Anecdotes de Juha

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Hadeel, yes I think you're right but semantically it does not make much difference here see none. But your point is well taken. 

We should translate literally as  :

1/"Nasrudin s'est assis un jour..."  => Passé composé : past tense

2/"Nasrudin s'assit un jour..." => Passé simple : simple past


With "Nasurdin était assis un jour..." we have "Plus que parfait". I don't known if we said in English "more than perfect".


The problem is this: we have a verb in Arabic in the past so they are the equivalent time in French for the past? There are several. There is the past tense, the simple past, more than perfect, the pluperfect (passé antérieur) and even imperfect (imparfait)

Finally, Why you didn't write كان جلس ? Why you add two ا ? Why one on first radicale and one on last radicale ? I think for the last radicale it's because there are a deficient verb كان who put in the accusative.. I don't understand for the first radicale

Hadeel a écrit:و عليكم السلام ورحمة الله و بركاته

I have some notes :

جَلَسَ الشَّيْخُ نَصْرُ الدِينِ أَفَنْدِي يَوْماً عَلى مِنَصَةِ لِلْوَعْظِ في أَحَدِ جَوامِعِ آق شَهْر
Nasrudin était assis un jour sur l'estrade pour un prêche d'un vendredi.

This form " était assis " I don't think it's the suitable one, I think like this it could be translated as" كان جالسا ", right ?

The verb s'asseoir it's a particular verb. The arabic and french concept are differents, then syntaxicaly too.


S'asseoir is the action alone when somebody he is puting down his bottom on something (ground, chair, ect...). When this short action is done, then we describe the consequence : il s'est assis. The past participe assis work exactly as an adjective (for description : the action s'asseoir had been done > il s'est assis. The pronoun se means the agent did the action on himself.

For description, we need an attributive relation : the attributive verb (être, devenir, etc), and the attribut (adjective, or participe).

See other form with i verb, rendered in french with the attributive verb :

حَزِنَ être déchiré, triste
سَخِطَ être fâché
سَدِرَ être confus
رَحِمَ être miséricordieux
مَرِحَ être joyeux
ذَرِب être incisif

If we ponder all the verb with i-a or a-i, we find that the action affects the feeling of the agent. Other ones :

ضَحِكَ rire
خَسِرَ être perdu
عَمِيَ devenir aveugle
عَبِرَ pleurer


So with يَجْلِسُ we suppose the action is occurring on the agent. It's not a description, and no need attribut in arabic, but it remains an action which affect the agent.

For what I know, جَلَسَ is about a position which affect particulary the body, and عَقَدَ is about fixation.

كان جالسا

كان is for action which used to be, and  جالس as noun, it could refers to مَجْلِس and assembly.

We can't say كان جالسا which means "he used to sit down".

s'asseoir

Il s'assoit. > action > Présent.

Il s'est assis. >  action done on oneself > Passé composé (for 1 event). Result a description.

Il s'asseyait. > action in a past with duration > Imparfait. This means that the action take a certain time, like if something else is occuring.

Il s'était assis. > action in the past done before another action in the past > plus-que-parfait. This means we expect for another action with this action. In arabic, we render this tense with the tool قَدْ.


Note the irregularity of this verb (Third group). Learn it, it is very common verb.

Hadeel a écrit:و عليكم السلام ورحمة الله و بركاته

I have some notes :

جَلَسَ الشَّيْخُ نَصْرُ الدِينِ أَفَنْدِي يَوْماً عَلى مِنَصَةِ لِلْوَعْظِ في أَحَدِ جَوامِعِ آق شَهْر
Nasrudin était assis un jour sur l'estrade pour un prêche d'un vendredi.

This form " était assis " I don't think it's the suitable one, I think like this it could be translated as" كان جالسا ", light ?

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Yes, I also think that "Il était assis" could be translated as "كان جالسا".

And I think that "جلس" could be translated as "il s'est assis". Il s'est assis pour prêcher... (He sat in order to preach...).

Adel Medine a écrit:السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

...
Finally, Why you didn't write كان جلس ? Why you add two ا ? Why one on first radicale and one on last radicale ? I think for the last radicale it's because there are a deficient verb كان who put in the accusative.. I don't understand for the first radicale

C'est parce que la soeur Hadeel a utilisé un nom جالس qui est le participe actif (ismu-l-fâ3il) du verbe جلس. On a :

Wa Allâhu a'lam.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Thanks you Mansour for your analysis and explanations.

Mansour a écrit:Il s'était assis. > action in the past done before another action in the past > plus-que-parfait. This means we expect for another action with this action. In arabic, we render this tense with the tool قَدْ

Can we suppose it's the case here because the another action with this action is لِلْوَعْظِ which is like a action name and is done after the first action (sit down) in the past.  I remark that you use "Il s'était assis" instead "Il était assis". I suppose it's an  equivalence.

For قَدْ i looked in tome III of Medine and i found it on lessons 19 and 25. For lesson 19, for the past, it's used for the meaning of "certainty". In translation we see clearly the "plus-que-parfait".

Ibn Nacer a écrit:C'est parce que la soeur Hadeel a utilisé un nom جالس qui le participe actif (ismu-l-fâ3il) du verbe جلس. On a : هُوَ جَالِسٌ ---> كان جَالِساً

Il est assis---> Il était assis

Merci pour la précision, ce nom d'agent n'arrête pas de jouer à cache cache avec moi. Je me demande quand utiliser dans les traductions les autres formes du passé du coup comme le passé simple ou antérieur ou l'imparfait et le plus que parfait. 

Apparemment ici cela n'est pas gênant de ne pas utiliser la particule قَدْ pour traduire avec du plus que parfait. Je doute finalement que comme je disais au début que "sémantiquement" cela n'apporte pas une nuance très importante de traduire par "Il s'est assis" ou "Il s'était assis", une équivalence ici ? . A la rigueur la deuxième forme m'est plus parlante en français lorsqu'il s'agit d'histoires ou de contes.

Ibn Nacer a écrit:

هُوَ جَالِسٌ ---> كان جَالِساً
Il est assis ---> Il était assis

Wa Allâhu a'lam.

On a une étude intéressante à faire ici : جلس est de porte a-i.

What is the semantical difference here :

Il est assis ;
Il s'est assis.

In both case, we have the 3 informations :

- assis is a past participe (the action had been done) ;
- assis is descriptive in both case, like an attribut ;
- se of s'asseoir say us that the doer is the reciever of the action

For these reasons, il s'est assis is the best translation for جَلَسَ because the doer recieve the action, like with the arabic verb in a-i.

كان جالساً remains ambigus : he used to sit down, or he used to be sat (while something else occure).



قد : l'indicatif implique aussi une certitude. J'identifie قد a un intervalle, deux positions (comme ce qu'implique notre plus-que-parfait)..