# دعت



## Andrew___

May I ask what the verb in blue means?

*دعت* المحكمة العليا في السعودية إلى تحري رؤية هلال شهر رمضان المبارك مساء يوم الخميس المقبل التاسع والعشرين من شهر شعبان الموافق العشرين من أغسطس/آب.

Does anyone know the root of this verb?

Thanks,
Andrew


----------



## AndyRoo

It means "called for" and the verb is دعا

"The High Court in Saudi called for the investigation into the sighting of the crescent moon of the blessed month of Ramadan [to commence] next Thursday..."


----------



## Mahaodeh

It's the past feminine of دعا يدعو = called, invited, requested.


----------



## Andrew___

Thanks guys for your help with this.

What is confusing me now is why it is not دعات ?  Does anyone understand this?


----------



## AndyRoo

It's just the regular past tense feminine singular conjugation of a verb with an alif at the end (more specifically fatHa alif). Other examples: رمت she threw, مضت she proceeded.


----------



## Andrew___

Thanks AndyRoo for your explanation.


----------



## hiba

Andrew___ said:


> Thanks guys for your help with this.
> 
> What is confusing me now is why it is not دعات ?  Does anyone understand this?



Hi Andrew

I believe the alif is dropped because you cannot have two sukoons next to one another.

دَعَاْتْ cannot occur, so the rule is to drop the alif. It then becomes: دَعَتْ

Another example of two sukoons next to one another can be seen in this example: نعمَتْ اْلطالبةُ حنان.. which changes to:
نعمَتِ اْلطالبةُ حنان

Hope this is correct!


----------



## Faylasoof

دَعا is an example of the so-called _defective verb_ – a verb with a weak final radical.

رَمیَ is another example, as AndyRoo mentioned.

Initially, this weak final radical may have been either a <waw و> or a <ya ی>.

These verbs form the feminine singular perfect by replacing the weak final radical, <alif ا > or <ya ی>  with the <ta ت> feminine ending to give دَعَت and رَمَت. 

Here is something extra. The imperfect of these verbs is formed by the following rules:

If the Perfect has an <alif ا > then the Imperfect _must_ have a <waw و> . However, if the Perfect has a <ya ی>  then the Imperfect _must_ have a <ya ی> too; giving us یَدعُو and یَرمیِ .

Only for rare verbs in this category you can have a <waw و> in BOTH the Perfect < سَرُوَ = to be noble> and the Imperfect < یَسرُو>.… and as far as I can recall, it forms the feminine singular perfect as < سَرُوَت> and not < سَرت>!

Hiba, have you by chance a reference for this?



hiba said:


> ..I believe the alif is dropped because you cannot have two sukoons next to one another. ...


 
I thought the reason for not having <دعات> as the Perfect is that <ات> typifies a feminine noun sound plural ending.  There is no _sukoon_ on the < alif ا>.


----------



## hiba

For the no double sukoon rule, I don't have a reference unfortunately. I was taught this while learning tashkeel.

I thought there was (in theory) a sukoon on the alif. I could be wrong though.
هذه الألف هي مدّ طبيعي وتسمى ألف ساكنة ( سكون ميت) لأنه غير ظاهر

 Thoughts on what kind of alif this originally was (دعات)? Alif saakina? Alif wasla? Lane's Lexicon has quite a few options..

Thanks 
​


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Hiba, you are right on every account. This rule you mentioned is a basic rule of *Na7w *and it is called *iltiqa2u-s saakinayn* (the meeting of two saakin (letters)).

The rule says that two *saakin* letters can't meet and that in such a case,if there is a weak letter (*7arfu 3illah*), it should be dropped.

This rule is very important because it explains all the apparent irregularities of the Arabic conjugation of the *majzuum* mood of *muDari3* and of the *fi3lu 2amr*..

Such as *yaquulu / lam yaqul* or *kun / kuunuu*

And there is a *sukuun* on every *alif* following a *fat7ah* and having no *hamza*, as there is a *sukoon* on every *waaw* following a *Dammah* and every *yaa* following a *kasrah*. Although it can be written in the case of *yaa* and *waaw* it is very rarely written in the case of *alif*, hence the belief that *alif* has no *sukoon*.


