كان + Perfect / وقد + Perfect

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#1
Hi, could please anybody explain me the difference in using كان + Perfect and وقد + Perfect when they are the marks of the Pluperfect.
It is said in the Wright Grammar Vol 2, articles 3b and 3c, p.5, that parts of the sentences with the كان or the وقد both are the الحال - tha state of condition. There are two sentences below:
1. أَخْرَجَهُ وَقَدْ عُمِّىَ - he led him out blinded
2
. مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَكَانَ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ - Ar-Rashid died at Tus, after he had set out to Horasan.
In both cases the parts marked by the
كان or the وقد expressed the explanation of the state of condition in which the action took place.
1. Somebody had blinded him before he was taken out. He had been already blinded
2. Ar-Rashid died after he had set out to Horasan. He had been already in the country of Horasan when died in the city of Tus, which was inside the country of Horasan.
If the
كان and the وقد play here the same role is it possible to interchange them in the sentences without loosing the meaning of the sentences?
As below:

1. أَخْرَجَهُ وَكَانَ عُمِّىَ
2. مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ

What I'd like to know asking this question is to feel the general difference in using كان + Perfect and وقد + Perfect, not only in these particular examples
Thank you in advance.
Now I can see only one difference. In the first sentence the man was late to come and the another man had been blinded. In the second sentence on the contrary Ar-Rashid came in time just to meet his death.
 
Last edited:

ayed

Senior Member
Arabic(Saudi)
#2
أخرجه وقد عمي= He reported it (a Hadith) as he was alread blind
مات الرشيد بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان= Al-Rashid had set out to Khurasaan and died in Tus
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#5
It sounds fine to me. He died after having gone to Khorasan.
It sounds the opposite to me and this is not possible.

مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان
What is the difference between كان خرج and قد خرج?
 

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#6
What is the difference between كان خرج and قد خرج?
Yes, that was the question. Because in the Wright's the كان + Perfect and وقد + Perfect were placed in dseparate articles. So, may be the using of them are also different.
I found the difference about which I'd told in the starting post, this one:
In the first sentence the man was late to come and the another man had been blinded. In the second sentence on the contrary Ar-Rashid came in time just to meet his death.
But now I've found one more difference
1. أَخْرَجَهُ وَقَدْ عُمِّىَ - he led him out blinded - there are two subjects : the man who led and the man who was blinded.
2. مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَكَانَ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ - Ar-Rashid died at Tus, after he had set out to Horasan. - there is only one subject - Ar-Rashid- he died and he set out.
 

elroy

Imperfect Mod
US English/Palestinian Arabic bilingual
#7
It sounds the opposite to me and this is not possible.
For that, I would not use قد with the second verb.

جاء جميل وقد ابتلّت ثيابه
This, to me, means that his clothes were wet when he arrived.

جاء جميل وابتلّت ثيابه
This means that his clothes got wet after he arrived.
 

elroy

Imperfect Mod
US English/Palestinian Arabic bilingual
#9
I would use قد (جاء جميل وكانت قد ابتلّت ثيابه / كانت ثيابه قد ابتلّت), but I think yours may be correct as well.

Either way, the meaning would be that his clothes were wet when he arrived.
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#10
For that, I would not use قد with the second verb.
I would not use it too.
جاء جميل وقد ابتلّت ثيابه
This, to me, means that his clothes were wet when he arrived.
This sounds fine
but مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان still odd to me.
I would use قد
(جاء جميل وكانت قد ابتلّت ثيابه / كانت ثيابه قد ابتلّت)
Agree. :thumbsup:
Also we can say جاء جميل وثيابه مبتلة
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#12
I'm sorry, but I still can't see the difference between using كان + the Perfect verb and وقد + the Perfect verb. )))
Can you please don't touch any cases outside the scope of the topic. I always for the free and unrescticted discussions but I hoped to find in this topic the difference only between these two cases that look for me very similar, but in the grammar book they are devided into two different articles without the explanations about their similarities and differences.
I gave the link and the number of the page. This part of the book is about the Pluperfect - in English it is the Past Perfect. There are variants of forming the Past Perfect (it is said in the book):
1. Perfect+Perfect
2. كان + Perfect
3. وقد + Perfect
4. قد + كان + Perfect
If we are not touching now the numbers 1 and 4 what can you say about numbers 2 and 3?
All examples I gave are from the book, the english translation is also from the book. And I have a question why in the sentence 1. أَخْرَجَهُ وَقَدْ عُمِّىَ - he led him out blinded it was used the وَقَدْ, is it possible to use in this sentence كان instead of وَقَدْ? If you think it is possible, can you please explain would it be any differences in their meanings. If you think that the new sentence sounds odd, can you please explain why.
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#13
I don't know if there is a specific rule for using كان +past or قد +past tense
It's right that قد used in indication التحقيق and to approximate the past to the present التقريب (and in other cases)
but the difference between it and كان is not that clear.

