arabic genitives as direct objects

[Vardelm]

Quick question (I think): if a sentence's direct object is a genitive construction where the 1st word is in the construct state, does the noun in the construct state appear in the accusative as well, or does the second noun appear in the accusative, or both, or neither?

[Arzena]

The principle I remember from my Arabic classes is that, in an idafa construction, all but the first element are in the construct case; the first element takes the appropriate grammatical case as required by syntax.

[Vardelm]

Hmm... Are you thinking of the genitive case as opposed to the construct state? My understanding is that the 1st noun is in the construct state (nominative or maybe accusative) and the 2nd now is "absolute" state and in the genitive case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E1%B8%8D%C4%81fah

Still, if the 1st element takes the appropriate case (nom vs acc) as you say then I think that still answers my question.

[Kuchigakatai]

Quick question (I think): if a sentence's direct object is a genitive construction where the 1st word is in the construct state, does the noun in the construct state appear in the accusative as well, or does the second noun appear in the accusative, or both, or neither?

Only the first one appears in the expected syntactic case of the nominal phrase. The second one is always in the genitive.

ʔata: ʔawla:du ʃ:urtˤi:ji:na
came.3.MASC sons.NOM.CONSTR policemen.GEN.DEF
'The policemen's sons came.'

raʔaitu ʔawla:da ʃ:urtˤi:ji:na
saw.1SG sons.ACC.CONSTR policemen.GEN.DEF
'I saw the policemen's sons.'



By the way, it may interest you that since Arabic has noun + adjective word order, adjectives modifying the first noun are relegated to the end. They can be identified because of their case marking though.

ʔawla:du ʃ:urtˤi:ji:na θ:ala:θatu
sons.NOM.CONSTR policemen.GEN.DEF three.MASC.NOM.DEF
'The policemen's three sons.'

Here, the adjective "three" takes definite marking because the whole ´iDaafa construction is considered definite for purposes of agreement. If the genitive noun in an ´iDaafa is indefinite, then the whole thing is indefinite too. If "three" modified "policemen", then it'd be in the genitive. Since case is usually not written, and it may also happen that both ´iDaafa nouns are in the genitive, this effectively means that what noun an adjective attaches to is often ambiguous.

Also, an ´iDaafa may be interrupted by a demonstrative determiner:

ʔawla:du ʔu:la:ʔika ʃ:urtˤi:ji:na
sons.NOM.CONSTR those.MASC policemen.GEN.DEF
'Those policemen's sons'

[Vardelm]

Thanks! Good info!

[holbuzvala]

@Vardelm

Even though your main question has been answered, it might also interest you to know what a maṣdar (verbal noun) taking a direct/indirect object can either be in an iḍāfa with the object in the genetive(majrūr), or with it in the accusative(manṣūb).

E.g.

'astaṭī3u qirāyat-a l-kitāb-i
1s.be.able read.MAṢDAR-ACC ART-book-GEN

'astaṭī3u l-qirāyat-a l-kitāb-a
1s.be.able ART-read.MAṢDAR-ACC ART-book-ACC

I can read the book.

[Vardelm]

Ooh, yeah that's kind of interesting! I hadn't thought about masdars taking a direct object, but it makes sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1st construction (w/ genitive) seems like the whole thing (qirāyat-a l-kitāb-i) becomes 1 single direct object for "'astaṭī3u", whereas in the other the direct object for "'astaṭī3u" is just "l-qirāyat-a" and "l-kitāb-a" is the direct object for the masdar. I don't know what the interpretation would be by Arabic speakers, but I can see that there would be a slight difference in style if not meaning.

BTW, "ART-" is for the definite article, correct?

This sample sentence, by using "be able", makes me think that there are probably quite a few constructions in Arabic & other Semitic languages that I haven't seen or thought about much yet. I would assume "I want to X" would be similar, using a masdar. I haven't seen much in the way of how a discussion would reference time, such as "When I arrived he had done X". The grammar books I have or what I have read online gives the basic forms of verbs & their translations, but doesn't go much beyond that. I'm sure part of it is that I'm limiting myself to materials that use transliteration.

[Kuchigakatai]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1st construction (w/ genitive) seems like the whole thing (qirāyat-a l-kitāb-i) becomes 1 single direct object for "'astaṭī3u", whereas in the other the direct object for "'astaṭī3u" is just "l-qirāyat-a" and "l-kitāb-a" is the direct object for the masdar.

I'd think something along those lines too. I'd say that "verbal noun + genitive object" behaves pretty much like a regular NP (the verbal noun is in the construct state even), while "verbal noun + accusative" is a non-finite clause (with the verbal noun in the definite state).

BTW, "ART-" is for the definite article, correct?

Yes.

I don't know what the interpretation would be by Arabic speakers, but I can see that there would be a slight difference in style if not meaning. [...]

This sample sentence, by using "be able", makes me think that there are probably quite a few constructions in Arabic & other Semitic languages that I haven't seen or thought about much yet. I would assume "I want to X" would be similar, using a masdar.

Arabic generally allows this sort of thing to be expressed with either the option of a subjunctive or a verbal noun (masˤdar). I think the construction with the subjunctive is both less formal and a bit more common. For example, holbuzvala's example could also be:

ʔastatˤi:ʔu ʔan ʔaqraʔa lkita:ba
can.1S SUB read.1S.SUBJ book.DEF.ACC
literally, "I can that I read[SUBJ] the book"

Same goes for "I want to do it". ("3SM" = third-person singular masculine.)

