# three-consonant cluster



## Ghabi

From a recent thread:



Josh_ said:


> It can be either أحْبِبْ or أحِبَّ, at least according to the grammars I have (both English and Arabic). I haven't seen it used enough in practice to know which is more common. The reason why there is a fatHa at the end of أحِبَّ, and not a sukuun, which one would normally expect for a majzuum verb form, is to avoid a three consonant cluster, if there were a another word after it. At least, that's my theory. This occurs for other verbs with doubled radicals as well.



It reminds me of something: do we add a _fatHa_ after superlatives like _ajadd_? I always hesitate when I have to read things like "_ajadd min_".


----------



## be.010

Hi!
Superlatives in Arabic are diptotes, so it could be either "ajaddu min" or "ajadda min" according to its place
Cheers


----------



## Ghabi

Ah, I just checked my grammar. Yes, the superlatives are declinable diptotes! (For some reason I believed that they're undeclinable. Obviosuly I've to study harder!) Thank you, Nabeel!

Now I realize that why the jussive form of ارُدّ would be ارْدُد! Whether the no-three-consonant clutser theory is true or not, at least it's a good way of memorizing the jussive forms of the doubled verbs (which I can never remember). Thank you, too, Josh!


----------



## clevermizo

Ghabi said:


> Whether the no-three-consonant clutser theory is true or not, at least it's a good way of memorizing the jussive forms of the doubled verbs (which I can never remember).



It is true; I think it's discussed in the classical grammars like Sibawayh, though I'm not sure. It's why the past tense changes as well with forms like أحبّ but أحببت, أحببنا, etc.

In fact, it's pervasive in dialects - most Eastern dialects (Egypt-eastward) never allow these clusters of consonants and have rules for inserting vowels to break them up or simplify them to single consonants. I think perhaps only Western (Maghrebi) dialects allow complicated consonant clusters, due to a Berber substratum.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> In fact, it's pervasive in dialects - most Eastern dialects (Egypt-eastward) never allow them



Never allow what?


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Never allow what?



Three (or more) consonants in a row without an intervening vowel.


----------



## Ghabi

clevermizo said:


> It is true; I think it's discussed in the classical grammars like Sibawayh, though I'm not sure. It's why the past tense changes as well with forms like أحبّ but أحببت, أحببنا, etc.


Yes, the conjugation of the doubled verbs look so clear now after knowing the rule (I know three-consonant cluster is not allowed in Egyptian, but didn't know it's also true in fuS7a). It must have been mentioned in the classical grammars as you say (probably also in Wright? have to check), I hope I had learnt it earlier!

Equipped with this rule, along with the "no two consecutive alif" (آكل) and "no two consecutive sukuun" (مشت) rules, one can now memorize all the seemingly irregularities of the fuS7a conjugation easily. al-7amdu-lillah!


----------



## clevermizo

The rule of no consonant clusters is the same as the "no two consecutive sukuun" rule. That's what I was thinking of when I said it had already been mentioned, classically. Maybe broaden if it you want "no consecutive sukuuns (any number: not two, not three, not n)."

If you had a form like أحبّت, that would be [2a7abbtu] and as you can see would have 2 consecutive sukuuns, or a cluster of 3 consonants. Therefore, we make [2a7babtu] which alleviates the problem.

If you had a form like لم أحبّ as [lam 2a7ibb], similarly you have 2 consecutive sukuuns. Sure, they're not written as two sukuuns because the consonant has a shadda, but conceptually it's the same thing. No string of 3 or more consonants without a vowel in between. Therefore, by making [lam 2a7bib] you solve the problem.


Again, 3 consonants and 2 sukuuns is the same. Mathematically, consider the string:

C1 V1 C2 V2 C3 V3

Where C is a consonant and V is a vowel.

Now, remove V1 and V2:

C1*C2*C3V3

where * represents a sukuun. Now you have 2 sukuuns in a row, or 3 consonants in a row.

