# Writing out همزة الوصل



## jmt356

In an 8 Jan. 2013 post, Barkoosh wrote: 

“2.3 Since the hamzat waSl connects to what precedes it, what happens when there's nothing before it to connect to, as at the beginning of a sentence? The traditional way to do it is to pronounce it as a hamzat qaT3 while writing a diacritic only. For example, at the beginning of a sentence, you write اَلْكِتابُ- اُكْتُبْ - اِنْتَشَرَ.

“2.4 IMPORTANT USAGE NOTE: The hamzat waSl is almost nonexistent among Arabs today. Nobody writes it in their daily life. It's generally replaced with a simple ا, and sometimes replaced with a hamzat qaT3! While the alif hamzat waSl is generally replaced with ا in the definite article ال, the hamzat qaT3 is used by some in the other instances: إِنتشار - إبن - إسم -إتّجاه. So don't be surprised if you see إِسْتَطاعَ الْإِبْنُ إسْتِعْمالَ إِسْمٍ آخَر instead of اِسْتَطاعَ ٱلِٱبْنُ ٱسْتِعْمالَ ٱسْمٍ آخَر.”

Thus, a word such as افْعَلْ (the imperative of فعل) would normally be written as اِفْعَلْ in modern Arabic or even erroneously as إِفْعَلْ. How would it correctly be written if the writer wanted to include همزة الوصل? 

Suggestion: 
ٱِفْعَلْ


----------



## analeeh

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think you would generally write it - simply because when the waSl sign is written, it's typically to indicate that it has been elided. That is to say, when the wasl sign is written, it is shorthand for 'this alif is silent'. If the hamza is sounded, as I understand it it can be written with a normal hamzat qaT3. In this case no vowel sign would be written, presumably. I can't, in any case, find any examples of it being written with any vowel.


----------



## Matat

In writing, you usually don't have to worry about vowels so you would just write it افعل. If you did want to include them, then you can write اِفْعَلْ if it is the beginning of a sentence or phrase. If not, just write افْعَلْ.


----------



## akhooha

jmt356 said:


> ... Thus, a word such as افْعَلْ (the imperative of فعل) would normally be written as اِفْعَلْ in modern Arabic or even erroneously as إِفْعَلْ. How would it correctly be written if the writer wanted to include همزة الوصل?
> Suggestion:
> ٱِفْعَلْ


Your suggestion is incorrect. If you really want to include the همزة الوصل, then you would not also include the kasra. You've got three choices: 
1. No marking at all (افعل)
2. Kasra (اِفعل)
3. Hamzat al-waSl (ٱفعل)
See,  for example, Surat al-3alaq (96:1)


----------



## Ibn Nacer

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread -- Ghabi]
Salut,

Dans ce cours (Source : دروس في اللغة العربية ~ كتابة الهمزة)  il y a cette phrase :

همزة الوصل وهي همزة تلفظ أحياناً وأحياناً لا تلفظ ولكنها لا ترسم في الكتابة* في كل الحالات مثل : اقتصاد   , الاقتصاد   , اختزال , الاختزال  , الولد   , الطير .*


Je ne comprends pas ce passage "لا ترسم في الكتابة ", est-ce que cela ne devrait pas être le contraire : "ترسم في الكتابة" ?

C'est-à-dire : la hamzatu-l-wasl tantôt se prononce tantôt ne se prononce pas mais dans tous les cas on l'écrit.

Merci.

EDIT : I think the sentence should be like this (without the negation : without لا) :
همزة الوصل وهي همزة تلفظ أحياناً وأحياناً لا تلفظ ولكنها  ترسم في الكتابة* في كل الحالات مثل : اقتصاد   , الاقتصاد   , اختزال , الاختزال  , الولد   , الطير .*


What do you think ?


----------



## She'lock Holmes

_Bonjour!
_
I think you confused _hamza _with _alef _here. ا is merely an _alef _while ء is the _hamza_; nevertheless, ا (when compared to أ) is called _hamza al-wasl _because you should *not *pronounce a _hamza_ (glottal stop) when you do _wasl _(connect words) instead of a weak (or maybe non-existent) vowel sound (in other words: only pronounce a _hamza _at the start of a sentence as it is omitted in connected speech); which is quite an illogical name for the opposite meaning you'd expect.

