# different types of hamza همزة



## cherine

Hi all,
I've once promised to post some info about when to write the hamza on the alef and when not. Time to fulfill the promise 
I'll post it in Arabic, if anyone has questions or comments, don't hesitate to post them.
The alef without a hamza is called "hamzat wasl", it's because we make a "liaison" (That's a french word, don't know how to say it in English, sorry) when we pronounce the word with one preceding it نـَصِل الكلام example : iltaqa (to meet) والتقى الصديقان أمس we say w*al*taqa, not w*a-2i*ltaqa. (I hope the example is clear, if not let me know)

Now the other hamza is called "hamzat qat3", because we "cut" between the words, we pronounce it clear and don't make the liaison. example : *a*khi (my brother) dhahabtu ma3a *2a*khi *2i*la's-suuqi ذهبت مع أخى إلى السوق (as-suuq is a hamzat wasl, so we don't say il*a 2a*s-suuq).

Now the rule, IN ARABIC 

تأتى همزة القطع فى
1- فى أول الحروف، مثل :
أنْ، إنْ، أنّ، إنّ، إلى (باستثناء (ال) فهمزتها همزة وصل)

 
2- فى أول الأسماء، مثل :
أحمد، أسعد، إمام.
ويُستثنى من الأسماء :
ابن، ابنة، اسم، امرؤ، امرأة، اثنان، ايم الله (قسم)

 
3- أول الماضى الرباعى، وأمره، ومصدره، مثل :
أَفَدْتُ مِن كتابِك خيرَ إفادة.
أَنْصِفْ غيرَك إنصافَك لنفسِك.
​


----------



## ayed

Thank you , Cherine .

What about the "Interrogative humzah" such as:
*أ*غائب هو؟
Is he absent?

Just to remind you .

My best wishes

Ayed's regards


----------



## cherine

Thanks Ayed for the reminder. The interrogative hamza is indeed a "hamzat qat3", I think I didn't put it because it's one of the "letters" (the first category).

One more thing I must state : the difference between the two types of hamza is not only on the level of pronounciation, but also the writing:
the qat3 is written like this *أ* and the wasl is like this *ا*


----------



## jmt356

Barron's 501 Arabic Verbs has a ء above or below the imperatives of Form I verbs, such as مَسَكَ. Is this incorrect? 

On another note, for the verb مَسَكَ, is the imperfect يَمْسِكُ, per VerbAce-Pro, or يَمْسُكُ, per 501 Arabic Verbs and قطرب? If the latter, I believe the imperative would be أُمْسُكْ (assuming imperatives of Form I verbs take the hemza).


----------



## akhooha

> Barron's 501 Arabic Verbs has a ء above or below the imperatives of Form I verbs, such as مَسَكَ. Is this incorrect?


Yes. It is incorrect.


> On another note, for the verb مَسَكَ, is the imperfect يَمْسِكُ, per  VerbAce-Pro, or يَمْسُكُ, per 501 Arabic Verbs and قطرب? If the latter, I  believe the imperative would be أُمْسُكْ (assuming imperatives of Form I  verbs take the hemza).


Both يَمْسِكُ and يَمْسُكُ are acceptable. (See Hans Wehr, 4th edition, page 1065). The imperative of مَسَكَ يَمْسِكُ is اِمْسِكْ and the imperative of مَسَكَ يَمْسُكُ is اُمْسُكْ . Repeat: there is NO hamza beginning the imperative of Form I.
Note: قطرب has both مَسَكَ يَمْسِكُ and مَسَكَ يَمْسُكُ. After entering مَسَكَ, the conjugation for يَمْسُكُ will appear and if you read carefully, you will also see:
هل تقصد؟
مَسَكَ يَمْسِكُ
and if you click on that, you'll get the conjugation for مَسَكَ يَمْسِكُ


----------



## jmt356

akhooha said:


> Yes. It is incorrect.



Is anyone able to confirm this? I find it difficult to believe that every Form I verb in Raymond Scheindlin's volume is incorrect.


----------



## Drink

jmt356 said:


> Is anyone able to confirm this? I find it difficult to believe that every Form I verb in Raymond Scheindlin's volume is incorrect.



