# ـهُ/ـهِ (third person singular accusative/genitive pronoun): vowel length



## princeofdarkness

Hello,
Is there a rule that states that the vowel (be it dhammah or kasrah) of the pronoun ه is always long except when it is preceded by a long vowel?

Here is an example of the former:

ضربته

And an example of the latter:

ضربناه

Could somebody verify this rule and, if possible, provide a reference? شكراً


----------



## elroy

The vowel on the ه is short in both of your examples.


----------



## Mahaodeh

princeofdarkness said:


> Is there a rule that states that the vowel (be it dhammah or kasrah) of the pronoun ه is always long except when it is preceded by a long vowel?



Not that I know of. 

I agree with elroy




elroy said:


> The vowel on the ه is short in both of your examples.


​


----------



## fdb

If you have access to jstor, there is this very thorough study:

MATTER OF LENGTH | Journal of Semitic Studies | Oxford Academic


----------



## Uzair00la

I believe the correct rule is as follows: the vowel contained in “hu” is long when preceded by a mutaharrik letter. On the other hand, when it is preceded by a saakin letter, it is short. Here are some examples:

وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ

وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ

وَمَن يُبَدِّلْ نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَتْهُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاتِ اللَّهِ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

The first two examples contain ه with a long vowel while the second two contain it with a short vowel.


----------



## elroy

In MSA all of those are short.


----------



## fdb

Note the miniature waaw in: 
وَلَمۡ يَكُن لَّهُ ۥ ڪُفُوًا أَحَدٌ

But of course we are talking about classical Arabic (the language of the Qur'an and of classical poetry).


----------



## Ghabi

The Hans Wehr dictionary retains this feature in its romanisation, "Because of a distinction which retains importance in quantitative metrics, the third person singular masculine suffix is transcribed with a long vowel (_-hū, -hī_) following short syllables and with a short vowel (_-hu, -hi_) after long syllables." ("Introduction", X)


----------



## fdb

Ghabi said:


> the third person singular masculine suffix is transcribed with a long vowel (_-hū, -hī_) following short syllables and with a short vowel (_-hu, -hi_) after long syllables.



 Although this formulation ("short syllables....long syllables") is not correct, as is shown in the article by Beeston (no. 4).


----------



## Mahaodeh

I don't know about Hans Wehr or Beeston, what I did is that after I saw the examples is that I went and looked up a whole جزء of the Quran, and I noticed that while there is some truth to the rule mentioned above, it is much more complex than that. Note in the same sura:

*عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ (1) أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ (2) وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّىٰ (3) أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ الذِّكْرَىٰ (4) أَمَّا مَنِ اسْتَغْنَىٰ (5) فَأَنتَ لَهُ تَصَدَّىٰ*

In the red ones it is not turned into a long vowel, in the green one's it is. I know that it is extended in two ways: 1. the marks in the Quran, and 2. I listened to it recited property by trained reciters. This is not an isolated incident so I would say that there is much more to it than a simple rule. I think it probably has something to do with the context and words before and after it and not just the vowel before it.



elroy said:


> In MSA all of those are short.



I wouldn't hurry to say that. If you pronounce the word isolated it sounds like a short vowel, but maybe in certain contexts it is pronounced differently.

I've never heard of a rule, but we have to keep in mind that in practice it is probably affected by the sounds before and after it.


----------



## elroy

Mahaodeh said:


> I wouldn't hurry to say that. If you pronounce the word isolated it sounds like a short vowel, but maybe in certain contexts it is pronounced differently.


 I didn't hurry.   I'm not talking about words in isolation or any other contexts; I'm talking about the sentences given in #5.  Would you pronounce any of those vowels long?


----------



## Saley

Mahaodeh said:


> *عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ (1) أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ (2) وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّىٰ (3) أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ الذِّكْرَىٰ (4) أَمَّا مَنِ اسْتَغْنَىٰ (5) فَأَنتَ لَهُ تَصَدَّىٰ*
> 
> In the red ones it is not turned into a long vowel, in the green one's it is.


Of course in the red ones it can only be short, because the following word begins with two consonants. Any long vowel would be shortened in this environment.


----------



## elroy

Saley said:


> Any long vowel would be shortened in this environment.


 This is not true.  The dual suffix ـا, for example, is never shortened.

أكلا تفاحًا: _'akalā tuffāħan_
أكلا التفاح: _'akalā_~_ttuffāħa_

No difference in length.


----------



## Mahaodeh

elroy said:


> Would you pronounce any of those vowels long?


No, of course not. I agree that in isolation you just pronounce a Dhamma or kasra or sukuun.



Saley said:


> Of course in the red ones it can only be short, because the following word begins with two consonants.



