# Imperative: doubled verb الفعل المضاعف



## jmt356

What is the singular masculine imperative of لَمَّ?

Suggestion: 
لَمَّ


----------



## Lark-lover

ألمم ilmum


----------



## إسكندراني

It would be المم with a همزة وصل
Are we sure لِمّ is dialectal?


----------



## akhooha

As Iskandarani says, this imperative uses همزة وصل

اُلْمُمْ  (ulmum)


----------



## abdulwahid

لُمَّ is fine aswell,

like رُدَّ  and اردد


----------



## Arabic Guru

abdulwahid said:


> لُمَّ is fine as well,


لُمَّ  :فعل ماضٍ مبنيٌّ للمجهول (Arabic: past -passive voice)


----------



## abdulwahid

Arabic Guru said:


> لُمَّ  :فعل ماضٍ مبنيٌّ للمجهول (Arabic: past -passive voice)


Yes aswell as فعل أمر

فعل الأمر المضعف يجوز فيه الانفكاك مثل امدد والإدغام مثل مُدًّ


----------



## Arabic Guru

Look here under المضاعف


----------



## akhooha

abdulwahid said:


> Yes aswell as فعل أمر
> 
> فعل الأمر المضعف يجوز فيه الانفكاك مثل امدد والإدغام مثل مُدًّ



زاد الطين بلة، أفتكرت أن صيغة الأمر لفعل "مَدَّ" هي "مُدّْ" أو "اُمْدُدْ"٠


(mudd or umdud)


----------



## abdulwahid

Arabic Guru said:


> Look here under المضاعف


Yes, that proves what I was saying (from the link above: رُدَّ اردد)

@akhooha
I'm not sure what you are trying to say (and it's mudda with a fatha not sukun)


----------



## akhooha

What I was trying to say was that I'm pretty sure the imperative is mudd, with sukuun. I don't have a source for that supposition, but I will look for one. Do you by any chance have a source for imperative mudda with fatHa? Thank you.


----------



## abdulwahid

I see, but it's with a fatha, generally, for the simple reason that you can't have two sukuns after eachother. مُدَّ is م د د the first dal has a sukun and that's why you can't have a sukun on the other daal. 

*قال ابن عقيل عن الفعل الأمر الثلاثي:*
*إذا أسند إلى الضمير المستتر جاز فيه الأمران الإدغام والفك والفك أكثر استعمالا وهو لغة أهل الحجاز قال الله تعالى { واغضض من صوتك }*
* وسائر العرب على الإدغام ولكنهم اختلفوا في تحريك الآخر:*
*- فلغة **أهل نجد **فتحُه قصدا إلى التخفيف ولأن الفتح أخو السكون المنقول عنه وتشبيها له بنحو أين وكيف مما بني على الفتح وقبله حرف ساكن فهم يقولون **غُضَّ وظِلَّ وخَفَّ *
*- ولغة **بني أسد **كأهل نجد إلا أن يقع بعد الفعل حرف ساكن فإن وقع بعده ساكن كسروا آخر الفعل فيقولون **غُضَّ طرفك وغضِّ الطرف *
*- ولغة **بني كعب **الكسر مطلقا فيقولون **غُضِّ طرفك وغُضَّ الطرف *
*- ومن العرب من يحرك الآخر بحركة الأول فيقولون **غُضُّ وخِفِّ وظَلَّ*


----------



## Arabic Guru

abdulwahid said:


> Yes, that proves what I was saying (from the link above: رُدَّ اردد)



So, you are saying that لُمَّ is both (فعل أمر + مبني للمجهول)


----------



## abdulwahid

Yes, but not at the same time of course. Just like رُدَّ can be both مبني للمجهول and فعل أمر


----------



## akhooha

abdulwahid said:


> I see, but it's with a fatha, generally, for the simple reason that you can't have two sukuns after eachother. مُدَّ is م د د the first dal has a sukun and that's why you can't have a sukun on the other daal.
> *قال ابن عقيل عن الفعل الأمر الثلاثي:*
> *إذا أسند إلى الضمير المستتر جاز فيه الأمران الإدغام والفك والفك أكثر استعمالا وهو لغة أهل الحجاز قال الله تعالى { واغضض من صوتك }*
> * وسائر العرب على الإدغام ولكنهم اختلفوا في تحريك الآخر:*
> *- فلغة **أهل نجد **فتحُه قصدا إلى التخفيف ولأن الفتح أخو السكون المنقول عنه وتشبيها له بنحو أين وكيف مما بني على الفتح وقبله حرف ساكن فهم يقولون **غُضَّ وظِلَّ وخَفَّ *
> *- ولغة **بني أسد **كأهل نجد إلا أن يقع بعد الفعل حرف ساكن فإن وقع بعده ساكن كسروا آخر الفعل فيقولون **غُضَّ طرفك وغضِّ الطرف *
> *- ولغة **بني كعب **الكسر مطلقا فيقولون **غُضِّ طرفك وغُضَّ الطرف *
> *- ومن العرب من يحرك الآخر بحركة الأول فيقولون **غُضُّ وخِفِّ وظَلَّ*


Thanks, abdulwahid. What you've provided seems pretty authoritative, and I can't find anything to back up the form with the sukuun.


----------



## Arabic Guru

Wallah I don't know Abdu, but I think it's a little bit weird.

6atyyeb, in The Holy Quran, all these kinds of "Imperatives" are with الفك e.g.



