# hamza همزة in iDafa/iDaafa الإضافة



## Attair

Does somebody knows how the hamza has to be written in this idafa?

بسبب *مبدأ* إكرام الضيف 
or maybe:

بسبب *مبدئ* إكرام الضيف 

I thank you very much the help


----------



## evanovka

And what about *مبدء* ?
(this is not an answer, but an additional option)


----------



## Josh_

Actually, you would retain the alif, but put the hamza on the bottom, so it would be مبدإ .


----------



## sultan750

what i know is that we put hamza .. like this مبدأ 
because of the rules , the letter before hzmza .....


----------



## Josh_

sultan750 said:


> what i know is that we put hamza .. like this مبدأ
> because of the rules , the letter before hzmza .....


Now, while I have never come across a rule explicitly stating this I am fairly confident that when a word ends in a hamza on top of an alif and is put in the genitive case (مجرور )  the hamza goes down to the bottom.  My reasoning is based on a couple things:

The first time I noticed it (and it occurred several times) it was in an Arabic grammar book written in Arabic.  The author was talking about the مبتدأ of a جملة اسمية and every time the word occurred after a preposition he wrote it as مبتدإ . Since the author repeated this spelling several times when the word was in the genitive case, it led me to believe that this must indeed be the case when a word ends in a hamza on top of an alif.  What further led me to that conclusion is the fact that this guy is an Arabic grammarian and as such I would assume is aware of proper grammar rules.

Also, you can look up "مبدإ" (it needs to be in quotation marks) on Google and there are many returns.  Each time the word occurs it is after a preposition or in an iDaafa state.


----------



## sultan750

we are talking about how to write hamza in several situations right ? 
if yes , idafa has nothing to do with how the hamza appears ..


----------



## elroy

مبدإ????   

I'm not an expert on the rules of hamza orthography, but that looks absolutely dreadful.  I have never seen إ at the end of a word and have a hard time believing that that is indeed a correct spelling, your grammar book and those Google results notwithstanding (though I don't give too much importance to the Google results in this case, as they could be typos; I often accidentally type إ instead of أ).


----------



## Josh_

I agree it looks weird, but from what I can tell it appears to be the case, although I am not 100% sure. It might be technically correct, but not really adhered to or it might not be correct at all.  Those instances on Google could very well be typos, but some of the sites appear to be very professional.

At any rate, when I first saw it I did not think much of it and sort of just accepted it, but now my curiosity about it has been piqued.  So I will try to do some more research on it and if I find anything will share it here.


----------



## evanovka

Me too, my curiousity has been piqued. So... my book says about hamza at the end of a word (this is the problem here, is it?):
All depends on the preceding vocal (... it would help [me], if you could provide the vocals in your example):

If it is an "a" sound: write أ
example: قَرَأَ

If it is an "u" sound: write ؤ
example: لُؤْلُؤٌ

If it is an "i" sound: write ئ
example: شَاطِئٌ
with tanween: شاطيئاََ

If there is a "sukun" or long vocal: write ء
example: مَاءٌ - دِفْءٌ

If you need a tanween _after a long vocal_, simply put it over the hamza _without additional alif_
ماءََ - وُضُوءََ - بَرِئََ

 - so far my book.
I am not so sure about correct typing of ئ vs. ىء ... any hints?


----------



## Mahaodeh

I'll start from the end, there is no ىء, this is a mistake that occurs due to typeing, the person typing types alif maqsoura then hamza, but what he means is ئ - the alif maqsoura always comes in the end, the hamza alone always comes in the end, so you can't have two ends to one word!

Also, شاطيئاََ is incorrect, it should be شاطئًا - where did the yaa' come from?

Regarding مبدأ, I think your grammer book is wrong; the reason is that the sarf of the word does not change by changing the na7u; so the daal will always be مفتوحة, hence the hamza should be on an alif - it was on the alif to start with becasue of the daal and the daal did not change.


----------



## evanovka

sorry I cannot follow you there.

I agree with شاطئاََ ... 
so far, my grammar book said nothing about مبدأ , because I don't know the vocals - and everything depends on the vocals. 
If مبدأ is correct, then it has to be مبدَأ. 

If you want to put an "i" vocal _after_ the hamza, then the hamza is not longer the last thing of the word, and then, the "i" dominates the preceding "a" (my book calls it _vocal hierarchy_, that is there is an order of vocals: i - u - a - sukun).
Logically, it should be then مبدَئِِ

Still, I cannot find an example to prove this (for the moment).

