فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

Interprete

Senior Member
French, France
C'est amusant que tu dises cela car justement la plupart des participants ont considéré qu'il s’agissait d'un adjectif...
J'ai l'impression que le concept de صفة ne correspond pas exactement à celui d'adjectif dans les langues indo-européennes. C'est pour ça que je disais qu'il vaut mieux choisir l'un ou l'autre de ces systèmes mais pas les deux à la fois. En indo-européen, à ma connaissance, un groupe verbal ne peut jamais être un adjectif : il ne peut être qu'un complément.
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 ???
Tu trouvais plutôt que la notion indo-européenne d'adjectif ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe de cette phrase. Je crois que c'est là le cœur du problème.


A ce niveau, on peut choisir cet avis afin de faire correspondre le sens et la fonction grammaticale (sémantique et syntaxe)...
En arabe elles correspondent. C'est en grammaire française qu'elles ne correspondent pas.

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.
Cette distinction de sens entre le gérondif et la relative est artificielle, car elle découle de ta supposition que le rat marche sur son propre dos (ce qui n'a pourtant aucun sens !). Il est clair que le rat marche sur le dos du lion, et en arabe, surtout dans les textes classiques, il est extrêmement courant que deux personnages soient désignés par un pronom indéfini au masculin singulier et que l'auteur laisse à ses lecteurs le soin de déduire qui est qui en fonction du contexte.
Or, une fois qu'il est établi que le rat marche sur le dos du lion, le sens des deux formulations est exactement le même :
1. 1.) Un rat arriva, qui marcha sur le dos du lion.
2. Un rat arriva en marchant sur le dos du lion.

Dans les deux cas il y a simplement un ajout d'une précision du verbe très vague أتى qui exprime uniquement l'idée d'une arrivée, voire d'une simple apparition (par exemple : أتاني في المنام : il m'est apparu en songe).

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 ?
Si l'autre sense que tu juges possible est celui du rat marchant sur son propre dos, alors j'ai déjà répondu à ça. Je suis évidemment gêné, en tant que modeste apprenant, de contredire un arabophone natif, mais pour moi ce genre d'ambiguïté pronominale est extrêmement fréquent en arabe classique, comme je le disais plus haut.
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...
Je pense que tu raisonnes encore une fois en français alors que la syntaxe est arabe. أتى est à l'accompli alors que يمشي est à l'inaccompli. S'il y avait succession dans l'action, les deux verbes auraient été à l'accompli avec un و, un ف ou un ثم (par exemple) entre les deux. Le fait que le deuxième verbe soit à l'inaccompli marque bien sa dépendance par rapport à أتى et donc qu'il s'agit d'un complément décrivant أتى.
Du point de vue du sens, أتى étant un verbe extrêmement vague, je ne pense pas que ton objection (comment peut-il venir s'il est déjà en train de marcher sur son dos) soit recevable. أتى peut ici exprimer le fait qu'un rat marchant sur le dos du lion est ainsi entré ("venu") dans sa sphère de perception.
on respecte bien l'ordre logique (d'abord il vient auprès de lui et ensuite il marche sur son dos)
Cet ordre logique n'apparaît pas dans l'arabe à mon avis. Moi, je comprends que le lion était allongé quelque part, plus ou moins assoupi, et qu'il s'est à un moment rendu compte (c'est pour moi le sens de أتى ici) qu'un rat lui courait sur le dos.
 
Last edited:
  • Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    J'ai l'impression que le concept de صفة ne correspond pas exactement à celui d'adjectif dans les langues indo-européennes. C'est pour ça que je disais qu'il vaut mieux choisir l'un ou l'autre de ces systèmes mais pas les deux à la fois. En indo-européen, à ma connaissance, un groupe verbal ne peut jamais être un adjectif : il ne peut être qu'un complément.
    Ben si justement, une phrase relative (proposition subordonnée relative) peut jouer un rôle semblable à celui de l'adjectif (épithète), au point que certains parlent de "relative adjective", "propositions adjectives", "subordonnée adjective"...

    J'ai fait une petite recherche et il se trouve qu'il y a beaucoup d'articles qui en parlent, exemples :

    Si dans un souci de progression pédagogique on peut étudier séparément les adjectifs qualificatifs puis les propositions relatives, toute étude systématique met rapidement en évidence les liens complexes qui les unissent. La tradition grammaticale pose d'ailleurs une équivalence fonctionnelle entre la relative et l'adjectif épithète, au point que dans « Le bon usage » Grevisse étudie les relatives sous le titre général de « Propositions adjectives » (p. 1066).

    … On distingue trois catégories de relatives :

    — les adjectives qui ont un antécédent et le complètent à la manière d’un adjectif qualificatif. J’aime travailler avec des enfants qui écoutent.

    Source : La proposition subordonnée relative - Le bon usage

    Cependant tu as raison, il est vrai que certains parlent de complément du nom comme ici mais là ils font quand même le lien avec l'adjectif :

    La proposition subordonnée relative joue en quelque sorte le rôle d'un adjectif. Pour vérifier qu'une proposition subordonnée est relative, on peut donc la remplacer par un adjectif.
    ...
    La proposition subordonnée relative complément du nom joue en quelque sorte le rôle d'un adjectif.

    Enfin bref, le nom de la fonction peut être différents selon les auteurs et les époques...
    Tu trouvais plutôt que la notion indo-européenne d'adjectif ne correspondait pas à la syntaxe de cette phrase. Je crois que c'est là le cœur du problème.
    En arabe elles correspondent. C'est en grammaire française qu'elles ne correspondent pas.
    Juste pour être sûr de comprendre : pour toi aussi la phrase يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ occupe la fonction d'adjectif ? Je parle bien de la fonction grammaticale en grammaire arabe (جملة الصفة/النعت)... Et du point de vu du sens, cette phrase est "un complément de manière" c’est-à-dire qu'elle exprime la manière/ la façon dont l'action de venir s'effectue, c'est bien ça ?

    Sinon ce que je voulais expliquer c'est que haal ou adjectif, peu importe, chacun peut choisir l'avis qui lui convient, l'essentiel finalement c'est de connaitre et comprendre les différents sens que peut avoir la structure "nom indéfini + phrase". Et je parlais d'une manière générale, je parlais de cette structure et non de l'exemple spécifique de cette fable...

    Cette distinction de sens entre le gérondif et la relative est artificielle, car elle découle de ta supposition que le rat marche sur son propre dos (ce qui n'a pourtant aucun sens !). Il est clair que le rat marche sur le dos du lion,...
    Mais je sais bien qu'ici les possibilités sont réduites car le sens "un rat qui marche sur son propre dos" est peu probable mais encore une fois je parlais d'une manière générale de la structure "nom indéfini + phrase"...

    Et donc oui il me semble qu'il y a une différence évidente entre un gérondif et une phrase relative, exemples :

    Un automobiliste, qui conduisait une voiture grise, a heurté une petite fille.
    Un automobiliste a heurté une petite fille en conduisant une voiture grise.

    Antoine, qui porte des lunettes, a nagé toute la journée.
    Antoine a nagé toute la journée en portant des lunettes.

    Il me semble que les deux sens sont différents, par exemple "qui porte des lunettes" c'est une description complémentaire qu'on pourrait d'ailleurs supprimer sans affecter le sens principal, cette description n'est pas liée à la nage, cela pourrait par exemple être une habitude (pour reprendre le terme employé par Elroy) ---> Antoine porte habituellement des lunettes, on ne veut pas dire qu'il porte des lunettes pendant qu'il nage.

    Par contre avec "en portant des lunettes" on veut bien dire qu'il porte des lunettes pendant qu'il nage... En dehors de la nage il est possible qu'il porte des lunettes tout comme il est possible qu'il porte des lentilles. Dans le deuxième cas on peut comprendre qu'il porte des lunettes pendant qu'il nage car les lentilles sont déconseillées durant la nage...

    Cette différence est tellement évidente que je me dis qu'on ne doit pas parlé de la même chose, je me dis que j'ai dû mal te comprendre.... Peut-être que tu voulais parler du participe présent et non du gérondif ?

    Or, une fois qu'il est établi que le rat marche sur le dos du lion, le sens des deux formulations est exactement le même :
    1. 1.) Un rat arriva, qui marcha sur le dos du lion.
    2. Un rat arriva en marchant sur le dos du lion.
    Oui comme tu dis une fois établi... Mais cela a été établi d’après le contexte et le fait qu'un rat qui marche sur son propre dos est peu probable et une fois ce sens établi on est forcément influencé par la suite...

    Il suffirait de changer la phrase pour que la différence entre un gérondif et une phrase relative apparaisse, exemple :

    1- Un rat, qui mangeait des petits insectes, est venu après du lion. (habitude)
    2- Un rat est venu après du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)

    Si l'autre sense que tu juges possible est celui du rat marchant sur son propre dos, alors j'ai déjà répondu à ça.
    Non ce n'est pas de ce sens-là dont je parlais mais du sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : "un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos". On a là, une traduction par un infinitif et contrairement au gérondif il n'exprime pas une simultanéité...