In simple sentences like:
1-لعبت بالكرة , بنيت منزلا , اشتريت حقيبة
2-وقد لعبت بالكرة , وقد بنيت منزلا, وقد اشتريت حقيبة
3-كنت قد لعبت بالكرة , كنت قد بنيت منزلا , كنت قد اشتريت حقيبة

-The first is a past simple tense so the translation is: I played football , I built a house , I bought a bag.
-The second is قد and usually we translate قد+past simple in Arabic into the past perfect in English : I have played football, I have built a house , I have bought a bag.
-The third :I don't know what the translation would be but I think if there is two sentences then قد+كان+past indicate that this is the first action happened.
- كان +past tense is correct but usually we don't use it so, it's better to not use it.

In general , we use either قد+past or just the verb in the past tense (1 and 2) in any case and both are correct.
And I have a question why in the sentence 1. أَخْرَجَهُ وَقَدْ عُمِّىَ - he led him out blinded it was used the وَقَدْ, is it possible to use in this sentence كان instead of وَقَدْ? If you think it is possible, can you please explain would it be any differences in their meanings. If you think that the new sentence sounds odd, can you please explain why.
I think it's possible to use كان but I couldn't get the meaning of this sentence to explain the differences in their meaning.
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#14
What is the correct translation then?
مات الرشيد بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان
I wouldn't say it this way in Arabic.
In English as you said "Al-Rashid had set out to Khurasan and died in Tus."
and elroy said "He died in Tus after having gone to Khorasan."
 

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#15
Sun_shine, thank you for your reply. As I see the كان +past tense came from the antient times and is not in use nowadays. I got it.
But you wrote before:
but مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان still odd to me.
Can you explain please, why you feel it odd? What's wrong with it?
And what about the initial sentence from the book:
مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَكَانَ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ
Does it seem odd to you too? May be it's just a very old sentence, and nobody speaks like this nowadays? Or does this sentence seem OK for you?

The next point. It is told in the book that both the كان + Perfect and the وقد + Perfect are used in a role of الحال in the sentences where one part of the sentence depends on another part of it. As I understand it, it's imposible to use وقد + Perfect in the sentences where the part of the sentence are not depend upon each other.
That is why, I think that your can't use the example below:
2-وقد لعبت بالكرة , وقد بنيت منزلا, وقد اشتريت حقيبة
Here should be the Simple Perfect.
 

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#16
Hi Ayed
مات الرشيد بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان= Al-Rashid had set out to Khurasaan and died in Tus
You gave the same translation as it had been in the grammar book. Do you think that the meaning of the sentence with كان was the same to the meaning of the sentence with وقد
Nothing has been changed?
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#17
But you wrote before:
مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان still odd to me.
Can you explain please, why you feel it odd? What's wrong with it?
This sentence is confusing because some would understand it as he died after having gone to Khorasan
but to other ,including me, it seems the opposite (that he died first) and this is impossible.

And what about the initial sentence from the book:
مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَكَانَ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ
Does it seem odd to you too? May be it's just a very old sentence, and nobody speaks like this nowadays? Or does this sentence seem OK for you?
It seems OK but I wouldn't use it like that.

The next point. It is told in the book that both the كان + Perfect and the وقد + Perfect are used in a role of الحال in the sentences where one part of the sentence depends on another part of it. As I understand it, it's imposible to use وقد + Perfect in the sentences where the part of the sentence are not depend upon each other.
That is why, I think that your can't use the example below:
وقد لعبت بالكرة , وقد بنيت منزلا, وقد اشتريت حقيبة
Here should be the Simple Perfect.
You mean the particle "و" ?
-I said وقد because this is not the beginning of the sentence.
-You can use قد in the beginning of the sentence (without و)
 

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#18
but to other ,including me, it seems the opposite (that he died first) and this is impossible.
It's really very interesting. But if we leave the كَانَ in the sentence it would not look as he had died first and then went to Horosan? But why? It's written in the book that the قد and the كَانَ both were the marks of Past Perfect. Maybe in MSA the قد doesn't play this role nowadays?
Then what can you say about the sentence أَخْرَجَهُ وَقَدْ عُمِّىَ If we use the same logic, the meaning of the sentence would be like: Somobody(the man-1) led him (the man-2) out and after that the man-2 was blinded.
You mean the particle "و" ?
No. I ment that the Past Perfect can't be alone, without the preceding or the subsequent clause of the Simple Past. Because the Past Perfect is the mark of the event that happend before something mentioned before or after.