There are two schools of thought:

1. ا should be used when the hamza-sound can be elided, and أ and إ when it cannot be: اُكْتُبْ and ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ.
2. ا should be used when the hamza-sound is elided, and أ and إ when it is not (even if it can be): أُكْتُبْ but ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ.

Which one is "correct" is a matter of opinion, but in my experience, it seems that the first method is preferred by most people and the second one is limited to grammar books.


----------



## akhooha

Drink said:


> 1. ا should be used when the hamza-sound can be elided, and أ and إ when it cannot be: اُكْتُبْ and ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ.
> 2. ا should be used when the hamza-sound is elided, and أ and إ when it is not (even if it can be): أُكْتُبْ but ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ.



Under what circumstances can the hamza not be (or is not) elided? The only possibility I can think of is if it begins the sentence, but then the beginning sentence of Surat al-'Alaq is:
اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ 
and there is no hamza . . .


----------



## PlanC

Is *Hold my hand* like _*Take my hand*_?
أَبْـقِ يدك في يدي
تَشَبَثْ بيدي 
unless you'll say 
أَمْسِكْ جيدا بيدي


----------



## Drink

akhooha said:


> Under what circumstances can the hamza not be (or is not) elided? The only possibility I can think of is if it begins the sentence, but then the beginning sentence of Surat al-'Alaq is:
> اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
> and there is no hamza . . .



Yeah exactly, the beginning of the sentence. Keep in mind that the Quran does not use the same rules as the rest of Classical Arabic and all the verses are vowelated as if the entire surah is read without a pause.


----------



## PlanC

Drink said:


> Yeah exactly, the beginning of the sentence. Keep in mind that the Quran does not use the same rules as the rest of Classical Arabic and all the verses are vowelated as if the entire surah is read without a pause.


Please keep in mind that al Hamza is a letter like any other alphabetical  letters, the only difference is that, it has not its proper own shape, in writing we  hint to it by little عـ and we put it in voyelles according to its  spelled figuration التشكيل but we do not neglect it in in spoken or writen text unless it necessary.


> " همزة الوصل "
> هي ألف زائدة ، تثبت نطقا في الابتداء ، وتسقط في وسط الكلام . وسميت همزة وصل ؛ لأن المتكلم تَوصل بها إلى النطق بالساكن
> ولا تكتب وإنما يُكتب الألف فقط مثلاسم ، ابن ، امرأة
> وأحيانا يوضع فوق الألف حرف صادوإذا كانت في أول الكلام فإنها تنطق وكأنها همزة قطع لكن بدون كتابةمثلنكتب كلمة اقرأ لكن ننطقها إقرأ أما في أثناء الكلام فإنها لا يُنطق بهانقول : {وَلِرَبِّكَ فَاصْبِرْ } من حرف الفاء ننتقل لحرفالصادوهي لا تقع إلا في أول الكلمة ، فلا تقع في وسطها ولا في آخرهاأغلب همزات الوصل تكون في الأفعال و في بعض الأسماء وفي حرف واحد
> Read more
> 
> ​


----------



## Drink

PlanC said:


> but we do not neglect it in in spoken or writen text unless it necessary.



Who said anything about neglecting it?


----------



## PlanC

Drink said:


> Who said anything about neglecting it?



Sorry It's not personal!  
I meant when we elide we may slur it but it is still there (in our mind) not to be confused with a duration for a voyelle for exemple.


----------



## akhooha

I think the main point that Plan C was making is found in the material he quoted:
وأحيانا يوضع فوق الألف حرف صاد وإذا كانت في أول الكلام فإنها تنطق وكأنها همزة قطع لكن بدون كتابة مثل : نكتب كلمة اقرأ لكن ننطقها إقرأ
(from this source)
That is to say, while the alif may be marked with a waSl (i.e. "حرف صاد"), if it is at the beginning of speech, it is PRONOUNCED as qaT3, but it is NOT WRITTEN as such ... we WRITE اقرأ but we PRONOUNCE it إقرأ


----------



## PlanC

akhooha said:


> I think the main point that Plan C was making is found in the material he quoted:
> وأحيانا يوضع فوق الألف حرف صاد وإذا كانت في أول الكلام فإنها تنطق وكأنها همزة قطع لكن بدون كتابة مثل : نكتب كلمة اقرأ لكن ننطقها إقرأ
> (from this source)
> That is to say, while the alif may be marked with a waSl (i.e. "حرف صاد"), if it is at the beginning of speech, it is PRONOUNCED as qaT3, but it is NOT WRITTEN as such ... we WRITE اقرأ but we PRONOUNCE it إقرأ



