Hadeel

The work we are doing is very useful. We compare arabic formulation to the french one.

Everyone can see there is many ambiguous analyse : first some grammarians don't see difference between لأجله and له and second, most of the time we can confuse them easely with حال : there is no certain position.

Then comes the french sight, this is what we do. There is a difference between the source of an action, and the end of it. In the source, we explain the Reason (cause), and at the end, we express Goal/intent and Consequence. This aspect don't appear in arabic grammar, don't know why.

If we say : he put his finger on his ear because of the storm, fearing the death.

A. Why he put the finger in the ear ? >>> We go back to the source : storm. This is  مفعول له as تعليل.

B. Fearing the death = consequence of the Storm.

C. Or : حال . But it is not fully correct, because a حال concern the situation when the action take place. In our example, of the storm took place before the action "to fear the death".

This is why we need tafsir at this level of analyse. It's about semantic.

I'm collecting many examples, and we could do a synthesis at the end إن شاء الله. For now, it appears that french grammar give more tools to study semantic and so, grammar.

السلام عليكم 

I think I understand what is the the different, and I will see the next examples.
Here is the next Ayah :

-

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ ۚ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لِّتَعْتَدُوا ۚ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ فَقَدْ ظَلَم نَفْسَهُ ۚ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا آيَاتِ اللَّهِ هُزُوًا ۚ وَاذْكُرُوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ وَالْحِكْمَةِ يَعِظُكُم بِهِ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ ()

Can you tell who is the grammarian who give this analyse ?


From Darwish :


Sometime, the مفعول لأجله can be confuse with a مفعول مطلق.

وَلَا تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لِّتَعْتَدُوا
Mais ne les retenez pas pour leur faire du tort.

Here ضِرَارًا comes as a complement of manner for the verb مسك. This is why مفعول مطلق is also correct.


What is strange with the analyse you bring : اللام للتعليل و تعتدوا فعل مضارع منصوب بأن مضمرة. He note that there is the particle omited أن and then, he talks of صلة and موصول while it's about تأويل مصدر. I think it's an error.

This science of semantic. The translation are always treachery, but we anlayse them :


وَلَا تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لِّتَعْتَدُوا
Mais ne les retenez pas pour leur faire du tort.

Mais و
ne... pas : لا الناهية
retenir : مسك
les : COD مفعول به

And now the complement we study : ...pour leur faire du tort. Here it's clearly a Complément of But.

But the arabic don't give this :

ضِرَارًا لِّتَعْتَدُوا comme as a Semantic Unity. The first word is a مفعول مطلق as Complement of Manner for the verb مسك and the second part is a مصدر in position of description or حال and the تأويل مصدر will be اعتداءهم . In french, this gives : Et ne les retenez pas en les nuisant par excès.

en les nuisant (nuire, léser) is an adverbe/gérondif ;
Par excès express also the way they used to be violent. Complement of manner for the previous مفعول مطلق, or for the verb مسك.

Only tafsirs could break this semantical analyse and so, translation. والله أعلم