فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

Romeel

Senior Member
Arabic
I am sorry but my Arabic isn't good enough to understand your post.
كل مثال ينظر إليه بصورة مختلفة وأنا أتفق معكما في أغلب ما طرحتماه
Each example is viewed differently, and I agree with most of what you have raised
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
The dogs came out barking. We cannot understand from the words that the dogs came out to bark because they always bark inside and outside. But the closest to understanding is that the dogs came out barking.

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:
When we say a man came to the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and asks, it must mean that the man came to the Prophet to ask him (because most people will ask the Prophet). What makes this meaning more assertive is when we add to it the pronoun, and we say he asks him يسأله, for here we have limited the meaning to the sentence to be أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله.

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%)
A man came to a spring of water to drink the closest understanding to it A man came to a spring of water to drink. Because people do not come to the springs except to drink (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:
أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب different from above, because people do not go to the mosque to drink water. For the most part, it does not mean that he came to the mosque to drink. Rather, the closest to understanding is that they came to the mosque while drinking.
 
  • Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    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.
    Thank you.
    Yes we understand the idea.
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    The dogs came out barking. We cannot understand from the words that the dogs came out to bark because they always bark inside and outside. But the closest to understanding is that the dogs came out barking.
    Yes, that's the meaning given by Tritton and I agree with your explanation.
    When we say a man came to the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and asks, it must mean that the man came to the Prophet to ask him (because most people will ask the Prophet). What makes this meaning more assertive is when we add to it the pronoun, and we say he asks him يسأله, for here we have limited the meaning to the sentence to be أتى رجل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليسأله.
    It is obvious that a man came و یسأله and asks him. But surely he may not have had the intention of asking anything before he got to the prophet (peace be upon him). If we take this approach, then we can translate this sentence as..

    A man came to the prophet (peace and blessings be upn him) and asked him..... (Wright translates it as "...and begged him..".
    A man came to a spring of water to drink the closest understanding to it A man came to a spring of water to drink. Because people do not come to the springs except to drink (90%)
    True but people can also go to a spring and take pictures of it. So أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب could be interpretted in two ways..

    1) A man came to a spring to drink (as translated by Wright and also your understand)...and

    2) A man came to a spring and drank. (Without having had the intention before he got to the spring but when he saw the lovely spring, he decided to take a cool drink.)
    أتى رجل إلى المسجد يشرب different from above, because people do not go to the mosque to drink water. For the most part, it does not mean that he came to the mosque to drink. Rather, the closest to understanding is that they came to the mosque while drinking.
    Yes, I agree.

    Thank you for translating your Arabic response. I am indebited.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    True but people can also go to a spring and take pictures of it. So أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب could be interpretted in two ways..

    1) A man came to a spring to drink (as translated by Wright and also your understand)...and

    2) A man came to a spring and drank. (Without having had the intention before he got to the spring but when he saw the lovely spring, he decided to take a cool drink.)
    My words are not to impose a specific meaning for each text, but rather to warn the writer to choose the right words to express what he wants and to alert the reader to look at who wrote and his time to know know what he meant.

    If the custom at his time, and whoever will read his words in his society and time will understand that
    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب = أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب
    he can then write/say it
    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
    But if he wrote it like this, it would be better أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب

    And if he wanted to say that
    He came to a spring of water not for the purpose of drinking, but then he drank
    he can write/say it
    أتى إلى عين ماء ثم شرب

    Except for the example of dogs and the like, it is a common sense!
    Is it clear what I want to say?
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    so what troubles me is that semantically it corresponds to a haal but syntactically it is an adjective sentence ...
    Let's take a look at the relevant part of the Qur'anic ayahs quoted by Cherine.

    1. فَوَجَدَ فيها رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلان

    2. وجاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَقْصَى المَدِينَةِ يَسْعَى

    They are both definitely sentences where we have indefinite noun موصوف followed by a مضارع verb which is the صفة .

    1. ...and he found there two men who were fighting.

    This would be the adjective sentence translation.

    Accepting Sibawayh's ruling, if we treat رَجُلَيْنِ as ذوالحال and يَقْتَتِلان as حال, then the translation would be..

    1. ...and he found there two men fighting.

    I don't really see any difference in the final scheme of things with regard to the meaning in the two situations.

