F'il Laazim

Can a f'il laazim be used in the majhool seygha? I've always understood it cannot be. Eg. Hasala (That one man aqquired)(Urdu : Haasil huwa)

If it cannot be, then (Maata - Yamootu - Mawtun) what is the explanation of it coming in the quran as:

وَيَقُولُ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَءِذَا مَا مِتُّ لَسَوۡفَ أُخۡرَجُ حَيًّا (٦٦)

That's an interesting question, Qari Sahib, which I'm sure lingers in the mind of everyone who's studied Nahw!

your question prompted me to do some browsing, and this is the conclusion that I came up with, please correct me if I'm wrong!


The GENERAL RULEis that the فعل لازم (the intransitive verb) cannot be used in the مجهول (passive) sense.... this is because when a verb is used in the مجهول sense, then its مفعول becomes the 'نائب فاعل'; and since the فعل لازم does not have a مفعول, then the مجهول verb will have no فاعل; and a فعل without a فاعل is a 'grammatical fallacy', if you may...

However, there is a way around the problem; the solution for making a فعل لازم into a فعل مجهول is that you bring a حرف جر into the sentence.... now, this is not specific to the فعل لازم مجهول , but it can also be used for the فعل لازم معروف ...

for example, اختلف (to differ) is a فعل لازم ... now, if you wanted to bring a مفعول, let's say المسئلة, into the sentence, then you will first have to bring a حرف جر, in this case في ... so you would say: اختلف زيد في المسئلة
in the same way, if you were to bring اختلف as a مجهول verb, then you would again bring the حرف جر, and say: اختلف في المسئلة (ukhtulifa)

This is what i've understood regarding the matter of فعل لازم

Regarding the example you gave of Hasala, the english and urdu translations you gave do not match up...

and regarding the verse, I didn't quite understand what it has to do with the topic of فعل لازم coming as a مجهول verb , as مِتُّ is not مجهول

it's quite clear that i didn't understand your question, so please can you clarify a bit more for this ناقص العقل !

Translation: That one (man/thing) was aqquired. I think that's more correct.

Is مِتُّ not a f'il majhool? What is it then? The ma'roof is muttu, be-dhammil meem, like Qultu (I Said). Also, there doesn't seem to be a harfe jar.

Perhaps Maata Yamootu Mawtun is from Baabe Samia. In surah maryam it also comes:

فَأَجَآءَهَا ٱلۡمَخَاضُ إِلَىٰ جِذۡعِ ٱلنَّخۡلَةِ قَالَتۡ يَـٰلَيۡتَنِى مِتُّ قَبۡلَ هَـٰذَا وَڪُنتُ نَسۡيً۬ا مَّنسِيًّ۬ا (٢٣

yes, i think it's probably from سمع يسمع

by the way, Hasala without tashdeed means 'to occur', like Hadatha....

Unfortunately i don't have Ilm-Al-Sigha with me at the moment currently in Bradistan.

The answer is mata yamowtu originate from two different babs.One is Nasara and the other is samiaa(i thnk).So in the case of the verse quoted it'll be from samiaa

Please remember me in your duas

Khalil Ibn ilyas Laher

which kitaab is that from? The quran also uses the nasara seygha:

وَلَٮِٕن قُتِلۡتُمۡ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ أَوۡ مُتُّمۡ لَمَغۡفِرَةٌ۬ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرَحۡمَةٌ خَيۡرٌ۬ مِّمَّا يَجۡمَعُونَ (١٥٧

The answer is what is stated above that مات originates from both the babs ie نصر and سمع.

مات يموت و مات يمات

In the Quraan when the present/future tense of مات is used it always originates from نصر but when the past tense is used the bab alternates.

Please refer to Ilm-Al-Sigah (with marginal notes by Mufti Rafi Uthmani saheb) pg133 Idarah-Al-Maarif Karachi print

Please remember me in your duas

Khalil ibn Ilyas Laher

The words Mittu, Mitna, Muttum and Mutna (acccording to the narrations of imam Makki, Basri, Shaami and Shu'bah) mentioned in the quran are all in the Ma'roof sense. refer to misbahul lughat. The Majhool sense of this word will be made by taking it to bab e if'al. e.gوَأَنَّهُ هُوَ أَمَاتَ وَأَحْيَا(an-Najm:44). Thus the Majhool Seegha will be Umeeta.