لولا الإحماء لما تمدد صديقي.

Here لولا means had it not been for or were it not for.

It introduces a counterfactual condition, not a regular open if-sentence. In other words, the warm-up did happen, and because it happened, the result was different.

So the structure suggests an unreal idea about the past: without the warm-up, the stretching would not have happened.

This is a very common Arabic pattern:

لولا + noun ... لما + verb ...

It works like this:

• لولا الإحماء = had it not been for the warm-up
• لما تمدد صديقي = my friend would not have stretched

So Arabic marks both parts of the counterfactual relationship:

• the unreal condition with لولا
• the unreal negative result with لما

English often uses would have, but Arabic does not need a separate word for would here. The particles and the structure do that job.

No. Here it is best understood as لَ + ما:

• لَ = the lām of the result clause after لولا
• ما = negation

So in this sentence, لما تمدد means something like then he would not have stretched.

This is different from the other word لَمّا, which can mean not yet, or can function as when, depending on context.

In unvocalized Arabic, they are spelled the same, so the meaning comes from context. After لولا, the intended reading here is the counterfactual one.

Because لولا in this use is followed by a noun that is treated grammatically like a subject, so it is nominative.

With full case ending, it would be:

الإحماءُ

A traditional grammar explanation is that the noun after لولا is a kind of subject, and its predicate is omitted because it is understood. Very roughly, the underlying sense is something like:

لولا الإحماءُ موجودٌ...

That is why it is not genitive and not accusative.

Because the sentence is talking about a specific, understood warm-up: the warm-up.

That makes sense in context. The speaker is referring to the warm-up relevant to the situation, not just warm-up in general as an abstract idea.

So:

• الإحماء = the warm-up
• not just a warm-up

الإحماء is a verbal noun, also called a maṣdar.

It means warming up or warm-up as a noun, not a finite verb like he warmed up.

So in this sentence, it names the activity itself.

تمدد is a past-tense verb, 3rd person masculine singular.

Its basic meaning is he stretched out or he extended himself. In this context, it is naturally understood as he stretched.

Arabic often uses the past form in counterfactual sentences of this kind, even where English uses something like would not have stretched.

So the form is past, but the whole sentence expresses an unreal past result.

Because verb-first order is very common in Arabic.

So:

• تمدد صديقي = stretched my friend literally
• natural English: my friend stretched

This verb-subject order is completely normal in Arabic. You could also say صديقي تمدد, but that would shift the emphasis slightly.

صديقي literally means my friend.

It is made of:

• صديق = friend
• ـي = my

So the ending ـي is a possessive suffix.

Also, because this suffix is attached, the usual case ending is not visible in the normal written form. Even though صديقي is the subject of the verb here, you do not see an obvious nominative ending the way you do with الإحماءُ.

A careful pronunciation is:

lawlā al-iḥmāʾu lamā tamaddada ṣadīqī

A few quick notes:

• لولا = lawlā
• الإحماء = al-iḥmāʾ
• لما here is pronounced lamā, not lammā
• تمدد = tamaddada
• صديقي = ṣadīqī