Now try removing V2 and V3:

C1 V1 C2 *C3*

Again you have 2 sukuuns in a row. Technically you don't have 3 consonants in a row, but you do have a cluster: namely C2C3# where # is a phrase-boundary. This is usually treated like a quasi-consonant linguistically (the consonant of "nothing" if you will).

Remove V2:

C1 V1 C2*C3 V3

This is ok, it is a string of 2 consonants and 1 sukuun.

Finally, remove V1:

C1*C2 V2 C3 V3

This is the opposite of C1 V1 C2*C3*. It is also two sukuuns if you think about it, because the other phrase boundary is there:

#*C1*C2 V2 C3 V3. Similarly this is not allowed, where # is the ultimate boundary. Obviously within a string there would be a vowel before C1 from the previous word.

This last case is the way the definite article الــ works. If there is no previous vowel, then the vowel is automatically [a]: "al-." If however there is a previous vowel, it is elided (i.e., it has a همزة وصل). But there must be a vowel there, at least [a] otherwise the word would start with a consonant cluster.

So this proves, a bit exhaustively, that the rule of "no meeting of 2 sukuuns" is the same as saying "no 3 consonants in a row." The proof can be altered to include the case of shadda, in which case C1=C2 or C2=C3.


----------



## Faylasoof

Wirght’s book page 24, para 26.

  A syllable cannot begin with two consonants, the first of which is destitute of a vowel…. 
  …A syllable also cannot end with two consonants which are not either separated or followed by a vowel (except in a pause).


    Consonant clusters are also discussed in Ryding’s book, here.

No word or syllable may begin with a consonant cluster. 
Consonant clusters within syllables are prohibited except in a pause form. 
(Page 36).

Discussed elsewhere too in the book .


----------



## Ghabi

clevermizo said:


> Mathematically, consider the string ... So this proves, a bit exhaustively, that the rule of "no meeting of 2 sukuuns" is the same as saying "no 3 consonants in a row." The proof can be altered to include the case of shadda, in which case C1=C2 or C2=C3.


You won't call me ghabi if I can understand math like this! But I can see that you're right.


----------



## Josh_

Ahh, yes, the no two consecutive sukuun rule.  I forgot about that as well.  That is why the other jussive form for geminate verbs has a fatHa on the end (e.g. يَرُدَّ and يُحِبَّ or an imperative form of أحِبَّ), which is incidentally, the same as the subjunctive form.

In my post in the other thread (quoted here by Ghabi) I said that I had not seen either form enough to know which is more common, but I had actually posted quickly and was only thinking about the imperative form at that time.  Now that I have seen and compared present tense conjugations such like يَرُدَّ and يَرْدُدْ and يُحِبَّ and يُحْبِبْ and have had time to think about them, I believe that the former (يَرُدَّ  and يُحِبَّ) are more common (nowadays, anyway).  Perhaps this is due (in part) to the odd look of يَرْدُدْ and يُحْبِبْ, or just since other present tense forms look like يرد and يحب.  Out of curiosity, looking "لم يردد" and "لم يرد" up on Google the latter appeared elicited many more returns than the former.  Likewise, "لم يحب" had many more returns than "لم يحبب."


----------



## Faylasoof

Here is another concise and useful explanation about consonantal clusters, including <_2ijtimaa3 us saakinayn_اجتماع الساكنين>, vowel-consonant,  bi-consonantal and diphthong-consonant clusters.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> Three (or more) consonants in a row without an intervening vowel.



What about the _ajadd min_ example that Ghabi gave above?  I imagine Egyptian speakers may insert a very short vowel after the 'd' (_agaddi minnu_), but is there any dialect other than Egyptian would not allow it?


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> What about the _ajadd min_ example that Ghabi gave above?  I imagine Egyptian speakers may insert a very short vowel after the 'd' (_agaddi minnu_), but is there any dialect other than Egyptian would not allow it?



In Levantine dialects in such a situation, the -dd- would be shortened to just -d- (_ajad min)_. For example, the past tense of "love" is just _7ab_ حب without shadda. However if you add a suffix, then the shadda reappears.

