# Hamza or alif?آدم



## chauccer

Hello ! 
I am confused about the word "Adam" *آدم.*
As far as I know, no words in Arabic starts with a vowel. From this rule, it seems the sign (*آ  ) cannot be alif. *
I wonder if this sign is in fact hamza  without ( ء‎) or ayın sound? (Because they both consonants)
Thanks you...


----------



## adam2003

this one is called Alif maddah, it's the sound of hamza + alif
so instead of it being أادم it's just آدم
let google translator pronounce these 2 to hear the difference
أدَمْ
آدَمْ


----------



## chauccer

I really appreciate your answer adam2003. Now I see the differences between the sounds. And,I have an extra question ( If I don't bother you) : is أادم the original form of the word and consequently, this word too, starts with consonant?


----------



## Sadda7

The word's form is أَفْعَل so originally it was أَأْدَم, and the second hamzah changed to an alif.


----------



## chauccer

Sadda7 said:


> The word's form is أَفْعَل so originally it was أَأْدَم, and the second hamzah changed to an alif.


Much obliged Sadda7 . This is a precious etymological explanation, an explanation that I could not find on the internet.


----------



## fenakhay

Sadda7 said:


> The word's form is أَفْعَل so originally it was أَأْدَم, and the second hamzah changed to an alif.


Can we please not spread false etymologies?

آدم is borrowed from Hebrew *אָדָם *(āḏā́m). 

This word DOES start with a consonant which is the hamza. hamza + long a is written آ and never as أا.


----------



## Sadda7

fenakhay said:


> Can we please not spread false etymologies?


What false etymologies did I gave?



fenakhay said:


> Can we please not spread false etymologies?
> 
> آدم is borrowed from Hebrew *אָדָם *(āḏā́m).
> 
> This word DOES start with a consonant which is the hamza. hamza + long a is written آ and never as أا.


@adam2003 Has already said that آ is just أا, and I added the *صرف *of the word.


----------



## fenakhay

Sadda7 said:


> What false etymologies did I gave?


That it has the pattern أفعل and was أأدم.


----------



## Sadda7

How is it أأفعل? I always knew it as أفعل and this is how it is explained in grammar books. The word is from the root أ د م.


----------



## fenakhay

Sadda7 said:


> How is it أأفعل? I always knew it as أفعل and this is how it is explained in grammar books. The word is from the root أ د م.


Typo. 

What does ء د م refer to? Roots are not etymologies...


----------



## Sadda7

Sorry, but I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

E:
If it's about the "etymology" then it's OP who said that, maybe he thought _sarf _ is similar to etymology.


----------



## WadiH

Hebrew uses the same root-pattern system as Arabic.  What pattern is the Hebrew word on?

It is a loan from Hebrew ultimately, but it's common for loans to be modified to fit an existing Arabic pattern, especially loans from other Semitic languages, so I wouldn't say that what @fenakhay and @Sadda7 said are mutually exclusive.  You can easily re-analyze it as being on the أفعل pattern, and I can imagine an old hamza-heavy Arabic dialect rendering it أأدم.

But anyway the answer to OP's question is that yes the symbol آ denotes a hamza followed by a long /a/ (i.e. أا).


----------



## chauccer

WadiH said:


> Hebrew uses the same root-pattern system as Arabic.  What pattern is the Hebrew word on?
> 
> It is a loan from Hebrew ultimately, but it's common for loans to be modified to fit an existing Arabic pattern, especially loans from other Semitic languages, so I wouldn't say that what @fenakhay and @Sadda7 said are mutually exclusive.  You can easily re-analyze it as being on the أفعل pattern, and I can imagine an old hamza-heavy Arabic dialect rendering it أأدم.
> 
> But anyway the answer to OP's question is that yes the symbol آ denotes a hamza followed by a long /a/ (i.e. أا).


Thank you for your responses. But, I don't know what does "أفعل pattern" mean, and how to read it correctly. . . Could you please write "أفعل "in Latin alphabet so that I can search about it on the internet?


----------



## fenakhay

WadiH said:


> Hebrew uses the same root-pattern system as Arabic.  What pattern is the Hebrew word on?
> 
> It is a loan from Hebrew ultimately, but it's common for loans to be modified to fit an existing Arabic pattern, especially loans from other Semitic languages, so I wouldn't say that what @fenakhay and @Sadda7 said are mutually exclusive.  You can easily re-analyze it as being on the أفعل pattern, and I can imagine an old hamza-heavy Arabic dialect rendering it أأدم.
> 
> But anyway the answer to OP's question is that yes the symbol آ denotes a hamza followed by a long /a/ (i.e. أا).


It has the pattern فَاعَل which is the same as عَالَم, طَابَع and خَاتَم. This pattern is un-Arabic and every word with it is a clear borrowing.


----------



## Qureshpor

fenakhay said:


> It has the pattern فَاعَل which is the same as عَالَم, طَابَع and خَاتَم. This pattern is un-Arabic and every word with it is a clear borrowing.


أَ + أ = آ

See page 20 of this book.

06 Teach Yourself Arabic ( 1962) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Qureshpor

chauccer said:


> Thank you for your responses. But, I don't know what does "أفعل pattern" mean, and how to read it correctly. . . Could you please write "أفعل "in Latin alphabet so that I can search about it on the internet?


af3al /af'al (= 2af3al)

The word أکبر akbar (2akbar) is on this pattern.