> وَاقْصِدْ فِي مَشْيِكَ وَاغْضُضْ مِنْ صَوْتِكَ 31:19​





> 20:22 وَاضْمُمْ يَدَكَ إِلَىٰ جَنَاحِكَ تَخْرُجْ بَيْضَاءَ مِنْ غَيْرِ سُوءٍ
> ​


----------



## abdulwahid

@akhooha:
You're welcome. I'm glad I could provide you with something new

@ Arabic Guru
As mentioned before فك is more common than إذغام but both are correct, at least in classical Arabic (not sure about MSA) (see my previous post), and by the way my name is Abdulwahid, not Abdu


----------



## Arabic Guru

abdulwahid said:


> As mentioned before فك is more common than إدغام but both are correct, at least in classical Arabic (not sure about MSA) (see my previous post) _and by the way my name is Abdulwahid, not Abdu_



Ok Abdulwahid. I think it's fine to say عبده

How would be the Harakat of القمح in these sentences: 
لُمَّ القمح في الصباح
لُمَّ القمح في الصباح


----------



## abdulwahid

It depends, if you are using لم  as a فعل امر then قمح will have a fatha being مفعول به, and if you use it as فعل ماض مبني للمجهول it will have damma being نائب الفاعل


----------



## Arabic Guru

abdulwahid said:


> Yes, but not at the same time of course. Just like رُدَّ can be both مبني للمجهول and فعل أمر



Good catch!


----------



## jmt356

When you say همزة وصل, you mean there is no visible همزة, right? 

So for example if ا appears with ضمة but no ء, we say there is a همزة وصل? 

Therefore, the imperative is اُلْمُمْ, not أُلْمُم -- i.e., there is no همزة.


----------



## akhooha

Correct.


----------



## إسكندراني

jmt356 said:


> When you say همزة وصل, you mean there is no visible همزة, right?
> 
> So for example if ا appears with ضمة but no ء, we say there is a همزة وصل?
> 
> Therefore, the imperative is اُلْمُمْ, not أُلْمُم -- i.e., there is no همزة.


Its orthography varies with time and region, but on the internet it is generally as you said. The key thing is to recognise the difference between همزتي القطع والوصل, and to interpret and pronounce them correctly.


----------



## jmt356

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
Jump!
Which of the following is the imperative of نَطَّ :
نُطْ (according to a native speaker I consulted)
أُنْطُطْ (according to http://qutrub.arabeyes.org/?verb=نطّ&all=1&transitive=1&past=1&future=1&imperative=1&passive=1&future_moode=1&confirmed=1&haraka=فتحة&display_format=HTML)


----------



## HBZ55

The first one seems correct to me.
Also, for a translation of "Jump!", I would use إقفز.


----------



## akhooha

I believe that نُطّ (with shadda and either a Damma, fatHa, or kasra on the final letter)
and اُنْطُطْ (with no hamza) are both acceptable imperative forms.
(See Wright's Arabic Grammar, pages 302-303, conjugation of مدّ)


----------



## jmt356

What is the logic behind نُطُّ, نُطَّ or نُطِّ (with شدّة and either a ضمّة, فتحة or كسرة on the final letter) as the conjugation? Don’t all Form I verbs end with a سكون in the imperative?


----------



## akhooha

You can't have a سكون following a شدّة


----------



## dkarjala

jmt356 said:


> What is the logic behind نُطُّ, نُطَّ or نُطِّ (with شدّة and either a ضمّة, فتحة or كسرة on the final letter) as the conjugation? Don’t all Form I verbs end with a سكون in the imperative?



As akhooha said, you can't have a sukuun after a shadda. Traditionally, the jussive and imperative should cause the shadda to split, but in MSA forms mirroring the subjunctive replace these. So, for example, you get لم ينُطَّ alongside classical لم يَنطُطْ


----------



## Illyuminator

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
How would one write out the imperative forms of a verb like َقر or َحل. The is the one irregular form I can't seem to find instructions for.


----------



## ARB87

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
Can someone please write out the imperative form for the verb "count" (with all vowels) ?

Eg: Count the boxes

شكرا


----------



## elroy

عِدّْ (singular masculine)
عِدِّي (singular feminine)
عِدُّوا (plural)


----------



## ARB87

Shukran jazeelan!

Are the steps different for getting the imperative for doubled verbs?

The steps I know are:
1. Make the verb 2nd person, present tense eg. تَذْهَبُ
2. Put a 'sukoon' on the last letter eg. تَذْهَبْ 
3. Remove the 'ta', and put an 'alef' or nothing depending on the vowel on the first root letter eg. اِذْهَبْ

If that is correct, I don't see how these steps lead to imperative form: عِدّْ

1.  تَعُدُّ
2?  تَعْدُدْ
3...?


----------



## elroy

First of all, it looks like I was influenced by my dialect.  In Palestinian Arabic it's عِد but I guess in MSA it's عُد? 

Secondly, yes, the formation is different when there is a doubled consonant.  Step 1 is the same, but in Step 2 you don't split the doubled consonant into two and you don't change any of the vowels.  Initially I thought you added a sukuun, but I did some research and it looks like you actually add a fat7a (this was new to me!).  In Step 3, you remove the ta. 

That means the forms would be:

عُدَّ (singular masculine)
عُدِّي (singular feminine)
عُدُّوا (plural)

Sorry about the confusion, but for what it's worth, the forms in my first post are correct in Palestinian Arabic!


----------



## ARB87

Thank you so much for your responses 'elroy' !

I read the thread and it seems that there are two imperative forms for doubled verbs (ie. عُدَّ and اُعْدُدْ )

I will try to learn عُدَّ and just remember the other form exists and is also technically correct.


----------



## akhooha

According to Wright's Arabic Grammar (Vol.1, page 303), the vowel ending the imperative for verbs like عدّ can either be fat7a, kesra, or Damma:




Does anyone know if there are any rules governing the choice of final vowel, or is it just a matter of personal choice?


----------