    2. ...and there came a man, who was rushing from the farthest part of the city. (As adjective sentence)

    ......and there came a man, rushing from the farthest part of the city (Following the advice of some classical grammarians, مِنْ أَقْصَى المَدِينَةِ gives رجل a man, تخصیص, so it can be treated as a حال sentence.)

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02141749/document

    Once again, would you agree there is hardly any difference, if any, in the meaning?

    Coming to the original enigma!:confused: I am going to add "the lion" into the sentence for convenience and add "the lion" wherever necessary for clarification.

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ الأسدُ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    As an adjective phrase

    And when the lion lay down, there came to him a mouse who was walking on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up.:cross:

    As الحال المقارنۃ

    And when the lion lay down, a mouse came walking on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up. :cross: (The mouse's coming and walking are not simultaneous).

    As الحال المقدّرۃ

    And when the lion lay down, a mouse came to walk on the lion's back and the lion jumped and stood up. (How do we know if the mouse came to walk on the lion's back?):cross:

    Looking through my jungle of notes, it seems لمّا is a ظرف and it is one of the particles أدوات of شرط.


    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ الأسدُ And when the lion lay down (شرط)

    أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما a mouse came to him, walked on his back and the lion jumped and stood up! (جواب الشرط)

    My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    If the custom at his time, and whoever will read his words in his society and time will understand that
    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب = أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب
    he can then write/say it
    أتى إلى عين ماء يشرب
    But if he wrote it like this, it would be better أتى إلى عين ماء ليشرب
    Thank you for this and I am in agreement with you.
    And if he wanted to say that he came to a spring of water not for the purpose of drinking, but then he drank,he can write/say it
    أتى إلى عين ماء ثم شرب
    Agree but ....

    My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Thank you for this and I am in agreement with you.

    Agree but ....

    My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186
    I don't know what you are talking about? I also don't have that book
    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:
    I'm not sure if this is correct!! What I know is that the imperfective past only if there is no subject
    like
    صار الجو جميلا
    No sure though
    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله
    Again I don't think this correct maybe it is something like
    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عادى إلھنا؟ ثمّ یغدو یلتمِسْه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسّله
    OR maybe عدا from تعدى
    Please re-check
    When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."
    Maybe يغدو imperfect

    But still I cannot see your point and how is this related to my last post?
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."

    I don't know what you are talking about? I also don't have that book

    Again I don't think this correct maybe it is something like
    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عادى إلھنا؟ ثمّ یغدو یلتمِسْه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسّله
    OR maybe عدا from تعدى
    Please re-check
    Here is what I am talking about. Note especially the highlighted parts, above and below. If you want to see the quote for yourself, here is a link to the book. (See page 105) It is عَدا and غَسَلَه. I missed علی. the sentence should be:

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا علی إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    AGrammar Of Classical Arabic : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

    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.

    Maybe يغدو imperfect
    Yes, it is مضارع
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Thank you for this and I am in agreement with you.

    Agree but ....

    My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."

    I don't think you can measure compare يغدو in the last example with يمشي in the title

    Because the title sentence could have the meaning of
    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ وهو يَمْشِي

    But you cannot say
    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ وهو یغدو

    because of ثم he first wakeup then he go (يغدو)
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    I don't think you can measure يغدو in the last example with يمشي in the title

    Because the title sentence could have the meaning of
    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ وهو يَمْشِي

    But you cannot say
    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ وهو یغدو

    because of ثم he first wakeup then he go (يغدو)
    Ok, thank you. I am afraid we have a language barrier between us and I am unable to explain my point of view. So, it would be best to leave this discussion.
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    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.
    In case anyone is interested...

    The sentence which the classical Arabic grammarians used to demonstrate الحال المقارنة was..

    مررت برجل معه صقر صائداً به غداً

    I passed by a man with a hawk intending to hunt with it tomorrow.

    The first grammarian to deal with this example in the context of الحال المقارنة was Ibn al-Sarraaj (1316/928).
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    In case anyone is interested...

    The sentence which the classical Arabic grammarians used to demonstrate الحال المقارنة was..

    مررت برجل معه صفر صائداً به غداً

    I passed by a man with a hawk intending to hunt with it tomorrow.

    The first grammarian to deal with this example in the context of الحال المقارنة was Ibn al-Sarraaj (1316/928).
    I don't know if this sentence is grammatically correct or not, but even if it written in grammar books I assure you that Arabs don't use such phrases!
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    I don't know if this sentence is grammatically correct or not, but even if it written in grammar books I assure you that Arabs don't use such phrases!
    By all accounts, this sentence is grammatically correct. The Arabs of 2022 are bound to be a bit different in their use of language from their ancestors who lived over a thousand years ago, don't you think?
     