    Je pense que tu raisonnes encore une fois en français alors que la syntaxe est arabe. أتى est à l'accompli alors que يمشي est à l'inaccompli. S'il y avait succession dans l'action, les deux verbes auraient été à l'accompli avec un و, un ف ou un ثم (par exemple) entre les deux. Le fait que le deuxième verbe soit à l'inaccompli marque bien sa dépendance par rapport à أتى et donc qu'il s'agit d'un complément décrivant أتى.
    Non justement c'est bien de la syntaxe arabe, j'ai donné plusieurs liens dans lesquels il y plusieurs exemples de phrases et aucun connecteur n'est utilisé, il s'agit en fait d'un certain type de haal appelé الحال المقدرة ou الحال المستقبلة.

    Il y a par exemple cette phrase : خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء que je ne traduirais pas en utilisant un gérondif (car il n'y a pas de simultanéité) "je suis sortit en cherchant de l'eau" mais en utilisant un infinitif "je suis sortit chercher de l'eau"... Comme tu le vois il n'y a pas de connecteur... Et pourtant on sent bien qu'il y a une succession : d’abord je sors ensuite (une fois dehors) je cherche de l'eau...

    La traduction avec un infinitif est plus neutre que si on traduisait avec les connecteurs qui expriment le but comme "pour" ou "afin de" mais quand même on pourrait se demander si ce ne serait pas un moyen d'exprimer le but d'ailleurs il y a un fil intéressant qui pose la question : Purpose in مضارع dans ce fil il y a plusieurs autres exemples intéressants et pareil les phrases sont traduites avec un infinitif et non avec un gérondif...

    Attention je n'affirme pas que ce type de haal exprime le but mais en tout cas il ne semble pas exprimer une simultanéité...

    Récemment j'ai répondu ici #6 à quelqu’un qui demandait pourquoi on ne traduisait le haal en utilisant "while", il se demandait cela sans doute parce qu'en général le haal exprime une simultanéité mais dans le verset en question je pense qu'il ne s'agit pas de ce type de haal, ce n'est pas mon avis j'ai cité un passage où il est dit qu'il s’agit d'un حال مقدرة et l'auteur explique pourquoi...

    Bref, merci pour cet échange, j'éspère que je ne t'ai pas trop pris la tête, cela m'a fait réfléchir, et je pense que c'est instructif...
     
    Last edited:

    Interprete

    Senior Member
    French, France
    Cette différence est tellement évidente que je me dis qu'on ne doit pas parlé de la même chose, je me dis que j'ai dû mal te comprendre.... Peut-être que tu voulais parler du participe présent et non du gérondif ?
    Oui mais là tu ne donnes que des exemples français. Moi je te parlais de l'exemple arabe de la souris, et dans ce cas là je ne vois pas de différence entre la relative (qui est équivalente à un participe présent d'ailleurs) et le gérondif.
    Tu ne peux pas te baser sur le français pour essayer de tirer des règles générales de grammaire arabe... Il faudrait que tu trouves d'autres cas de figure en arabe.
    Il suffirait de changer la phrase pour que la différence entre un gérondif et une phrase relative apparaisse, exemple :

    1- Un rat, qui mangeait des petits insectes, est venu après du lion. (habitude)
    2- Un rat est venu après du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)
    Ça donne quoi, ces phrases, en arabe ?
    Non ce n'est pas de ce sens-là dont je parlais mais du sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : "un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos". On a là, une traduction par un infinitif et contrairement au gérondif il n'exprime pas une simultanéité...
    Il me semble que si, car il y a (en français) deux lectures possibles :
    1/L'infinitif dénote un but (il est venu pour quoi, pour se promener), en "bon" français (il me semble).
    2/En français plus relâché, les deux verbes sont pris ensemble pour dénoter le début d'une action entreprise : par exemple, ne viens pas me casser la tête. Vous venez me contredire alors que vous n'avez pas suivi l'affaire. Cela fait deux heures que je travaille et lui vient chanter dans mon bureau.

    Il y a par exemple cette phrase : خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء que je ne traduirais pas en utilisant un gérondif (car il n'y a pas de simultanéité) "je suis sortit en cherchant de l'eau" mais en utilisant un infinitif "je suis sortit chercher de l'eau"... Comme tu le vois il n'y a pas de connecteur... Et pourtant on sent bien qu'il y a une succession : d’abord je sors ensuite (une fois dehors) je cherche de l'eau...
    Pas d'accord, dans ce cas là il s'agit de l'expression du but et non de la succession : pourquoi suis-je sorti ? pour aller chercher de l'eau. Ça rejoint le cas de figure du rat, où on a un premier verbe général suivi d'un deuxième qui explicite le contexte de l'action. Ce n'est pas une simple énonciation deux actions l'une après l'autre.
    .
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Vraiment désolé, ce message est bien long...

    Moi je te parlais de l'exemple arabe de la souris, et dans ce cas là je ne vois pas de différence entre la relative (qui est équivalente à un participe présent d'ailleurs) et le gérondif.
    Tu ne peux pas te baser sur le français pour essayer de tirer des règles générales de grammaire arabe... Il faudrait que tu trouves d'autres cas de figure en arabe.
    Ok on s'est mal compris alors, car j'avais bien cité les deux traductions d'Elroy qui pensait que les deux phrases avaient quasiment le même sens, j'avais cité le passage où j'expliquais que selon moi il y avait une différence entre "Un rat marchant / qui marchait sur son dos vint" et "Un rat vint, en marchant sur son dos".

    C'est pourquoi je voulais savoir si pour lui la structure "non indéfini + phrase" pouvait exprimer ces deux sens, le choix entre ces deux sens se faisant selon le contexte. C'est ce qu'il semblait dire dans ses réponses mais dans le doute je lui avait demandé une confirmation.

    Il me semble que si, car il y a (en français) deux lectures possibles :
    1/L'infinitif dénote un but (il est venu pour quoi, pour se promener), en "bon" français (il me semble).
    2/En français plus relâché, les deux verbes sont pris ensemble pour dénoter le début d'une action entreprise : par exemple, ne viens pas me casser la tête. Vous venez me contredire alors que vous n'avez pas suivi l'affaire. Cela fait deux heures que je travaille et lui vient chanter dans mon bureau.
    Ok alors selon toi quel est le sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : "un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos" ? Le sens 1 (but) ou le sens 2 ?

    Pas d'accord, dans ce cas là il s'agit de l'expression du but et non de la succession : pourquoi suis-je sorti ? pour aller chercher de l'eau. Ça rejoint le cas de figure du rat, où on a un premier verbe général suivi d'un deuxième qui explicite le contexte de l'action. Ce n'est pas une simple énonciation deux actions l'une après l'autre.
    Je me suis peut-être mal exprimé mais quand j'utilisais le mot "succession" c'était par opposition au mot "simultanéité", c'était une façon de dire que les deux actions n'ont pas lieu en même temps et dés lors qu'elle n'ont pas lieu en même temps alors c'est que l'une a lieu après l'autre.

    Le mot "succession" c'est juste pour dire qu'un des deux événements a lieu après l'autre après savoir quel sens donné à cette "succession" c'était pour moi une autre question que j'ai posé plusieurs fois dans plusieurs fils (et je ne suis pas le seul). Pour moi aussi cela semble exprimer le but mais je voulais avoir une confirmation tout comme l'auteur du fil : Purpose in مضارع

    C'est pour cela d'ailleurs que je demandais si le sens était le même que celui que l'on obtient lorsque l'on ajoute la particule al-lâm (qui peut exprimer explicitement le but) : خرجت لِأطلب ماء

    Je pensais tellement que cela exprimait le but que je me demandais si la phrase n'était pas incorrecte sans la particule al-lâm. Oui parce que tout le monde était d’accord sur le fait que ce type de phrase était un haal mais à l'époque cela me perturbait car il est bien connu qu'à la base le haal exprime une simultanéité or ici cela ne colle pas vraiment.

    Alors par la suite les choses se sont éclaircies quand j'ai appris qu'il y avait en fait plusieurs types de haal : le haal qui exprime la simultanéité est appelé الحال المقارنة donc ce n'est pas ce type de haal auquel on a affaire dans ce type de phrase... Dans ce type de phrase il s'agirait plutôt d'un الحال المقدرة (ou الحال المستقبلة).

    Je n'ai pas trouvé de référence disant clairement que ce type de haal (الحال المقدرة) exprimait le but c'est pourquoi je ne me suis pas avancé et que je suis resté prudent en disant seulement que ce type de haal n'exprime pas une simultanéité mais qu'on a plutôt une "succession" (un des deux événements a lieu après l'autre).

    Enfin pour éviter tout malentendu je te met une explication en arabe (c'est plus prudent et ça passera peut-être mieux) :

    الحال في مثل هذا المثال تسمى (الحال المقارنة) وهي التي يتحقق معناها في زمن تحقق معنى عاملها بدون تأخر. فزمن الفرح هو زمن المجيء . وتقابلها (الحال المقدرة) وهي الحال المستقبلة التي يتحقق معناها بعد وقوع معنى عاملها نحو : ادخلوا المسجد سامعين المحاضرة . فإن سماعهم متأخر عن زمن دخولهم . ومنه قوله تعالى : { وَتَنْحِتُونَ الْجِبَالَ بُيُوتاً } فـ (بيوتًا) حال من (الجبال) . وهي حال مقدرة؛ لأن زمن كون الجبال بيوتًا متأخر عن زمن نحتها .


    Tu peux aussi regarder l'exemple ici #6 penses-tu que le verset exprime un but ? Si oui cela aiderait à le traduire, au lieu d'utiliser "while" comme le propose l'auteur de la question il faudrait peut-être utiliser "pour" par exemple...