Sorry, I've just noticed that you'd written in your English examples the have, not the had. Maybe you ment the Present Perfect? If so I understand what you mean but in this case the قد means the 'already' or 'surely' and it is out of the scope of my question which concerns only the using of the قد for expressing the event-1 that was happend before the event-2, as in English Past Perfect.
The second is قد and usually we translate قد+past simple in Arabic into the past perfect in English : I have played football, I have built a house , I have bought a bag.
May be my assumption that the قد+past simple is not used for forming the Past Perfect nowadays is right?
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#19
The second is قد and usually we translate قد+past simple in Arabic into the past perfect in English : I have played football, I have built a house , I have bought a bag.
May be my assumption that the قد+past simple is not used for forming the Past Perfect nowadays is right?
I'm really sorry, it's my fault
I mean the present perfect
It's really very interesting. But if we leave the كَانَ in the sentence it would not look as he had died first and then went to Horosan? But why?
This depends on the person who reads the sentence.
Of course anyone reads this sentence with قد or كان will understand that he went to Khorasan first because the opposite is not possible
but in other sentences a person may be confused about which of them happened first.
Then what can you say about the sentence أَخْرَجَهُ وَقَدْ عُمِّىَ If we use the same logic, the meaning of the sentence would be like: Somobody(the man-1) led him (the man-2) out and after that the man-2 was blinded.
it seems fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#20
Than you, Sun_shine! And what do you think about this:
May be my assumption that the قد+past simple is not used for forming the Past Perfect nowadays is right?
Can you give some modern language examples where the قد+past simple would be in the meaning of Past Perfect?
How would you say in arabic in natural way, for example, this:
The boy went into the building and saw his father who had come to the place earlier.
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#21
Can you give some modern language examples where the قد+past simple would be in the meaning of Past Perfect?
I think it's when you say قد+كان+ past
e.g.كان قد جاء
How would you say in arabic in natural way, for example, this:
The boy went into the building and saw his father who had come to the place earlier.
ذهب الولد للمبنى و رأى والده/أباه الذي كان قد جاء لهذا المكان مبكرا
 

Mahaodeh

Senior Member
Arabic, PA and IA.
#24
I have to admit that half way through I got bored and skipped it because the discussion seemed to me to be repeating itself. Hence I don't know if anyone mentioned this before.
كان + فعل ماض means that the action has happened in a time prior to the past that the sentence is talking about, it's known as الماضي البعيد (it doesn't necessarily mean ancient, just before the time we are talking about). Hence the sentence: مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَكَانَ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ means that Al Rasheed died in Tus and he had left to Khurasan prior to that.

قد is a little bit more complex. It is حرف تحقيق وتقريب وتقليل وتوقّع; we can forget about تقليل وتوقّع because they always come with فعل مضارع. With فعل ماض it could be either حرف تحقيق أو حرف تقريب. In the case of أخرجه وقد عمي it is حرف تحقيق because what is meant here is not that "the time of him becoming blind is immanent" (as in قد قامت الصلاة, that means 'the time of prayer is immanent'), it means that he is already blind. The difference between أخرجه وقد عمي and أخرجه وهو أعمى is that the first implies that he wasn't blind, then he became blind, then he was led out; whereas the second doesn't imply that, for all we know he could have always been blind.

but مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان still odd to me.
Of course it does, because here it means that after he died in Tus, he left for Khurasan. If you say something like: نزل الرشيد بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان, it no longer seems odd, does it? Because it means that he styed in Tus, and then he left for Khurasan. It also implies that he didn't set out for Khurasan until after he stayed in Tus, and now he had already left for it. Whereas if you say نزل الرشيد بطوس وكان خرج إلى خراسان it means that he stayed in Tus after he set out for Khurasan, so he was on his way when he stayed for a while in Tus.

Thus, the sentence مات الرشيد بطوس وكان خرج إلى خراسان is correct and it means that Al Rasheed set out for Khurasan, when he reached Tus he died. No contradiction here. He had set out for Khurasan in a past that is prior to his death that happened also in a past but after he set out for Khurasan.

In dialects we replace كان + فعل ماض with كان + اسم فاعل and would say something like: مات الرشيد بطوس وكان رايح ع خراسان. In Classical Arabic there is a difference between the two.
 

Mahaodeh

Senior Member
Arabic, PA and IA.
#26
Tus is in Khrasan
Huh, I did not know that. It makes the sentence نزل بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان also incorrect. In this case وقد خرج إلى خراسان incorrect no matter what the first verb is because he is already in Khurasan.

It doesn't affect the one with كان, just my understanding. كان خرج still indicates الماضي البعيد except that his death did not simply happen after he set out, it seemed to have happened after he reached Khurasan.
 
