# All dialects: اسم الفاعل المؤنث + ضمير متصل feminine active participle+pronoun



## Ghabi

What Be. writes in this thread reminds me of something:


be.010 said:


> Really it should be naa2eStak whether you mean "el 2iSSa mish naa2estak," or ana (meaning you!) mu / mish / manni naa2eStak, since the speaker is female...



In Egyptian we'd say _el_ _2iSSa_ _mesh_ _na2Saak_ (as London writes in the same thread), elongating the last vowel but not pronuncing the ت of the ة.

What's the rule in other dialects, I wonder?


----------



## WadiH

I think (but I'm not sure!) that Sudanese and Urban Hejazi also use this rule, while everyone else preserves the ت as in Classical Arabic (e.g. ناقصتك).  I'm speaking exclusively about Mashriqi dialects of course.

You've given me something to watch out for.


----------



## the basketball player

hey Ghabi, in Iraq the ت is pronounced when the female is speaking .
I hope I helped you a little 
regards


----------



## Ghabi

Thank you for the information, ya Wadi and t.b.p.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> I think (but I'm not sure!) that Sudanese and Urban Hejazi also use this rule, while everyone else preserves the ت as in Classical Arabic (e.g. ناقصتك).  I'm speaking exclusively about Mashriqi dialects of course.



Do you mean that the حجاز dialect is the only one on the Arabian Peninsula that follows this rule? That's intriguing.


----------



## WadiH

Ghabi said:


> Do you mean that the حجاز dialect is the only one on the Arabian Peninsula that follows this rule?



That's not exactly what I said.  You missed a key word: "URBAN."   Perhaps you're not so familiar with the urban dialect of the Hejaz (as opposed to the rural/bedouin dialects).  Grammatically, it is almost identical to that of Upper Egypt and Sudan.  This is not surprising given that Mecca and Jeddah were under Egyptian rule (direct and indirect) for nearly 1,000 years.


----------



## azeid

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Grammatically, they are almost identical to Upper Egypt and Sudan.  This is not surprising given that Mecca and Jeddah were under Egyptian rule (direct and indirect) for nearly 1,000 years.


The effect was in the the both sides as there are many Arabic tribes from Aljazeera came to Egypt especially Upper Egypt.You can find that clear in Upper Egypt in the names of villages like Hajaza (Qena),Gehena(Sohg),Al3wammer,AlAshraf,Bani Solaim and many other tribes from Libya & North Africa.
I don't want to be off the topic but i think that it is worth to mention that.


----------



## WadiH

Yes it's fascinating.  I haven't been able to find an adequate explanation for the similarity, however, especially between Mecca and Sudan.


----------



## dakaplo

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
أهلا وسهلا،
I'm interested in variation in how different dialects attach pronouns to the feminine active participle. For example, how do you say she sees/has seen it? Do I have the following right? (bold indicates stress):

Egyptian: شايفاه shay*faa*
Palestinian: شايفيته shay*fii*tu (Is this also how it works in other Levantine varieties?)
Moroccan: شايفاه shay*fah
*
شكرا لكم


----------



## Hemza

for Moroccan


----------



## elroy

dakaplo said:


> Palestinian: شايفيته shay*fii*tu (Is this also how it works in other Levantine varieties?)


 I think the vowel is (closer to) "o," not "u" (or maybe both occur), and I would consider this a regional/marked variant.

The most widespread variant is "ša*yif*to." "šay*fā*" also occurs, and I would also consider it regional/marked.  (I would guess these two are used in Jordanian as well.)

In Syrian I'm 99% sure it's "šāy*fi*to," and in Lebanese I would guess "šēy*fi*to."


dakaplo said:


> Moroccan: شايفاه shay*fah*


 Is the second "a" short?


----------



## Hemza

elroy said:


> Is the second "a" short?



No, it's a long one but I didn't pay attention to the correctness of the Latin script


----------



## dakaplo

elroy said:


> In Syrian I'm 99% sure it's "šāy*fi*to," and in Lebanese I would guess "šēy*fi*to."