Another example is in the participle. The word _mit2akked_ (certain متأكّد）loses the last 'e' in the feminine: mit2akkde - but this becomes simplified to mit2akde.

In Jordan, for example, the way you get a shopkeeper's attention is by saying "aghalbak" أغلبك ("May I bother you?"). The verb is of course ghallab, the present tense being for the first person (b)aghalleb. However, upon adding the suffix -ak, the -e- is lost, thus: aghallbak - which is shortened to aghalbak. There is definitely no longer amount of time spent on the -ll- ; it is just shortened to -l-.

The prohibition against three-consonants-in-a-row (or two sukuuns in a row) also explains the behavior of the definite article in Levantine dialects. If a word starts with two consonants (which is allowed), the vowel goes in between the article and the first consonant:

ktaab (book)
li-ktaab (the book)

However, if the word starts with one consonant, then the vowel goes before the -l-

il-yoom (today)


----------



## WadiH

I just can't imagine متأكّدة pronounced without a _shadda_, but you seem very certain that that is the case and I don't get much exposure to Syrian Arabic anymore, so I'll take your word for it.

I can say though that throughout Saudi Arabia (which is a big chunk of Eastern dialects), these clusters are common, except in the urban speech of Mecca/Jeddah/Medina, where it is rare but still occurs in certain cases.  The dialects of the Gulf littoral (Kuwait, Qatar, etc.) have that _il-ktaab/li-ktaab_ phenomenon you mention, but they still exhibit these clusters frequently in other situations (e.g. _gilt lah_ قلت له).

Here are some central Arabian examples, followed by their Meccan equilavents.

_mit2akkdah _متأكّدة -- _mit2*a*kkida_
_ajadd minh_ أجدّ منه -- _ajadd m*i*nnu_ (or maybe it's _ajad minnu_ and I haven't been paying enough attention?)
_ars*a*ltlah_ أرسلت له -- _arsalt*a*llu_
_altsl*aa*bah_ الكلابة -- _alkilaab_/_alklaab_
_arrjaal _الرّجال -- _arrijaal/arrjaal_
_a993'*a*yyir_ الصّغيّر -- N/A
_altsb*a*yyir_ الكبيّر N/A
_al3t*ee*bi_ العتيبي -- _al3iteeby
__wadd flaan  u jib flaan_ ودّ فلان وجب فلان -- _waddi flaan u jiib flaan/jiib iflaan_

My limited knowledge of Iraqi speech leads me to believe that it generally does not allow these clusters.  Maybe that explains why they say _gilit _instead of _gilt_, and _3idna _instead of _3indna_.  They also have that ilktaab -> liktaab phenomenon, I believe.


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> I just can't imagine متأكّدة pronounced without a _shadda_, but you seem very certain that that is the case and I don't get much exposure to Syrian Arabic anymore, so I'll take your word for it.



I wonder about it sometimes. So in academic descriptions it's always said that the shadda is simplified to a single consonant when followed by another consonant. However, when I hear it with some sounds, especially fricatives like [s,z,sh] that you can hold out longer more easily, it sounds like it still might be there. _Mit2akde_ in the feminine, I definitely do not hear a shadda at all.

Elroy, for example, although I think he may be too busy to post right now about this, would agree that in Palestinian they are always simplified to single consonants when followed by a third consonant. So much so that when he transcribes Palestinian Arabic on the forum he actually writes them as single consonants. I tend to leave the shadda in writing for grammatical clarity, especially as a learner. It's useful to know that it's "there" even if sometimes not pronounced.

There are other strategies to avoid a cluster of three consonants, aside simplifying the shadda. There is a high degree of vowel "shuffling" at least in Syrian and Lebanese more so than in Israel/Palestine and Jordan.

For example, consider _btiktob_. If you say "You write _it_" then interestingly we get this:

_btiktob+o_ > _btiktb-o_ > _btikitbo_
بتكتبه
This happens whenever the final vowel in the verb is kasra or Damma. The vowel is lost upon adding the suffix - this results in a three consonant cluster, which is not allowed. So to alleviate it, another vowel (almost always a kasra or a kasra-like vowel) gets inserted between the first two. 

