# hamza همزة under yaa ـيـ



## Jamal31

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone knows under what circumstances a Hamzah can come under a Yaa as opposed to above it?

e.g. 
السراـٕر - السرائر

The above example is found at Qur'anic Orthography: The Written Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur'an


----------



## Matat

If there is a kasra on the ئ, the hamza goes on the bottom. Otherwise, it's on the top.


----------



## Jamal31

Thanks, Matat.


----------



## cherine

Matat said:


> If there is a kasra on the ئ, the hamza goes on the bottom. Otherwise, it's on the top.


Could you give examples, please?


----------



## Matat

Hamza on the bottom:
أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ لَهُمۡ جَنَّـٰتُ عَدۡنٍ۬ تَجۡرِى مِن تَحۡتِہِمُ ٱلۡأَنۡہَـٰرُ يُحَلَّوۡنَ فِيہَا مِنۡ أَسَاوِرَ مِن ذَهَبٍ۬ وَيَلۡبَسُونَ ثِيَابًا خُضۡرً۬ا مِّن سُندُسٍ۬ وَإِسۡتَبۡرَقٍ۬ مُّتَّكِـِٔينَ فِيہَا عَلَى ٱلۡأَرَآٮِٕكِ‌ۚ نِعۡمَ ٱلثَّوَابُ وَحَسُنَتۡ مُرۡتَفَقً۬ا
Quran 18:31

Hamza on the top:
وَرَسُولاً إِلَىٰ بَنِىٓ إِسۡرَٲٓءِيلَ أَنِّى قَدۡ جِئۡتُكُم بِـَٔايَةٍ۬ مِّن رَّبِّڪُمۡ‌ۖ أَنِّىٓ أَخۡلُقُ لَڪُم مِّنَ ٱلطِّينِ كَهَيۡـٴَـةِِ ٱلطَّيۡرِ فَأَنفُخُ فِيهِ فَيَكُونُ طَيۡرَۢا بِإِذۡنِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۖ  وَأُبۡرِئُ ٱلۡأَڪۡمَهَ وَٱلۡأَبۡرَصَ وَأُحۡىِ ٱلۡمَوۡتَىٰ بِإِذۡنِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۖ وَأُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا تَأۡكُلُونَ وَمَا تَدَّخِرُونَ فِى بُيُوتِڪُمۡ‌ۚ إِنَّ فِى ذَٲلِكَ لَأَيَةً۬ لَّكُمۡ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤۡمِنِينَ
Quran 3:49

This is in the common Quraanic orthography which Jamal31's question was asking about.

In standard writing, it's acceptable to keep the hamza on the top when there is a kasra (e.g. both أولئك and أولٮٕك would be correct).


----------



## cherine

Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Mazhara

Ways in Which a Hamza can be written

Rules for Writing Hamza | Learn Arabic Online


----------



## Jamal31

Thanks Mazhara, I've actually already read that page but didn't see the Yaa with a Hamzah below it on there. One thing I was wondering though is if Yaa/Kasrah is the first priority, then how come the word مُؤْمِن is spelled with a ؤ instead of a ئ, when the Harakah after it is a Kasrah?


----------



## analeeh

I've never encountered hamza under yaa2 in any modern text - I think it's somewhat dated in typography.

In _mu2min_ the 7araka after _2_ is actually a sukuun. The vowel must be immediately adjacent to the hamza to affect it. This is because - as is discussed on some of the pages shared elsewhere recently - the hamza had disappeared in the dialect that influenced the early Arabic writing system, being replaced by various different forms. For _mu2min_ for example the hamza probably disappeared and was replaced by a long vowel (_muumin_). Likewise in _saraa2ir_ the dialect form was probably _saraayir_ (this particular change can be seen in many modern spoken dialects).

There is in any case at least one thread about spelling the hamza that I'd encourage you to look up.


----------



## Mazhara

> Thanks Mazhara, I've actually already read that page but didn't see the Yaa with a Hamzah below it on there. One thing I was wondering though is if Yaa/Kasrah is the first priority, then how come the word مُؤْمِن is spelled with a ؤ instead of a ئ, when the Harakah after it is a Kasrah?



Perhaps you missed this line:

To facilitate the learning of these rules, consider the following *hierarchy of vowels in the language*:

You can look the words made from Roots that have hamza as one radical, at start, middle and end, used in Grand Qur'aan:

http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English Tafsir e Haqeeqat/000. Encyclopaedia of Arabic of Qur'aan/1. Dictionary/01. Dictionary of Roots/01. Dictionary of Roots.htm


----------



## Jamal31

analeeh said:


> In _mu2min_ the 7araka after _2_ is actually a sukuun. The vowel must be immediately adjacent to the hamza to affect it. This is because - as is discussed on some of the pages shared elsewhere recently - the hamza had disappeared in the dialect that influenced the early Arabic writing system, being replaced by various different forms. For _mu2min_ for example the hamza probably disappeared and was replaced by a long vowel (_muumin_). Likewise in _saraa2ir_ the dialect form was probably _saraayir_ (this particular change can be seen in many modern spoken dialects).


