# Spelling of hamza همزة with تنوين tanwiin fatHataan



## Drink

How do you spell a hamza with a fathataan?

In other words, how do you spell the following words in the accusative case?

- شَيْءٌ (is it شَيْءً or شَيْءًا?)

- بَدْءٌ (is it بَدْءً or بَدْءًا?)

- سَيِّئٌ (is it سَيِّئً or سَيِّئًا?)

- مِقْرَأٌ (is it مِقْرَأً or مِقْرَآً?)


----------



## akhooha

شيئاً or شيئًا
بدءاً or بدءًا
سيئاً or سيئًا
مِقْرَئاً or مقرئًا


----------



## barkoosh

It's actually مقرَأً, same as سمعتُ نبأً and رأيت على الحديد صدَأً فكان الحديد صدِئاً/صدِئًا.


----------



## Drink

So why is شيء different from بدء?


----------



## barkoosh

That's the thing with the final hamza preceded by a silent ي. You always put it on a "kursi yaa" if followed by other characters:
شيء - شيئاً - شيئان - شيئَين
قيء - قيئاً and قيئه (whatever the 7arakah is for the hamza)
Also
بريء - بريئاً - بريئان - بريئَين


----------



## Drink

I can't think of any, but what about words ending in ـٓوْءٌ and words ending in ـُؤٌ?


----------



## barkoosh

You would say then:
نَوْء - نَوْءاً/نَوءًا
سُوء - سُوءاً/سُوءًا


There's this kind of modern consensus (with certain exceptions, as always):
When the final hamza is preceded by a silent character that can connect to it, you put it on a "kursi yaa" if followed by other characters:
شيء - شيئاً/شيئًا
دفء - دفئاً/دفئًا
(although I've seen دفأً)
عبء - عبئاً/عبئاً
ًWhen preceded by a silent character that can't connect to it, you keep it isolated even if followed by other characters (only if it had a fatha/fathataan):
جزء - جزءاً/جزءًا - جزءان - جزءين
(However, some spell the last two جزآن - جزئين)


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

Happy new year for every body.
كل سنة وأنت طيب barkoosh 
------------
How do you spell a hamza with a fathataan?
We have eight figures for hamza at the end of the words:

1- ــــــــــــأ
2- ــــــــــــــاء
3- ــــــــــــــؤ
4- ـــــــــــــوء
5- ـــــــــــــئ
6- ــــــــــــيء
7- ــــــــــــــبء
8- ـــــــــــــزء


after adding fathateen

1- ــــــــــــــــأً 
2-ـــــــــــــاءً 
3- ــــــــــــــؤاً
4- ـــــــــــــوءاً
5- ـــــــــــــئاً
6- ــــــــــــيئاً
7- ــــــــــــــبئاً
8- ـــــــــــــزءاً

Example:
1- ملجأ / ملجأً 
2- رجاء / رجاءً
3- تباطؤ / تباطؤاً
4- ضوء / ضوءاً
5- قارئ / قارئاً
6- شيء / شيئاً
7- عبْء / عبْئاً
8- بدْء / بدْءاً
-------------

So why is شيء different from بدء?
That is a very small question but we can take a year to find the answer.
The answer is the letter ( ياء ) can be connected with the following letter, but the letter ( دال ) can not.

So what is the difference between (7) and (8)?
If the letter before hamza can be connected with the following letter, that is (7).
If the letter before hamza is ( د / ذ / ر / ز / و), that is (8)

That means (4) is a part of (8). And (6) is a part of (7)
Happy new year again.


----------



## akhooha

Thank you Ashraf for your clear, concise, and complete rules.


----------



## Saley

Examples of fatḥatān + ’alif maqṣūra (ـًى) after a hamza:
مَرْأًى _mar’an_ (pattern مَفْعَلٌ)
رُؤًى _ru’an_ (pattern فُعَلٌ) — pl. of رُؤْيَا
Unlike in the previous discussion, here the hamza is the middle root-letter (root _r-’-y_) rather than the final one.

I’d be glad if someone brought up some other nouns or classes of nouns of this kind, i.e. where a hamza is followed by _-an_ < _*-ay-un_.
As for now, it seems to me that these two words are the only ones.

Do there exist any nouns written with fatḥatān + ’alif ṭawīla (ـًا) after a hamza (likewise from _*-aw-un_ or _*-ay-un_, not a mere accusative ending)?


----------



## Drink

Saley said:


> I’d be glad if someone brought up some other nouns or classes of nouns of this kind, i.e. where a hamza is followed by _-an_ < _*-ay-un_.
> As for now, it seems to me that these two words are the only ones.



This occurs in all patterna that end _-3alun_, when the final root letter is _y_ or _w_ and the middle root letter is hamza. This a rather large class of patterns, so I'm not going to list them, but it's a small class of roots. I can't think of any other roots off the top of my head than the one you mentioned r-’-y. The passive participles for verb classes other than class 1 are all going to have this pattern so you try to see if those exist for this root.


