The Rule of the Muʿrab: Visible and Estimated Case

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• According to the book, what causes the ending of a muʿrab noun to vary?
• How should «زَيْدٌ» be parsed in «جَاءَنِي زَيْدٌ»?
• Why does «زَيْدًا» take fatḥa in «رَأَيْتُ زَيْدًا»?
• Which governor makes «زَيْدٍ» genitive in «مَرَرْتُ بِزَيْدٍ»?
• What is the grammatical case of «مُوسَىٰ» in «رَأَيْتُ مُوسَىٰ»?
• What is the status of the ḍamma in «جَاءَنِي مُوسَىٰ»?
• Choose the correct analysis of «مُوسَىٰ» in «مَرَرْتُ بِمُوسَىٰ».
• Which pair contains two declinable nouns whose case is expressed differently?
• What role does «تُ» play in «رَأَيْتُ زَيْدًا»?
• If a noun’s consonants remain the same but its ending changes from ḍamma to fatḥa, which type of case variation can this show?
• Because «مُوسَىٰ» looks unchanged in different sentences, it must be mabnī.
• In «مَرَرْتُ بِزَيْدٍ», «بِـ» is the genitive governor and kasra is the genitive sign.
• Zayd has the same syntactic role in «جَاءَنِي زَيْدٌ» and «رَأَيْتُ زَيْدًا».
• In «رَأَيْتُ مُوسَىٰ», the accusative case applies even though the fatḥa is not overt.