Lower Intermediate - Your dog is sick

first comment yet again , booyah

In the podcast ﺃﺴﺮﻉ is described as a superlative. This is rather misleading. I think it would be preferable to say that it is an “ism (ﺍﺴﻡ) al-tafdiil (ﺍﻠﺘﻓﻀﻴﻞ)”. “Ism al-tafdiil”, which is generally rendered as “elative” (cf. Fr. élatif, Ger. Elativ), is much more precise than “superlative”.

Strictly speaking, Arabic adjectives have neither comparative nor superlative forms. Instead, they have forms which can express varying degrees of intensity and which have to be rendered in different ways depending on the context. In most cases they can be translated as comparative or superlative forms, but they occasionally have to be rendered by the base form of an English adjective. Thus for instance, elative forms preceded by ﻤﺎ correspond to English base forms in exclamations of astonishment or admiration. Example: ma (ﻤﺎ) 'ajmal-a-hu (ﺃﺠﻤﻠﻪ)! How lovely it is!

TheEar don’t you have anything more useful to say...

Thanks for commenting, Desmond. According to Karen Ryding's excellent "Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic," the elative or "Ism al-tafdill" forms are generally referred to by the standard terms, comparative and superlative.

To quote her directly: "Just as English has sequences such as large, larger, largest, or nice, nicer, nicest, to indicate increasing degrees of intensity, Arabic has equivalent sequences consisting of base form, comparative, and superlative forms." (Ch. 10, section 4.2)

Dear Sierra,

I’m already familiar with Ryding’s Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic, and I’ve already dipped into K. C. Ryding / A. Zaiback, Formal Spoken Arabic (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2004). Ryding’s reference grammar is scholarly, well organised, well written, and packed with useful information, but in some cases Ryding’s terminological choices are open to criticism. On p. 245, for instance, she opts for the English terms “comparative” and “superlative” after introducing the Arabic term “ism (ﺍﺴﻡ) al-tafdiil (ﺍﻠﺘﻓﻀﻴﻞ)” and its closest English equivalent (“elative”) (p. 244). Similarly, on p. 243, she states that “[n]onhuman plural nouns require feminine singular agreement.” In this case the term “nonhuman” is misleading. I would prefer the Arabic term “ghayr (ﻏﻴﺮ) 'aaqil (ﻋﺎﻗﻝ)”, which is much more precise and which will preclude grave misunderstandings.

Foreign language instructors can present grammatical terminology in three ways. First, the terms may be presented exclusively in the target language, which in this case is Arabic. Second, the terms may be presented exclusively in the language of instruction, which in this case is English. Third, the terms may be presented simultaneously in both languages (i.e. Arabic and English).

A few months ago I discussed this issue per e-mail with Ehab. Ehab said he was in favour of the first approach, and I said I would prefer the third approach.

Let’s consider the pros and cons:

The first approach is appropriate in a course designed exclusively for advanced learners who have already attained a very high level of competence in Arabic, but the exclusive use of Arabic terminology will bewilder and demotivate learners who are still trying to master the rudiments of this extraordinarily difficult language.

The second approach is appropriate in a course which is geared to the needs of unsophisticated beginners, but the exclusive use of English will inevitably lead to misunderstandings in cases where Arabic concepts have no counterparts in the conceptual realm within which monolingual native speakers of English live and move and have their being.

The third approach is appropriate in a language course which is intended for a heterogeneous group comprising beginners as well as intermediate and advanced students. If Arabic and English terms are introduced simultaneously the instructor(s) can obviate misunderstandings by drawing attention to cases where Arabic concepts are intrinsically different from the English concepts to which at first sight they seem to correspond.

A good example is provided by the English adjective “nonhuman” and the Arabic phrase “ghayr (ﻏﻴﺮ) 'aaqil (ﻋﺎﻗﻝ)”. Students who have been told that nonhuman plural nouns require feminine singular agreement will have no difficulty in translating a phrase like “new cars” into Arabic since cars are clearly nonhuman. But what will happen if they have to translate an English text about ancient Greek deities, Satan (ٳﺒﻠﻴﺲ), angels or demons? According to the Qu’ran, angels and the djinn are definitely not human. Angels, according to the sacred text, were created from light, and the djinn from “smokeless flame”, while humans were made of clay (a topic already dealt with in one of Ehab’s podcasts). Students who are unfamiliar with Arabic terms and the concepts they designate will assign angels and demons to the same category as cars and lorries, and their adjective endings will be wrong because angels and demons belong to the same category as humans, i.e. they are “'aaqil (ﻋﺎﻗﻝ)”.

Thank you, Desmond, for the explanation and examples. I'm not sure I agree with you on the lack of correspondence between English and Arabic grammar in this case, but I think there are instances in which it is wise to include both English and Arabic grammatical terms and to explain the distinction between them. I appreciate your weighing in on this point.

good lesson again - very useful voc.-now the question :
if ....than :اذا كان....ف - In one of the previous lessons(ordering pizza) لا was used in the second part - Are both ok ? is there one for classic and one for dialect ?

Hello, I found a problem downloading the corresponding trascript file for this lesson:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/arabicpod/294_ArabicPod_B.pdf

The server says it does not exist. Help please.
Thanks

@Arabiclover, no i do not lol
but i too love arabic

Although it's very unlikely that beginners (except the occasional linguistic, historical or metaphysical enthusiast) would have reason to discuss invisible anthropomorphic-ish entities so associated confusion is also unlikely to occur, I do tend to agree with Desmond's point of view. My study of classical Tibetan has shown me that naive translation can be misleading because of important, culturally related, (sometimes radically) different perspectives. At this level, these distinctions probably aren't important to most people (and might distract from the main content) but of interest to some and I would welcome some extra supplementary vocabulary or comment.

PS Eg For a beginner, using the approximate terms past and present for verb forms is pragmatic but, as the study progresses, the importance of perfect & imperfect becomes relevant along with other finer distinctions. I prefer some mention that correspondence is approximate early on then, at an appropriate later stage, fuller detail given. For those of us who are particularly interested, having the Arabic and closest English equivalent offers the opportunity for further study.

PPS Related to comparatives & superlatives, is the notion of 'intensification' (is this equivalent to elation, Desmond?) eg in Tibetan an adjective is commonly repeated to indicate this.