Also according to same source you relinked, it is necessary to underline this rule:


> *الأفعال
> 
> أ - تحذف الهمزة ( يعني تكون همزة وصل ) من فعل الأمر الثلاثي
> اكتب , ارسم , اقرأ*


----------



## Drink

akhooha said:


> I think the main point that Plan C was making is found in the material he quoted:
> وأحيانا يوضع فوق الألف حرف صاد وإذا كانت في أول الكلام فإنها تنطق وكأنها همزة قطع لكن بدون كتابة مثل : نكتب كلمة اقرأ لكن ننطقها إقرأ
> (from this source)
> That is to say, while the alif may be marked with a waSl (i.e. "حرف صاد"), if it is at the beginning of speech, it is PRONOUNCED as qaT3, but it is NOT WRITTEN as such ... we WRITE اقرأ but we PRONOUNCE it إقرأ



Yes, and my point is that there are people who believe it _should_ be written in such cases.


----------



## jmt356

Drink said:


> There are two schools of thought:
> 
> 1. ا should be used when the hamza-sound can be elided, and أ and إ when it cannot be: اُكْتُبْ and ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ.
> 2. ا should be used when the hamza-sound is elided, and أ and إ when it is not (even if it can be): أُكْتُبْ but ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ.
> 
> Which one is "correct" is a matter of opinion, but in my experience, it seems that the first method is preferred by most people and the second one is limited to grammar books.


The rule that I learned, which is similar to Drink’s Rule 1, is as follows:
همزة الوصل should be used when the hamza sound can be elided; همزة قطع should be used when the Hamza sound cannot be elided.

Thus, in trying to determine whether اكْتُبْ takes همزة قطع or همزة الوصل, we must first determine whether the Hamza can be elided. If not, it should be written أُكْتُبْ – with همزة قطع. But if it can be elided, then it should be written as اكْتُبْ.

The question is thus: Is the hamza in the imperative pronounced when it is preceded by anything? For example, is ثُمَّ اكْتُبْ pronounced as thumma ’uktub or thumma-ktub? If it is the former, then the imperative takes همزة قطع and is properly written as أُكْتُبْ. If it is the latter, then it takes همزة الوصل and all 501 examples in Barron’s 501 Arabic Verbs are incorrect.


----------



## Psi-Lord

cherine said:


> One more thing I must state : the difference between the two types of hamza is not only on the level of pronounciation, but also the writing:
> the qat3 is written like this *أ* and the wasl is like this *ا*


Would you say it’s common for even (especially?) Arabic speakers to mix them up in writing? I ask so because, in a text I’ve recently had corrected, many (although certainly not most) did want me to change e.g. ابن to إبن (which I did not do, since I was sure I’d been taught never to).


----------



## analeeh

The distinction between qaṭʿ and waṣl hamzahs is not very clear in modern writing - even in books, which are checked by copy-editors, the hamzat waṣl of the form VII, VIII, IX and X maṣdars - إستقالة, إفتتاح etc - are regularly written with a hamzat qaṭʿ. Likewise ابن and اسم. Some of these changes have I think been approved by at least some of the Arabic language academies.


----------



## cherine

I don't know if any Arabic academy has approved of this writing; I always learned that ابن، استقالة، افتتاح are written without a hamza/hamzat waSl, and that putting a hamza is wrong.

But, whether it's wrong or right, unanimous or controversial, I can safely reply to Psi-Lord's question that many Arabic speakers make spelling mistakes, and not only in hamzas. Being a native speaker doesn't automatically mean that we right our own languages correctly.


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

I just want to add, if Hamza wasl is at the beginging at a sentence it becomes hamzat qa93 as we have to pronounce it
إستقالة المدير أمر محتوم
واستقال المدير


----------



## LifeRays

Very nice explanation!

I remember a Verse for Al-motnabi :


أَلَمٌ أَلَمَّ أَلَمْ أُلِمَّ بِدَائِهِ .... إِنْ آنَ آنٌ آنَ آنُ أَوَانِهِ 

It's not easy to understand even for the native speakers, it has very deep meaning though!


----------