    Last edited:

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    By all accounts, this sentence is grammatically correct. The Arabs of 2022 are bound to be a bit different in their from their ancestors who lived over a thousand years ago, don't you think?
    I doubt you will find such phrase even before 2000 years!!

    I do not say this for the sake of arguing with you, but I personally read the Qur’an, history books, poems, and I write. I have never seen anything like this in my life!

    The problem with some grammar books is that they imagine some phrases and how it should be solved grammatically, but they actually do not exist at all and nobody use them, neither old nor new!

    مررت بصقّار سيصطاد غدا :tick:

    Grammar rules are important, but what it is more important is that people understand what you want to say in short and easy way
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    You won't find that exact sentence but you will come across similar grammatical construction depending on what you read.
    Apologies for the typo صفر for صقر. I have amended the spelling. The exact sentence is indeed there and I've already provided one reference for it.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    The exact sentence is indeed there and I've already provided one reference for it.
    أخي العزيز قد تجد نصا هنا أو هناك من مثل هذا لكن لن تجدها إلا في كتب النحو! يجب بين الفينة والأخرى أن تخلع عباءة النحويين وتنطلق لسعة اللغة ورحابة عالمها. النحوي قد أدى دوره بنقل ما يمكن عن العرب وضبط القواعد بقدر الإمكان - ونحن نشكرهم على ذلك- لكن هذه مجرد وسائل لغاية أعظم وهي تعلم العربية. فلا تترك الغاية وتتمسك بالوسيلة! قد تتعلم القواعد والأصول النحوية لكن هذا لا يعني أنك ستتعلم اللغة أي لغة!
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    أخي العزيز قد تجد نصا هنا أو هناك من مثل هذا لكن لن تجدها إلا في كتب النحو! يجب بين الفينة والأخرى أن تخلع عباءة النحويين وتنطلق لسعة اللغة ورحابة عالمها. النحوي قد أدى دوره بنقل ما يمكن عن العرب وضبط القواعد بقدر الإمكان - ونحن نشكرهم على ذلك- لكن هذه مجرد وسائل لغاية أعظم وهي تعلم العربية. فلا تترك الغاية وتتمسك بالوسيلة! قد تتعلم القواعد والأصول النحوية لكن هذا لا يعني أنك ستتعلم اللغة أي لغة!
    Thank you brother and I appreciate very much what you are saying. I only posted the sentence مررت برجل معه صفر صائداً به غداً just to show that this is the sentence which the grammarians in the past have used as a sample for الحال المقدّرۃ.
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    What exactly is a haal? The verb يمشي? I don't see what difference that makes because it still needs a subject regardless of what other functions it may have. By the way, the haal is not just يمشي; it's الجملة الفعلية يمشي على ظهره - the sentence should be complete, hence it includes the implied pronoun that acts as a subject for the verb.
    The sentence in question is only Haal if we accept that an indefinite ذوالحال namely a rat (جُرَذ) is acceptable without any conditions listed in # 64 but instead we rely on Qur'anic ayas (e.g 36:20) and Sibawayh's ruling (as quoted by @Ibn Nacer). So, let's accept the sentence has a Haal component starting from یمشي.

    From what I have been able to find is that Haal is of three types, based on the timing of the ذوالحال's verb and the Haal's time.

    1. الحال المقارنة

    The action of the ذوالحال's verb and the Haal's time are simultaneous, e.g جاء زید یرکب / راکباً (Zaid came riding. He was coming and riding at the same time). Suppose, the rat was only round the corner, a mere 20 metres away.

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    Did the rat come walking on the lion's back......at the same time? No, he walked on the ground for the 20 metres and then when he got to the lion, he walked/got up on its back. So الحال المقارنة is not applicable.

    2. الحال المقدّرة

    The time of the Haal is after the ذوالحال verb time.

    39:73 وقال خزنتھا سلام علیکم طبتم فادخلوھا خالدین

    I am using two Qur'an translations, both by Arab translators.

    "... and its keepers will say, “Peace be upon you! You have done well, so come in, to stay forever.” (What's added in square brackets is to faciliate understanding) - (Mustafa Khattab)

    "... and its keepers will say to them, "Peace be upon them. You have been good. Come in: you are here to stay". (Abdel Haleem)

    It seems a purpose is embedded in the الحال المقدّرة, both the translators employing "to stay" (for the purpose of staying).

