1.) Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint.
2.) Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos.

Here "en marchant" is a gerund which expresses a simultaneity, the two actions ("the coming" and "the walking on his back") take place at the same time...

This gerund does not describe the rat, rather it describes the action of coming of the rat, it expresses the manner of coming of the rat... This description (of the coming) exists only during a specific time (the time of the action).

And the relative sentence "qui marchait sur son dos" describes the rat, so this description can exist even outside of the time of the action of coming...

Mais je n'ai pas réussi à me faire comprendre apparemment, c'est vrai que mon anglais n'est pas terrible...

Après avoir lu l'ensemble du fil (ou presque), j'avoue ne pas trop comprendre quelle est la question que tu te poses, ni quel est le problème que tu crois discerner ici.

J'ai expliqué ci-dessus un des problèmes et je fais une parenthèse ici pour faire remarquer qu'un autre sens est peut-être possible (seul إتحادية قبائل الشاوية a remarqué ce point, regarde son message #31 et ma réponse #32 (dernière partie)... Qu'en pense-tu ?

Comme tu as dit : "Un rat est venu COMMENT ? en marchant sur le dos du lion. Il y a précision de la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue."

Ceci implique qu'il y a une simultanéité des deux actions : "venir auprès du lion" et "marcher sur son dos" mais n'est-ce pas étrange : s’il marche sur le dos du lion c'est qu'il est déjà auprès de lui et non qu'il est en train de venir auprès de lui... Logiquement on devrait plutôt avoir d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos...

Il existe plusieurs traductions de cette fable, il est intéressant de remarquer que les traductions sont en gros du genre : "un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos". La traduction par un infinitif est bien pratique, on respecte bien l'ordre logique (d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos) sans exprimer explicitement (avec par exemple "pour" ou "afin de") un but (il est venu pour se promener sur son dos).

Ici le sens est évidement différent, c'est peut-être un deuxième sens possible...

Plusieurs exemples de phrases de ce type ont été citées (j'ai donné plusieurs liens) et dans la plupart des cas la traduction par un infinitif convient mieux que la traduction par un gérondif ou autre...

L'exemple de إتحادية قبائل الشاوية est أتيت إلى المدينة مشيا في شوارعها (ici il utilise un nom à l’accusatif mais on aurait pu utiliser une phrase verbale)

"Je suis venu à la ville en marchant dans ses rues" Vs "Je suis venu à la ville marcher dans ses rues"...

Enfin bref c'était juste une parenthèse...