As far as قلت له this is also not allowed as _2ilt-lo_ and invariably becomes _2iltillo_. If the indirect object لي، لك، له، لها comes right after another consonant, we see this phenomenon to break the cluster:

_2iltillo _قلتله
but
_2alli_ قاللي
_2aalitli_ قالتلي

The _lo > _illo phenomenon is similar to what you show about speech in Mecca and Jedda (_arsalt*a*lluh_).

Come to think of it, you point out the example of الرجال. Now the plural of رجّال _rijjaal_ in Lebanese/Syrian is رجال _rjaal_. It occurs to me that I don't know how the definite for الرجال is articulated. Maybe it's all right that it's_ r-rjaal_? You can, after all, more easily hold out a long [rr] before [j] than some other consonants I imagine. I also doubt that it would become *_ri-rjaal_ or _*li-rjaal_. Perhaps a short vowel gets added back in between r_j _r-r(i)jaal_. 

As for عندنا that becomes _3inna_. As for adding a short kasra or kasra-like vowel between two consonants at the end of a word, I think that varies in the Levant and is quasi optional or happens more in some words than others. In Lebanese speech it seems quite common (_ba7er, 3rifet, binet, _etc.).

In the case of أجدّ منه I think that the shadda, even if not fully pronounced, leaves a "trace" in that the stress is shifted. It would be _ajád minno_. If أجدّ were treated completely like *أجد without shadda, you would expect the stress to be on the first syllable: _ájad_, which is not the case. This "trace", left in the stress system, may also lead you to hear a "doubled consonant" when in fact it's not really "doubled" per se.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> I also doubt that it would become *_ri-rjaal_ or _*li-rjaal_. Perhaps a short vowel gets added back in between r_j _r-r(i)jaal_.



I think I've heard _li-rjaal_ before, but I'm not sure.



> As for adding a short kasra or kasra-like vowel between two consonants at the end of a word, I think that varies in the Levant and is quasi optional or happens more in some words than others. In Lebanese speech it seems quite come (_ba7er, 3rifet, binet, _etc.).



Well now we're talking about two consonants in a row, which is a whole other topic.  Then there's two consonants at the beginning of a word, which is yet another topic. 



> In the case of أجدّ منه I think that the shadda, even if not fully pronounced, leaves a "trace" in that the stress is shifted. It would be _ajád minno_. If أجدّ were treated completely like *أجد without shadda, you would expect the stress to be on the first syllable: _ájad_, which is not the case. This "trace", left in the stress system, may also lead you to hear a "doubled consonant" when in fact it's not really "doubled" per se.



Now that I think about it, I think my father would probably say "_ajad minh_," while I (and others in my generation) would tend to say "_ajadd minh_" (I know there's a _shadda _there because I can feel the change in the shape of my tongue between the two articulations).  My father, though, puts the stress on the first syllable (*a*jad minh), while I tend to stress the second (aj*a*dd minh).


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Well now we're talking about two consonants in a row, which is a whole other topic.  Then there's two consonants at the beginning of a word, which is yet another topic.



Not exactly because of what I explained about the null consonant above. At least in Levantine dialects, this vowel is consistent when you consider _ba7r#_ where the string of three consonants is 7-r-# and # is the phrase boundary. The rule is add the vowel between C1 and C2 and voi là you get _ba7er_, _binet_. And if you add a suffix or put it next to another word which destroys the # boundary, then the vowel goes away: _binet, binti_. Two consonants at the beginning of a word can be analyzed similarly, although tends to be more allowed in general, and therefore is actually more of a different topic.

I find it fascinating that your father moves the stress to the first syllable (ájad). This shows me yet again that I have a lot to learn about diversity in Arabic dialects. In Levantine dialects a shadda at the end of a word is always a stress attractant; half of the time that's how you know it's "there" in the first place.