----------



## Josh_

The rule that two sukuuns cannot be next to each other may come into play here, but I believe it is much simpler than that really, and that you guys are kind of over-thinking it a bit. The alif (which is not part of the root) is merely a placeholder in the third person masculine singular past tense conjugation of defective roots. The reason it is there is because it is a verb of the فَعَل fa3ala (and not فَعِلَ fa3ila or فَعُلَ fa3ula) type, and as such it is pronounced _da3a_ (and not _da3iya_ or _da3uwa_). 

To explain it a little more, when a root contains a defective radical in the لام (final) position, the third person masculine singular past tense conjugation of the verb it is elided and changed to either either a ي,lو, or ـا or ى due to the vowel configuration (if you will), that is, according to which vowel follows the radical in the عين (middle) position. As such an ـا (alif) or ى (alif maqSuura) is placed there to indicate that the vowel after the عين placeholder is a fatHa. If it were a Damma, then a و (waaw) would be placed there as Faylasoof indicated and if it were a kasra, a ي yaa2 would be used. Since these letters serve merely as placeholders they disappear in other conjugations. 

So, going back to the verb asked about here, masculine دَعَا becomes دَعَت in the feminine. 

By the way Faylasoof, the ى (without the dots) is called an ألف مقصورة (alif maqSuura), not a ياء yaa2.



Faylasoof said:


> Here is something extra. The imperfect of these verbs is formed by the following rules:
> 
> If the Perfect has an <alif ا > then the Imperfect _must_ have a <waw و> . However, if the Perfect has a <ya ی>  then the Imperfect _must_ have a <ya ی> too; giving us یَدعُو and یَرمیِ .


That rule may be true, but I think it is a case of reverse derivation, and not how the present is derived. I believe it is actually the case that the imperfect is formed based on the root.  If the the final radical of a root is و then the perfect will be alif and the imperfect will have a waaw. (د-ع-و --> دعا، يدعو). But if the final radical is a yaa2 then the perfect will have either an ى or a  ي, as will the present depending on the vowel configuration, (e.g. ر-م-ي --> رَمَى، يرمي;l ن-س-ي --> نَسِي، يَنسَى;l س-ع-ي --> سَعَى، يَسعَى ), but never a و. So, I think the fact that if the perfect has an alif the imperfect will have a waaw and if it has an alif maqSuura the present will have a yaa2 is just a coincidence.



AndyRoo said:


> It means "called for" and the verb is دعا
> 
> "The High Court in Saudi called for the investigation into the sighting of the crescent moon of the blessed month of Ramadan [to commence] next Thursday..."


I know that هلال is literally "crescent" however I would translate the passage as "...sighting of the new moon," "new moon" being the common English phrase used to signify the first visible crescent of the moon and thus a new lunar cycle.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Josh_ said:


> The rule that two sukuuns cannot be next to each other may come into play here, but I believe it is much simpler than that really, and that you guys are kind of over-thinking it a bit. The alif (which is not part of the root) is merely a placeholder in the third person masculine singular past tense conjugation of defective roots. The reason it is there is because it is a verb of the فَعَل fa3ala (and not فَعِلَ fa3ila or فَعُلَ fa3ula) type, and as such it is pronounced _da3a_ (and not _da3iya_ or _da3uwa_).


 
I'm not sure I agree with that; the past singular masculine must have the three root letters, if one of them is حرف علة and it doesn't work with the short vowel, it can simply be changed to a corresponding one so the alif is part of the root, just not in the form of an alif. 



Josh_ said:


> That rule may be true, but I think it is a case of reverse derivation, and not how the present is derived. I believe it is actually the case that the imperfect is formed based on the root. If the the final radical of a root is و then the perfect will be alif and the imperfect will have a waaw. (د-ع-و --> دعا، يدعو). But if the final radical is a yaa2 then the perfect will have either an ى or a ي, as will the present depending on the vowel configuration, (e.g. ر-م-ي --> رَمَى، يرمي;l ن-س-ي --> نَسِي، يَنسَى;l س-ع-ي --> سَعَى، يَسعَى ), but never a و. So, I think the fact that if the perfect has an alif the imperfect will have a waaw and if it has an alif maqSuura the present will have a yaa2 is just a coincidence.