As a side note: most Arabophones lost the distinction between _hamza_ and vowel-_alef _so this is merely a style of writing now without any practical benefit. Most Arabophones (at least in the Levant) would never use a glottalised hamza at the start of a word/sentence even if_ hamza al-qati'_ is used unless they are emphasising a word, irrespective of whether it is _al-qati'_ or _al-wasl_.

_je suis désolé_, my French is terribly bad.


----------



## Ghabi

Ibn Nacer said:


> Je ne comprends pas ce passage "لا ترسم في الكتابة ", est-ce que cela ne devrait pas être le contraire : "ترسم في الكتابة" ?


It means you should not write الإقتصاد, which of course is seen commonly in reality, as the presence, absence and placement of the hamza are often a matter of indifference in contemporary Arabic orthography.


----------



## cherine

Je voudrais juste ajouter que l'auteur parle de la hamza en tant que symbole orthographique ء que l'on n'écrit pas quand il s'agit de همزة الوصل même quand on la prononce comme une hamza, donc iqtiSad se prononce comme si c'était une hamzat qat3 mais s'écrit sans la hamza اقتصاد et non إقتصاد.


----------



## Mahaodeh

She'lock Holmes said:


> Most Arabophones (at least in the Levant) would never use a glottalised hamza at the start of a word/sentence even if_ hamza al-qati'_ is used unless they are emphasising a word, irrespective of whether it is _al-qati'_ or _al-wasl_.



I don't think that this is actually correct, unless you are talking about dialects (I'm assuming the whole thread is about fus7a). If you are talking about dialects then I would say it depends on the dialect. I know for sure that in PA and JA they do pronounce the hamza when it's in the beginning for the sentence. 

If you are talking about MSA, then how could they not?! I can't imagine trying to say something like اقتصاد العالم اليوم يزداد انهيارا without the hamza and pronouncing everything else correctly including pronouncing the qaaf with taskeen! Let alone something like أكملنا العمل without the hamza!


----------



## She'lock Holmes

Mahaodeh said:


> I don't think that this is actually correct, unless you are talking about dialects (I'm assuming the whole thread is about fus7a). If you are talking about dialects then I would say it depends on the dialect. I know for sure that in PA and JA they do pronounce the hamza when it's in the beginning for the sentence.


Oh, I was talking about orthography in the contemporary Arabophone world. I believe a better analysis would have been 'they might glottalise it but without differentiating between the two different kinds of _hamzas_'.

I can imagine myself saying something like 'ْكْمَلْنا لْعَمَل' instead of 'أكملنا العمل' unless I am very careful about these _hamzas_ - which would sound very artificial for me - and still calling this _fusha_. Pure forms of spoken-MWA are quite rare outside the TV.

I'd say something like:
قْتِصادْ لْعالمِ لْيوم يزدادُ إِنهيارا


----------



## Mahaodeh

She'lock Holmes said:


> Oh, I was talking about orthography in the contemporary Arabophone world.


I see. Then I suppose you are sort of correct. I have seen the hamza written, sometimes correctly and sometimes not. It _is_ a spelling issue in modern times.


She'lock Holmes said:


> I'd say something like:
> قْتِصادْ لْعالمِ لْيوم يزدادُ إِنهيارا



Start your speech with a saakin? Hmm, it's actually quite hard! I have to say that I haven't heard it pronounced that way even by Lebanese people or on Lebanese TV (speaking MSA of course). There is always a faint hamza first. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying 'you can't' or 'you don't', I'm just saying I've never heard or noticed anyone say it that way.

I've also noticed in dialects that some people tend to add a hamza when the dialect makes the first letter saakin. The best example is محمد that, in most dialects, has a meem sakina in the beginning rather than maDmuuma. I've even caught a child once writing it down إمحمد !