Is the difference between these and the version I gave above (شايفيته) the vowel length in the second syllable?

A follow-up question: What happens in Palestinian when you add pronouns that start with a consonant? Do you get ša*yif*tni or šay*fit*ni? I would guess Syrian would be šāy*fit*ni.



Hemza said:


> No, it's a long one but I didn't pay attention to the correctness of the Latin script


My transcription with just one 'a' was intentional, since vowel length in Moroccan Arabic isn't contrastive (I'm sure some would contest this claim—but that's a discussion for another thread!). But I probably should've just written it long for consistency.


----------



## Hemza

dakaplo said:


> My transcription with just one 'a' was intentional, since vowel length in Moroccan Arabic isn't contrastive (I'm sure some would contest this claim—but that's a discussion for another thread!). But I probably should've just written it long for consistency.



It is but I can't speak for all areas. As you said, this belongs to another topic.


----------



## cherine

dakaplo said:


> Egyptian: شايفاه shay*faa*



Correct. And your transliteration is interesting because it made me realize that we really don't pronounce the final haa2 here. And even those who pronounce it, do it very lightly.
And to complete the information, when the object is feminine, we say شايفاها shayfaaha, for the plural is شايفاهم shayfaahom. For these two, the second syllable is not really long, just slightly longer than the first one.


----------



## elroy

dakaplo said:


> Is the difference between these and the version I gave above (شايفيته) the vowel length in the second syllable?


 Yes, and in the first.


dakaplo said:


> What happens in Palestinian when you add pronouns that start with a consonant? Do you get ša*yif*tni or šay*fit*ni? I would guess Syrian would be šāy*fit*ni.


 “ša*yif*tni” (or “šay*fā*ni” or “šay*fīt*ni”).  And yes for Syrian.


----------



## wriight

Ooh, I was really curious about this a while ago! First: do any dialects outside of the Levant distinguish between first-/third-person and second-person participles? I know Lebanese has...

...sans object pronoun: أنا شايفة، هي شايفة، انتي شايفة
...with object pronoun: أنا شايفيتو، هي شايفيتو، انتي *شايفتيه
*
...and, if not to the whole Levant, I'd assume it can at least be generalized to North Levantine dialects.

For particulars, normalizing the leb-specific vowels, that's *šāyfīto *in the first & third person and *šāyiftī *in the second.
These forms also arise when a laam-dative is suffixed: انتي شايفتيلي *šāyiftīli *and هي شايفيتلي *šāyfītli*. While said suffixes don't shorten the 1sg/2sg form's final _*ī *_(as they do to the vowel in hollow verbs), that _*ī*_ can, depending on speaker, be a short _*i*_ anyway: my dad has _*šāyfitni*_, _*šāyfitna*_, & _*šāyfitl- *_for consonant clusters at the suffix boundary, and of course an invariable *šā**yif*_*t*_*-* form (as shown above in this thread) must exist for some as well.

———

When I was trying to gather info on this, I also talked to an "East Saudi" guy who has these forms for male and female (different verb but same diff):

أنا/انت/هو كاتبنه
أنا/انتي/هي كاتبتنه

Notice the ن slipped in there.

Unfortunately, I forgot to ask him for a transliteration, but I'm _guessing_ they're pronounced something like *kātibnuh* and *kātbitnuh*? I also asked him about what he'd use for 1sg and 1pl objects, and he responded that, disregarding that they're nonsensical, both كاتبتنّي وكاتبتنّا (?*kātibtinni*, ?*kātibtinna*) and كاتبتنِي وكاتبتنَا (?*kātbitni*, ?*kātbitna*) are acceptable. ("I think it comes down to preference")


----------



## dakaplo

elroy said:


> “ša*yif*tni”


Wow, that's an awful lot of consonants in a row!


wriight said:


> ...with object pronoun: أنا شايفيتو، هي شايفيتو، انتي *شايفتيه*


Woah—something really interesting is going on here in terms of verbal and nominal morphology combining. Come to think of it, I think شايفتيه is the form that first caught my attention (the speaker was from al-Khalil/Hebron).

