# EA/All dialects: ta3ab - ti3ib (te3eb) تعب



## Ghabi

Hello, everyone. In Egyptian there're some verbs whose meanings can be changed by changing the internal vowels, like _ta3ab_ ("to make someone tired") vs _ti3ib_ ("to become tired"), or _fasad_ ("to corrupt something") vs _fisid_ ("to become corrupted"). I have two questions:

- Can the same phenomenon be found in other dialects?

- Is the difference of meanings always a matter of transitive (i.e. followed by an object) vs intransitive/reflexive?

Thanks in advance for any input.


----------



## be.010

Hello G!
1- In Syrian, the pair would be ti3eb/ta*33*ab - fasad(fised in some local dialects)/fa*ss*ad.
2- Yes, it is (in Syrian at least), it's the same case of Standard Arabic forms fa3ala/fa33al and fa3ala/af3ala. The second one in each of these two pairs is transitive.


----------



## clevermizo

I wanted to go a little further and say that many verbs in colloquial of the form _fi3el_ are cognate with fuS7a verbs which are of the forms: fa3ila, fa3ula or the passive fu3ila. Most verbs that are fa3ila or fa3ula are intransitive (though not all), and of course fu3ila verbs are all "intransitive" in a sense by their nature as passives.

I think most colloquial verbs that are of the form fi3el are intransitive with some notable exceptions like 3iref.


----------



## Ghabi

be.010 said:


> Hello G!
> 1- In Syrian, the pair would be ti3eb/ta*33*ab - fasad(fised in some local dialects)/fa*ss*ad.



Hehe, forgive my fussiness, but they don't meet the criteria, since they not only have their vowels changed but also have their second stem doubled.


----------



## clevermizo

Well this alternation _f i 3 e l _/ _f a 3 a l_  intransitive>transitive is less common in the Levant, because the vowels for the form _fa3al_ are fixed as either (i/e) or (a/a) for each verb. The normal way to make the transitive variant of an intransitive verb is to use the form _fa33al_.


----------



## Ghabi

Yes, that's what piques my curiosity. The Egyptian _ta3ab-ti3ib_ looks like some kind of remnants of the _fa3ala-fu3ila_ pairing in فصحة...


----------



## WadiH

I'm with Clevermizo on this one.  I don't see any evidence to tie _fi3il _with _fu3ila_.


----------



## clevermizo

There is _some_ evidence for this. For example in the Levant you find the verb 2itel which means "to be killed" and 2atal which means "to kill" (but also n2atal انقتل which is probably the more normal "passive"). However f i 3 e l cognate with fu3ila is rare or limited to a handful of examples I think. Furthermore in the case of "te3eb" in Egyptian, I think this is cognate with "fa3ila" as the verb "ta3iba" in fuS7a means "to get tired." The form "ta3ab" in Egyptian to "make someone tired" may be a novel colloquial construction.

Ghabi are you sure that the Egyptian verb "to make someone tired" is _ta3ab_ and not _ta33ab_?


----------



## Josh_

clevermizo said:


> Ghabi are you sure that the Egyptian verb "to make someone tired" is _ta3ab_ and not _ta33ab_?


Yes, it is _ ta3ab_ and the verb for "to be tired" is _ti3ib_.  I can't seem to think of how to gauge the occurrence of these types of verbs, but they do occur. 

Anyway, here's what I think:

It is true that form I verbs in MSA can be either transitive or intransitive depending on vowel structure, but the transitive ones are not causative, so I do not think the existence of verbs like _ta3ab_ and _fasad_ are remnant of a _fa3ala-fu3ila_ pairing or any other pairing that involves only form I verbs.  Note also that neither _ta3ab_ nor _ti3ib_ (etc.) are passive verbs.

Rather, verbs such as _ta3ab_  and _fasad_ are the causative transitive forms of _ti3ib_ and _fisid_. So, it is my guess that Egyptian causative transitive verbs of this type, i.e. of the pattern _fa3al, yif3il_, are derived from the form IV (أَفْعَلَ، يُفْعِل) pattern, which, in the present tense, looks exactly like the form I counterpart; only the vowel structure is different. Since the أفعل form is uncommon in Egyptian (which, like in many dialects, prefers instead to use form II فعّل to express causation), MSA أَفْعَلَ forms such as أَفْسَدَ and أَتْعَبَ lose the initial alif (in the past tense) and became pseudo (for lack of a better term) form I فعل verbs in Egyptian; that is, they end up taking on a form I pattern.   I touched upon this phenomenon briefly in this post.

I think a little of this shows in the internal vowel structure of these verbs. Verbs of this type in Egyptian generally follow the same pattern:

_fi3il, yif3al_ (intransitive) -- to be or become (something)
_fa3al, yif3il_ (transitive, causative) -- to cause (someone or something) to be (something)

Using Ghabi's examples:
_ti3ib, yit3ab_ -- to be(come) tired
_ta3ab, yit3ib --_ to cause (s.o.) to be tired, i.e. to tire (s.o.)

_fisid, yifsad -- _to be(come) corrupt_
fasad, yifsid _-- to cause (s.o./s.th.) to be corrupt, i.e. corrupt (s.o.) 

Note that the vowel structure of the causative verbs is similar to the MSA form IV أَفْعَلَ، يُفْعِل vowel structure (af3al, yuf3il). In the past in both MSA and Egyptian the vowel structure is _a,a_.  In the present the MSA is _u,i_, whereas the Egyptian is _i,i_.  I don't have an explanation for this other than the combination _u,i_ (in that order) does not exist in Egyptian (at least I cannot think of a verb in which it occurs), so the '_u_' is turned to an '_i'_.  It might have to do with vowel harmony, which seems to occur in Egyptian.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> There is _some_ evidence for this. For example in the Levant you find the verb 2itel which means "to be killed" and 2atal which means "to kill" (but also n2atal انقتل which is probably the more normal "passive").