----------



## Ghabi

Wow, you guys have done some great detective works. I don't know if it's relevant, but in Egyptian one says _agdad_ instead of _agadd_ (perhaps the latter form is also used? need a native to confirm). Perhaps saying _agdad men_ is easier than _agaddə men_? I don't know.


----------



## ayed

Ghabi said:


> Perhaps saying _agdad men_ is easier than _agaddə men_? I don't know.


 The reverse is true._ajadd_ is easier than ajdad


----------



## WadiH

Ghabi said:


> Wow, you guys have done some great detective works. I don't know if it's relevant, but in Egyptian one says _agdad_ instead of _agadd_ (perhaps the latter form is also used? need a native to confirm). Perhaps saying _agdad men_ is easier than _agaddə men_? I don't know.



Yes I've heard _ajdad_, too, particularly from young people.  I don't think it's that relevant, though, because you still have words like أعزّ, ألزّ/ألذّ and the like.


----------



## Josh_

I am not a native, but I can confirm that Egyptians say "agdad" ("agadd" exists also), but as Wadi alluded to, other forms are regular.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> As for adding a short kasra or kasra-like vowel between two consonants at the end of a word, I think that varies in the Levant and is quasi optional or happens more in some words than others. In Lebanese speech it seems quite come (_ba7er, 3rifet, binet, _etc.).



Can you think of any words where a vowel is _not_ added?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.


----------



## Xence

clevermizo said:


> I think perhaps only Western (Maghrebi) dialects allow complicated consonant clusters, due to a Berber substratum.


Can you please give me an example of such consonant clusters, and elaborate more, if possible, on how Berber would allow such a complication?


----------



## clevermizo

Xence said:


> Can you please give me an example of such consonant clusters, and elaborate more, if possible, on how Berber would allow such a complication?



To be honest this is only what I've heard, thus the ambiguous "I think perhaps" at the start of that comment. I've never studied any North African dialect to any degree. I've only read descriptions that say they allow more consonant clusters. Then the usual explanation for these clusters is that Berber languages allow complicated consonant clusters.

I once picked up a Moroccan Arabic course book at the library and it transcribed the past tense of the verb كتب as "ktb" with the intention that there were actually no (significant?) vowels in between the letters.

As to Berber clusters, I found this document that has links to consonant clusters in Tashelhiyt language. I'm particularly amazed by the pronunciation for "tsskcftstt" which means "You dried it".

It seems they can only be allowed with lots of fricative sounds. This makes sense because you can actually hold out the sound of a fricative without any vowels in between. You can say [ssssssssssss....] indefinitely but it would be almost impossible to do so with [kkkkkkk...].


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Can you think of any words where a vowel is _not_ added?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.



When I hear Lebanese speech it seems they are always added. However, Elias and I have talked about this at length before. It seems in Palestinian it depends on region, and then some words get this vowel and others don't. He'll have to weigh in when he has time but I recall that he said he pronounces بنت _binet_ but بحر _ba7r_ without any epenthetic vowel.


----------



## Ghabi

clevermizo said:


> To be honest this is only what I've heard, thus the ambiguous "I think perhaps" at the start of that comment. I've never studied any North African dialect to any degree. I've only read descriptions that say they allow more consonant clusters. Then the usual explanation for these clusters is that Berber languages allow complicated consonant clusters.


I don't know, but that smells like the "Eskimo words for snow". (No kidding, we should have a sticky entitled "Urban legends concerning the Arabic language".)



> I once picked up a Moroccan Arabic course book at the library and it transcribed the past tense of the verb كتب as "ktb" with the intention that there were actually no (significant?) vowels in between the letters.


Why, there should be a vowel in between: _kteb_. Initial two-consonant clusters are also allowed in Levent; so I can't see anything special in the syllable structure of Maghrib dialects. Or maybe I am mistaken?


----------



## Jadoch

In Egyptian there are  doubled verbs which take a vowel after the shadda (no cluster-removing schwa but a full vowel) in derived stems where one wouldn't expect it. 

For example:

- xabb (he hid sth) -> istaxabb*a* (he hid)
- 7amm (he bathed so) -> ista7amm*a* (he bathed)

Are these vowels somehow a retention from classical forms before a schwa was used to break consenant clusters?


