Grammatical differences

[scaramanga]

Salam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

What are the grammatical difference of

ضَرَبَ زيدٌ and زيدٌ ضَرَبَ?

Jazzakum Allah Khair

[seeker4ever]

Wa-alaikum Assalam wa-Rahmatullahi wa-Barakatuhu


ضَرَبَ زيدٌ is a Jumlah fil'ya (i.e. verbal sentence) that begins with a verb where ضَرَبَ is the verb and زيدٌ is the doer of the action. The irab would be:

ضَرَبَ : fil maadi mabni ala al-fath
زيدٌ : faail marfoo bi ad-dammah

زيدٌ ضَرَبَ is a Jumlah Ismiyya (i.e. a noun sentence) that begins with a noun, where زيدٌ is the subject and the "sentence" ضَرَبَ is the predicate. The irab would be:

زيدٌ : mubtada marfoo bi ad-dammah
ضَرَبَ : fil maadi mabni ala al-fath wa faail dameer mustatir taqdiruhu huwa
(i.e. the doer is an implicit huwa that points back to Zayd)
wa shibh jumla min al fil wa al faail khabar al-mubtada
(the sentence "daraba {huwa}" is a predicate to the mubtada (zayd)

I think the above is the grammatical analysis of the two. Others can correct if wrong...

Wassalam

[scaramanga]

Alhamdullilah, jazzak Allah khair.

That clears up a lot.

What would the translation be of both of the sentences? Both of the sentence have the same meaning i think. If so, why do they write in two different ways? Is it because of emphasise?

[Rahmaniyyah]

Alhamdullilah, jazzak Allah khair.

That clears up a lot.

What would the translation be of both of the sentences? Both of the sentence have the same meaning i think. If so, why do they write in two different ways? Is it because of emphasise?

:salam:

They do have the same meaning but Jumlah Ismiyyah is a more emphatic form because it begins with an Ism. Ism is not bound by time hence more definite.

That is what I can recall, perhaps mistaken and others can correct.

Wasalam

[tarek1]

ضَرَبَ زيدٌ means that zaid is the subject,while زيدٌ ضَرَبَ means zaid is the object.

[sahih-baba]

ضَرَبَ زيدٌ means that zaid is the subject,while زيدٌ ضَرَبَ means zaid is the object.

i don't think so, because in both cases it is zayd-UN, which is the subject.

[Rahmaniyyah]

ضَرَبَ زيدٌ means that zaid is the subject,while زيدٌ ضَرَبَ means zaid is the object.

Does it?

Can you re-check please, doesn't make sense to me

:ws:

[mustajab]

ضَرَبَ زيدٌ means that zaid is the subject,while زيدٌ ضَرَبَ means zaid is the object.

I believe in the first one Zaid is the faail, and the second one Zaid is the mubtada(subject)

[mospike]

The following should clarify the matter by way of teaching and example:


What is the theory of الْعَمَل ?

Basically, the theory of الْعَمَل involves;
• an effect / change
• at the end of a word
• produced by another word preceding it.

Thus, in the following sentences:

جَاءَ الْمُدَرِّسُ (The teacher came)
سَأَلْتُ الْمُدَرِّسَ (I asked the teacher)
سَلَّمْتُ عَلَى الْمُدَرِّسِ (I greeted the teacher)

the effect / change is the الضَّمَّة , the الْفَتْحَة and the الْكَسْرَة at the end of "الْمُدَرِّس" produced by "جَاءَ" in the first sentence, "سَأَل" in the second sentence and "عَلَى" in the third sentence respectively.

The effect / change in Arabic is called "الْعَمَل" , the word at whose end the effect / change is produced is called the "الْمَعْمُوْل" and the word which produces the effect / change is called the "الْعَامِل" .

Remark (Optional Reading): The reason for these changes or effects produced at the end of "الْمُدَرِّس" is to distinguish the different grammatical roles or functions that a word like "الْمُدَرِّس" acquires when placed in a sentence. Prior to its existence in the sentence, "الْمُدَرِّس" had no other meaning apart from “the teacher”. However, when it was placed after the verb "جَاءَ" it acquired the grammatical role of being the one performing the action indicated by that verb i.e. the one doing the coming. Likewise, when it was placed after the verb "سَأَلْتُ" it acquired the grammatical role of being the direct object of the action indicated by that verb i.e. the one to whom asking is done directly. Also, when it was placed after the preposition "عَلَى" it acquired the grammatical role of being the indirect object of the action of the verb "سَلَّمْتُ" since the verb is connected indirectly to the object i.e. via the particle (or more specifically the preposition) "عَلَى" .
Thus, every action necessarily has a doer And optionally an object to which the verb is either directly or indirectly connected.