    Ça donne quoi, ces phrases, en arabe ?
    C'est la big question ! Lol

    C'est justement ce que j'ai essayé de comprendre, j'ai ouvert ce fil en citant un exemple mais par la suite je voulais comprendre et savoir exprimer ce genre de phrase d'une manière générale mais je me suis mal fait comprendre apparemment (petit niveau en anglais). J'avais résumé ce que j'avais compris des messages pour établir en quelque sorte une "règle" mais je n'ai pas eu de confirmation.

    Ce que j'ai compris c'est que pour certains la structure "nom indéfini + phrase" pourrait exprimer les deux sens, c'est le contexte qui décide... Dans ce cas je propose ça : جاء إلى الأسد جرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة

    1- Un rat, qui mangeait des petits insectes, est venu auprès du lion.
    2- Un rat est venu auprès du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)

    ---
    Une paranthése : On sait que le haal est tout indiqué pour exprimer une simultanéité, l'ennui c'est que d’après la fameuse règle, la phrase est adjective après un nom indéfini et haal après un nom défini mais par la suite on a vu qu'en fait il y a des cas où on peut avoir un haal même avec un nom indéfini (c'est-à-dire quand le sahibu-l-haal est indéfini).

    J'avais posté ce lien : : هل يكون صاحب الحال نكرة؟

    J'en déduis qu'on peut s'assurer qu'on a bien un haal en utilisant le point n°4 :


    4ـ أن تكون الحال جملة مرتبطة بالواو.مثال:جاءني رجل وهو يصرخ .
    تنبيه: وجود الواو في صدر الجملة الحالية يدل على أن الجملة حالية لا نعتية وبها يزول الالتباس.


    Cela donnerait : جاء إلى الأسد جرذ وهو يأكل حشرات صغيرة

    Comme il est dit, ici cela ne peut pas être une phrase adjective, le fameux wâw (c'est un wâwu-l-haal) leve l'ambiguité (وبها يزول الالتباس).

    Bon aprés je ne dis pas que la phrase est "naturelle", elle est peut-être un peu "lourde"...
    ---

    Par contre, comme je l'avais fait remarquer, si le mot "rat" était défini, je pense que les choses seraient différentes car là on peut utiliser deux structures différentes (1- avec le relatif الذي et 2- avec un haal) :

    1- Le rat qui mangeait des petits insectes est venu auprès du lion.
    1- جاء إلى الأسد الجرذ الذي يأكل حشرات صغيرة

    2- Le rat est venu auprès du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)
    2- جاء إلى الأسد الجرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة

    Petite parenthèse pour la phrase 2 comme on l'a vu on pourrait penser la traduire avec un infinitif :

    2.1- Le rat est venu auprès du lion manger des petits insectes. (but ?).

    Mais là comme il s'agit d'un haal et que le sens de la simultanéité est possible (sémantiquement) je pense que c'est ce sens (2) qui l'emporte. A ce propos un message intéressant de barkoosh :

    Grammatically speaking, أطلب ماء is a جملة حالية. The thing is that with the verb طلب, the form خرجت وأنا أطلب ماء (which is a جملة حالية = I went out seeking water) almost means the same thing as خرجت لأطلب ماء = I went out to seek water.

    However, try it with another verb:
    خرجت آكل تفاحة
    Is it خرجتُ وأنا آكل تفاحة (I went out eating an apple) or خرجتُ لآكل تفاحة (I went out to eat an apple)? They don't mean the same thing. But being a جملة حالية, the phrase خرجت آكل تفاحة means only "I went out eating an apple".

    Si on tiens a exprimer le sens 2.1 on peut utiliser la particule al lâm...

    Vraiment désolé, ce message est bien long...
     
    Last edited:

    Interprete

    Senior Member
    French, France
    Ok alors selon toi quel est le sens des traductions faites par plusieurs auteurs différents qui sont en gros du genre : "un rat est venu auprès de lui se promener sur son dos" ? Le sens 1 (but) ou le sens 2 ?
    Pour moi c'est clairement le sens 2, et d'ailleurs je ne suis pas certain que cette traduction soit idéale (même si je n'ai rien de mieux à suggérer).
    C'est pour cela d'ailleurs que je demandais si le sens était le même que celui que l'on obtient lorsque l'on ajoute la particule al-lâm (qui peut exprimer explicitement le but) : خرجت لِأطلب ماء
    À mon sens il y a une nuance, car dans le premier cas de figureon juxtapose deux actions, la première étant nécessaire pour effectuer la deuxième. Par contre dans le deuxième cas, on explicite pourquoi on est sorti, par exemple en réponse à une question.
    C'est la big question ! Lol
    Ce que j'ai compris c'est que pour certains la structure "nom indéfini + phrase" pourrait exprimer les deux sens, c'est le contexte qui décide... Dans ce cas je propose ça : جاء إلى الأسد جرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة

    1- Un rat, qui mangeait des petits insectes, est venu auprès du lion.
    2- Un rat est venu auprès du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)
    Dans ce cas de figure, l'option 2 n'est pas vraiment envisageable, même en français elle n'a pas vraiment de sens. Ce n'est peut-être pas le meilleur exemple.
    Petite parenthèse pour la phrase 2 comme on l'a vu on pourrait penser la traduire avec un infinitif :

    2.1- Le rat est venu auprès du lion manger des petits insectes. (but ?).
    Tout à fait, c'est pour ça que l'infinitif utilisé dans la traduction de ton récit de départ, qui n'indique clairement pas le but, me semble relever d'un français plutôt relâché et à la limite de la correction.
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Dans ce cas de figure, l'option 2 n'est pas vraiment envisageable, même en français elle n'a pas vraiment de sens. Ce n'est peut-être pas le meilleur exemple.
    Pour moi la phrase 1 a du sens, on exprime une simultanéité, on peut très bien venir, marcher, regarder une vidéo... Tout en mangeant quelque chose * ... En tous cas elle n'a pas moins de sens que la phrase "un rat est venu auprès de lui en marchant sur son dos", car là il me semble que la simultanéité a encore moins de sens (comment un rat peut-il venir auprès du lion tout en marchant sur le dos de ce même lion ?).

    ----
    * Petite parenthèse : avec ces phrases ci-après (déjà mentionnées), je pense qu'on n'a pas le choix, elles expriment une simultanéité :

    - جاء إلى الأسد جرذ وهو يأكل حشرات صغيرة
    - Un rat est venu auprès du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)

    - جاء إلى الأسد الجرذ يأكل حشرات صغيرة
    - Le rat est venu auprès du lion en mangeant des petits insectes. (simultanéité)
    ----

    Mais bon ce n'est pas la question de fond, on pourrait citer d'autres exemples qui te conviendraient mieux ** le but étant de comprendre et connaitre le ou les sens possible(s) de la structure "nom indéfini + phrase"... Est-ce qu'il n'y a qu'un seul sens imposé par la syntaxe ou bien cette syntaxe peut avoir plusieurs sens et c'est le contexte qui décide ? C'est la vraie question finalement au delà des exemples de ce présent fil...

    Et justement il est intéressant que tu ais exclue l’option 2 qui exprime la simultanéité... Car mon premier réflexe est aussi d’exclure le sens de la simultanéité puisque d’après la fameuse règle la phrase après un nom indéfini est adjective et non haal. En plus en général la phrase adjective est traduite par une phrase relative ce qui correspond effectivement à l'option 1 et non à l'option 2...

    Et pour la phrase (يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ) de ce présent fil eh bien c'est plutôt le contraire qui s'est passé : on a d’après la fameuse règle une phrase adjective mais pourtant c'est le sens avec la phrase relative qui a été écarté : "un rat qui marchait sur son dos est venu auprès du lion" car là on sent que la phrase semble dire que le rat marchait sur son propre dos ce qui n'a pas de sens et c'est je pense à cause de cela que ce sens a été écarté et non à cause de la syntaxe puisque en général c'est bien ce sens (description via une phrase relative) qui correspond à cette syntaxe (nom indéfini + phrase adjective).

    Et d'ailleurs un fait révélateur c'est que certains ont considéré qu'il s'agissait d'un haal et non d'un adjectif et ce sans doute parce que le sens correspondant en général à celui d'une phrase adjective ne collait pas ici... Ils ont donc retenu un autre sens (dans lequel on a plutôt un simultanéité qu'une relative).

    Ce qui confirme selon moi qu'en général le sens de la simultanéité correspond bien syntaxiquement au haal tandis qu'une description via une phrase relative correspond syntaxiquement plutôt à la fonction "adjective"...

    Je dis en général car maintenant suite à cette présente discussion j'envisage aussi la possibilité que dans certains contextes une phrase adjective (qualifiant un nom indéfini) puisse aussi exprimer un sens similaire à celui d'une phrase qui est haal...



    ---
    ** Peut-être que cet exemple te conviendrait mieux :

    1- Un rat, qui marchait lentement, est venu auprès du lion.
    2- Un rat est venu auprès du lion en marchant lentement. (simultanéité)
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    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.
    And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!

    Compare this sentence with:

    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

    The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.