So do you mean why following it, it means the Harakah on the Hamzah itself? If this is the case, then how come, for example, the word لُـئَيْم is spelled with a ئ when the Harakat preceding it is a Dhammah, after it is a Fathah, and the letter after that is a ي, which would be irrelevant (i.e. like how the Kasrah in مُؤْمِن is)? Or is that because the former is *CuCCiC *and the latter is* CuCaC*?


----------



## Matat

Where did you see لُئَيْم? I've never personally encountered this word, nor do I see it in the dictionary. Are you sure you're not thinking of لَئِيم?
The spelling of لُئَيْم violates the spelling rules of the hamzah.


----------



## Jamal31

It's actually on the page Mazhara posted:


Mazhara said:


> Rules for Writing Hamza | Learn Arabic Online


----------



## Matat

The page says:


> If the Hamza is preceded and or followed by ياء or كسرة, it’s written on a ياء.


The site is correct about a ئ being used if the hamzah is preceded by a kasra or has a kasra on it.

It is also correct about the fact that if the hamzah is preceded by a ياء, it would also be a ئ, but it should be specified that the ياء must not have a vowel on it. You wouldn't write ُيُئْمِن instead of ُيُؤْمِن, for example.

However, it is incorrect about what happens when the hamzah is followed by a ياء. Being followed by a ياء does not automatically make the hamzah a ئ. For example, رُؤْيَةٌ is followed by a ياء, but you wouldn't write it رُئْيَةٌ.

I don't see how لُئَيْم could be a correct spelling, assuming that it's a word in the first place (and I don't think it is), unless it is an exception to the rule.


----------



## Jamal31

Matat said:


> However, it is incorrect about what happens when the hamzah is followed by a ياء. Being followed by a ياء does not automatically make the hamzah a ئ. For example, رُؤْيَةٌ is followed by a ياء, but you wouldn't write it رُئْيَةٌ.



Thanks for the clarification. The Harakah on the the following letter is also irrelevant, correct?


----------



## Matat

Correct; it's irrelevant.


----------



## rayloom

Mazhara said:


> Ways in Which a Hamza can be written
> 
> Rules for Writing Hamza | Learn Arabic Online



This page contains several errors unfortunately.
استقرار is never written with a hamza since it's a hamzat wa9l.
لُئَيم is incorrect. With these vowels it should be written لؤيم.
هيئة is also incorrect. Although it's commonly written thus, the hamza should be written after the yaa but without a نبرة. Same goes for شيئا. Unfortunately computers don't allow for a correct spelling! Check here for an example how the correct spelling should be.
As opposed to حمئة which is written with a نبرة.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> This page contains several errors unfortunately.
> استقرار is never written with a hamza since it's a hamzat wa9l.
> لُئَيم is incorrect. With these vowels it should be written لؤيم.



I would also add that "اسْتَوْؤَرَ" should be written "اسْتَوْءَرَ", though I don't know what this word is supposed to mean exactly (assuming it's a word).



rayloom said:


> هيئة is also incorrect. Although it's commonly written thus, the hamza should be written after the yaa but without a نبرة. Same goes for شيئا. Unfortunately computers don't allow for a correct spelling!


You're referring to how they would be written using the Quranic orthography, where they would be written شيـٔا and هيـٔة, but this is specific only to the Quran. The webpage is written in Standard Arabic. In standard writing, you would write شيئا and هيئة on a نبرة.


----------



## Jamal31

rayloom said:


> هيئة is also incorrect. Although it's commonly written thus, the hamza should be written after the yaa but without a نبرة. Same goes for شيئا. Unfortunately computers don't allow for a correct spelling! Check here for an example how the correct spelling should be.
> As opposed to حمئة which is written with a نبرة.


What rule is it that makes it written without a نبرة? When it is followed by Fathatayn?


----------



## rayloom

Matat said:


> I would also add that "اسْتَوْؤَرَ" should be written "اسْتَوْءَرَ", though I don't know what this word is supposed to mean exactly (assuming it's a word).
> 
> 
> You're referring to how they would be written using the Quranic orthography, where they would be written شيـٔا and هيـٔة, but this is specific only to the Quran. The webpage is written in Standard Arabic. In standard writing, you would write شيئا and هيئة on a نبرة; you would not write them the way they are written in the Quran.



It should be استوأر since there's a sukūn before and a fatHa after the hamza.
استوأرت الإبل تتابعت على نفار.

The standardisation of the form of شيئا and هيئة is quite recent (1970's I believe). Not many agree with it (also in school we were taught otherwise!)



Jamal31 said:


> What rule is it that makes it written without a نبرة? When it is followed by Fathatayn?