I assume by 'two constants' you mean حرف ساكن because the last one له تصدى is also followed by two constants except that the first one is متحرّك. Well, the rule mentioned in the first post says nothing about the letters after the haa', he even gave us isolated examples implying that he didn't consider that anything after it has any effect.

In any case, after I posted my answer I found a few websites talking about this. It's called اشباع and the rule is not long vowel or short vowel before the haa'; it's: إذا وقعت بين متحركين; a long vowel is considered to be ساكن hence it's never pronounced long after one. The sources also say that it's not a must (واجب), it's preferable but pronouncing a short vowel or even a sukuun is also correct.


----------



## elroy

Mahaodeh said:


> I agree that in isolation you just pronounce a Dhamma or kasra or sukuun.


 What about within those sentences (i.e. not in isolation)?


----------



## Mahaodeh

elroy said:


> What about within those sentences (i.e. not in isolation)?



I didn't want to include this, but I tried it out in my mouth and it seemed to me that sometimes I automatically make it longer. Admittedly though, never long enough to be considered a waaw or yaa' unless I'm reciting something from the Quran that I memorised that way.

An example, try saying: سألته سؤالا and سألته السؤال with full vowels (حركات), you would automatically make the first one longer. I wouldn't say the same way as لهجة قريش, but still slightly longer.


----------



## Saley

elroy said:


> The dual suffix ـا, for example, is never shortened.


I was not talking about MSA but about the way the Quranic verses quoted by Mahaodeh are recited. The dual _-ā_ should be shortened in Classical Arabic as well: كِلْتَا الْجَنَّتَيْنِ (Qur’ān 18:33).


Mahaodeh said:


> I assume by 'two constants' you mean حرف ساكن because the last one له تصدى is also followed by two constants except that the first one is متحرّك.


Not ‘cons*t*ants’ but ‘cons*on*ants’, i.e. consonant sounds (_l’_ and _ḏḏ_); in Arabic terms, a ساكن followed by a متحرّك. The shortening is due to التقاء الساكنين.


----------



## elroy

Mahaodeh said:


> try saying: سألته سؤالا and سألته السؤال with full vowels (حركات), you would automatically make the first one longer.


 I just said them to myself a bunch of times.  I feel like the first time is _maybe *slightly* _longer, but definitely not enough for me to consider it _long_.  I suspect that if there is a difference, what is happening is that the first one is a normal short vowel and the second one is _a little bit short*er *_-- but both are short.  And in any case, these differences are phonetic, not phonological -- whereas the difference between long and short vowels is phonological/phonemic. 





Saley said:


> I was not talking about MSA but about the way the Quranic verses quoted by Mahaodeh are recited.


 If you're talking about Classical Arabic (or colloquial Arabic), please state that explicitly.  Otherwise we assume you mean MSA by default.

I'm not Muslim (so someone who is should correct me if I'm wrong), but I don't believe that the Qur'an is _always_ read (or Qur'anic verses always quoted) according to the rules of tajwid.  In other words, even when we're talking about the Qur'an the difference between MSA and Classical Arabic still applies.  In any case, I know I've heard وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ many times (it's often used as an argument against the Christian concept of the Trinity), and it's always been pronounced according to MSA rules/conventions.


Saley said:


> The dual _-ā_ should be shortened in Classical Arabic as well: كِلْتَا الْجَنَّتَيْنِ (Qur’ān 18:33).


 "kilta~j-jannatayn" sounds fine to me (so I guess I shouldn't have said "never" above!), but "akala tuffāħan" for أكلا تفاحّا sounds completely wrong and is definitely wrong in MSA.  It sounds so wrong that I have a hard time imagining that's really the Classical Arabic pronunciation.   Is it really pronounced just like أكلَ تفاحًا in Classical Arabic?  (I think the reason "kilta" sounds okay in MSA is because there's no room for ambiguity.)


----------



## Saley

I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear because I didn’t repeat it in my statement you quoted last, but it was meant to refer to the same environment — before a word beginning with two consonants. أكلا تفّاحًا was pronounced with a long _ā_ in CA (_’akalā tuffāḥan_) and أكلا التفّاح with a short _a_ (_’akala t-tuffāḥa_).


----------



## elroy

Even in your first post, you didn't specify that you were talking about Classical Arabic; in the future, please make sure to make that explicit. 


Saley said:


> أكلا تفّاحًا was pronounced with a long _ā_ in CA (_’akalā tuffāḥan_) and أكلا التفّاح with a short _a_ (_’akala t-tuffāḥa_)


 I guess I chose the wrong example, but from an MSA perspective "akala" sounds dreadful in _both_ cases.


----------