    "Where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with a mudaari3 forms, omitting "and" at the furst juncture (though not subsequently)." Arabic Grammar - a first workbook - G. M. Wickens

    So, in my humble opinion, the sentence in question is neither a صفة after indefinite noun (a rat), nor a Haal but a straight forward sequence of two verbs "to come" and "to walk".
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    بعيدا عن النحو

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    من كتب هذا؟
    أنا أراها لغة ركيكة واسلوب غير متقن لشرح مشهد من قصة خيالية، فمثلا لن ينتظر الأسد حتى يمشى على ظهره جرذ ثم يثب

    ولو كنتُ مكانه لكتبتُ:
    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ قفز على ظهره جُرَذٌ فوَثَبَ الأسد من مكانه

    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ
    هذه عبارة جميلة
     

    Mahaodeh

    Senior Member
    Arabic, PA and IA.
    So, in my humble opinion, the sentence in question is neither a صفة after indefinite noun (a rat), nor a Haal but a straight forward sequence of two verbs "to come" and "to walk".
    It is not. your translation is not accurate in my opinion, you are assuming that there is a sequence when neither sentence implies that.

    Where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with a mudaari3 forms, omitting "and" at the furst juncture (though not subsequently)." Arabic Grammar - a first workbook - G. M. Wickens
    I have no idea who Wickens is, but his explanation does not explain cases such as:
    الَّذِي خَلَقَكَ فَسَوَّاكَ فَعدَلَكَ - الرحمن

    يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَيُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْخَيْرَاتِ وَأُولَٰئِكَ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ - آل عمران

    كُلُوا وَتَمَتَّعُوا قَلِيلًا إِنَّكُمْ مُجْرِمُونَ - المرسلات

    All these are virtually simultaneous, all have the same tense.

    In any case it differs from the original sentence and from your example.

    Also, his description leaves much to be desired.

    And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!
    No, the rat did not come and walk on his back otherwise it would have been جاء جرذ ومشى على ظهره. The rat came walking on his back. That is, the sentence “walking on his back” is describing the rat, not telling of his action. The sentence جاء جرذ يمشي على ظهره means the same thing as جاء جرذ ماشٍ على ظهره.

    The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.
    Again, incorrect translation. You are assuming that there is a sequence of actions: first the commander came out, then he climbed, and then he looked. But the sentence is saying that he went out climbing and looking. That is, climbing and looking are describing his status as he came out.

    The sentence خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل وینظر الی صفوف العدوّ has the same meaning as:
    خرج أمير الجيش صاعدا الجبل وناظرا إلى صفوف العدو
    Not: خرج أمير الجيش وصعد الجبل ونظر إلى صفوف العدو.
     

    Mahaodeh

    Senior Member
    Arabic, PA and IA.
    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    من كتب هذا؟
    أنا أراها لغة ركيكة واسلوب غير متقن لشرح مشهد من قصة خيالية، فمثلا لن ينتظر الأسد حتى يمشى على ظهره جرذ ثم يثب
    من ناحية اللغة أنا أراها أفصح من جملة قائد الجيش.

    من ناحية الوصف، وأظنك تقصد هذا، لا أرى فيه شيئا. أتى لا تعني بالضرورة أنه جاء ببطء، ولا تعني بالضرورة أنه جاء من أمام الأسد ليراه ويجلس منتظرا حتى يمشي على ظهره. أفهم المقصود بأن الجرذ أتى إليه متسللا من الخلف فما إن شعر الأسد به يمشي على ظهره وثب قائما.

    ليس بالضرورة أن يشعر به الأسد بمجرد صعوده، ربما مرّت بضع ثوان قبل أن يشعر به الأسد.
    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ
    هذه عبارة جميلة
    لا أدري، لو كنت مكانه لما أضفت حرف الجرّ الذي يبدو لي وكأنه زائد لا داعي له، كنت سأقول: خرج أمير الجيش يصعد الجبل وينظر إلى صفوف العدو.

    لا أدري لماذا وجدتها جميلة، لعلك رأيت شيئا لم أره فيها.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    لا أدري لماذا وجدتها جميلة، لعلك رأيت شيئا لم أره فيها.
    في الجبل أجمل لأنها تدل على أن الجبل ليس مجرد سطح يُصعد عليه بل مكون من أشجار وطبيعة وهواء منعش
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    It is not. your translation is not accurate in my opinion, you are assuming that there is a sequence when neither sentence implies that.
    I am just a learner of the Arabic language and respect your and other mother tongue Arabic speakers' views and opinions. I could very well be wrong but I am not happy with the حال interpretation of OP @Ibn Nacer's sentence and can fully understand his difficulty with the sentence and his reservations. I admire his commitment and patience. I think the sequential explanation, logically and semantically fits the scenario better. A rat comes to the place where a lion is lying down on the ground (probably asleep). It (the rat) feels it's a good opportunity to get on the lion's back and does so. Upon feeling the presence of an unwanted intruder, the lion suddenly jumps up on its feet. I believe Cherine has explained the sentence in the following words.
    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.

    I have no idea who Wickens is
    He was a Professor of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the University of Toronto.
    No, the rat did not come and walk on his back otherwise it would have been جاء جرذ ومشى على ظهره. The rat came walking on his back. That is, the sentence “walking on his back” is describing the rat, not telling of his action. The sentence جاء جرذ يمشي على ظهره means the same thing as جاء جرذ ماشٍ على ظهره.
    Well, as I have indicated earlier, "A rat came walking on his (the lion's) back" does not sound convincing to me. The rat came and then got on top of the lion by walking up to its back. It did not come walking to its back.

    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل وینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

    The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.

    Again, incorrect translation. You are assuming that there is a sequence of actions: first the commander came out, then he climbed, and then he looked. But the sentence is saying that he went out climbing and looking. That is, climbing and looking are describing his status as he came out.
    The sentence quoted is from the 1943 edition (Exercise 15 - page 62) of "Teach Yourself Arabic" by Professor A S Tritton, Professor Emeritus of Arabic, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The translation is his and it is on page 281.

    On page 59 he writes, "He came out and looked" may be translated as خرج ینظر or خرج و ینظر. The imperfect suggests a close connection of the two acts. خرج و نظر suggests two unconnected acts.

    06 Teach Yourself Arabic ( 1962) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

    Please take a look at the following sentence, taken from Wicken's book where a ماضی is followed by two مضارع sentences. There is no intervening و after the first مضارع. Nor is the first مضارع followed by a و and a ماضی. I do not believe this section of the sentence is حال. You and others may have a different take on it.

    اشتری رجل سیارۃ مستعملة کثیرا ما تخرب و بعد أن أنففق علیھا فلوسا کثیرا قرّر أن یبیعھا یشتری بدلا منھا جملا فما وجد فی القاھرۃ کافة جملا واحدا یصلح لحاجته۔

    My translation:

    A man bought a used car which used to break down frequently and after he had spent a large amount of money on it, he decided to sell it and buy a camel instead but he did not find a single camel in the whole of Cairo which was suitable for his need.

    For me the same logic of sequence applies in the OP's sentence

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ

    And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came (obviously walking on its feet to get to the lion) and walked on top of his (the lion's) back...

    "walked on" can be changed to "got on" to make this sentence idiomatic in English. A verb such as صعد would have been a better choice for the writer than مشی.
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,

    And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!

    Compare this sentence with:

    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

    The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.

    "Where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with a mudaari3 forms, omitting "and" at the furst juncture (though not subsequently)." Arabic Grammar - a first workbook - G. M. Wickens
    Thank you for this example and this quote which explains this kind of structure. It is really very interesting and informative.

    So, in my humble opinion, the sentence in question is neither a صفة after indefinite noun (a rat), nor a Haal but a straight forward sequence of two verbs "to come" and "to walk".

    I agree with you, for me too it is a sequence (except that I used the word "succession" in French) of two actions. I tried to briefly explain that to إتحادية قبائل الشاوية in English but I explained this with more detail to Interprete but it is in French ...

    Interprete replied that If there was a succession in the action, the two verbs would have been in the past and joined by a conjunction like ف, و or ثم ...

    But when I was talking about "succession" it was also as opposed to "simultaneity" ... Indeed the haal in general expresses a simultaneity : If we translate the sentence like this : "a rat came to him walking on his back (the lion's back)" 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 its back.

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

    But in some cases (like this example) the simultaneity does not make sense. إتحادية قبائل الشاوية gave a good explanation in English :

    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?

    So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to him) takes place just before the second (walking on his back)... And that is why I was talking about a succession of two actions and I think that is why you are talking about a "sequence of two verbs"...

    -----------
    What is the grammatical function ?

    I could very well be wrong but I am not happy with the حال interpretation of OP @Ibn Nacer's sentence and can fully understand his difficulty with the sentence and his reservations.

    I understand why you are not happy with the حال interpretation and as already said I agree with your understanding but I think it is indeed a Haal... But it is not the haal that people generally know, which is often mentioned and explained in grammar lessons, it is a specific haal that does not express simultaneity.

    So when you think it is not a Haal, I agree with you because when we mention the Haal without precision (i think like in this present thread) it is generally the Haal that people know well, the one which expresses simultaneity, in Arabic briefly : الحال يبين هيئة صاحبه عند وقوع الفعل...

    But there is another type of Haal and you know these two types of Haal but maybe you forgot it. You have opened several threads concerning this subject, you have participated in several threads that I opened ...

    I learned a lot from your messages. Besides, in this present thread, I have given the links of these thread several times ...

    Here a example :

    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"

    So there are several types of haal ... The haal which expresses simultaneity is called الحال المقارنة and the other type of Haal is called الحال المقدرة or الحال المستقبلة.