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Salut,

Thank you all for your answers.
It seems that for you the author is talking about* hamzah* (ء) but I understand that in this sentence he speaks about *hamzatu-l-wasl* and it's not the same thing.

Look at the pronouns (in blue), they all refer to hamzatu-l-wasl, right?

همزة الوصل وهي همزة تلفظ أحياناً وأحياناً لا تلفظ ولكنها لا ترسم في الكتابة* في كل الحالات مثل : اقتصاد   , الاقتصاد   , اختزال , الاختزال  , الولد   , الطير .*

I understand that the author wanted to say that sometimes the hamzatu-l-wasl is pronounced and sometimes it is not pronounced (this according to some rules not mentioned in this sentence) but in all cases *it must be written*.

I think he wanted to insist on this point because one might think that hamzatu-l-wasl is not written when it is not pronounced.

What do you think ?


----------



## cherine

I think you're misunderstanding the author. He talks about pronunciation and about writing.

For the pronunciation, he says: تُلْفَظُ أحيانًا، وأحيانًا لا تُلْفَظ meaning that is it sometimes pronounced (like in the begining of a sentence, for example in the beginning of a sentence you can't drop the ا in iqtiSaad, while in the middle you make the liaison so you say waqtiSaad واقتصاد here we don't pronounce the ا).

As for the writing, he says ولكنها لا تُرْسَم في الكتابة في كل الحالات, meaning that it is never never written in any/all cases (i.e.: whether we pronounce it or not) so he can only be talking about the hamza ء not the alef itself ا.


----------



## jack_1313

cherine said:


> Je voudrais juste ajouter que l'auteur parle de la hamza en tant que symbole orthographique ء que l'on n'écrit pas quand il s'agit de همزة الوصل même quand on la prononce comme une hamza, donc iqtiSad se prononce comme si c'était une hamzat qat3 mais s'écrit sans la hamza اقتصاد et non إقتصاد.





cherine said:


> As for the writing, he says ولكنها لا تُرْسَم في الكتابة في كل الحالات, meaning that it is never never written in any/all cases (i.e.: whether we pronounce it or not) so he can only be talking about the hamza ء not the alef itself ا.



Regarding the addition of a visible همزة to همزة الوصل (e.g. إقتصاد or إفعل), I personally detest the practice and will continue to defend the right of poor old همزة الوصل to exist unmolested (We wouldn't write ألولد instead of الولد, so why should we apply a different rule when the same letter appears in verbs?). However, the last time I brought the matter up, Saley mentioned the existence of a "difference of opinions" and linked to earlier threads, one of which includes this image clearly showing a همزة written below همزة الوصل. This was the first time I had heard of such a debate - all sources I had previously read categorically reject the practice.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Yes it is possible that the author is willing to say that but if you did not already know all these rules, would you have understood the sentence in this way?

I say this because:



cherine said:


> As for the writing, he says ولكنها لا تُرْسَم في الكتابة في كل الحالات, meaning that it is never never written in any/all cases (i.e.: whether we pronounce it or not) so he can only be talking about the hamza ء not the alef itself ا.



Do you agree with this:

ولكنها لا ترسم في الكتابة  ===  ولكن همزة الوصل لا ترسم في الكتابة​
If so then the question is: what is the همزة الوصل ? 
For me, the همزة الوصل is the alif (in red) in the following words :
*اقتصاد   , الاقتصاد   , اختزال , الاختزال  , الولد   , الطير *

And this alif *is always written* (ترسم في الكتابة في كل الحالات).

But it's possible that I'm wrong.


----------



## cherine

The pronoun in لكنها refers to همزة in همزة تُلفظ أحيانًا (meaning the glottal stop or the ء) not the همزة الوصل itself. So I still stand by my understanding, even if I didn't know the rule.
همزة الوصل (الألف) هي همزة (ء) تُلفظ أحيانًا وأحيانًا لا تُلفظ، ولكنها (الهمزة ء) لا تُرسَم في الكتابة في كل الحالات. The subject of the verbs تُلفظ، تُرسم is also the second hamza in هي همزة not the first one همزة الوصل.


jack_1313 said:


> Regarding the addition of a visible همزة to همزة الوصل (e.g. إقتصاد or إفعل), I personally detest the practice and will continue to defend the right of poor old همزة الوصل to exist unmolested


I totally agree with you.


