Is there a difference between the semantic and the technical *haal*?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : I mean, is the *haal* in the position of the doer?
The Shaykh : No, the technical *haal* is not the same as the *haal* of the doer. It is correct that it is used metaphorically, as in "its state is that it is cooked," but in terms of grammatical case, we do not call it a *haal*.
The questioner : No, technically, the incident is a matter of dividing the rules!
The Shaykh : Yes, technically, it is not a *haal* unless it meets the conditions, which were mentioned previously.
The questioner : Well, how do they say: is it a doer or a passive noun?
The Shaykh : No, the *haal* can be a substitute for the object. If you say, "I looked at the meat cooked," it becomes an object. If you say, "I looked at cooked meat," "cooked" becomes a description, because there is a difference: if the description comes after a definite noun, it is a *haal*, and if it comes after an indefinite noun, it is a description of it.
The Shaykh : No, the technical *haal* is not the same as the *haal* of the doer. It is correct that it is used metaphorically, as in "its state is that it is cooked," but in terms of grammatical case, we do not call it a *haal*.
The questioner : No, technically, the incident is a matter of dividing the rules!
The Shaykh : Yes, technically, it is not a *haal* unless it meets the conditions, which were mentioned previously.
The questioner : Well, how do they say: is it a doer or a passive noun?
The Shaykh : No, the *haal* can be a substitute for the object. If you say, "I looked at the meat cooked," it becomes an object. If you say, "I looked at cooked meat," "cooked" becomes a description, because there is a difference: if the description comes after a definite noun, it is a *haal*, and if it comes after an indefinite noun, it is a description of it.