    Would it make sense if we assumed the sentence in question has الحال المقدّرة in it?

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    So when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk on his back. And he jumped to his feet.

    I don't believe there was a purpose in the rat's mind. He just came across the lion coincidentally.

    3. الحال المحکیّة

    Here the time of the Haal is before the ذوالحال time frame.

    یجيءُ الیومَ محمّد راکباً أمسِ

    Muhammad comes/is coming/will come today riding (since) yesterday.

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    So when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him having walked on his back (before coming!) And he jumped to his feet.

    Once again, this possibly is out of the question. This throws out the Haal out of the equation altogether. This just leaves the straight foreward translation.

    And when he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him and walked on his back. So he jumped to his feet.
     
    Last edited:

    Mahaodeh

    Senior Member
    Arabic, PA and IA.
    The sentence in question is only Haal if we accept that an indefinite ذوالحال namely a rat (جُرَذ) is acceptable without any conditions listed in # 64
    Yes we’ve been through that and my post became obsolete once my mistake was made clear. It was an old one, one in which I depended on my understanding of the sentence and forgot about the rule.

    I admit that I was wrong. I’m here to learn too you know 🙂.
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    "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".
    Just a correction of a passage I quoted in my post #64.

    "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 its most characteristic functions in Arabic is that of a "tense prolonger". Consider the English sentence: "He struck him on the head and killed him".
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    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"...
    Agreed.
    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 ...
    Agreed.
    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 ...
    Agreed.

    This type of Haal is usually translated as an infinitive....a rat came to him to walk on his (the lion's) back. This implies "purpose" but I think, here is the finer difference. If I wrote...

    "He went to meet him.", we could write...

    ذھب لیقابله

    But this sentence does not necessarily mean that he actually did meet him. Perhaps, the person was not at home. However, with الحال المقدرة when we say...

    أتى رجل إلى عین ماء يشرب and translate it as "A man came to a water spring to drink", it really means "A man came to a water string to drink (and he drank).

    Similarly in ... وَعَن أنس بن مَالك: أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَسْأَلُهُ

    .....a man from the Ansaar came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to ask him (and asked him).

    Now going back to your original example...the background, as you know is this..

    "The sun's heat once became too intense for a lion so he went into one of the caves to seek shade in it."

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk on his back (and he walked on his back). So, he (the lion) jumped to his feet.

    So, to make the translation work and removing the ambiguity of whether the action took place or not, it is my suggestion that we exclude the infinitive clause and add instead the conjunctive clause (with and).

    When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came and he walked on his back. So, he (the lion) jumped to his feet.

    I wonder what you and other friends think of my suggestion.
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,
    This type of Haal is usually translated as an infinitive....
    Yes indeed but I remind you that personally I do not assert that this type of Haal expresses a purpose. What I think and we agree on this point is that this type of Haal does not express a simultaneity but rather a succession.

    Then the problem is how to translate this succession ...

    This type of Haal is usually translated as an infinitive....a rat came to him to walk on his (the lion's) back. This implies "purpose" but I think, here is the finer difference. If I wrote...

    "He went to meet him.", we could write...

    ذھب لیقابله

    But this sentence does not necessarily mean that he actually did meet him. Perhaps, the person was not at home. However, with الحال المقدرة when we say...

    أتى رجل إلى عین ماء يشرب and translate it as "A man came to a water spring to drink", it really means "A man came to a water string to drink (and he drank).
    Yes that's good point, an interesting remark to take into account ...

    I wonder what you and other friends think of my suggestion.
    As explained above we agree on several points and then there is the problem of the meaning and the translation ...

    Personally, as I have already said I do not reject your idea of translating using the conjunction "and" ... This translation has the advantage of expressing a succession (unlike certain translations which express simultaneity).

    Translation with an infinitive is widespread but it can make believe that we express a purpose... But I thought that perhaps the infinitive was less strong than "in order to"...

    I suppose that the choice of a translation depends on the context and what we understood ... Translating correctly is difficult, you often have to make compromises ...

    Do you consider that we must always translate this type of sentence with the conjunction "and" and never with an infinitive? Or do you also think that the choice of a translation depends on the context?
     