آدم  = أَ+أ+دَ+م

2a+2 +d +a +m =2aadam

06 Teach Yourself Arabic ( 1962) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (page 20)


----------



## fenakhay

Qureshpor said:


> أَ + أ = آ
> 
> See page 20 of this book.
> 
> 06 Teach Yourself Arabic ( 1962) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


That has nothing to do with آدم. So I don't know why you are linking it.


----------



## Qureshpor

fenakhay said:


> That has nothing to do with آدم. So I don't know why you are linking it.


I know that. But it has everything to do with أَ + أ = آ

Read the last section on maddaa on page 20.


----------



## fenakhay

And? I still don't see any relevance to the etymology of آدم.


----------



## Qureshpor

fenakhay said:


> And? I still don't see any relevance to the etymology of آدم.


The OP is not asking about etymology. He is asking if the word آدم begins with a hamza or not and it does. Seondly, I am attempting to also explain that as @WadiH has said, the word آدم is based on the pattern أَفعَل and not فاعل as you are indicating. I hope it is all clear now.


----------



## fenakhay

It is really not clear. You are basing your attempt on a mere phonological shift and disregarding the evidence we have from daughter languages like Hebrew and Aramaic. آدم is certainly not based on the pattern أفعل as the glottal stop would have been preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic.


----------



## adam2003

chauccer said:


> I really appreciate your answer adam2003. Now I see the differences between the sounds. And,I have an extra question ( If I don't bother you) : is أادم the original form of the word and consequently, this word too, starts with consonant?





chauccer said:


> I really appreciate your answer adam2003. Now I see the differences between the sounds. And,I have an extra question ( If I don't bother you) : is أادم the original form of the word and consequently, this word too, starts with consonant?


when i wrote أادم  i was just referring to the pronunciation not the origin,  (so أادم doesn't exist)

as far as i know, آدم is derived from أديم (very very old word)

Wikipedia :
In Arabic, Adam (آدم) means "made from earth's mud."[2][3] also means "someone dark-colored like earth's soil".

it's a complicated old name that even arabs themselves don't understand it clearly, so you shouldn't view it as an example as a learner, just leave it aside and focus on simple things


----------



## Qureshpor

fenakhay said:


> It is really not clear. You are basing your attempt on a mere phonological shift and disregarding the evidence we have from daughter languages like Hebrew and Aramaic. آدم is certainly not based on the pattern أفعل as the glottal stop would have been preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic.


OK, we'll leave it. I am not concerned about etymology. I don't know why we are even discussing etymology. The OP has asked a simple question and I believe he has already got his answer in post 2. Thankfully, Adam himself came to his assistance in the form of @adam2003


----------



## WadiH

fenakhay said:


> It has the pattern فَاعَل which is the same as عَالَم, طَابَع and خَاتَم. This pattern is un-Arabic and every word with it is a clear borrowing.



Thanks.  I can see how خاتم and even عالم could be loans, but why طابع or قالب?  Just because a pattern is rarely used doesn't mean it's not native.  There's a similar debate with فعلوت, where some linguists now think it's possible that it's an inherited root in Arabic, and I think the same probably applies to فاعول.


----------



## Derakhshan

WadiH said:


> I can imagine an old hamza-heavy Arabic dialect rendering it أأدم.


It is attested in Safaitic (see attachment), which was a hamza-heavy dialect that had ʾaʾlehat أألهت for آلهة, for example. But here it had ʾdm آدم, not ʾʾdm أأدم.


Qureshpor said:


> I know that. But it has everything to do with أَ + أ = آ
> 
> Read the last section on maddaa on page 20.


I don't know if you are implying that آ can only come from etymological أ + أ, but if so, it isn't the case. For example, the اسم الفاعل of أكل is آكِل.


----------



## Qureshpor

Derakhshan said:


> I don't know if you are implying that آ can only come from etymological أ + أ, but if so, it isn't the case. For example, the اسم الفاعل of أكل is آكِل.


Let, 2 = ھمزہ
And, a = فتحة

Then *2a2* = *آ*

Also *2a + alif (ا)* = *آ*

So *2a2*kala and *2aa*kala = *آکَلَ

أَأکَلَ and أَاکَلَ *are both equivalent to* آکَلَ*

In other words *2a2* = *آ *and *2aa* = *آ*

This is what the late Professor Tritton is saying in the link I've attached in my posts (page 20 at the bottom)


----------



## Derakhshan

آكَلَ as in the Form IV verb pattern (أَفْعَلَ), is indeed from etymological أَأْ or 2a2.

آكَلَ as in the Form III pattern (فَاْعَلَ) is not from etymological أَأ.

Neither is آكِل (the اسم الفاعل of أَكَلَ).


----------



## WadiH

Derakhshan said:


> It is attested in Safaitic (see attachment), which was a hamza-heavy dialect that had ʾaʾlehat أألهت for آلهة, for example. But here it had ʾdm آدم, not ʾʾdm أأدم.



Interesting! Did not expect 'Adam' to appear in Safaitic inscriptions (but then again we have Safaitic 'Isaa and YaHyaa, so why not).


----------

