pierced (ears, nose, eyebrow)

    • It would be ثَقْبُ الْأُذُنِ (ear piercing) or آذَانٌ مَثْقُوبَةٌ (pierced ears).

    She has pierced ears:
    لَهَا أُذُنَانِ مَثْقُوبَتَانِ
     
    elroy said:
    This is not very natural. A more natural Arabic construction is أذناها مثقوبتان.
    Click to expand...
    This translates more directly to "Her ears are pierced" than it does to "She has pierced ears." These are more or less along the same meaning generally, but there could be a difference based on context. Here is one source which uses لها أذنان مثقوبتان. Use ctrl+F and type in أذنان.
     
    I am well aware of the literal translation of each, and I didn't say there were no conceivable contexts in which yours could be used. Generally speaking, though, yours is not a natural Arabic construction and sounds like a calque.

    I can't think of any material difference in meaning.
     
    Last edited:
    You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not a fan of the "natural" argument you continually bring up in MSA, since it's not really a language that is based on instinct, not to mention that it's a subjective argument to begin with. In fact, I think it's a very unreliable argument based on personal experience, such as when native speakers have insisted to me that it should be "لم نراه" instead of "لم نره", and I'm certain the majority of native speakers will tell you that the former sounds more "natural" than the latter. I especially see it as a weak argument in the case of themes not generally used in MSA. It's unlikely for one to come across the theme of pierced ears in MSA in order to declare a common construction in other themes (e.g. له+(اسم) +(نعت)ـ) as not a natural one in this particular theme. Nevertheless, this should probably be its own thread.
     
    Last edited:
    Matat said:
    It's unlikely for one to come across the theme of pierced ears in MSA in order to declare a common construction in other themes (e.g. له+(اسم) +(نعت)ـ) as not a natural one in this particular theme.
    Click to expand...
    You're right, but we can try comparing it with more common descriptions of body parts. Which would sound more natural/common to you:
    لها عينان سوداوان or عيناها سوداوان?
    له ساقان طويلتان or ساقاه طويلتان?

    If you use له+جزء/عضو من الجسم+نعت it would mean that a person can have two pierced ears and other unpierced one(s). This is why له أذنان مثقوبتان does not sound natural. It's more than just the construction (which in itself is not uncommon) but it's the inferred meaning.
    On the other hand, we can and do say له ابن ذكي، له زوجة صالحة because it is not inconceivable or strange that he may have other kids/wife.
     
    Matat said:
    This is a pretty rude question, but yes, I'm very real. MSA is purely a learned language, not an instinctual naturally spoken one.
    Click to expand...

    All languages are learned. Native speakers of Arabic have an instinct for MSA as cherine just demonstrated and elroy has told you many times.
     
    cherine said:
    You're right, but we can try comparing it with more common descriptions of body parts. Which would sound more natural/common to you:
    لها عينان سوداوان or عيناها سوداوان?
    له ساقان طويلتان or ساقاه طويلتان?
    Click to expand...
    I don't think you can ask which is more "natural/common", since I think natural and common are two separate things. To me, these sound like you're saying two separate, but equally valid, sentences ("Her eyes are black" and "She has black eyes"), despite the same overall meaning in a general context, so they both sound fine to me based on what exactly you're trying to say and which flavor of language you are trying to use. I guess one can discuss which of the two phrases is used more commonly, and from that perspective, I see your point and agree with you. In English, my gut feeling says that "She has pierced ears" is used more commonly than "Her ears are pierced" (though I may be wrong), but I certainly wouldn't say that the latter sounds unnatural.

    cherine said:
    If you use له+جزء/عضو من الجسم+نعت it would mean that a person can have two pierced ears and other unpierced one(s).
    Click to expand...
    Wouldn't this be based on context though? I don't know whether the actual construction itself has anything to do with suggesting one could have more or less of something.

    apricots said:
    All languages are learned. Native speakers of Arabic have an instinct for MSA as cherine just demonstrated and elroy has told you many times.
    Click to expand...
    You can't compare a native speaker of most other languages and their language to a native speaker of Arabic to MSA. One can familiarize themselves with MSA to a certain degree, but even that will only get you so far. An Arabic speaker can't hope to speak MSA fluently with relatively few mistakes without knowing full well the grammar they are using. One does not naturally acquire the ability to decline nouns properly or use correct verb moods. A Spanish speaker doesn't need to know when to switch from indicative to subjunctive; it happens naturally. An Arabic speaker who uses correct tenses and moods in MSA is not doing so naturally; they are very conscious of what they are doing and when they are doing it, and without the proper training, they can't hope to read, write, and speak MSA fluently with relatively few mistakes. Moreover, MSA is used mostly in formal contexts, so there are many common day-to-day themes which you'll rarely come across in MSA, unless you make an effort to diversify the contents which you read.

    momai said:
    Just a tiny correction,I think it should be actually عيناها سوداوتان
    3ayn is feminine.
    Click to expand...
    No, it should be سوداوان. The singular is سوداء, which you're right is feminine, but its feminine marker is not a ة. In order to make it dual, the ء becomes a و and you add a ـان.
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top