Where is the possessive sufixe here? That would be the "ة" ate the end of "قهوة"?
No. This is Ta Marbúta which is an original letter in قهوة
You do not need a possessive suffix here, because the "owner" of the coffee is mentioned by name (Seth). You wouldn't say, in English, Seth's his coffee, right?
If you are about to say his coffee" then it would be: قهوته (Qahwatuhu) - The Ta Marbuta changed status from (H) sound to (T) because this is a feminine noun. Her coffee* would be قهوتها (Qahwatuhá)
Yep. You can think of Ta Marbúta ة as being "H" which is forced to change to "T" under specific circumstances. I think hebrew has the same feature but there they change the "H" letter with "T" letter. In Arabic, it is one letter that serves both.
If I simply say قهوة or simply this word comes at the end of the sentence, I can say it simply as (Qahwah). But if the word's ending need to change for grammatical purposes (declination) then the "H" sound at the end must change to "T".
Bonus: Notice, many Turkish and Persian names of Arabic origin with this Ta-Marbuta were fixed to "T". For example, Shorbet or Serbet (type of drink) is originally "sharbah" شربة in Arabic (meaning sip). Also Mervet (A Turkish female's name) is originally مروة (Marwah) in Arabic. Minaret, which is a misnomer, is originally from Arabic منارة (manárah) which means "Lighthouse" (and not the tower of the mosque).
hahaha Oh super! Your German is good! here is only a small correction:
"Ich denke, dass Deutsch nicht sehr schwierig ist, wenn man gut Englisch kann. Aber manchmal kann die Reihenfolge der Wörter viele Probleme machen." Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland nach Kuwaitأعتقد أن اللغة الألمانية صعب جدا
Yes, you're right, Guilherme. When we don't use word endings, we still change the pronunciation of ـة from "-ah" to "-it" to indicate possession. "Al-qahwah seeth" = "The coffee is Seth," but "qahwit seeth" = "Seth's coffee."
But when we do use word endings, two things happen:
1) The word قهوةُ is in the construct state, which means it only ends in a short vowel, and not a final -n like it normally would. So "qahwatu" instead of "qahwatun."
2) The word سيث is in the genitive, which means we say "seetha" instead of "seethu" like we would if it were the subject of the sentence.
I would but there is a big misnomer culture going on. Foreign books that discuss Arabic grammar, model the grammar on the hierarchy of European languages and terminology. Thus, attaching names such as Genitive to Majrúr مجرور I think and Accusative to منصوب - but this is not the case when we study the Arabic grammar in Arabic.
Just to make a note about the difference: The word Mansúb منصوب which such nomenclature attach to Accusative is used in Arabic for various situations not necessarily words in accusative status. But we use it for everyone word that come with FatHa at its end or something equivalent of it; e.g. adverbs حال or مفعول مطلق (don't know the English term for this one), or ظرف زمان (time condition?) or خبر كان (the predicative of "was"?) - so we call the status of the ending rather than the status of the word when we use such terminology like Mansúb, and this is not equivalent to the idea of Accusative in European languages.
I would go on also and explain the same thing in Genitive. The genitive case is typically identified as the addition of nouns together or the "of" statements (for easy understanding), and this is typically equalized with Majrúr مجرور - while the fact that in Arabic grammar books, we say about the noun مجرور (majrúr) when it comes indeed in Genitive, but also when it comes after a preposition حرف جر - we would say the noun is Majrúr when preceded by an article that causes so (and definitely, this is not a Genitive case).
Anyway, I hope visitors reading this would understand the differences in terminology between the Western "mold" of grammar and the Arabic "mold" of grammar, for the Arabic language.
And yes, now i remembered that non-Arabic names are indeclinable indeed. Thanks
I personally see it the other way around: The modern Western labelling applies equally as well, and it's simply a matter of tradition whichever one you pick, but you're so familiar with the Arab tradition, that you never considered any other way.
Arabic was a language before Arabic grammarians invented their terminology, right? So Arabic doesn't follow their rules: it was the grammarians who invented their rules to describe Arabic as it was already spoken.
Now: the figura etymologica (المفعول المطلق), the adverbs (الحال ، الظرف), the complements of copulae (خبر كان وأخواتها), don't you think they are all tied together semantically? They are all things that describe what the verb is done to. In the sentence "I lived a life," the word "life" can still be looked at as an object of the verb "lived." The figura etymologica is simply a specific instance of the object of the verb. Hell, even in Arabic terminology, we call it a مفعول. There are many kinds of مفاعيل, but they are all مفاعيل in the end. Same thing with adverbs. In "I waited long," the only reason we don't consider "long" an object is European convention; Arabic happens to treat "long" in this case like an object of the verb. It simply happened that Arabic grammarians invented different names for them. But they are all منصوبات for a reason; it's not random.
Think of those Arabic names as descriptions of WHY a certain word is accusative or genitive, rather than categories in their right.
You seem to forget that even in European languages, the cases perform many roles. Prepositions can be followed by the accusative or the genitive in European languages too. (And you'll notice that even Arabic uses the word مجرور for both the مضاف إليه and حرف الجر, so even Arabic does not make the distinction that you want Western academia to make.)
For example, I see you've reached quite a high level in Russian here on Duolingo. Isn't the accusative used for some time expressions and prepositions, and the genitive for numerals, negation, some time expressions, and some prepositions?
How is this any different from the case in Arabic?
So I think "accusative" and "genitive" work just as well as مفعول مطلق, حال, etc. etc. It's just a different way of categorizing things, but the things described are the same in the end. 1+4 = 5, and so does 2+3. Neither is wrong.
Now I get a headache hahahaha, too much for me at this time of day ;-) but thank you anyway :-)
(I have different books on Arabic grammar and I understand that there are differences between grammar (Hocharabisch und StandardArabisch) and many different dialects. My Syrian friends do not speak the way I learned from my books. Here at Dualingo they teach the grammar that I can find in differnet Arabic courses but not in my books. So... I am happy to learn here the Arabic language so that people in most countries will understand me... I hope hahaha :-) )