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