Well I was speaking specifically of Egyptian Arabic.  I wasn't really thinking of Syrian-type dialects.  Actually, in Najdi/Bedouin Arabic, the passive form is either fi3il or fi3l:

MSA أُخِذَ becomes وِخِذْ or وِخْذْ
MSA سُجِنَ becomes سِجِن



> However f i 3 e l cognate with fu3ila is rare or limited to a handful of examples I think.



Yes these are remaining traces of the Classical passive form.  Another example is خلقت (pronounced 5li2t, meaning "born").



> Furthermore in the case of "te3eb" in Egyptian, I think this is cognate with "fa3ila" as the verb "ta3iba" in fuS7a means "to get tired."



Isn't that what you were saying earlier?  That intransitive verbs such as تعب are rendered fi3il in EA (as opposed to fa3ila in CA)?

By the way, I observe the same in the speech of Mecca and Jeddah.



> The form "ta3ab" in Egyptian to "make someone tired" may be a novel colloquial construction.


 
This also occurs in Mecca/Jeddah.  For example, they say رسل while we say أرسل.  I think this has to do with the general avoidance of the _hamza_ in spoken Arabic.


----------



## Hemza

In the Hassaniya dialect the difference between اسم فاعل and اسم مفعول with verbs على وزن مفعل, is made the following way:

اسم فاعل: (e)mfa33al
اسم مفعول: mufa33al

This is how we distinguish between both (instead of "mufa33alun/mufa33ilun").


----------



## cherine

Interesting thread! I don't know how I missed it back then.



Josh_ said:


> Using Ghabi's examples:
> _ti3ib, yit3ab_ -- to be(come) tired
> _ta3ab, yit3ib --_ to cause (s.o.) to be tired, i.e. to tire (s.o.)
> 
> _fisid, yifsad -- _to be(come) corrupt
> _fasad, yifsid _-- to cause (s.o./s.th.) to be corrupt, i.e. corrupt (s.o.)
> 
> Note that the vowel structure of the causative verbs is similar to the MSA form IV أَفْعَلَ، يُفْعِل vowel structure (af3al, yuf3il). In the past in both MSA and Egyptian the vowel structure is _a,a_.  In the present the MSA is _u,i_, whereas the Egyptian is _i,i_.  I don't have an explanation for this other than the combination _u,i_ (in that order) does not exist in Egyptian (at least I cannot think of a verb in which it occurs), so the '_u_' is turned to an '_i'_.  It might have to do with vowel harmony, which seems to occur in Egyptian.


Good examples and a good explanation from Josh, I think he's right. I can't think of an Egyptian usage of a أُفْعِل pattern, it's [almost] always اِتْفعل.

As for تِعِب - تَعَب, here's another interesting thing: In the Alexandrian accent/dialect, the verb is always ta3ab:
ana ta3abt = I got tired, and ta3abatak= I caused you to be tired/caused you inconvenience. And the noun is also ta3ab.
And as we use the مفعول مطلق in EA, to say I was so tired, we say تَعَبْت تَعَب  while people in Cairo (and other parts of Egypt) say تِعِبْت تَعَب

I'm trying to think of other verbs that follow the same pattern, but unfortunately can't remember any.


----------



## Ghabi

cherine said:


> I'm trying to think of other verbs that follow the same pattern


Do you use pairs like, for example:
ghala vs ghele
7ala vs 7ele
?


----------



## akhooha

Ghabi said:


> Do you use pairs like, for example:
> ghala vs ghele
> 7ala vs 7ele
> ?


In EA, I believe that
ghala = to boil
ghlili = to increase in price


----------



## Hemza

I hope this isn't off topic but I have in mind an example in Moroccan/Algerian/Libyan dialects where the pronunciation changes the meaning of a word wrote in a similar way:

دار. When pronounced with an open "aa", it means _house/home_ (and _room_ in Libya) but when pronounced with a more closed "aa", it means _he did_.


----------



## cherine

akhooha said:


> In EA, I believe that
> ghala = to boil
> ghlili = to increase in price


No, the pronunciation is the same and only context helps differentiate the meaning. And again, Cairo and Alexandria have different vowels:
Cairo: El-mayya ghelyet = water boiled. El-as3aar ghelyet = prices increased, things became more expensive.
Alexandria:  Same thing except we say ghalet instead if ghelyet/ghelet.


But what's interesting is that things are different when the verbs are in the present:
elas3ar beteghla= prices are increasing
elmayya bteghli= water is boiling

Regarding transitive and intransitive, we use the form fa33al for the transitive to make expensive/to raise prices: ghalla.



Ghabi said:


> Do you use pairs like, for example:
> ghala vs ghele
> 7ala vs 7ele


For the second verb, when someone becomes pretty we use the pattern/form ef3all: e7law. And I only know 7eli (notice the difference in the vowels) for the expression 7eli'f3een = to suddenly become desirable. The transitive verb "to make pretty/tobsweeten" is 7alla-bey7alli.

P.S. Sorry I forgot something: For "to boil", we so use ghala as in الولد غلى المية (that's for Alexandria. I believe in Cairo it's gheli)  but for "to increase prices", we say ghalla, with doubled laam.


----------



## momai

In Syrian, it's pretty much similar to what Cherine described.
We have in the past tense:
1) ghile to boil [intr.], to become expensive 
2) ghala [tr.] to boil
In present:
1) yighle
2) yighle
------
Ti3ib,7ile [intr.] -> ta33ab, 7alla [tr.]
-----
to corrupt (high register) :'fsad not fasad 
fasad is to tell on s.o. -->the agent is fissad
To become a corrupt person: tSiir faasid


----------