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Yes we’ve been through that and my post became obsolete once my mistake was made clear. It was an old one, one in which I depended on my understanding of the sentence and forgot about the rule.

    I admit that I was wrong. I’m here to learn too you know 🙂.
    But perhaps considering that the sentence is a Haal is not a mistake, remember this message* : #47

    However, if we consider that this sentence is a haal, I do not believe that it is the Haal which expresses a simultaneity (الحال المقارنة) because it seems to me that in this context, simultaneity does not make sense... I think it is rather another type of haal called الحال المقدرة / الحال المستقبلة...


    * See also :
    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:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Yes indeed but I remind you that personally I do not assert that this type of Haal expresses a purpose. What I think and we agree on this point is that this type of Haal does not express a simultaneity but rather a succession.
    Unfortunately, the English infinitive does impart the sense of purpose.

    دخل الأولاد البحرَ یسبحون The children went into the sea to swim. (Tritton- Teach Yourself Arabic 1943)

    I too don't believe a purpose is embedded within the الحال المقدّرة construction * but infinitive is one way to translate it into English and using the conjunction "and" with a past tense verb is another. You yourself have quoted a sentence of الحال المقدّرة type that has been translated in this manner.

    ... 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 quoted two such sentences...

    1) خرج أمیر الجیش یصعد في الجبل و ینظر اإلی صفوف العدوّ The commander of the army came out, went up the moutain and looked at the ranks of the enemy. (Tritton- Teach Yourself Arabic 1943)

    2) جلستم تسمعون کلام الشّاعر You sat down and listened to the words of the poet. (Tritton- Teach Yourself Arabic 1943)

    ( I must confess. This example to my mind fits الحال المقارنة better with the simultaneous meaning..You sat listening to the poet's words.)

    Do you consider that we must always translate this type of sentence with the conjunction "and" and never with an infinitive? Or do you also think that the choice of a translation depends on the context?
    I am not sure if I can provide you with a definitive reply but it does seem to make more sense to me if we use "and" with a past tense.

    Here is another example where an imperfect is translated with an infinitive. Here it does not follow a perfective verb ماضي but an imperfective one. However, the past time has been set by the very first ماضي verb namely أصبح.

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    "When morning came (perfect), Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out very early (imperfect) to look for him (imperfect). When he finally found him, he purged him."

    This quote is from "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer- Translated by Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000 page 105 section 186) where he says...

    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect."

    * What do you make of this sentence from Tritton, page 62

    بَعَثَ النجّارُ إلیَّ یطلُبُ خَشَباً

    The translation given in the book is...

    The carpenter sent to me to ask for wood.

    Sent who? Perhaps the sentence should have been...

    بَعَثَه النجّارُ إلیَّ یطلُبُ خَشَباً

    The carpenter sent him to me to ask for wood.

    Here the purpose seems to be part of the sentence. We can't translate this sentence as..

    The carpenter sent him to me and he asked for wood.

    So, perhaps the final meaning we deduce is also dependent upon the type of verb we have.

    Thank you for starting this thread. I believe I've learnt quite a lot from it!
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    The point, though, is that a نعت can express all kinds of different meanings, some of which may overlap with what a حال might express
    From "Tense and Text in Classical Arabic " by Michael Marmorstein - page 80

    It should be noted that the distinction between an attribute* and a predicative asyndetic clause** in not always clear cut. In many cases where the nominal antecedent (the موصوف or ذوالحال) is indefinite, it seems that both the interpretations are equally plausible.....

    * adjective
    ** a 7aal clause that does not begin with a و

    He then goes on to give two examples, one from Kaliilah and Dimnah and the other from Riwaayaat and gives translations based on the assumption that they can be read as a Sifah sentence or a 7aal sentence.

    فمرَّ في طریقه علی وعلینِ یتنناطَحَانِ

    He passed in his way two goats that were butting. (Sifah)

    He passed in his way two goats butting. (7aal) [As it happens, this 7aal is Haal muqaarinah]

    واستصحَبَ معه رجلاً یدُلُّه علی الطّریقِ

    He took as companion a man who would show him the way. [Sifah]

    He took as companion a man to show him the way. (7aal) [Haal muqaddirah]

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِما

    If we apply the Sifah understanding..

    When he (the lion) lay down, a rat who walks/would walk/was walking on his (the lion's) back came to him. So he jumped up to his feet.

    Clearly, this analysis does not work.