 
I think it's more related to باب الفعل than the root. If it were related to the root then why is it علا يعلو but أعلى يعلي when they both come from the same root?

I believe it depends on the تشكيل of عين الفعل which in turn depends on باب الفعل; this explains the change of حرف العلة in the simple forms as well as in the form أفعلَ يُفعِلُ.

باب نصر: دائما في الماضي ألف وفي المضارع واو مثل دعا يدو ورنا يرنو وعلا يعلو
 باب قطع: دائما كلاهما ألف مثل: سعى يسعى
باب ضرب: دائما في الماضي ألف وفي المضارع ياء مثل بكى يبكي وبنى يبني
باب فرح: دائما في الماضي ياء وفي المضارع ألف مثل نسي ينسى
باب وثق: دائما كلاهما ياء مثل ولي يلي​


----------



## suma

Josh_ said:


> The rule that two sukuuns cannot be next to each other may come into play here, but I believe it is much simpler than that really, and that you guys are kind of over-thinking it a bit....


 
Pretty odd that you say this ^, yet your response runs on for several paragraphs.
The rule against 2 consecutive sukoons suffices as a simple explanation.


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello Cliqui,

I’ve come across the two _sukoon _rule before but have yet to find it in grammar books discussing it in connection with what we are discussing here. A specific reference would be invaluable. In fact when talking of _sukoon_ they mostly specify that it is used for consonants and only in some instances over letters of prolongation. Which brings me to what you say. 

It is true that many old manuscripts show a _sukoon_ or a _jazm / jazmah_ (for a final letter, usually a consonant). The _sukun_ uses I’ve seen are like these:

سِيْمَة for سِیمَة, صَبُوْر for صَبُور and قَاْل for قَال etc., and even كتبواْ for كتبوا etc., but I thought this was more like an orthographic convention rather than a point of grammar. It certainly didn’t alter the pronunciation, unless one says that the short vowel on the preceding consonant overrides the ever-present _sukoon_ on letters of prolongation.    

(Of course _sukun_ over the _waw_ -> وْ  and _yaa2_ -> يْ, is used regulalry to create the diphthongs <au> and <ay>, as in یَوْم and لَيْل.)

But how is all this tied in with the formation of دعت? The _fatha_ on the ع remains and should take care of the ever-present _sukoon_ on the following ألف in دَعَا.


Many thanks, Josh, Mahaodeh for your input!  



> By the way Faylasoof, the





> ى (without the dots) is called an ألف مقصورة (alif maqSuura), not a ياء yaa2.


 Yes Josh I was aware of this! ألف مقصورة  یٰ (and also ألف ممدودة اء ), but this is how Haywood and Nahmad explain the rule, i.e using <yaa2>, thought later there is a note that "_ yaa2 in some instances is _ألف مقصورة_ and pronounced like _ألف ".



> ..That rule may be true, but I think it is a case of reverse derivation, and not how the present is derived….


 Again I’m relying on the explanaition by Haywood and Nahmad (page 235).


----------



## Josh_

suma said:


> Pretty odd that you say this ^, yet your response runs on for several paragraphs.
> The rule against 2 consecutive sukoons suffices as a simple explanation.


Pretty odd that you feel the need to rudely point out some perceived inconsistency instead of making a substantive contribution to the thread.  So you equate length of explanation with simpleness?  The rule I was putting forward is this -- "the letter used, be it ـا,lو, or ي, depends on what vowel follows the middle radical" -- a sufficiently simple rule. Everything else I said was merely further explanation because I enjoy explaining things, especially for those who may benefit from further explanation.



Mahaodeh said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that; the past singular masculine must have the three root letters, if one of them is حرف علة and it doesn't work with the short vowel, it can simply be changed to a corresponding one so the alif is part of the root, just not in the form of an alif.


Yes, I agree, it is the third radical, except in a different form, based on what vowel comes after the radical in the عين position.  That is what I mean by placeholder. The other letters, be they ـا,lو,lي, or ى are merely placeholders for whatever the third radical is (since it cannot be used for one reason or another).