... I'm sorry if all this was too long and off topic


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Now here is a discussion that tickles ones intellect! 

I think the first thing I will do before starting a response is say *باسمِ اللهِ الرحمنِ الرحيمِ* as this is quite tricky to say the least.

What I am about to write is my thought process on what I believe should be the case according to the grammar I know and love.
However, one cannot merely state and accept something because "so and so" said or that one "found" it to be written in such a manner in a book. One must understand the reasoning behind the point to truly appreciate the point itself if not agree with it.

The topic of how the همزة is constructed is a long one and so I am merely going to advise readers to read on the basic (actually its not that basic!!!) rules of how to structure the hamzah.

There have been some rules posted by evanovka but these are by no means exhaustive!

Let us now start disecting the problem at hand; 



Josh_ said:


> Actually, you would retain the alif, but put the hamza on the bottom, so it would be مبدإ .





elroy said:


> مبدإ????
> 
> I'm not an expert on the rules of hamza orthography, but that looks absolutely dreadful. I have never seen إ at the end of a word and have a hard time believing that that is indeed a correct spelling, your grammar book and those Google results notwithstanding (though I don't give too much importance to the Google results in this case, as they could be typos; I often accidentally type إ instead of أ).



Now, I agree with the fact that this looks absolutely awful as we do not see the hamzah sit underneath the alif like this except at the beginning of the sentence as in the word *إنّ*. (Dare I say, it never exists!? And if it is encountered then it is a mistake? )

However, you are right Josh in saying that it needs to be مجرور. However, we cannot write إ with a كسرة if it is not at the beginning of the word. Think about ؤ with a كسرة.  (If I have lost readers already, then I advise you to read the rules of orthography again)

So we have now reached a point where we know the word is genetive and its genetivity is shown by a كسرة.  

The point raised by mahaodeh of;



Mahaodeh said:


> Regarding مبدأ, I think your grammer book is wrong; the reason is that the sarf of the word does not change by changing the na7u; so the daal will always be مفتوحة, hence the hamza should be on an alif - it was on the alif to start with becasue of the daal and the daal did not change.



is not "pin-point" accurate. Yes, النحو doesnt affect the actual structure of the word *BUT *the hamzah is inherently based on the حركات that surround it. Hence, intrinsically, we have a sort of "loop" if you like.

I think that evanovka has the thought process that I follow and agree with! The fact that we need to make the hamzah have a kasrah means we have to re-analyse what the hamzah sits on. From rules of orthography, we know that it must sit on a ى.

Though this may still look weird, it does not mean to say it is not correct. (Dare I confirm that مبدإ is now wrong!?)

Finally, a side point! 



Mahaodeh said:


> I'll start from the end, there is no ىء, this is a mistake that occurs due to typeing, the person typing types alif maqsoura then hamza, but what he means is ئ - the alif maqsoura always comes in the end, the hamza alone always comes in the end, so you can't have two ends to one word!



I agree with this statement and writers should be careful not to fall into this error. Note that the ى here is not acting as the end particle but merely a "seat" for the hamzah which is our ending letter. To further clarify, can we say that the و in ؤ is a letter? For completeness, the word مقرئ provides as an example of its existence.

Apologies for the length of the post , but this is indeed a tricky area (maybe even grey!) and so I endeavoured to explan it in as much detail as I saw fit.

Hope that helps and feel free to comment on my response! 

الحمد لله I have 5 minutes remaining to break my fast! I will return to the forum a little later إن شاءَ اللهُ

مع السلامة

* ابن منظــور*


----------



## WadiH

evanovka said:


> my book says about hamza at the end of a word (this is the problem here, is it?):
> All depends on the preceding vocal



This is indeed the rule.  So, مبدأ in all cases.


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Wadi Hanifa said:


> This is indeed the rule.  So, مبدأ in all cases.



Hello Wadi Hanifa

The orthography of the hamzah is not ONLY restricted to the short vowel that precedes it. It sometimes depends on what vowels follow it too. There are rules whether long vowels are involved as well as dipthongs.

I have based my opinion taking into consideration all the above.

I look forward to your thoughts.

ابن منظــور


----------



## evanovka

I am happy to see that all things are not that obvious in the end 
The part about hamza in the middle of a word is a longer story, this is why I picked out just the "hamza at the end" part. Alas, we need the whole picture, right?

At the beginning of a word, the hamza is _always _carried by an alif - hamza above alif for "a" and "u", below for "i".