ʔuri:du ʔan ʔafʕala=hu
want.1S SUB do.1S.SUBJ=3SM

ʔuri:du faʕla=hu
want.1S do.MASDAR.ACC.CONSTR=3SM

(Note that the "verbal noun + accusative object" construction is not available with a pronominal direct object, because pronouns don't have accusative free morpheme forms (huwa '3SM' is only nominative). Instead, they only have bound forms that are incompatible with the definite state...)

I haven't seen much in the way of how a discussion would reference time, such as "When I arrived he had done X".

Badawi et al.'s reference grammar has a nice a discussion of this, contrasting the various words for "when" in Classical vs. Modern Standard Arabic even... They're of some lexical interest, but in terms of syntax, they're pretty boring: European-style subordinators that go at the beginning of the clause and take the indicative.

Arabic has compound verbs using the copula as an auxiliary. The pluperfect "had done" is translated with the pluperfect construction ka:na faʕala "be.3SM.PAST do.3SM.PAST", very often accompanied by qad "already".

ʕindama: wasˤaltu, ka:na qad faʕala ða:lika
when arrive.1S.PAST, be.3SM.PAST already do.3SM.PAST that.MASC
'When I arrived, he had (already) done that.'

Compound constructions:
- ka:na (qad) faʕala 'he had already done' (was + past = pluperfect)
- ka:na jafʕulu 'he was doing' (was + present = past continuous)
- ka:na sa=jafʕulu 'he was going to do' (was + future = future-in-the-past)
- jaku:nu (qad) faʕala 'he will have done' (be.future + past = future perfect)
- ʔan jaku:na (qad) faʕala 'that he had done' (be.subjunctive + past = subjunctive pluperfect)
- ʔan jaku:na jafʕalu 'that he has done' (be.subjunctive + present = subjunctive perfect)

I'm sure part of it is that I'm limiting myself to materials that use transliteration.

Well, you're in luck, because there are very many grammars of Arabic that use transliteration throughout. For example, Faruk Abu Chakra's Essential Grammar, Badawi et al.'s reference grammar, and Karen Ryding's reference grammar all romanize every single word and example (well, Ryding doesn't in her many conjugation tables, but that's about it).

The problem with most Arabic grammars is that they assume you know some Arabic, enough to follow the morphosyntax of example sentences without explanation, having been given only a translation into English. As with Latin, Ancient Greek or Classical Chinese, as far as I know, no grammar has ever been published with glosses.

[Vardelm]

For example, holbuzvala's example could also be: <snip>

Makes sense. Thank you!

(Note that the "verbal noun + accusative object" construction is not available with a pronominal direct object, because pronouns don't have accusative free morpheme forms (huwa '3SM' is only nominative). Instead, they only have bound forms that are incompatible with the definite state...)

I think Hebrew might be different on this point? I just learned the other day that direct object suffixes are a thing in Hebrew and are apparently the same as the possessive "bound" pronouns. Perhaps that's just for finite verbs though, and using those possessive pronouns would indicate the subject or agent doing the action of a verbal noun.

Arabic has compound verbs using the copula as an auxiliary. The pluperfect "had done" is translated with the pluperfect construction ka:na faʕala "be.3SM.PAST do.3SM.PAST", very often accompanied by qad "already".

ʕindama: wasˤaltu, ka:na qad faʕala ða:lika
when arrive.1S.PAST, be.3SM.PAST already do.3SM.PAST that.MASC
'When I arrived, he had (already) done that.'

Compound constructions:
- ka:na (qad) faʕala 'he had already done' (was + past = pluperfect)
- ka:na jafʕulu 'he was doing' (was + present = past continuous)
- ka:na sa=jafʕulu 'he was going to do' (was + future = future-in-the-past)
- jaku:nu (qad) faʕala 'he will have done' (be.future + past = future perfect)
- ʔan jaku:na (qad) faʕala 'that he had done' (be.subjunctive + past = subjunctive pluperfect)
- ʔan jaku:na jafʕalu 'that he has done' (be.subjunctive + present = subjunctive perfect)

You'll have to pardon me here but ... SSSQUEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is great!

Well, you're in luck, because there are very many grammars of Arabic that use transliteration throughout. For example, Faruk Abu Chakra's Essential Grammar, Badawi et al.'s reference grammar, and Karen Ryding's reference grammar all romanize every single word and example (well, Ryding doesn't in her many conjugation tables, but that's about it).

The problem with most Arabic grammars is that they assume you know some Arabic, enough to follow the morphosyntax of example sentences without explanation, having been given only a translation into English. As with Latin, Ancient Greek or Classical Chinese, as far as I know, no grammar has ever been published with glosses.

Nice. I may check those out. I've relied on "An Introduction to Koranic & Classical Arabic" by W.M. Thackston for a quite a long time and it has served well. It's pretty similar in that it doesn't have glosses, but when the examples are set in a section that discusses a particular grammatical feature, it's usually pretty obvious what's what.

[Arzena]

Well, you're in luck, because there are very many grammars of Arabic that use transliteration throughout. For example, Faruk Abu Chakra's Essential Grammar, Badawi et al.'s reference grammar, and Karen Ryding's reference grammar all romanize every single word and example (well, Ryding doesn't in her many conjugation tables, but that's about it).

Yay! More grammars to purchase!