The /t/ sound resurfacing when an object pronoun is attached struck me as really odd the first time I heard it, and I still have trouble wrapping my ear around it because final /t/ is so associated with the nominal construct. I once worked with a linguist who was focusing on Egyptian who made a big deal about how you can tell the difference between nominal معلّمة _mo3allima_ 'teacher' and verbal معلّمة _mo3allima_ 'she is teaching/has taught' because when you add a pronoun you get معلّمته _mo3allimto_ for the first and معلّماه _mo3allimaa(h)_ for the second (apologies if I've botched the Egyptian vowels, but you get the idea). But it sounds like this test is moot for Levantine, where at least for some speakers both would be معلّمته _mo3allimto_.


----------



## Sun-Shine

In Egypt:
I / She / You (female) see/s....
(...أنا /هي/ انتي شايْفَه) shayfa

I/ He/ You (male) see/s.....
(...أنا / هو / انت شايِفْ) shayif

We /They /You (plural) see....
(...احْنَا/ هُمَّ/ انتو شايْفِين) shayfiin

When you add a pronoun to the verb:-
If the object is feminine:
I / She / You (female) see/s it.
(.أنا /هي/ انتي شايْفَاها) shayfaha

I/ He/ You (male) see/s it.
(.أنا / هو / انت شايِفْها) shayifha

We/ They /You (plural) see it.
(.احْنَا/ هُمَّ/ انتو شايْفِنْها) shayfinha

If the object is masculine:
I / She / You (female) see/s it.
(.أنا /هي/ انتي شايْفَاه) shayfaah

I/ He/ You (male) see/s it.
(.أنا / هو / انت شايْفُه) shayfoh

We/ They /You (plural) see it.
(.احْنَا/ هُمَّ/ انتو شايْفِينُه) shayfiinoh

If the object is plural:
I / She / You (female) see/s them.
(.أنا /هي/ انتي شايْفَاهُم) shayfahom

I/ He/ You (male) see/s them.
(.أنا / هو / انت شايِفْهُم) shayifhom

We/ They /You (plural) see them.
(.احْنَا/ هُمَّ/ انتو شايْفِنْهُم) shayfinhom


----------



## wriight

dakaplo said:


> I once worked with a linguist who was focusing on Egyptian who made a big deal about how you can tell the difference between nominal معلّمة _mo3allima_ 'teacher' and verbal معلّمة _mo3allima_ 'she is teaching/has taught' because when you add a pronoun you get معلّمته _mo3allimto_ for the first and معلّماه _mo3allimaa(h)_ for the second (apologies if I've botched the Egyptian vowels, but you get the idea). But it sounds like this test is moot for Levantine, where at least for some speakers both would be معلّمته _mo3allimto_.


Oh, good observation! After some thought, it actually is still discernible in the short-vowelling Levantine varieties (if not as readily): the _n_ of first-person-singular suffixes comes in clutch, rendering 'my teacher(f)' معلّمتي _m3allimti_ distinct from 'she's taught me' معلّمتني _m3allmit*n*i._


----------



## elroy

dakaplo said:


> at least for some speakers both would be معلّمته _mo3allimto_.


 No “o,” but yes, at least for me both are “m3allimto.”


----------



## dakaplo

wriight said:


> the _n_ of first-person-singular suffixes comes in clutch, rendering 'my teacher(f)' معلّمتي _m3allimti_ distinct from 'she's taught me' معلّمتني _m3allmit*n*i._


نون الوقاية فعلا وَقَتْنا


----------



## Mahaodeh

elroy said:


> No “o,” but yes, at least for me both are “m3allimto.”



Yes for me too, I can't think of any other way one would say either that could differentiate between them.


----------



## wriight

Mahaodeh said:


> I can't think of any other way *one* would say either


Referring back to some of the posts above, certain speakers (myself included!) have _m3allm*ī*to_ for the participle.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Sorry if I didn't clarify, I meant in Palestinian Arabic.


----------