> I think it's more related to باب الفعل than the root. If it were related to the root then why is it علا يعلو but أعلى يعلي when they both come from the same root?
> 
> I believe it depends on the تشكيل of عين الفعل which in turn depends on باب الفعل; this explains the change of حرف العلة in the simple forms as well as in the form أفعلَ يُفعِلُ.
> 
> باب نصر: دائما في الماضي ألف وفي المضارع واو مثل دعا يدو ورنا يرنو وعلا يعلو
> باب قطع: دائما كلاهما ألف مثل: سعى يسعى
> باب ضرب: دائما في الماضي ألف وفي المضارع ياء مثل بكى يبكي وبنى يبني
> باب فرح: دائما في الماضي ياء وفي المضارع ألف مثل نسي ينسى
> باب وثق: دائما كلاهما ياء مثل ولي يلي​


First off, please note that with my comment I was talking only about the form I مجرد form of the root, not the مزيد forms.  But anyway, if I am not misunderstanding what باب الفعل is, then yes I agree with you.  That is essentially what I was saying, just differently.  The letter used is dependent on the vowel associated with the radical in the عين position (hence أعلى يعلي from أَفْعَلَ، يُفْعـِـلَ -- note the ــِـ (kasra) after the عين, hence the ي in يعلي) but there is a definite correlation with the weak letters used in a root and the letters used in the present tense and with which letters can replace the weak radical, that is when the last radical is و the the perfect always has an ـا and the present always has a و (and never a ي), whereas if the last radical is ي the letters used are always either ي or ى, depending on the vowel associated with the middle radical (and never و).  Again, this goes for _only_ the مجرد (base) verbs.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Faylasoof said:


> Hello Cliqui,
> 
> I’ve come across the two _sukoon _rule before but have yet to find it in grammar books discussing it in connection with what we are discussing here. A specific reference would be invaluable. In fact when talking of _sukoon_ they mostly specify that it is used for consonants and only in some instances over letters of prolongation. Which brings me to what you say.
> 
> It is true that many old manuscripts show a _sukoon_ or a _jazm / jazmah_ (for a final letter, usually a consonant). The _sukun_ uses I’ve seen are like these:
> 
> سِيْمَة for سِیمَة, صَبُوْر for صَبُور and قَاْل for قَال etc., and even كتبواْ for كتبوا etc., but I thought this was more like an orthographic convention rather than a point of grammar. It certainly didn’t alter the pronunciation, unless one says that the short vowel on the preceding consonant overrides the ever-present _sukoon_ on letters of prolongation.
> 
> (Of course _sukun_ over the _waw_ -> وْ and _yaa2_ -> يْ, is used regulalry to create the diphthongs <au> and <ay>, as in یَوْم and لَيْل.)
> 
> But how is all this tied in with the formation of دعت? The _fatha_ on the ع remains and should take care of the ever-present _sukoon_ on the following ألف in دَعَا.
> 
> 
> Many thanks, Josh, Mahaodeh for your input!
> Yes Josh I was aware of this! ألف مقصورة یٰ (and also ألف ممدودة اء ), but this is how Haywood and Nahmad explain the rule, i.e using <yaa2>, thought later there is a note that "_ yaa2 in some instances is _ألف مقصورة_ and pronounced like _ألف ".
> Again I’m relying on the explanaition by Haywood and Nahmad (page 235).


 
I know it is hard to find a reference over the net, because it is the way the traditional Arabic *Sarf* and *Na7w* are taught... While obviously the English internet is filled with westernized grammar.

Here, there is a reference (Page 109-110) on the fact that in traditional grammar *alif* bears a sukoon, the same way *waaw* and *yaa* do.... Not only when they are preceded by a *fat7ah,* as you mentioned, but also by a *Dammah* or *kasrah *respectively.

So what we write *yaqûlu, yabî3u* (the *u / i* in the middle are interpreted by western standards as long), is actually understood in traditional grammar as *yaquwlu* / *yabiy3u. *(respectively..._qaaf + Dammah + waaw + sukoon_ and _baa + kasrah + yaa + sukoon_)

Same with *alif*, *yanâmu* (long a), is interpreted in traditionnal grammar as *yana'mu*, (.. _nûn + fat7ah + alif + sukoon_)

Now coming back to our topic, *da3aa* (daal + fatHah + 3ayn + fat7ah + alif + sukoon) meeting the _Daamir_ *taa ut ta2niith, *which is actually *t* (i.e. _ta + sukoon_), while it should be *da3aat*, the rule of *iltiqaa2u s saakinayn*, prevents the two saakin letters (_alif_ and _taa_) from meeting and forces the weak one (_alif_) to disappear....