    You have mentioned these two types of Haal for example here :

    Wright states that a sentence of the type جاء زید یضحک "Zaid came laughing." is حال مقارن and

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

    جاء الیہ یعودہ "He came to him to visit him." حال مقدر

    ثم استوی علی العرش یدبر الاکر "The he seated himself on the thrown to administer the rule". حال مقدر

    So, based on this explanation جاء زید یرکب "Zaid came riding" would be حال مقارن

    Thank you for this message, it is one of the rare messages that mentions these two types of Haal ...


    ------------
    How to translate this type of Haal (called الحال المقدرة or الحال المستقبلة)?

    - Personally, as far as possible, I would avoid using a gerund ("a rat came to him walking on his back (the lion's back)") because it seems to me that the gerund expresses a simultaneity (this is at least the case in French). And we have seen that in some cases the simultaneity is inappropriate ... You yourself have explained it well, for example here:

    دخل الأولاد في البحر يسبحون

    The boys entered the sea swimming

    would not be appropriate because it implies that they were already swimming even before they set foot in the sea!


    - And if possible I would also avoid using a conjunction (and) because we could think that this conjunction is present in the original text in Arabic. And maybe the meaning is different with a conjunction...

    - I have often wondered if this type of Haal expressed the purpose that is why I have several times asking the question: is the meaning the same if we add the preposition al-laam as for example: أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ ليَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ

    But maybe the translation by "in order to" is too strong ... So for the moment, as far as possible, I prefer to translate with an infinitive, in French it sounds well...

    It seems that you too have proposed translations with an infinitive in this good thread: Purpose in مضارع

    Thank you for this thread, it is really useful ...
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Interprete replied that If there was a succession in the action, the two verbs would have been in the past and joined by a conjunction like ف, و or ثم ..
    This may be something that is part of MSA. I don't know. But the content of both Tritton and Wickens is non-colloquial and non MSA Arabic. Wickens says that almost the examples in his book are real Arabic sentences taken from written Arabic sources and not made up. Allow me to quote from section 93 (page 51) of his book.

    "Use of the مضارع - As remarked in para 62, the مضارع, in default of specific time indications, is normally rendered by the English present or the future. However, one of the most characteristic functions of Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him". It might be thought that this could be easily enough rendered into Arabic by two ماضی (i.e past) verbs in succession; this infact could be done but the tendency would then be to understand the statement as referring to two cuccessive and not necessarily related actions: he struck him on the head on one occasion, and actually went as far as to kill him on another! What would be much more normal in Arabic would be to render : he struck (ماضی) him on the head, kills (مضارع) him. It will be noted that the "and" normally disappears in such constructions, leaving something akin to our own alternative phrasing: "he struck him on the head, killing him. Valuable hint: where two or more actions, in whatever "time" are closely related or virtually simultaneous, Arabic commonly sets the "time" in the first verb and follows with مضارع forms omitting "and" at the first juncture (though not subsequently). Conversely, a series of ماضی verbs, linked by "and", suggests a series of separate past actions; and a succession of مضارع verbs, all linked by "and" would suggest a series of separate present-near future actions. Obviously, as so often in languages, borderline cases can easily arise; and, in any event, the appropriate English renderings will often be (as in the original example above) quite ambiguous."
    But there is another type of Haal and you know these two types of Haal but maybe you forgot it. You have opened several threads concerning this subject, you have participated in several threads that I opened ...
    So there are several types of haal ... The haal which expresses simultaneity is called الحال المقارنة and the other type of Haal is called الحال المقدرة or الحال المستقبلة.
    Yes, I remember. Bearing in mind what Wickens has said above, let's look at the examples already provided and one or two more. This is not to deny the "purpose" Haal or الحال المقدرة

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

    This example comes from Tritton's book and the translation is his. But you would agree if the translation was "He came to a spring of water and drank", it would still be fine.

    دخل الأولاد في البحر يسبحون The boys enteres the sea to swim.

    This again is from Tritton and the translation is his. One could translate this as "The boys entered the sea abd swam".

    جلسنا بقرب النھر ساعة لنستریح قلیلا بعد غروب الشمس ثمّ رددنا علی الأرض و نمنا اللیل کلهِ فقمنا الغد قبل طلوع الشمس نذھب الی شغلنا الیومّي۔

    We sat close to the river for an hour to rest a little after sunset. Then we strtched on the ground and slept the whole night. Then we got up the next day before sunrise to go to our daily work. (my translation)

    Here again we can perhaps say, ".... and went to our daily work."

    Now turning to الحال المقدرۃ. There is a book called "Written Arabic - An approach to basic structures" by A L F Beeston (1911-1955), Professor of Arabic, University of Oxford

    "On page 81, he says, "A "circumstance" clause has the primary function of describing a situation which is represented as simply an attendent circumstance to the main statement; and it may begin with an imperfect verb: (i) it may begin immediately with an imperfect verb, or (ii) it may begin with وقد followed by a perfect verb, or (if negative) with ولم and an imperfect verb, or (iii) it may begin with و plus a thematic structure."

    (Please read "circumstance" clause as حال, imperfect as مضارع and perfect as ماضي and "thematic structure" as جملة اسمیة.)

    He then goes on to say, "A circumstance clause of type (l) may either describe a situation existing simultaneously with that of the main statement, or an intension present at that time:

    خرج یحمل الکتاب في یدہ He went out carrying the book in his hand.

    ذھب الی عمان یُخبِر الملک بالأخبار He went to Amman with the intention of informing the king of the news.

    (The sentences and translations are the late professor's)

    Now getting back to your sentence:

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    I have already said that, "---- a rat came walking on his (the lion's) back......" does not ring true in my mind. This would be الحال المقارنة. Applying the الحال المقدرة understanding to this sentence, it would be translated something like..

    "---- a rat came to walk on his (the lion's) back...."

    Without full context, we can not decide if the rat approached the lion with the intention of walking on the lion's back. Perhaps, you can add a little of what came before or after this sentence.

    Now all this is only relevant if the nakirah zulHaal meets the various conditions. I have posted a list of these conditions which I repeat here.

    1. When حال is before ذوالحال

    جاءني راکباً رجلاً

    2. When ذوالحال is نکرة موصوفة.

    جاءھم کتاب من عند الله مصدّقاً لّما معھم

    3. When it is a مضاف to a نکرة

    جاءنی غلامُ رجل راکباً

    4) After حرف نفی and حرف نھی

    ما جاءني رجل راکباً

    لا یدخل أحد قاعة الامتحان حاملاً حقیبةً

    5) After حرف استفھام

    ھل أتاک رجل راکباً

    6) After و that is followed by a جملة اسمیة

    جاءنی ولد و ھو یبکي

    7) و صلّی وراہ رجال قیاماً (I haven't got a subtitle written down for this).

    Does your sentence meet any of these conditions. I don't think it does. This implies this sentence can't be Haal. So, we are back to my suggestion that it means...

    And when he (the lion) lied down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Without full context, we can not decide if the rat approached the lion with the intention of walking on the lion's back. Perhaps, you can add a little of what came before or after this sentence.
    I've looked at the reference you have provided. The passage, "A lion and a fox" goes something like this.

    Once the sun's heat got too much for a lion. So he entered one of the caves to take shade in it. But when he lay down, a rat came to it and walked* on his back. So, he jumped up from his seated position and looked right and left, being scared and intimidated.....

    * The verb "to climb" would have been a better choice.

    An English version that I managed to find, has a mouse as opposed to a rat.

    "A Lion, fatigued by the heat of a summer’s day, fell fast asleep in his den. A Mouse ran over his mane and ears and woke him from his slumbers. He rose up and shook himself in great wrath, and searched every corner of his den to find the Mouse...."
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,

    Thank you for posting these passages from these two authors ... It's interesting to have several explanations, it's useful ... I found these books and these passages: Arabic Grammar and مدخل وجيز الى قراءة العربية ...

    I also post the passage of the book "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" - Wright :

    w-haal.PNG


    I notice that the example أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب is also cited with the same translation ...

    Yes, I remember. Bearing in mind what Wickens has said above, let's look at the examples already provided and one or two more. This is not to deny the "purpose" Haal or الحال المقدرة
    - Me too, I do not deny your translation with "and", I just said that as far as possible I prefer to translate with an infinitive, it is just a preference, I do not assert that it is this translation that is correct and that the others are incorrect ... I am also probably influenced by the translations of the authors that we have cited and by the translations of certain members of the forum ...

    - And I do not assert that these sentences express a purpose, but I would like to know if this is the case or not ,I am trying to understand ...

    Now all this is only relevant if the nakirah zulHaal meets the various conditions. I have posted a list of these conditions which I repeat here.
    Thank you for this list, I also posted a link where the author gives a list of different cases ...

    7) و صلّی وراہ رجال قیاماً (I haven't got a subtitle written down for this).

    Does your sentence meet any of these conditions. I don't think it does. This implies this sentence can't be Haal. So, we are back to my suggestion that it means...

    - As for the grammatical function, yes I think these sentences are حال مقدرة but I can be wrong, for this too I have probably been influenced by the passage that I quoted above and also by the answers of some members of the forum...

    But also, for the moment, I don't see what other possibility there is? If these sentences are not حال مقدرة then what is their grammatical function ?

    The authors you mentioned explain the meaning but it seems to me that they did not say what is the grammatical function ...

