Vardelm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:35 amCorrect 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).
Vardelm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:35 amBTW, "ART-" is for the definite article, correct?
Yes.
Vardelm wrote: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...)
Vardelm wrote: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)
Vardelm wrote: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.