Arabic (Egyptian)
#27
Of course it does, because here it means that after he died in Tus, he left for Khurasan. If you say something like: نزل الرشيد بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان, it no longer seems odd, does it? Because it means that he styed in Tus, and then he left for Khurasan. It also implies that he didn't set out for Khurasan until after he stayed in Tus, and now he had already left for it. Whereas if you say نزل الرشيد بطوس وكان خرج إلى خراسان it means that he stayed in Tus after he set out for Khurasan, so he was on his way when he stayed for a while in Tus.
Yes, that's my opinion too.
 

lena55313

Senior Member
Russian-Russia
#28
Hi, Maha, I've just read your response and have some questions besides my initial ones which nobody answered)))
1. You said:
we can forget about تقليل وتوقّع because they always come with فعل مضارع.
But on page 4 (vol.2, Wright) it is written: إِنَّ الْبْنَتَكَ قَدْ مَاتَتْ that could mean either Your daughter is, as it was expected, dead (حرف التوقع) or Your daughter is just dead (حرف تحقيق)
So, maybe it's possible for the قَدْ to be with the فعل ماض (Perfect) too, not only with the عل مضارع(Imperfect)? Did you mean the Perfect and the Imperfect? Probably I misunderstood terms.
2.
نزل الرشيد بطوس وقد خرج إلى خراسان, ... it means that he styed in Tus, and then he left for Khurasan
I'm not talking now about the geography, cause when I read in the Grammar book the sentence about this Rashid I was surprised and started looking for these places in google and knew that Tus was the city inside the country of Horasan. ))) My question actually is about the using of the قَدْ as a mark of Pluperfect. The event with Perfect + قَدْ should happen before the event with simply Perfect. So the translation should be : Rashid had moved to Khurasan and after that he stayed in Tus. Isn't it?

3. And my initial question
could please anybody explain me the difference in using كان + Perfect and وقد + Perfect when they are the marks of the Pluperfect.
Writing the Pluperfect (I took this term from the Wright) I meant the English Past Perfect, when one event preceeded the another.
Can we say مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ in the meaning of: Ar-Rashid died after he had set out to Horasan. He had been already in the country of Horasan when died in the city of Tus, which was inside the country of Horasan - using the قَدْ instead of the كَانَ to express only the meaning of Past Perfect and not the meaning of expectation, confidence etc?
See, please, p5 Wright, vol.2 (b and c)
 
Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
#29
I don't know if this thread came to any conclusion but here is my two pennies' worth.

Rasheed lived in a place x. He travelled from x to a vast area y called Khorasan and within y, there is a city called Tus z where he unfortunately died.

مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَقَدْ خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ Rasheed died in Tus after having gone out to Khorasan.

وَقَدْ خَرَجَ is a 7aal

This is equivalent to:

اسلم عمر و قد کان کافراً Umar became a Muslim after having been an infidel.

.........................................................................................

i) مات الرشيد بطوس وكان خرج إلى خراسان
ii) مات الرشيد بطوس وكان قد خرج إلى خراسان
iii) مات الرشيد بطوس وقد كان خرج إلى خراسان

كان خرج , كان قد خرج , قد كان خرج all translate as "he had gone out", i.e the past perfect or pluperfect

i), ii) and iii) have the same meaning.

Rasheed died in Tus and he had gone out to Khorasan.

Or more idiomatically...

Rasheed died in Tus after he had gone out to Khorasan.

I hope this is of some help.
 
Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
#31
Interesting that the sentence مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَکان خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان is found in the late Professor A.S.Tritton's "Teach Yourself Arabic" (page 97) but he does not label it as 7aal . I here quote the relevant piece.

"کان is also an auxiliary verb; the perfect of it is used with another perfect to express the pluperfect; قد is sometimes added.

َمَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَکان خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَان

Rasheed died in Tus and (after) he had gone to Khurasan."

Wright's full sentence in fact is..

"مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَکان خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ لمحاربۃ رافع بن اللیث

'ar-Rashid died at Tus, after he had set out (literally and he had set out) for Horasan to combat Rafi' 'ibn el-Leit. These clauses also express the state (الحال)." Now I don't know exactly which clauses Wright is referring to. The original heading is ....

3. The Pluperfect is expressed:-

a) By the simple perfect.....

b) By the perfect with the particle قد preceded by وَ or without it, provided the preceding clause is one which has its verb in the perfect....the clauses with قد and وقد are clauses expressing a state or condition (حال).

c) By the verb کان to be prefixed to the perfect; as مَاتَ الرَّشِيدُ بِطُوسَ وَکان خَرَجَ إلى خُرَاسَانَ لمحاربۃ رافع بن اللیث

'ar-Rashid died at Tus, after he had set out (literally and he had set out) for Horasan to combat Rafi' 'ibn el-Leit. These clauses also express the state (الحال)."
 
Top