    In all cases it is important to note that to say that these sentences are حال مقدرة does not imply that the meaning you have explained is incorrect. You explained the meaning and it is the most important thing, then to complete our learning it would be a good thing to know what is the grammatical function of these sentences but it is not the most important thing ...

    - To answer your question "Does your sentence meet any of these conditions", I would say number 7, the one that has no subtitles ... lol.

    More seriously, I looked for an explanation for condition number 7 and in fact it would seem that it is not a condition ... The first six points are conditions but the point number 7 concerns those who are of the opinion that the صاحب الحال / ذو الحال can be indefinite without condition.

    The example that is cited is a hadith : the word قياماً is haal and the صاحب الحال is رجالٌ and it is indefinite but it seems that it does not meet any of the six conditions...

    Here is one of the explanations:

    [صلّى رسول الله، صلّى الله عليه وسلّم قاعداً، وصلّى وراءه رجالٌ قياماً]. (حديث شريف)

    [قياماً]: حال، صاحبها: [رجالٌ]، وهو نكرة. وهذا شاهدٌ لا يُدحَض، على أنّ ذلك في العربية أصلٌ صحيح. ولقد وقف سيبويه عند هذه المسألة، فأجازها جوازاً مطلقاً بغير قيد.


    Source : الحال - قواعد اللغة العربية - الكفاف

    This opinion exists but there is not unanimity on this question so I do not know if we can apply it to the type of sentence that we have cited ... In addition maybe this opinion concerns only the الحال المقارنة and not the الحال المقدرة ???
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Salut,

    Thank you for posting these passages from these two authors ... It's interesting to have several explanations, it's useful ... I found these books and these passages: Arabic Grammar and مدخل وجيز الى قراءة العربية ...

    I also post the passage of the book "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" - Wright :

    View attachment 71617

    I notice that the example أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب is also cited with the same translation ...

    I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate


    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب

    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
    أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate


    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب

    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
    أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)
    Let's agree to disagree, @Romeel. Your mind might be set with the language of our time. I do not agree with your translation as the implication is that the person was drinking even before he got to the spring of water. I would personally translate this as, "He came to a spring of water and drank" based on Wicken's explanation quoted by me in a previous post. As you can see, this sentence is quoted by Wright, considered to be an authority on the Classical Arabic language (not MSA). Secondly, Professor Beeston, who held this position for many many years at the university of Oxford, has been quoted above by me, where he gives the sentence below with his translation.

    ذھب الی عمان یُخبِر الملک بالأخبار He went to Amman with the intention of informing the king of the news.

    I would simply have left the last part as "...to inform the king of the news".

    Or:

    He went to Amman and informed the king of the news. (Two ماضي verbs are not needed, as explained by Wickens.)
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    No
    أتى he already came
    "He came to the spring of water drinking". As far as my understanding of the English language is, this implies he was drinking water on route to the water spring. If you disagree, let's agree to disagree once again.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    "He came to the spring of water drinking". As far as my understanding of the English language is, this implies he was drinking water on route to the water spring. If you disagree, let's agree to disagree once again.
    I don't know that came is used for the future, but 'am not that good in English.

    What I know is thatأتى is past
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    I don't know that came is used for the future, but 'am not that good in English.

    What I know is thatأتى is past
    اتی is, "He came." (past)

    came is past

    What is sending me the message that he was drinking something even before he got to the water spring is your use of the word "drinking".

    "The boy went to school crying" does not mean he started crying when he got to school but he started crying from the starting point, his home, and he carried on crying when he got to the school.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    اتی is, "He came." (past)

    came is past

    What is sending me the message that he was drinking something even before he got to the water spring is your use of the word "drinking".

    "The boy went to school crying" does not mean he started crying when he got to school but he started crying from the starting point, his home, and he carried on crying when he got to the school.
    Thank you, but you understand what I mean?
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    What I want to say is that أتى past but يشرب is present
    So he is drinking now after he came to the spring
    Yes, I know and the "time" for the second verb (present) is set by the first verb (past), as per Wicken's explanation. Therefore, the second verb has also past significance even though it is in the present. For this reason, I am translating as I am.

    And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Yes, I know and the "time" for the second verb (present) is set by the first verb (past), as per Wicken's explanation. Therefore, the second verb has also past significance even though it is in the present. For this reason, I am translating as I am.

    And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!
    As I said I am not following your long discussion, but I just want to correct the book translation
    He came to a spring of water to drink should be أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب NOT أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    As I said I am not following your long discussion, but I just want to correct the book translation
    He came to a spring of water to drink should be أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب NOT أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
    As I have said, this sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب is taken from Wright, whose book is considered the ultimate authority on the Classical Arabic language. The translation is his. Beeston also confirms that one type of Haal has a purpose element in it, without the use of لِ with the مضارع.

    Wickens says about Wright, "For the advanced student of Classical Arabic, W. Wright's grammar is of course essential".

    Tritton say, "For further study, Wright's grammar (two volumes) is indispensible.

    Karin C Ryding, author of Modern Standard Arabic has Wright in her list of books for further study.

    Modern Written Arabic – Elsaid Badawi, Michel. G. Carter and Adrian Gulley, also lists Wright under books for further study.

    In "A Grammar of Classical Arabic- Wolfdietrich Fischer- Translated by Jonathan Rogers, on page 112, there is the following sentence with its English translation.

    خرج ھارباً (یھربُ) He went out to flee (to flee means to escape)
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    - And I do not assert that these sentences express a purpose, but I would like to know if this is the case or not ,I am trying to understand ...
    I have provided an example from a Classical Arabic grammar book in response to @Romeel.

    خرج ھارباً (یھربُ) He went out to flee.

    The authors you mentioned explain the meaning but it seems to me that they did not say what is the grammatical function ...
    That is true. They have not given this particular type of sentence an Arabic or English name, explicitly.
    The example that is cited is a hadith : the word قياماً is haal and the صاحب الحال is رجالٌ and it is indefinite but it seems that it does not meet any of the six conditions...
    Thank you.
    This opinion exists but there is not unanimity on this question so I do not know if we can apply it to the type of sentence that we have cited ... In addition maybe this opinion concerns only the الحال المقارنة and not the الحال المقدرة ???
    As you've said, I don't think the terminology is important. As long as we have a correct understanding of the sentence, that is the important thing.
     

    Sadda7

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    He came to a spring of water to drink should be أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب NOT أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
    In the hadith you'll find something like "جاء/أتى رجل إلى النبي يسأله/يستأذنه/يستشيره" and it is understood that the man came to ask or to consult the prophet, without the need for the laam. And the action of asking/consulting is not simultaneous to the coming of the man, but the intention is.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    In the hadith you'll find something like "جاء/أتى رجل إلى النبي يسأله/يستأذنه/يستشيره" and it is understood that the man came to ask or to consult the prophet, without the need for the laam. And the action of asking/consulting is not simultaneous to the coming of the man, but the intention is.

    What is the translation of: He came to a spring of water to drink?
     

    Sadda7

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    The translation will be influenced by the person's writing style, both translations "أتى...ليشرب" and "أتى...يشرب" are valid.
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    In the hadith you'll find something like "جاء/أتى رجل إلى النبي يسأله/يستأذنه/يستشيره" and it is understood that the man came to ask or to consult the prophet, without the need for the laam. And the action of asking/consulting is not simultaneous to the coming of the man, but the intention is.
    @Sadda7, what is your understanding of the OP's sentence provided in the very first post. How would you translate it in English?
     

    Sadda7

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    @Sadda7, what is your understanding of the OP's sentence provided in the very first post. How would you translate it in English?
    'When he lay down, a rat came to him walking on its back and so he leapt to his feet.'
    This is the apparent meaning, but it can possibly mean "to walk on his back (lion's back)" as the different narrations of this fable show, and because that مجيء الجرذ is already in motion even before reaching the lion's body, unless you take أتى إليه as أتى إلى رأسه so him "يمشي على ظهره" is his state on his way to the lion's head 🤔
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    This is the apparent meaning, but it can possibly mean "to walk on his back (lion's back)" as the different narrations of this fable show, and because that مجيء الجرذ is already in motion even before reaching the lion's body, unless you take أتى إليه as أتى إلى رأسه so him "يمشي على ظهره" is his state on his way to the lion's head 🤔
    Thank you. I would like your translation of the sentence please, if you don't mind.
     

    Sadda7

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    @Qureshpor
    My translation would be similar to @analeeh's, and I have to say the more I read the Arabic wording the more confusing it gets, I would have gone for "...to walk on his back" but then فوثب قائما would not fit I think, the lion would leap to his feet only after the rat has mounted his back, if he's unaware of him. Maybe it would fit if the lion saw the rat and anticipated his intention, the story is vague anyway.
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,

    I am not following your long discussion, but I would like to draw your attention that the translation of the phrase is inaccurate

    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب Not the same as أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب
    Thank you. It is interesting that you said that because I myself asked this question several times in different threads of discussion, examples :

    - خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
    - جَلَسَ وليدٌ يقرأُ باهتمامٍ قصَّةً
    - ثُمَّ جَلَسْتُ أَتلُو آيَاتٍ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللهِ

    Even in this discussion I asked for this:

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

    I also wondered if this type of sentence expressed a purpose and if the meaning was the same if we added the preposition al-Laam ...

    - Why do we ask this kind of question?