----------



## Ghabi

Jadoch said:


> I
> - xabb (he hid sth) -> istaxabb*a* (he hid)
> - 7amm (he bathed so) -> ista7amm*a* (he bathed)
> 
> Are these vowels somehow a retention from classical forms before a schwa was used to break consenant clusters?


This has been briefly discussed in this thread (see posts #25, #29) and this thread.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> Then the usual explanation for these clusters is that Berber languages allow complicated consonant clusters.



It should be noted that Maghrebi Arabic is hardly the only variety for which a substratum has been proposed.  Many claim (unconvincingly in my opinion) that the order between nouns and demonstratives in Egyptian Arabic is due to a Coptic substratum.  The shifting of the [m] in certain Syrian/Lebanese pronouns is often attributed to an Aramaic substratum.  There are also arguments for a South Arabian substratum in parts of Yemen, like the Zabid valley, and so on.  Whether or not there's any truth to these theories, I'm not equipped to tell.


----------



## Ghabi

Xence said:


> Can you please give me an example of such consonant clusters, and elaborate more, if possible, on how Berber would allow such a complication?


Perhaps it's correct to say that the Maghrib dialects have a smaller vowel-to-consonant proportion (_katab/kitib_ vs _kteb_)? And that gives a (false) impression that more complicated consonant clusters are allowed in Maghrib. Anyway, I can't find any three-consonant clusters in my Morrocan phrasebook (assuming the transliterations in it are correct), could you confirm that ya Xence?



Wadi Hanifa said:


> It should be noted that Maghrebi Arabic is hardly the only variety for which a substratum has been proposed.  Many claim (unconvincingly in my opinion) that the order between nouns and demonstratives in Egyptian Arabic is due to a Coptic substratum.  The shifting of the [m] in certain Syrian/Lebanese pronouns is often attributed to an Aramaic substratum.  There are also arguments for a South Arabian substratum in parts of Yemen, like the Zabid valley, and so on.  Whether or not there's any truth to these theories, I'm not equipped to tell.


It's only surprising that the Iraqi dialect is not said to have a Akkadian (or even Sumerian!) substratum.


----------



## WadiH

Ghabi said:


> It's only surprising that the Iraqi dialect is not said to have a Akkadian (or even Sumerian!) substratum.



Oh but it is, my friend, it is! 

Well, I'm not sure about Akkadian or Sumerian, but there are claims for Aramaic influence on Iraqi Arabic.  The most famous example is the particle جى (pronounced _che _like in Che Guevara).


----------



## clevermizo

You know, after reading these last few posts I really have to second guess the substrata theories. It's likely a case of "finding what you want to find" on part of the observers.

If we find that there is a high amount of consonant clusters in Moroccan Arabic compared to other dialects (which there may or may not be), and we note that Berber languages have a high degree of consonant clustering (which it appears from the link in my post above is much higher than any Arabic dialect), then it is easy to draw a conclusion that this is in Moroccan Arabic is due to Berber influence.

But from this thread it seems all Arabic dialects allow consonants clusters to some degree that can differ in extent from the fus7a rule of avoiding the meeting of two sukuuns. So I suppose you could find an Arabic dialects _somewhere_ with a similar amount of consonant clusters as in Morocco, but perhaps in the Middle East where it is not likely that there would be any Berber influence at all. 

When the Peace Corps course in Moroccan Arabic says that the past tense of كتب is pronounced [ktb] without any vowels at all, well you could also evaluate that as having a vowel in the position that Ghabi has suggested [kteb] even if very short. So is there or is there not a three-consonant cluster? 

Does Moroccan Arabic have any words with clusters of sounds like [tsskcftstt] in Tashelhiyt ? Because I think that's most unlike any Arabic dialect I'm aware of. That would be pretty good evidence of Berber influence. If clusters like this in Moroccan Arabic don't exist then maybe the theory that the clusters that _do_ exist are as a result of Berber influence is a stretch?


----------

