# Egyptian Arabic: Demonstrative pronouns



## londonmasri

Hi following on from this thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1162372

I would like to confirm the pronouns

Diyya and Diyyat      Female (From di)
Dawwa and dawwat  male (from da)
doola and doolat      (dool)

In each of these what does the (t) refer to?


----------



## Josh_

Basically diyya(t) is feminine and dawwa(t) in the masculine. I believe they originated as contractions of _da huwwa_ (دا هو) and _di hiyya _(دي هي)_.  _There are actually many variations. If you come across them remember that the ones with a 'w' are masculine and the ones with a 'y' are feminine -- just like the pronouns for he and she. I touched upon the issue of demonstratives in Egyptian Arabic in this thread here.

As for the 't', I am not sure.  It is probably just part of the variation, but perhaps it is a remnant of some former iDaafa structure or i3raab marker.


----------



## londonmasri

Josh_ said:


> Basically diyya(t) is feminine and dawwa(t) in the masculine. I believe they originated as contractions of _da huwwa_ (دا هو) and _di hiyya _(دي هي)_. _There are actually many variations. If you come across them remember that the ones with a 'w' are masculine and the ones with a 'y' are feminine -- just like the pronouns for he and she. I touched upon the issue of demonstratives in Egyptian Arabic in this thread here.


 

Thanks for that Josh.

If anyone knows what the (t) stands for please let us know.


----------



## Josh_

I don't think it stands for anything.  As for when to use it and when not to, maybe it just depends on your mood for that day.   Kidding aside, as I said in the other thread, perhaps it has something to do with the rhythm of the sentence, but that is just a theory.  For a foreigner, though, it might be best just to stick with the basic 'da' and 'di' but be aware of the other forms.  This is usually what I do when I am unsure of how to use an alternative form of a word.


----------



## Mahaodeh

My guess was (based on my personal "hunch", nothing scholarly) that it comes from the Turks that spoke Arabic in Egypt during the Ottoman rule.  The reason for this hunch is that they tended to add تاء طويلة to ends of words rather than تاء مربوطة; other examples being
نعمة = نعمت
حكمة = حكمت
Maybe that is the effect of their accent or something.


----------



## cherine

Good explanation, Maha.
The prepositons دية، دوة diyya, dawwa were kind of transformed into diyyat and dawwat.
Now, dawwa is almost never used now. At least I don't remember hearing it. As for diyya, it is. Also doola is more used than doolat, although I don't remember hearing "doolat" that often, if at all.

Still, the most common are da(h) and di. I put an optional (h) after da, because sometimes "da" is sounded with a light (h) at the end.
As for the plural, I think that dool is more commonly used than both doola and doolat.


----------



## akhooha

Years ago I had a friend in Shubra (in Cairo) who would (90% of the time) say "di-hiyyit" and "da-howit" instead of  "di" and "da"
([الرجل ده] became [الرجل ده ـ هُوِت] and [البنت دي] became [البنت دي ـ هِيِّت]).
Although he was born and raised in Cairo, I _think_ his family was originally from the Sa3eed.  I'd always meant to ask him about his usage, but never got around to it.  Years later, I'm still curious.  Is this a regional variation, a personal stylistic choice, or what? Is it somehow a way of emphasizing دي and ده?
Thanks.


----------



## iAnwar

ده is that ... دي is this


----------



## cherine

Hi,

Please check this thread in the Arabic Only forum, it may answer your questions.


----------



## akhooha

Thank you for the link, Cherine. Not only was my question answered, I also learned a lot more.  I'd had no idea how much variation there is with اسماء الإشارة
in the Egyptian colloquial.  Thanks again...


----------



## cherine

You're most welcome. And, by the way, I wasn't sure how to edit the thread title because there seems to be various pronunciation of this form. The pronunciation I know is da-hiyyat and da-howwat.


----------



## AliJMac

Dear All,

Thank you for an enjoyable form. I have a question about da, di and dol(a). I have seen a couple of Egyptian references that mention that da, di and dol(a) are used for nearby objects and when you refer to objects 'away over there', you use *dukha (*for da), *dikha *(for di) and *dukham *(for dol). Is this correct or has this fallen out of practice? The books I refer to are not very recent publications. I cannot see very many references to these words on the internet.

Thanks again for any advice you can provide this learner.

Alastair


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

AliJMac said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Thank you for an enjoyable form. I have a question about da, di and dol(a). I have seen a couple of Egyptian references that mention that da, di and dol(a) are used for nearby objects and when you refer to objects 'away over there', you use *dukha (*for da), *dikha *(for di) and *dukham *(for dol). Is this correct or has this fallen out of practice? The books I refer to are not very recent publications. I cannot see very many references to these words on the internet.
> 
> Thanks again for any advice you can provide this learner.
> 
> Alastair


are you sure that they have H in them, *dukham, **dukha, **dikha 
*the only thing I can think about these are,* duuk hum (those are them), daak hu( that is he), diik hi( that is she)
*I'm not a native Egyptian Arabic, someone else might elaborate more or correct me


----------



## AliJMac

Arabic_Police_999,

Thanks for the reply. If you search in google and type "egyptian arabic DUKHA", the eight link is for a book titled: Morphologie: Ein Internationales Handbuch Zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Volume 2 (unfortunately I cannot post the link as the rules say it is not allowed). On page 1751 it mentions the variants in my question. So unless this is wrong I think it was once (and may still be used). This is why I ask the question.

Once again thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

Alastair


----------



## Arabic_Police_999

AliJMac said:


> Arabic_Police_999,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. If you search in google and type "egyptian arabic DUKHA", the eight link is for a book titled: Morphologie: Ein Internationales Handbuch Zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Volume 2 (unfortunately I cannot post the link as the rules say it is not allowed). On page 1751 it mentions the variants in my question. So unless this is wrong I think it was once (and may still be used). This is why I ask the question.
> 
> Once again thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.
> 
> Alastair



the reason I asked for H is does he/you read it as خ
however, I went to the link, it seemed to me that he made a mistake, I have never heard these


----------



## akhooha

I don't think it's a mistake, it's just very rare and hardly ever used. Badawi attests to the existence of this form in his "Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic".  
dukha
When used, I believe they are used in contrastive form to da, di, or dol. Nowadays, I think the contrastive aspect is pretty much lost and to say "this or that" it is more common to say "da walla da" rather than "da walla dukha" (P.S. It is not a خ -- it is دُكها دِكها etc).


----------



## cherine

Hi,

Would you care to check the thread I linked to in my post # 9? If there's still more question about دوكهة، دُوكهة، ديكهة، دِكهة or other pronouns, please don't hesitate to ask.


----------



## Eternal student

I believe they originated as contractions of _da huwwa_ (دا هو) and _di hiyya _(دي هي)_. _

Specialists in these matters agree with this analysis. What is more, extended versions of the personal pronouns with 't' (and sometimes an extra vowel after it) are an ancient Semitic feature found in a number of different Semitic languages, as well as in several Arabic dialects outside of Egypt, e.g. in parts of the West Bank you find forms like _huuta _and _hiite_. This is a nice example of a very old feature that is preserved in some dialects but which was lost in Classical Arabic (showing you that the dialects aren't just corruptions of fuS7aa!).


----------



## AliJMac

Dear All,

From what the responders like akhooha have advised it is that you would not use this variation as it is not commonly used today. I will erase it from my use.

Thanks for the help.

Alastair


----------