    We have already come to the conclusion (at least @Ibn Nacer and I) that the coming of the rat and his getting up on the lion's back are not simultaneous acts. This is not 7aal muqaarinah. The other 7aal, namely 7aal muqaddirah implies the 7aal action taking place after the ذوالحال verb action and is normally translated in English with an infinitive but on occasionally with a conjunction "and" and a past ماضي verb.

    When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk on his back. So he jumped up to his feet.

    I think, a better idiomatic approach would be to translate this using a conjuction plus a past verb, as we know that he, the rat, did indeed walk on the lion's back because this action made the lion jump up to his feet.

    When he (the lion) lay down, a rat came to him to walk and walked on his feet. So he jumped up to his feet.
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    @Ibn Nacer

    The context to your sentence is:

    أسد مرۃً اشتدَّ علیهِ حرُّ الشّمسِ۔ فدخل إلی بعض المغائرِ یتظَلَّلُ بھا۔

    Once the sun's heat got too much for a lion. So he entered one of the caves to take shade in it.

    فلَمَّا رَبَضَ أتَى إِلَيْهِ جُرَذٌ But when/after he lay down, a rat came to him.

    It is clear from the context that the rat's coming to the resting lion was a pure coincident and there was no intention in the rat's mind to come to the lion and climb on top of him. I am sure you will agree with this. The remaining part of the sentence is:

    يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ فوَثَبَ قائِماً

    he (the rat) walks on his (the lion's) back and he (the lion) jumped up to his feet.

    This section of the sentence, I have been translating with an "and" and a "past tense" in English.

    About the "and" you've said...
    - 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...
    You know there are many many situations in Arabic where there is no intervening و in Arabic but when we translate the same into English, more often than not we have to incorporate an "and" in the translation. One example is a group of adjectives in Arabic without the و. Another example is of a construction of the type...

    أنظُر إلی جسمهِ تری علی ظھرہ شیئاً مُرتَفِعاً یُقال لهُ سنام۔ Look at its body and you will see something raised called a hump.

    One more example..

    اشتری رجل سیارۃ مستعملة کثیرا ما تخرب و بعد أن أنففق علیھا فلوسا کثیرا قرّر أن یبیعَھا یشتریَ 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.
    So, I feel I am justified in adding an "and".

    Why change "he (the rat) walks on his (the lion's) back ..." to "and he (the rat) walked on his (the lion's) back.."? I have quoted a number of scholars already but to reitterate..

    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
    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."
    My reason for translating يَمْشِي with a past tense is based on a quote from Wickens (post 64) and the following from, "A Grammar of Classical Arabic (Wolfdietrich Fischer/Translated by: Jonathan Rodgers- 1972/2000", page 105 section 186

    "If the context refers to the past, that which occurred in the past may be described with the imperfect:

    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا علی إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    When morning came, Amr said, who blasphemed against our God? Then he set out (imperfect) very early to look for him". When he finally found him, he purged him."
    إذا أصبح عمرو قال من عدا علی إلھنا ثمّ یغدو یلتسِمَه حتّی إذا وجدہ غسله

    AGrammar Of Classical Arabic : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    You yourself have quoted the following example which has been translated with "and" followed by a past tense verb.
    * 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...
    And I quoted the following example from Tritton..

    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.
    So, it seems that the use of both "and" and the past tense is justified.

    I found the following sentence in Wicken's book which I believe is almost identical to your sentence. You would agree that both sentences are of the الحال المقدّرہ type where the time of the حال is after the time of the ذوالحال and not simultaneous with it. I have added الأسد in your sentence and changed the order of a couple of words to facilitate comparison and translation.

    جاء رجل إلی رسول اللّهِ یُریدُ الإسلامَ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔فأسلمَ

    A man came to the Messenger of Allah wanting Islam.....and he became a Muslim. (Here "wanting" does not imply simultaneity but sequence).

    or

    A man came to the Messenger of Allah to want/to acquire Islam... and he became a Muslim.

    or

    A man came to the Messenger of Allah to become a Muslim...and he became a Muslim.

    In this example, the man clearly had the intension of becoming a Muslim at some stage before getting to the Prophet (Peace be upon him).

    ًفلَمَّا رَبَضَ) ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔أتَى جُرَذٌ إِلی الأسدِ يَمْشِي عَلى ظهْرِهِ۔۔۔۔۔فوَثَبَ قائِما)

    Ignoring what's in brackets..

    A rat came to the lion walking on his (the lion's) back ....So (the lion) jumped up to his feet!