    Several members have considered that these sentences were Haal (grammatical function) and the Haal (the one that people generally know) expresses a simultaneity therefore (like you) they often translate this kind of sentence with a gerund (drinking) and not with an infinitive (to drink).

    But semantically there is a problem: for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense as we have explained several times in different messages ...

    There are other members who have translated with an infinitive, some even thought that this type of sentence express a purpose (as is the case when we use the preposition al-laam).

    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب He came to a spring of water, drinking (he is drinking now)
    أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب He came to a spring of water to drink (he didn't drink yet)

    If you translate with a gerund (drinking) we understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions, but as already said above, for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense...

    Here it seems obvious that there is a sequence/succession of two actions :

    1- coming to a spring of water.
    2- drinking (the water from this spring).

    So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to a spring of water) takes place just before the second (drinking)...

    It seems obvious that the simultaneity of these two actions is not appropriate, this would mean that : he was drinking while he was coming to a spring of water.

    We can rephrase the sentence to better show what certain members have understood (namely that the sentence is a Haal that expresses simultaneity) with a waawu-l-haal like this : أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب

    Does this reformulation seem strange to you? Isn't the meaning different ? Your translation "He came to a spring of water, drinking" corresponds rather to this reformulation (أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب).

    I do not assert that the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب has the same meaning as the sentence with the preposition al-lâm" but I think that the meaning of this sentence is closer to the meaning of أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب than to the meaning of أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب...
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Several members have considered that these sentences were Haal (grammatical function) and the Haal (the one that people generally know) expresses a simultaneity therefore (like you) they often translate this kind of sentence with a gerund (drinking) and not with an infinitive (to drink).

    But semantically there is a problem: for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense as we have explained several times in different messages ...

    There are other members who have translated with an infinitive, some even thought that this type of sentence express a purpose (as is the case when we use the preposition al-laam).
    And there is a third view that I've expressed.

    If you translate with a gerund (drinking) we understand that there is a simultaneity of the two actions, but as already said above, for the examples we mentioned the simultaneity does not make sense...
    Agreed.
    Here it seems obvious that there is a sequence/succession of two actions :

    1- coming to a spring of water.
    2- drinking (the water from this spring).

    So It seems more logical to me to consider that the first action (coming to a spring of water) takes place just before the second (drinking)...
    Agreed.
    It seems obvious that the simultaneity of these two actions is not appropriate, this would mean that : he was drinking while he was coming to a spring of water.
    This is what I have said.
    We can rephrase the sentence to better show what certain members have understood (namely that the sentence is a Haal that expresses simultaneity) with a waawu-l-haal like this : أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب

    Does this reformulation seem strange to you? Isn't the meaning different ? Your translation "He came to a spring of water, drinking" corresponds rather to this reformulation (أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب).
    Agreed.
    I do not assert that the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب has the same meaning as the sentence with the preposition al-lâm" but I think that the meaning of this sentence is closer to the meaning of أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب than to the meaning of أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب...
    The meaning of the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب sentence could be:

    1) He came to the water spring to drink (As Wright has translated)

    or 2) He came to the water spring and drank.

    (Assuming we don't know the context from which we could deduce the man's intention. If he was looking for a spring of water and comes across it, then surely 1) would be a suitable translation of the sentence.)

    The latter translation is based on the supposition that the coming to the spring and drinking at the spring are two closely connected events but not simultaneous. And two closely connected events, where the first one is a ماضي which sets the time in the past is followed by a مضارع to show a close connection between the two events but still has a past significance. This was the case with the sentence, which I have quoted earlier.

    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد فی الجبل و ینظر الی صفوف العدوّ

    The commander of the army went out, climbed the mountan and looked at the enemy ranks.

    If we say, "The commander of the army went out climbing the mountain and looking at the enemy ranks", this would imply his encampment is on the slope of the mountain and as soon as he sets out of his camp/tent, he begins to climb. I do not accept this logic.

    So the third view is this. The rat in your sentence has left an unknown place A and gets to place B where he sees a lion, asleep by all accounts. So, he stops and thinks that this is a good opportunity to get on top of the lion.

    The rat came أتی from A to B, that is to say he walked. He had no intention to climb on top of a lion as he didn't know he would find a lion, a lion that is asleep. So the translation "to walk on his (the lion's) back" is out.

    It can't be...

    "And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him walking on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!"

    This implies the rat walked from A (starting point) to B (the lion's resting place) and then continued walking to C (the lion's back), all in one smooth simultaneous action. This logically, could not have occurred.

    What does make sense is the third option, as in the "commander of the army" sentence, which I proposed in my very first post (based on Professor Wicken's explanation and Professor Tritton's translation of the "commander of the army" sentence.)

    "And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his (the lion's) back. So, he (the lion) jumped and stood up!"
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
    The sentence may means خَرَجْتُ وأنا أَطْلُبُ مَاء

    But most likely here it means خَرَجْتُ لأَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ لكي أَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ كي أَطْلُبَ مَاء

    What I mean by most likely, because some Arabs shorten it by deleting the اللام
    Using the lam( or kay or li kay) will join the two parts of the sentence. The lam ensures that the cause of the first verb is for the sake of the second verb, not doing so will leave the reader guessing

    The guess may not be apparent in that sentence, but in the next sentence the presence of guessing is obvious

    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب
    هل هو يعني
    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب
    Or
    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد ليشربَ
    Or
    أتى محمد إلى المسجد + محمد يشرب في المسجد

    Is the sentence meaning he came while he was drinking or he came to drink or he came and now he is drinking? All are a valid option.


    In my post when I used drinking because I couldn't think of any verb in the present.

    Also, When I wrote my previous post about correcting translation out of my understanding of the sentence as an Arabic speaker and not because I am good at grammar!
     
    Last edited:

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,
    And there is a third view that I've expressed.
    In my message I mainly talked about the old threads but yes of course, in this present thread, you presented a third view.

    In any case I think we agree that these sentences do not express a simultaneity of several actions, but they express a sequence/succession of actions.

    Regarding meaning and translation, we presented and discussed several possibilities, points of view ...

    Regarding the grammatical function, some have said adjective, others said haal (and I think they mean the Haal which expresses the simultaneity الحال المقارنة).

    And personally I think it is another type of haal called الحال المقدرة or الحال المستقبلة.

    It seems that Wright confirms this, in the passage that I posted we can see that the expression حال مقدر is explicitly mentioned. In the passage you posted, Professor Beeston does not mention the expression حال مقدرة explicitly but he speaks of Haal and he distinguishes two meanings for the structure "(i) it may begin immediately with an imperfect verb" :

    Now turning to الحال المقدرۃ. There is a book called "Written Arabic - An approach to basic structures" by A L F Beeston (1911-1955), Professor of Arabic, University of Oxford

    "On page 81, he says, "A "circumstance" clause has the primary function of describing a situation which is represented as simply an attendent circumstance to the main statement; and it may begin with an imperfect verb: (i) it may begin immediately with an imperfect verb, or (ii) it may begin with وقد followed by a perfect verb, or (if negative) with ولم and an imperfect verb, or (iii) it may begin with و plus a thematic structure."

    (Please read "circumstance" clause as حال, imperfect as مضارع and perfect as ماضي and "thematic structure" as جملة اسمیة.)

    He then goes on to say, "A circumstance clause of type (l) may either describe a situation existing simultaneously with that of the main statement, or an intension present at that time:

    خرج یحمل الکتاب في یدہ He went out carrying the book in his hand.

    ذھب الی عمان یُخبِر الملک بالأخبار He went to Amman with the intention of informing the king of the news.

    (The sentences and translations are the late professor's)

    I think that "either describe a situation existing simultaneously with that of the main statement" correspond to الحال المقارنة and that "or an intension present at that time" probably corresponds to الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة...
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب"

    هل هو يعني

    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب

    Or

    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد ليشربَ

    Or

    أتى محمد إلى المسجد + محمد يشرب في المسجد

    Is the sentence meaning he came while he was drinking or he came to drink or he came and now he is drinking? All are a valid option."

    A very good question @Romeel. I think the answer depends on the type of verb used in the مضارع. If I number your sentences as 1), 2) and 3), the following would fit your questions perfectly.

    1. خرج الکلاب تنبح The dogs came out barking = خرج الکالب و ھي تنبح

    دخل الأجناد القدس یقتلون سکّانھا کلّھم و یسرقون أموالھم = The armies entered Jerusalem, killing all its residents and stealing their property.

    2. خرج الأولاد یلبعون The boys came out to play = خرج الأولاد لیلبعوا

    بعثه النجّارُ إليّ یطلبُ خشباً The carpenter sent him to me to look for wood = بعثه النجّارُ إليّ لیطلبَ خشباً

    دخل الأولاد البحرَ یسبحون The boys went into the sea to swim = دخل الأولاد البحرَ لیسبحوا

    3. أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ = A rat came to him (and) walks on his back = A rat came to him and walked on his back

    خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد في الجبل و ینظر إلی صفوف العدوّ = The commander of the army came out, climbs the mountain and looks at the enemy ranks = The commander of the army came out, climbed the mountain and looked at the enemy ranks.

    There will always be borderline cases which do not neatly fit into these three categories.

    دخل الأولاد البحرَ یسبحون The boys went into the sea to swim.

    This sentence could also mean, "The boys entered the sea and they swim = The boys entered the sea and they swam.

    خرج الکلاب تنبح The dogs came out barking.