If not at the beginning, the carrier can be an alif, a waw or a ya. Which one it is depends on the vocals around the hamza, taking regard of the vocal hierarchy (i - u - a - sukun).

If there is an "i" sound before or after the hamza - it will be carried by a ya.

If there is an "u" before and anything different to a "i" after the hamza - it will be carried by a waw (u precedes a and sukun in the hierarchy).

If there is an "a" before and anything different than "i" or "u" after - it will be carried by an alif.

If there is a sukun before, the carrier is determined according to whatever _follows _the hamza.

Now, this is not explicitly written in my book but what I understand so far:
Nominal nunation at the end (the -un) does not count as an "u" vocal.
example samA'[un] - hamza alone, not placed on a waw
Accusative and genetive nunation at the end (the -an, -in) however count as "a" resp. "i" vocals.
example is the original question 

... and in my book (sorry to repeat this all the time, that is what I have) I cannot see a difference in the spelling of "yajI'u" (he's coming) and "shATi'" - while there should be one, placing the hamza behind the ya in the first case but above the ya in the second case. 

(I will substitute arabic letters asap)

... this should be all ... do you have any more corrections? comments?


----------



## cherine

Ibn Monjur said:


> Now, I agree with the fact that this looks absolutely awful as we do not see the hamzah sit underneath the alif like this except at the beginning of the sentence as in the word *إنّ*. (Dare I say, it never exists!? And if it is encountered then it is a mistake? )


Sorry, Ibn Monjur, I don't understand this: what is that never exists?


> Though this may still look weird, it does not mean to say it is not correct. (Dare I confirm that مبدإ is now wrong!?)


You can confirm it, but I think I've seen it before. So, I agree with who said it's correct but not commonly used. 



evanovka said:


> I am happy to see that all things are not that obvious in the end


I think we can spend the rest of our lives trying to figure out some tricky hamzas 


> ... and in my book (sorry to repeat this all the time, that is what I have) I cannot see a difference in the spelling of "yajI'u" (he's coming) and "shATi'" - while there should be one, placing the hamza behind the ya in the first case but above the ya in the second case.


There should be a difference:
يجيء -> the hamza is "on the line"  على السطر
شاطئ -> the hamza is on the ى 
The difference is: when the last vowel (not the one on the hamza, but the one preceding it) is long, we have a yaa2 ي then a hamza يء but when it's a short vowel (kasra) the yaa2 sits on the yaa2 ئ .


P.S. I want to add that I don't think we can write mabda2 like this مبدئ when it's in a genetive, because the ئ means that it's preceded by a kasra, which is not the case, unless the word is "mubdi2" (=the one that starts) and not mabda2.
So, my opinion is that مبدإ can be corrected but it's not commonly used, so we usually keep the orthography as it is.


----------



## evanovka

> I want to add that I don't think we can write mabda2 like this مبدئ when it's in a genetive, because the ئ means that it's preceded by a kasra, which is not the case, unless the word is "mubdi2" (=the one that starts) and not mabda2.
> So, my opinion is that مبدإ can be corrected but it's not commonly used, so we usually keep the orthography as it is



Hm. As far as I get it, the ئ means that there is a kasra before _or after_ the hamza. And you cannot have a إ as the end of a word - this form is strictly only for the start of a word.

What would be your suggestion for a correct version?
You said مبدإ can be corrected and مبدئ is not correct either


Gosh, once I think I understand something, new puzzles are right behind the corner


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Hi Cherine

I have been thinking about this question since my post!



cherine said:


> P.S. I want to add that I don't think we can write mabda2 like this مبدئ when it's in a genetive, because the ئ means that it's preceded by a kasra, which is not the case, unless the word is "mubdi2" (=the one that starts) and not mabda2.



I think it is fair to say that the rules for the hamzah in the nominative case are "understandable". However, in this instance it is the مضاف and hence مجرور. So in effect, the vowel that follows the فتحة is a كسرة which is the "stronger" vowel. Do you see my point?

As I understand it, from you suggestion you would retain the ؤ when the word تباطؤ is genetive. How would you write this then?

Thus, I believe you would have to change it and if you do there is an inconsistency with مبدإ as you cannot just move the ء to the bottom in the case of ؤ.

* I am still thinking about this problem and so have not concluded as of yet.*



evanovka said:


> ... and in my book (sorry to repeat this all the time, that is what I have) I cannot see a difference in the spelling of "yajI'u" (he's coming) and "shATi'" - while there should be one, placing the hamza behind the ya in the first case but above the ya in the second case.