    Here "walking" gives the impression, at least in English, that the actions of the حال verb (أتَى) and the ذوالحال verb (يَمْشِي) are simultaneous which they are not.

    A rat came to the lion to walk on his (the lion's) back ....So (the lion) jumped up to his feet!

    "to walk" implies purpose (again, from an English perspective) and we know the rat had no purpose/intention of climbing over the lion who was resting. A rat that he is, on impulse he decided to do the naughty deed! :)

    So, finally we have..

    A rat came to the lion and walked on his (the lion's) back ....So (the lion) jumped up to his feet!

    The verb أتی is in a ماضي tense. The rat, at a time after his arrival decided to walk on the lion's back. So, the time of the verb یمشي is after أتی and therefore can and here should be translated with a past tense in English.

    I hope I've presented my "case" and line of thinking clearly and logically.

    PS: There is a scholarly article entitled "Technical Terms in Arabic Grammatical Tradition and Their Everyday Meanings - The Case of al-haal al-muqaddarra" by Almog Kasher in which he surveys the works of a number of Classical Arabic language grammarians and how they understood this kind of 7aal.

    "Therefore, haal muqaddara means “intended (or:decreed) state” or “supposed (i.e expected, anticipated) state”. (page 203)

    "Al-Zaggaag thus uses the expression Haal mutawaqqa3a as a synonym of Haal muqaddara" (page 206)

    "The term muqaddara is a (near-) synonym of e.g مُنتَظَرۃ and مُتَوَقَّعَة and an antonym of e.g. muqaarina and waaqi3ah" (page 210)

    Technical terms in Arabic grammatical tradition and their everyday meanings: The case of al-ḥāl al-muqaddara
     
    Last edited:

    Ibn Nacer

    Senior Member
    French - France
    Salut,

    Thank you for all these efforts, these explanations, these references ...

    Thank you for starting this thread. I believe I've learnt quite a lot from it!
    I too learned a lot from your messages with examples and references ... Thank you.

    From "Tense and Text in Classical Arabic " by Michael Marmorstein - page 80

    It should be noted that the distinction between an attribute* and a predicative asyndetic clause** in not always clear cut. In many cases where the nominal antecedent (the موصوف or ذوالحال) is indefinite, it seems that both the interpretations are equally plausible.....
    Very good ! I also concluded (in the message* #43) that this structure ("an undefined noun + a sentence") could have these two interpretations* but I did not have an answer (confirmation) ... I also deduce that this author also think that this type of sentence can be a Haal (although the ذو الحال is indefinite), it's a good thing to have a confirmation ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I hope I've presented my "case" and line of thinking clearly and logically.
    Yes it is clear, it is well presented with examples and references. It is not always easy to find examples and explanations of different authors. It's a long research work ... Thank you for that...


    PS: There is a scholarly article entitled "Technical Terms in Arabic Grammatical Tradition and Their Everyday Meanings - The Case of al-haal al-muqaddarra" by Almog Kasher in which he surveys the works of a number of Classical Arabic language grammarians and how they understood this kind of 7aal.

    "Therefore, haal muqaddara means “intended (or:decreed) state” or “supposed (i.e expected, anticipated) state”. (page 203)

    "Al-Zaggaag thus uses the expression Haal mutawaqqa3a as a synonym of Haal muqaddara" (page 206)

    "The term muqaddara is a (near-) synonym of e.g مُنتَظَرۃ and مُتَوَقَّعَة and an antonym of e.g. muqaarina and waaqi3ah" (page 210)
    Very good, It is rare to find articles on this subject...
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    The context to your sentence is:

    أسد مرۃً اشتدَّ علیهِ حرُّ الشّمسِ۔ فدخل إلی بعض المغائرِ یتظَلَّلُ بھا۔
    The word given in Hans Wehr dictionary for caves is given as مغایر and not مغائر. I don't know if this makes a difference.

    "Al-Zaggaag thus uses the expression Haal mutawaqqa3a as a synonym of Haal muqaddara" (page 206)
    The grammarian in question is ابو اسحاق الزَّجَّاج.
     

    Romeel

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    The word given in Hans Wehr dictionary for caves is given as مغایر and not مغائر. I don't know if this makes a difference.
    Arabs sometime change ء after ا to ي

    like:
    عجائز = عجايز
    عمائم = عمايم
    رسائل = رسايل

    etc
     
    Top