A final hamza which is written on the line like دفء or ضوء or شيء isn't written on a نبرة when the final hamza becomes a medial hamza. (At least that was the general idea).
دفء دفئا without the نبرة
ضوء ضوءا not ضوئا
جزء جزءا not جزئا
شيء شيئا without the نبرة


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> It should be استوأر since there's a sukūn before and a fatHa after the hamza


No, it should be a ء. Whenever there is a واو with a sukuun, it would remain a ء if it has a fatHa or damma. It would only change to a ئ if it had a kasra. For example, you used the word ضَوْءٌ when talking about the نبرة. If you add a vowel and make it accusative, it would be ضَوْءَهُ, not ضَوْأَهُ. The verb استوءر would be no different with regards to spelling.
Read here:


> أولاً: الهمزة في نحو المثال المذكور لاتكتب إلا مفردة في قطرنا وفي سواه، سواء كانت مضمومة أم مفتوحة تقول: (بدا ضوءه) بضم الهمزة* و(رأيت ضوءه) بفتحها*


Though there are those which allow ضوأه.
If it was any other letter with a sukuun which was not a ـا ـو or ـي, then it would have been أْ.



rayloom said:


> The standardisation of the form of شيئا and هيئة is quite recent (1970's I believe). Not many agree with it (also in school we were taught otherwise!)


Yes, it's recent, but it's certainly the accepted standard. It's not really a subject of agreement or disagreement. Spelling rules are based on how the Arab academies choose to define them, and this changes from time to time. It's the Arab academies which decide how they want things to be spelled. There are certain spellings which may have been acceptable 100 years ago, but are no longer acceptable now, and vice versa. You certainly can't use the Quranic orthography as a basis for modern spelling. For example, you couldn't write الصلاة as الصلوة in a research paper as it is written in the Quran. In fact, the original Quranic manuscripts didn't even have the hamzah written at all. I don't know the history of the نبرة over something like شيئا, but I would be very surprised if there was an Arab academy which didn't not only accept it, but didn't have it as the standard. In fact, I don't know of any Arab academy which teaches شيـٔا over شيئا as the preferred spelling. Even if they did, they do not proclaim شيئا as being incorrect. In most books on الإملاء, it is taught to be on a نبرة. One example is this written by Dr. Mosad.


> 4 ـ* إذا كانت الهمزة متطرفة في كلمة منونة بتنوين الفتح " النصب " *، والحرف الذي قبلها من الحروف التي يمكن وصلها بألف التنوين ،* تكتب على نبرة* .
> مثل : *دفء : دفئا* ، عبء : عبئا ، *شيء : شيئا* ، بطء : بطئا ، ملء : ملئا ، فيء : فيئا ، نشء : نشئا .


This is not to say that شيـٔا is incorrect. It may continue to be an accepted variety. But it's certainly not a mistake to write شيئا.


----------



## rayloom

Matat said:


> No, it should be a ء. Whenever there is a واو with a sukuun, it would remain a ء if it has a fatHa or damma. It would only change to a ئ if it had a kasra. For example, you used the word ضَوْءٌ when talking about the نبرة. If you add a vowel and make it accusative, it would be ضَوْءَهُ, not ضَوْأَهُ. The verb استوءر would be no different with regards to spelling.
> Read here:



استوأر and ضوء are different in that the first is a medial hamza and the latter is a final hamza. If it becomes medial it's called شبه المتوسطة and they have different rules.

Although an acceptable variant with the waw and yaa is to write the hamza on the line even when followed by a hamza since the hamza elision makes it possible to do so.
Thats why it's هيئة جيئة حُطَيئة and also that's why it's acceptable to spell توءم with a hamza on the line and توأم, same applies for سوءة and سوأة. 

Another final hamza becoming medial shows two acceptable varieties of spelling.
يقرأ
يقرأون
يقرؤون


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> استوأر and ضوء are different in that the first is a medial hamza and the latter is a final hamza. If it becomes medial it's called شبه المتوسطة and they have different rules.


No, not really. In fact, you just gave a good example of a natural medial hamzah, تَوْءَمٌ, which follows the same rule as ُضَوْءَه.

There are some variants which were commonly written as mistakes, and some linguists allowed the common mistake. The correct way to write "يقرؤون" is "يقرؤون". But some people incorrectly started writing it as يقرأون, so it started to also become accepted. But يقرؤون still remains preferred spelling over يقرأون, and I think many would still cringe to see one write يقرأون. Moreover, the acceptance of يقرأون (though I don't think the acceptance is unanimous), especially as the spelling that is not preferred, certainly wouldn't mean that يقرؤون is incorrect by any means.

The same thing applies with توءم, سوءة, استوءر, ضوءه, and other examples of natural and unnatural medial hamzahs which are preceded by silent waaws. It may have become common and even acceptable unanimously to write them as ضوأه, استوأر, سوأة, توأم, but that's not the preferred way. It becoming accepted, especially as the way that is not preferred, certainly wouldn't make استوءر incorrect by any means, and definitely wouldn't mean that "it should be استوأر" over استوءر, as you initially wrote.


----------