> (We wouldn't write ألولد instead of الولد, so why should we apply a different rule when the same letter appears in verbs?). However, the last time I brought the matter up, Saley mentioned the existence of a "difference of opinions" and linked to earlier threads, one of which includes this image clearly showing a همزة written below همزة الوصل. This was the first time I had heard of such a debate - all sources I had previously read categorically reject the practice.


The image, for those who can't access the link, is a picture from a مُصحف where the همزة الوصل in the word اقرأ is written. I, unfortunately, didn't study كتابة المصاحفة / الرَسْم العثماني, but I notice that the hamza is written in a different color from the hamza of همزة القطع in words like الأكرم or the second alef of the word اقرأ and I guess this means something (that it's just for the reading, like the rest of the diacrtical marks in the text).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

cherine said:


> The pronoun in لكنها refers to همزة in همزة تُلفظ أحيانًا (meaning the glottal stop or the ء) not the همزة الوصل itself. So I still stand by my understanding, even if I didn't know the rule.
> همزة الوصل (الألف) هي همزة (ء) تُلفظ أحيانًا وأحيانًا لا تُلفظ، ولكنها (الهمزة ء) لا تُرسَم في الكتابة في كل الحالات. The subject of the verbs تُلفظ، تُرسم is also the second hamza in هي همزة not the first one همزة الوصل.


Oh yes, now it's clear, thank you.

So my problem is the name given to this alif, a hamzatu-l-wasl is a hamzah without hamzah (the hamzah is not written) so why not call it "alifu-l-wasl" ?

Ce n'est pas une vrai question, je m’interroge c'est tout car je trouve cela étrange...


----------



## She'lock Holmes

Mahaodeh said:


> Start your speech with a saakin? Hmm, it's actually quite hard! I have to say that I haven't heard it pronounced that way even by Lebanese people or on Lebanese TV (speaking MSA of course). There is always a faint hamza first. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying 'you can't' or 'you don't', I'm just saying I've never heard or noticed anyone say it that way.


I can't really distinguish between the existence of a weak schwa-like vowel or plainly no vowel at the start of اقتصاد in that sentence which is why I used a _sukoon_. Whatever phonetically exists, it's not -if it exists, that is- noticeable for me and I can describe it as 'nothing' and I am pretty sure it is nothing. Most of the stress in this word is in the صاد syllable and the rest literally 'gets swallowed' unless I'm stressing it. This is a noticeable effect of my dialect-influenced spoken-MWA as it is 'stress-timed' and not 'syllable-timed' like how - most probably - it should be in proper _fusha. _But I'm sure this will still be called _fusha _by the average Arabophone.

As for 'محمد', I literally pronounce it 'مْحْحَمَّد' and the stress is on the مَّ part or (I think it depends on my intention when I use it?) حَ. The rest of the consonants _somehow _exist.


Mahaodeh said:


> I've also noticed in dialects that some people tend to add a hamza when the dialect makes the first letter saakin. The best example is محمد that, in most dialects, has a meem sakina in the beginning rather than maDmuuma. I've even caught a child once writing it down إمحمد !


I am pretty sure that I heard it too or maybe used it when I was young. I can think of two explanations:
1. X wanted to stress it so he added a glottal stop. I might do this if someone didn't hear my normal 'محمد' properly.
2. X had issues with using a schwa (or a quite similar unstressed vowel) at the start of a word or no vowel at all so he added a glottal stop.
I've also heard an old Lebanese complaining that 'some young Lebanese' are starting to 'not pronounce letters properly'. I did not have a chance to study a specimen described as such but I believe how I stress words is related to this.

As a side note, I'm from Lebanon but my accent has been influenced by a lot of things. Not every Lebanese has a perfect Lebanese accent, dialect or even speaks Arabic


----------

