The Wall-Magazine Proofreading Dispute
At a higher-secondary school in Kozhikode, the Arabic Club is finalising a wall magazine for Arabic Day. The teacher gives the three-member editorial team a 20-minute slot to proofread three lines before the printer closes. The lines are: (1) إنّ الطالبُ المجتهدُ ناجحٌ. (2) كانَتِ المُعلِّماتُ حاضراتٌ. (3) رأيتُ طالبتَيْنِ مجتهدتَيْنِ في المكتبةِ. The teacher's pencil mark appears only over line 1. One editor says line 2 is also wrong because 'حاضرات' should become 'حاضرة'; another insists line 3 must be changed because 'طالبتين' is plural. A second proof will cost money and delay the display, so the team must separate genuine iʿrāb violations from objections based on a misunderstanding of dual and plural agreement. They also need a short Arabic caption for each corrected line explaining the rule to visitors.
1. Which lines must be corrected, what should they read, and what rule decides each case? Address the two student objections directly.
Read the worked answer
Line 1 must be corrected: إنّ is a ḥarf nāsikh, so its ism is manṣūb - الطالبَ - and the following naʿt agrees with it - المجتهدَ; ناجحٌ stays marfūʿ as khabar. Line 2 also needs correction, but not for the reason the editor gives: حاضراتٌ is khabar kāna and must be manṣūb; as a jamʿ muʾannath sālim it takes kasra, so the line should read كانَتِ المعلماتُ حاضراتٍ. The editor's proposed 'حاضرة' is not a valid substitute as written: if singular were chosen it would still need accusative tanwīn, حاضرةً, and singular is permitted only because the subject is non-human plural; the plural form is equally correct. The reason is the operator كان, not 'plural'. Line 3 should not be changed: طالبتين is a dual (muthannā) in the accusative, marked by yāʾ, and مجتهدتين is its naʿt; it is not a plural. The second objection therefore rests on a misreading of the dual ending.
2. Write the Arabic caption for line 2 that names the operator and the case without using English grammatical jargon, and explain why the caption should not say 'حاضرات because it is plural'.
Read the worked answer
The caption should read: «كانَتِ المعلماتُ حاضراتٍ: اسمُ كانَ مرفوعٌ، وخبرُها منصوبٌ، وعلامةُ نصبِه الكسرةُ لأنّه جمعُ مؤنّثٍ سالمٌ.» This names كان as the operator and states both cases. It should not say 'حاضرات because it is plural', because plurality does not cause naṣb; كان does. Plurality only explains why the accusative marker is kasra rather than fatḥa. A caption that gives the wrong cause would teach visitors a false rule, and it would not explain why the same word could not simply be left marfūʿ. The caption also matches the corrected line exactly, so the display and the rule are consistent.
3. The layout editor proposes deleting all harakat from the three lines to avoid visible errors. Evaluate this proposal in light of the three lines.
Read the worked answer
Deleting all harakāt is not a safe fix. The errors in lines 1 and 2 are case errors, and case is carried by the endings; without them, line 1 can be read as if الطالب were marfūʿ, and the display would hide the very rule it is meant to teach. Line 3 is already correct, but removing its endings would obscure the dual marker that refutes the student objection. A better compromise is to keep full harakāt on the disputed words and reduce them elsewhere, or to add a short caption. If the printer cannot handle diacritics, the team should correct the text and add an explanation rather than pretend the ambiguity is gone.