Difference between يكون and يوجد

[crizzis]

Sorry if this is a very basic question, but I am a noob in Arabic, still.

I am a bit confused as to when to choose one over the other. It doesn't help that some of the dictionaries translate them both as to be and to exist, both at the same time.

My gut feeling is that يوجد refers to physically existing somewhere, as in لا يوجد كرسي في الغرفة, while يكون is more about describing things and their properties, e.g. سيكون عمر طبيب.

Do you know of some sort of reference that could help me distinguish between the two?

 

[yerus]

My gut feeling is that يوجد refers to physically existing somewhere, as in لا يوجد كرسي في الغرفة, while يكون is more about describing things and their properties, e.g. سيكون عمر طبيب.

Correct. For instance "keef akoun sadee2" means "how to be happy" -- a non-tangible state (of being). Yujad / mawjud is a physical presence

*Don't have arabic keyboard on device I'm using, if you want I can add it in later and expand on it*

 

[Mahaodeh]

يوجَد is the present tense passive voice of the verb وَجَدَ = to find. Hence technically وُجِدَ يُوجَدُ = to be found, which could also mean to exist in some contexts, but definitely not all as that is not the inherent meaning. The verb is obviously transitive when active, but the object becomes the subject when passive and thus it wouldn’t take an object.

كان is active not passive. The verb can work either as فعل تام (regular verb) in which case it would mean “to be” or “to exist”. This verb is intransitive so technically it should take the passive voice.

The other way it can be used, and arguably much more commonly, is as فعل ناقص (also known as كان and it’s sisters, perhaps you know them?) is not a regular verb. Basically these verbs only have the temporal part of the meaning and not the root meaning, that is, if you add كان at the beginning of a sentence, what it does is change it to the past (or press or future), but it doesn’t add the meaning of either “being” or “existing”. The best translation would probably be using a verb to be - as an auxiliary verb not as an actual verb meaning “to exist”.

Now back to your examples:
لا يوجد كرسي في الغرفة literally means “a chair is not found here”, which in this context basically means “there is no chair here”, or, if you want “a chair doesn’t exist here”.

Whereas in سيكون عمر طبيب, the verb يكون here is فعل ناقص, it doesn’t matter what the regular verb كان means because here it doesn’t use that meaning, what it does is change the time of the original sentence to the future.
The original sentence is nominal (the auxiliary كان is only used with nominal sentences) is: عمر طبيب = Omar is a doctor. In English the only way to translate this is by using a verb to be. Now add سيكون and the sentence becomes: سيكون عمر طبيبا = Omar will be a doctor.
The pas would be: كان عمر طبيبا Omar was a doctor.

The be was already there, it didn’t come with يكون, it just changed the time.

 

[crizzis]

يوجَد is the present tense passive voice of the verb وَجَدَ = to find. Hence technically وُجِدَ يُوجَدُ = to be found, which could also mean to exist in some contexts, but definitely not all as that is not the inherent meaning. The verb is obviously transitive when active, but the object becomes the subject when passive and thus it wouldn’t take an object.

كان is active not passive. The verb can work either as فعل تام (regular verb) in which case it would mean “to be” or “to exist”. This verb is intransitive so technically it should take the passive voice.

The other way it can be used, and arguably much more commonly, is as فعل ناقص (also known as كان and it’s sisters, perhaps you know them?) is not a regular verb. Basically these verbs only have the temporal part of the meaning and not the root meaning, that is, if you add كان at the beginning of a sentence, what it does is change it to the past (or press or future), but it doesn’t add the meaning of either “being” or “existing”. The best translation would probably be using a verb to be - as an auxiliary verb not as an actual verb meaning “to exist”.

Now back to your examples:
لا يوجد كرسي في الغرفة literally means “a chair is not found here”, which in this context basically means “there is no chair here”, or, if you want “a chair doesn’t exist here”.

Whereas in سيكون عمر طبيب, the verb يكون here is فعل ناقص, it doesn’t matter what the regular verb كان means because here it doesn’t use that meaning, what it does is change the time of the original sentence to the future.
The original sentence is nominal (the auxiliary كان is only used with nominal sentences) is: عمر طبيب = Omar is a doctor. In English the only way to translate this is by using a verb to be. Now add سيكون and the sentence becomes: سيكون عمر طبيبا = Omar will be a doctor.
The pas would be: كان عمر طبيبا Omar was a doctor.

The be was already there, it didn’t come with يكون, it just changed the time.

Thanks for the answer! So, essentially, if I understand correctly, the only role of كان in the example is to change the tense of the statement which would ordinarily (in the present tense) include no verb at all, right?

Out of curiosity, what would be an example of كان being used as فعل يام, is there any present tense scenario where it is needed and cannot be, well, skipped, so to speak?

Also, do you mean to say the base meaning of وجد is 'to find' as in 'to encounter', 'to stumble upon'? Is it synonymous with عثر?

Anyway, thanks again, your answer really cleared up a lot of things for me! شكراً جزيلاً

 

[Mahaodeh]

Thanks for the answer! So, essentially, if I understand correctly, the only role of كان in the example is to change the tense of the statement which would ordinarily (in the present tense) include no verb at all, right?

Pretty much, yes. The same applies to the others صار وأصبح وأمسى الخ.

Out of curiosity, what would be an example of كان being used as فعل يام, is there any present tense scenario where it is needed and cannot be, well, skipped, so to speak?

The best example is the Quran:
وَإِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَايَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ - سورة البقرة
It literally says that God would Oder something by saying “exist” (in the imperative) and it exists.

In most contexts you don’t really need such a verb, although you can’t rule out anything (I don’t know why I said there “arguably” I don’t think that anyone would disagree 🙂) but the مصدر and the active participial both are used. كون is commonly used to mean existence (note that it may be used as مصدر للفعل الناقص too), in addition to a noun meaning “universe”, and كائن is quite commonly used to mean “being” as in “a thing that exists”. Also, the verb is used a lot in philosophy (the “being” vs “becoming” debate for example).

Also, do you mean to say the base meaning of وجد is 'to find' as in 'to encounter', 'to stumble upon'? Is it synonymous with عثر?

yes, it means “to encounter”. And it is not synonymous with عثر because the latter means to literally stumble or trip, and the meaning of “to find” is figurative. Also عثر على الشيء is to find something or someone, especially if you were not expecting it (hence you tripped over it 🙂) while وجد doesn’t have to be a thing or a person, and it need not have been lost, and you may or may not have been expecting it.

Of course, the use of the figurative عثر and the more literal وجد intersects quite a lot.