You are correct in your analysis. 

ابن منظــور


----------



## cherine

evanovka said:


> Hm. As far as I get it, the ئ means that there is a kasra before _or after_ the hamza.


As far as I know it, it only means that there's a kasra *before* the hamza.


> What would be your suggestion for a correct version?
> You said مبدإ can be corrected and مبدئ is not correct either


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. My suggestion is to keep the orthography as it is مبدأ .



Ibn Monjur said:


> As I understand it, from you suggestion you would retain the ؤ when the word تباطؤ is genetive. How would you write this then?


I would keep it as it is تباطؤِ and in the tanween تباطؤٍ 
If I see تباطئ I'll read it "tabaaTi2".


----------



## Ibn Monjur

So if مبدأ and تباطؤ were both in a genitive case and in an إضافة construction you would write them as *مبدأِ* and *تباطؤِ*?

My line of thought would have been that due to the fact that it is the مضاف then it will act in a very similar way to the hamzah that comes in the middle with a kasrah preceeding it.


----------



## Josh_

I wish that I had access to some of the the ancient grammars, where this issue might have been discussed, but unfortunately I do not.  But I did look in W. Wright's grammar (who, to put it in his words, "...availed myself of the labours of Arab Grammarians, both ancient and modern") and found a very brief discussion of it.

Rather than writing it out I will provide a link to part of a page that I scanned.  

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/joshadkins/scan0001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/joshadkins/scan0001-Copy2.jpg



			
				Ibn Monjur said:
			
		

> Thus, I believe you would have to change it and if you do there is an inconsistency with مبدإ as you cannot just move the ء to the bottom in the case of ؤ.


So, it is interesting that you brought this up, because this actually seems to have been the proper way to write it at one time. But, of course, this has since changed in modern times since nobody writes the hamza under the و or ى anymore.  There is not even a way to do this on the computer (the reason I felt compelled to scan the excerpt instead of just typing it out). 

By the way, it is nice to see you back on the forum again.

My short analysis:
We all know that at the beginning of a word the placement of the hamza on the alif is dependent on its accompanying vowel, that is if it is fatHa or Damma the alif is on top and if it is a kasra then the alif is on the bottom.  Given this fact, and the short excerpt from Wright's grammar it is my guess that the hamza was traditionally, or initially, placed in the position of its accompanying vowel regardless of its position in a word or on which seat it appeared.  Obviously, over time, this changed and the hamza is now exclusively written on top, except when it appears with a kasra at the beginning of a word, and rarely when it appears with a kasra at the end of a word (perhaps only purists do this).


----------



## Ibn Monjur

Hi Josh

My posts so far have only been writing down my mind's playing around with the rules of nahw like equations as my premises. This discussion has prompted me to study this phenomenon to a greater depth and will do so once the finance industry calms down إن شاءَ الله. 



Ibn Monjur said:


> Thus, I believe you would have to change it and if you do there is an inconsistency with مبدإ as you cannot just move the ء to the bottom in the case of ؤ.





Josh_ said:


> So, it is interesting that you brought this up, because this actually seems to have been the proper way to write it at one time. But, of course, this has since changed in modern times since nobody writes the hamza under the و or ى anymore.  There is not even a way to do this on the computer (the reason I felt compelled to scan the excerpt instead of just typing it out).



This seems interesting! 

Now if it is the case that the hamzah was written at the bottom of the letters in question in the times of old, then we are slightly more at ease as the system becomes more "consistent". Thank you for bringing this up! 

Again, my knowledge is limited and I will need to research into this more. If you come across any books that detail such occurences then please direct me to them so that I may also avail "...myself of the labours of Arab Grammarians, both ancient and modern".

I tend to incline more on the "purist" side of the language and thus would change my writing accordingly.



Josh_ said:


> By the way, it is nice to see you back on the forum again.



It is indeed a pleasure to be back Josh and your acknowledgement of my presence serves to demonstrate the softness of your speech. Thank you.
*
"The essence of being is the ability to make choices... the essence of being great is the ability to make the right choices."


*


----------



## evanovka

Thank you Josh for sharing the scan... this is very interesting. 
Though again puzzling, but hey, this sort of evolution is what is so fascinating about languages, isn't it?


----------



## Attair

I want to thank you to all of you for sharing your ideas about my headache with the hamza. It was really helpful.
And Ramadan Mubarak! for those that are fasting


----------