This is the way I was taught the Arabic conjugations, and once you understand this rule, you'll find it very handy, because it solves all the apparent irregularities of the conjugation!!!

I hope I've been clear and I'm trying to find some references...


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Here you have some explanations, although they are a bit imprecise in terms of terminology (or of English?), but we can feel behind it the 'traditional' school of teaching. This is the Islamic University of Madina.

And what is said below about alif maqsura is valid for the normal alif also.

P.S: and there is this reference, also



> *Important note: Notice that with the verb 'Ra-aa' meaning 'he saw', it ends with a alif maqsurah as shown above in this post. So when we put after it Taa with sukun to convert it to feminine, she saw, we find two letters with sukun on them coming one after the other, and this cannot be pronounced (i.e. alif maqsura has a sukun on it and after it is 'taa' with sukun). So we remove one of the two letters that is less important of the two, (i.e. delete alif maqsura, i.e. the 'yaa') and leave there the 'taa' with sukun; so it becomes 'Ra-a-at' meaning 'she saw' as shown above in this post in text (the fourth example in the list above in this post). This is what we do to all the verbs that we will come in future with alif maqsurah at the end of the verb of male past tense in order to convert it to the female past tense verb.*


----------



## Faylasoof

Thanks for all the links! I’ve been looking for things like these in order to get a different perspective on Arabic grammar. 

Sibawayh (Seebawayh) was an outstanding grammarian and his work on Arabic grammar became so highly respected that it has come to be known as “Al-Kitab”.  I’ve seen the original. Extremely prolix and quite turgid.



Cilquiestsuens said:


> … in traditional grammar *alif* bears a sukoon, the same way *waaw* and *yaa* do.... Not only when they are preceded by a *fat7ah,* as you mentioned, but also by a *Dammah* or *kasrah *respectively.


 Yes I gathered that. My reference specifically to _fat7ah_ was merely to illustrate the example we are considering, viz. دَعَا / دَعَت . This rule would apply to all letters of “prolongation”.



> …once you understand this rule, you'll find it very handy, because it solves all the apparent irregularities of the conjugation!!!


 Actually even Arabic grammars taught in the West also make it clear that what appear as irregular verbs are in fact completely regular, once the basis of conjugation is understood. It is the way these things are explained means you don’t always get the _exact cause_ of this supposed irregularity. So in the example we are considering all Arabic grammar books I’ve seen in English emphasise that the final radical is weak and disappears in the feminine singular perfect. What they don’t explain is why is it considered weak and there is no mention of _iltiqaa2-us-saakinayn_! I’m surprised that even Wright’s “A Grammar of the Arabic Language” doesn’t go into this. He based it in Caspari who in turn based his work on Classical Arab grammars of the Middle Ages. 

I haven’t seen Mortimer Howell’s multi-volume Arabic Grammar (19th century printing, Hyderabad, India). This is the most comprehensive _fus7a_ grammar in the English language.

Anyway, Wright and others (Haywood and Nahmad; Cowen etc.) do emphasise that in reality all Arabic verbs are completely regular!


----------



## Fractal7

رِضْوَان يَرْضَى رَضِيَ رَضِيَتْ 
نِسْيَان يَنْسَى نَسِيَ نَسِيَتْ​ 
It is completely different if it is in form فعِل يفعَل
I think the first one has *waw* and the second one has *ya2* as the last root letter, right?​


----------



## londonmasri

Josh_ said:


> Pretty odd that you feel the need to rudely point out some perceived inconsistency instead of making a substantive contribution to the thread. So you equate length of explanation with simpleness? The rule I was putting forward is this -- "the letter used, be it ـا,lو, or ي, depends on what vowel follows the middle radical" -- a sufficiently simple rule. Everything else I said was merely further explanation because I enjoy explaining things, especially for those who may benefit from further explanation.


 
_khalleek zaymanta ya 3amm_ - I for one, also always enjoy your explanations.


----------

