Les simili-phrases en arabe (shibhu jumlat) / شبه الجملة

Amr (forum : www.lisanularab.org) a écrit:
Wa 'alaykum assalamu warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

Here and here are some discussions of the shibh jumlah.

It is important to note that not any jaarr wa majrur or tharf construction can be classified as a shibh jumlah. It is only when the muta'allaq to which the jaarr wa majrur and tharf must necessarily connected is dropped e.g.

زيدٌ [كَائِنُ] في الدَّار or زيدٌ [اسْتَقَرَّ (هُوَ)] في الدَّارِ

Here the structure between square brackets and highlighted in red is the muta'allaq to which a jaarr wa majrur (or tharf) must necessarily be connected. Moreover, the muta'allaq is dropped such that the sentence can exist without it. In fact, the sentence here must exist without the muta'allaq because to mention the muta'allaq would be superfluous and redundant.

In cases where the muta'allaq is mentioned (whether necessarily or optionally) the jaarr wa majrur and tharf are not technically called shibh jumlah e.g. زَيْدٌ ذَاهِبٌ إِلَى الْمَدْرَسَةِ . Here the muta'allaq ذَاهِبٌ (highlighted in red) - to which the jaarr wa majrur إِلَى الْمَدْرَسَةِ is connected - must be mentioned in the sentence and cannot be done without otherwise the sentence won't make sense. So you can't just drop ذَاهِبٌ and say زَيْدٌ إِلَى الْمَدْرَسَةِ for the sentence won't make sense unlike زيدٌ [ كَائِنُ] في الدَّار or زيدٌ [اسْتَقَرَّ (هُوَ)] في الدَّارِ where when you drop اسْتَقَرَّ or كَائِنُ the sentence the sentence still makes sense. In fact, here you have to drop the muta'allaq because otherwise its presence in the sentence will only be redundant.

So the primary difference between when and when not to consider a jaarr wa majrur or tharf as a shibh jumlah has to do with whether or not the muta'allaq is necessarily dropped. If the muta'allaq is necessarily dropped as in
زيدٌ [كَائِنُ] في الدَّار or زيدٌ [اسْتَقَرَّ (هُوَ)] في الدَّارِ then the jaarr wa majrur or tharf is a shibh jumlah. If the muta'allaq is not to be dropped as in زَيْدٌ ذَاهِبٌ إِلَى الْمَدْرَسَةِ then the jaarr wa majrur or tharf is not a shibh jumlah.

Still there are some people who consider any jaarr wa majrur or tharf construction as a shibh jumlah. This imho is not technically correct. Shibh jumlah is a specific kind of jaarr wa majrur or tharf construction - the kind in which the muta'allaq must be dropped out of necessity.

Having said that, you might want to know where the shibh jumlah is often encountered. The following are the places in which the shibh jumlah are often encountered:

(1) position of khabar e.g. زيدٌ [كَائِنُ] في الدَّار or زيدٌ [اسْتَقَرَّ (هُوَ)] في الدَّارِ

(2) position of haal e.g. رَأَيْتُ زَيْدًا [كَائِنًا] فِي دَارِهِ or رَأَيْتُ زَيْدًا [يَسْتَقِرَُّ(هُوَ)] فِي دَارِهِ

(3) position of sifah e.g. رَأَيْتُ رَجُلاً [كَائِنًا] فِي دَارِهِ or رَأَيْتُ رَجُلاً [يَسْتَقِرَُّ(هُوَ)] فِي دَارِهِ

(4) position of silah mawsul e.g. رَأَيْتُ الرَّجُلَ الَّذِيْ [يَسْتَقِرَُّ(هُوَ)] فِي الدَّار

Now, in each of these cases the jaarr wa majrur في الدَّار or فِي دَارِهِ is a shibh jumlah, and can be said to be the khabar, haal, sifah, or silah mawsul in place of the muta'allaq that has been dropped. Alternatively, one can still consider the dropped muta'allaq to be the khabar, haal, sifah, or silah mawsul, and the jaarr wa majrur to be connected (muta'alliq) to it. You will find both these alternatives being used when doing i'raab or tarkib of sentences like the aforementioned ones.

I hope this further clarifies the concept of shibh jumlah for you, insha Allah.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Amr (forum : www.lisanularab.org a écrit:
In a harf jarr construction there are always 3 elements involved:

(a) the harf al-jarr itself (also referred to as the al-jaarr)

(b) the noun governed, and made majrur by it (referred to as the al-majrur)

(c) the verb or verb-like noun to which the harf al-jarr (and its majrur) is connected, and is called the al-muta'allaq (bihi) i.e. the thing connected to; the harf al-jarr and its al-majrur - which together form a unit - is muta'alliq (connected) to the al-muta'allaq, e.g.

كتبْتُ بِالْقَلَمِ

أَكْتُبُ بِالْقَلَمِ

اكْتُبْ بِالْقَلَمِ

أنا كاتِبٌ بِالْقَلَمِ

هذا مَكْتُوبٌ بِالْقَلَمِ

الْكِتابَةُ بِالْقَلَمِ أَفْضَلُ

Notice how the al-jaarr wa al-majrur بِالْقَلَمِ is in each sentence connected to a word composed of the root letters ك ت ب (k-t-b) which has something to do with writing. This word (highlighted in red) is the al-muta'allaq (bihi), and can either be a verb (like: كتبْتُ or أَكْتُبُ or اكْتُبْ) or a verb-like noun (like:كاتِبٌ or مَكْتُوبٌ or الْكِتابَةُ). Without the al-muta'allaq (bihi) the al-jaarr wa al-majrur is severed and left stranded. However, the al-muta'allaq (bihi) can either be explicitly stated in the sentence as is the case here in each of these 6 sentences or implied either because:

(a) it was already referred previously e.g. بِالْقَلَمِ in response to a question such as: بَمَاذَا تَكْتُبُ , or

(b) because it refers to something general such that it does not need to be explicitly stated e.g. زيدٌ [اسْتَقَرَّ (هُوَ)] في الدَّارِ or زيدٌ [كَائِنُ] في الدَّار . Here if Zayd is in the house he has to be existing in which is indicated by اسْتَقَرَّ or كَائِنُ . It is, for example, when he is eating, or sleeping, or sitting, etc. that you have to mention explicitly which of these specific actions he is doing in the house. Here you are obliged to state the al-muta'allaq (bihi) because it is a specific action that cannot be dropped and then the listener has to speculate and guess in an arbitrary fashion as to what that dropped al-muta'allaq (bihi) could possibly be. However, should the al-muta'allaq (bihi) be something general then there is no need to have it stated in the sentence for that would amount to redundancy and superfluity.

Insha Allah, I hope the concept of al-muta'alliq and al-muta'allaq (bihi) is clear.