    The meaning here could be, "The dogs came out and they bark = The dogs came out and they barked.

    دخل الأجناد القدس یقتلون سکّانھا کلّھم و یسرقون أموالھم = The armies entered Jerusalem, killing all its residents and stealing their property.

    This could aslo be thought as: The armies entered Jerusalem, killed all its inhabitants and stole their property.
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,

    خَرَجْتُ أَطْلُبُ مَاء
    The sentence may means خَرَجْتُ وأنا أَطْلُبُ مَاء

    But most likely here it means خَرَجْتُ لأَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ لكي أَطْلُبَ مَاء / خَرَجْتُ كي أَطْلُبَ مَاء

    What I mean by most likely, because some Arabs shorten it by deleting the اللام
    Using the lam( or kay or li kay) will join the two parts of the sentence. The lam ensures that the cause of the first verb is for the sake of the second verb, not doing so will leave the reader guessing
    Yes it is true that I have seen this type of sentence several times, sometimes without particle and other times with the preposition al-Laam or kay/likay et and more rarely with hatta... Perhaps the structure without particle is just an abbreviation...

    The guess may not be apparent in that sentence, but in the next sentence the presence of guessing is obvious

    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب
    هل هو يعني
    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب
    Or
    ُأتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد ليشربَ
    Or
    أتى محمد إلى المسجد + محمد يشرب في المسجد

    Is the sentence meaning he came while he was drinking or he came to drink or he came and now he is drinking? All are a valid option.
    Thank you. Personally, for the moment, for this type of sentence I proceed in this order:

    1- If simultaneity makes sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a simultaneity : in your example أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب the simulatanity makes sense so I would say that the meaning of this sentence is : أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب and that the grammatical function of يشرب would be الحال المقارنة.

    2- If simultaneity does not make sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a sequence/succession of actions. The meaning of this sequence/succession of actions has been discussed a lot. Maybe it expresses a purpose as if we had the preposition al-lâm or maybe it expresses something else ...

    For example for the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب the simultaneity does not make sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a sequence/succession of two actions :

    1- coming to a spring of water.
    2- drinking (the water from this spring).

    I do not assert that the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب has exactly the same meaning as the sentence with the preposition al-lâm" but I think that the meaning of this sentence is closer to the meaning of أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب than to the meaning of أتى إلى عين ماء وهو يشرب...

    And I would say that the grammatical function of يشرب would be الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة.
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Thank you. Personally, for the moment, for this type of sentence I proceed in this order:

    1- If simultaneity makes sense then the meaning will be simultaneity : in your example أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد يشرب the simulatanity makes sense so I would say that the meaning of this sentence is : أتى محمدٌ إلى المسجد وهو يشرب and that the grammatical function of يشرب would be الحال المقارنة.
    For me, if it was simultaneous, then he would be drinking all the way up to and including the mosque.
    For example for the sentence أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب the simultaneity does not make sense then I consider that the sentence expresses a sequence/succession of two actions :

    1- coming to a spring of water.
    2- drinking (the water from this spring).
    Could this not also mean, "He came to the water spring and drinks"? He is walking in a desert and suddenly comes across a spring and even though he has a supply of water in his leather bag, he decides to have a cool, fresh drink. He had no intension of drinking any water prior to finding the spring.
     
    Last edited:

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    For me, if it was simultaneous, then he would be drinking all the way up to and including the mosque
    I understand the sentence like this: "he was drinking while he was coming to the mosque".

    Here the simultaneity of the two actions makes sense so I consider that this is the meaning of the sentence.

    I give priority to الحال المقارنة on الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة...

    Could this not also mean, "He came to the water spring and drink"? He is walking in a desert and suddenly comes across a spring and even though he has a supply of water in his leather bag, he decides to have a cool, fresh drink. He had no intension of drinking any water prior to finding the spring.

    Honestly I don't know, but why not* ? In fact I think that I am influenced by the translation of Wright in English and by several translations in French and by the fact that I know the context of this sentence ...

    It seems that this sentence comes from the same book that I mentioned in this present thread, here is the context: clique here :
    إيل، يعني غزال، مرة عطش. فأتى إلى عين ماء يشرب

    The deer was thirsty so he went to a spring of water with the intention of drinking...

    --------
    * Here is an example that has been translated with the conjunction "and" :

    ... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَسْأَلُهُ
    Anas said that when a man of the Ansar came to the Prophet and begged from him...

    I have seen examples that do not seem to be able to be translated with an infinitive...


    -------
    PS :The situation you describe makes me think of a particular structure in Arabic: بينما ...فإذا / إذ
    See for example : I was walking, when suddenly...
     

    Attachments

    • phrase.PNG
      phrase.PNG
      165.1 KB · Views: 10
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    I will write in Arabic, and if there is an unclear point, please ask

    كل مثال ينظر إليه بصورة مختلفة وأنا أتفق معكما في أغلب ما طرحتماه

    خرجت الكلاب تنبح لا يمكن أن نفهم من الكلام أن الكلاب خرجت لتنبح:cross: لأنها دائما تنبح في الداخل والخارج إنما الأقرب للفهم خرجت الكلاب وهي تنبح :tick:
    كذلك خرج الأولاد يلعبون

    عندما نقول أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل لا بد أنها تعني أن الرجل أتى النبي ليسأله (لأن أغلب الناس ستسأل الني لا غيره) ومما يجعل هذا المعنى أوكد عندما نضيف له الضمير فنقول يسأله فهنا حصرنا المعنى في الجملة أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله:tick:

    عندما نقول
    أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء يشرب أقرب فهم لها أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء ليشرب :tick: لأن الناس لا تأتي للينابيع إلا لتشرب (90%)

    لكن عندما نقول
    أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب هنا مختلف عن السابق لأن الناس لا تذهب للمسجد لتشرب الماء ففي الغالب أنها لا تعني أنه أتى المسجد ليشرب :cross: إنما الأقرب للفهم أنه أتى المسجد وهو يشرب:tick:
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    * Here is an example that has been translated with the conjunction "and" :

    ... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَسْأَلُهُ
    Anas said that when a man of the Ansar came to the Prophet and begged from him...
    Yes, this translation is of the type I am offering for your sentence of your first post in this thread. So, this type of translation with "and" and a past tense is valid.
    PS :The situation you describe makes me think of a particular structure in Arabic: بينما ...فإذا / إذ
    See for example : I was walking, when suddenly...
    Perhaps I should not have used the word "suddenly" and just wrote, "...and comes across a spring..."
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,

    خرجت الكلاب تنبح لا يمكن أن نفهم من الكلام أن الكلاب خرجت لتنبح:cross: لأنها دائما تنبح في الداخل والخارج إنما الأقرب للفهم خرجت الكلاب وهي تنبح :tick:
    كذلك خرج الأولاد يلعبون
    Yes we agree for the sentence خرجت الكلاب تنبح but for the sentence خرج الأولاد يلعبون it seems to me that the meaning could be close to: خرج الأولاد ليلعبوا...

    عندما نقول أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل لا بد أنها تعني أن الرجل أتى النبي ليسأله (لأن أغلب الناس ستسأل الني لا غيره) ومما يجعل هذا المعنى أوكد عندما نضيف له الضمير فنقول يسأله فهنا حصرنا المعنى في الجملة أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله:tick:
    Thank you for this explanation, it's interesting.

    عندما نقول
    أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء يشرب أقرب فهم لها أتى رجل إلى نبع ماء ليشرب :tick: لأن الناس لا تأتي للينابيع إلا لتشرب (90%)

    لكن عندما نقول
    أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب هنا مختلف عن السابق لأن الناس لا تذهب للمسجد لتشرب الماء ففي الغالب أنها لا تعني أنه أتى المسجد ليشرب :cross: إنما الأقرب للفهم أنه أتى المسجد وهو يشرب:tick:

    Yes we agree. Thank you.
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,
    Yes, this translation is of the type I am offering for your sentence of your first post in this thread. So, this type of translation with "and" and a past tense is valid.
    I did not say that your translations would not be valid, I respect the different opinions and I try to be careful: I say what I understand but at the same time I say that I do not affirm that it is my understanding that would be correct and that the others would be incorrect.

    I am just a learner of the Arabic language like you, I can say what I think but I do not have the level to affirm if an understanding is correct or incorrect.

    We learn from each other by discussing together ...

    Perhaps I should not have used the word "suddenly" and just wrote, "...and comes across a spring..."
    Ok, if we remove the word "suddenly" we get : "He is walking in a desert and comes across a spring"...

    You explained that it could be that he did not intend to drink, but your sentence also seems to mean that he did not intend to go to a water source, right ?

    PS : I noticed that Romeel gave two examples of sentences with a defined noun (رجل) :

    أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب
    أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسأل


    But despite this, from the point of view of meaning, I would not say that the sentences يشرب and يسأل are adjective of رجل...
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Salut,

    but for the sentence خرج الأولاد يلعبون it seems to me that the meaning could be close to: خرج الأولاد ليلعبوا...
    :thumbsup: You are right, but you got the idea!
    The idea is to consider the meaning of the sentence, what it's talking about, its connotations, people's habits and how each community will understand the meaning of your words. Grammar is just an aiding tool for understanding and not the basis, but unfortunately people go deeper into grammar and leave the basics of language.
     
    Top