As these grammatical roles are all abstract meanings existing only in the mind of the speaker, the classical Arabs devised a system of phonetically and diacritically marking the ending of a word in order to make these grammatical roles known to the listener. Thus, the grammatical role of the doer of the action in the sentence became known by means of a ضَمَّة at the end of the word. The grammatical role of the direct object of the action became known by means of a فَتْحَة at the end of the word. The grammatical role of the indirect object of the action became known by means of a كَسْرَة at the end of the word.

Therefore, "الْمُدَرِّس" :
• being the doer of the verb "جَاءَ" in the first sentence is marked with a ضَمَّة at its end,
• being the direct object of the verb "سَأَلْتُ" in the second sentence, is marked with a فَتْحَة , and finally
• being the indirect object of the verb "سَلَّمْتُ" in the third sentence (in that the action is transferred onto the object via the preposition "عَلَى" ), is marked with a كَسْرَة .














In Arabic grammar the verb is referred to as the الْفِعْل , the doer as the الْفَاعِل , the direct object as the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ and the indirect object as the الاسْم الْمَجْرُوْر بِحَرْفِ الْجَرِّ .

In Arabic sentences comprising the الْفِعْل , the الْفَاعِل and the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ combination – no matter what the word-order – the noun marked with the الضَّمَّة is always going to be the الْفَاعِل (whether grammatically or semantically) and the noun marked with the الْفَتْحَة is always going to be the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ as illustrated in the following sentences:

ضَرَبَ زَيْدٌ خَالِداً [Zaid hit Khalid (with normal emphasis)] VSO
ضَرَبَ خَالِداً زَيْدٌ [Zaid hit Khalid (with different emphasis)] VOS
خَالِداً ضَرَبَ زَيْدٌ [Zaid hit Khalid (with different emphasis)] OVS
زَيْدٌ ضَرَبَ خَالِداً [Zaid hit Khalid (with different emphasis)] SVO

Compare this with the English:

Zaid hit Khalid
Khalid hit Zaid

In the examples:

جَاءَ الْمُدَرِّسُ (The teacher came)
سَأَلْتُ الْمُدَرِّسَ (I asked the teacher)
سَلَّمْتُ عَلَى الْمُدَرِّسِ (I greeted the teacher)

we indicated the الْفَاعِل , the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ and the الاسْم الْمَجْرُوْر بِحَرْفِ الْجَرِّ in separate sentences. However, it is possible for them to occur all in one sentence, e.g.

"سَأَلَ الطَّالِبُ الْمُدَرِّسَ عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ" (The student asked the teacher about the problem / issue)

Here, "الطَّالِبُ" is the الْفَاعِل ,
"الْمُدَرِّسَ" the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ , and
"الْمَسْأَلَةِ" the الاسْم الْمَجْرُوْر بِحَرْفِ الْجَرِّ .

We mentioned earlier that Arabic has a flexible word-order and that in sentences comprising the الْفِعْل , the الْفَاعِل , the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ and the الاسْم الْمَجْرُوْر بِحَرْفِ الْجَرِّ combination: the الْفَاعِل , the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ and the الاسْم الْمَجْرُوْر بِحَرْفِ الْجَرِّ are determined by how their endings are marked. Thus, the following are some of the word-orders.

"سَأَلَ الْمُدَرِّسَ الطَّالِبُ عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ" (V – O – S – PP)
"سَأَلَ عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ الطَّالِبُ الْمُدَرِّسَ" (V – PP – S – O)
"سَأَلَ الْمُدَرِّسَ عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ الطَّالِبُ" (V – O – PP – S)
"الْمُدَرِّسَ سَأَلَ الطَّالِبُ عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ" (O – V – S – PP)
"عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ سَأَلَ الطَّالِبُ الْمُدَرِّسَ" (PP – V – S – O)

V = Verb → سَأَلَ

S = Subject → الطَّالِبُ

O = Object → الْمُدَرِّسَ

PP = Prepositional Phrase → عَنِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ


In all of the above sentences: "الطَّالِبُ" is the الْفَاعِل , "الْمُدَرِّسَ" the الْمَفْعُوْل بِهِ , and "الْمَسْأَلَةِ" the الاسْم الْمَجْرُوْر بِحَرْفِ الْجَرِّ .

[MRahman]

I believe in the first one Zaid is the faail, and the second one Zaid is the mubtada(subject)

Yes - that is correct - a general term for both these is - musnad ilai.

[mospike]

Always look at Iraab when translating