----------



## Saley

Is the accusative of ملء _mil2_ spelled ملئًا?

@rayloom, as you said earlier, you don’t use a seat for the hamza in such situations (دفـًٔا، شيـًٔا). Would you write the acc. of ملء in the way I’ve shown in the picture below (i.e. the hamza between the letters of the lām-’alif ligature)?


----------



## rayloom

I use a seat نبرة when typewriting since it's the standard and you can't put a hamza like you did between the lam and alif. So it would be ملئا.
Otherwise when handwriting, I write it the way you did. Even with the other examples شيئا and دفئا, it's difficult to write the hamza between letters without a seat.
See here for example:
http://www.bukhari-pedia.net/book/matn_bukhari/9622
Unfortunately typewriting would put the hamza on the alif as above. See also the image I linked from the Lisan.


----------



## Saley

I’ll try to formulate a general rule that produces all the possible combinations described in post #8.

Deriving the spelling of the accusative from the spelling of the nominative is a process consisting of three steps which I’ve written below in bold. The second one isn’t actually a transformation but I’ve included it for clarity. The comments not in bold are also just for better understanding. Numbers in brackets are references to the examples in the table that follows. The rasm in the table is shown in angled brackets*.

*A silent alif is added to the rasm* [2, 3, 5, 6] *unless its last letter is already an alif* [1, 4]*.*
Regular letter connection rules apply: if the last letter of the rasm is a joiner, it connects with the added alif [3, 6]; if it’s a non-joiner, it doesn’t connect [2, 5].
*The hamza remains where it was.*
If the hamza was _above_ the last letter (i.e. on a seat: أ ؤ ئ), it remains above that same letter, whether the alif is added [2, 3] or not [1].
If the hamza was _after_ the last letter (i.e. without a seat: ء), it remains after that letter and goes on having no seat. If the alif isn’t added, the hamza appears in the end of a word [4]; if the alif is added, the hamza appears between the letter and this alif and is raised if necessary so as not to overlap with the rasm [5, 6].
*Dammataan above the hamza is replaced with fat7ataan* [all examples]*.*



#nom.acc.modern acc.1<‎ملحا‎> ملجأٌ= <‎ملحا‎> ملجأًsame2<‎ٮٮاطو‎> تباطؤٌ<‎ٮٮاطوا‎> تباطؤًاsame3<‎ٯارى‎> قارئٌ<‎ٯارىا‎> قارئًاsame4<‎رحا‎> رجاءٌ= <‎رحا‎> رجاءًsame5<‎ٮد‎> بدءٌ<‎ٮدا‎> بدءًاsame6_a_<‎عٮ‎> عبءٌ<‎عٮا‎> عبـًٔا<‎عٮىا‎> عبئًا6_b_<‎مل‎> ملءٌ<‎ملا‎> see post #17<‎ملىا‎> ملئًا

In modern practice a seatless hamza between two joined letters is replaced with a hamza on a yā’ seat [6] (this affects not only the spelling of accusatives).

I’m curious to know the exact reason of this modern change. When did it originate? Is it only due to technical limitations (problems with metal typesetting earlier and lack of proper Unicode support** now)? Is it widespread in handwriting where there can’t be any limitations?

* Not all browsers may display it correctly; the table should look like this.
** There’s a proposal to add the support for inline characters such as hamza to Unicode. See these excellent articles by Thomas Milo: (1) Arabic inline characters for Qur’ānic and Classic orthography in Unicode and computer typography, (2) Arabic amphibious characters: phonetics, phonology, orthography, calligraphy and typography.


----------



## rayloom

I'm not sure when and where it originated, but it was formalized in 1960 by the Academy of Arabic Language. And unfortunately Arabic typewriting doesn't support certain features of Arabic orthography.
Pre-modern works on Arabic orthography state that hamzas' orthography depends on how the hamzas (in general) undergo lenition to their closest corresponding glide or long vowel, and they give examples and exceptions. This final hamza preceded by a saakin is treated, when becoming a medial hamza, as if it didn't exist ولا صورة لها في الخط (as السيوطي says). Examples from another source are in an image attached here (from أدب الكاتب لابن قتيبة).

P.S. I will check the linked articles this evening.


----------



## Mahaodeh

rayloom said:


> but it was formalized in 1960 by the Academy of Arabic Language



Which one of the Academies? Does any one of them have a different way of spelling it?


----------



## rayloom

It was the one in Cairo. I don't think any of the others had proposed a different way of spelling it before their union in 1971. But the issue was addressed again for several classical spellings of the hamza several times since.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I was wondering because I don't recall seeing a different spelling, if there was one I would have been surprised.


----------

