# Syrian Arabic: مَرَة (woman) in dual form



## Matat

Hi. How would you make مَرَة (woman) dual in Syrian Arabic? I would think مَرْتَيْن, but this is the same as the dual for مَرَّة so it sounds off.


----------



## momai

First it is more common to write maraa (woman) with an Alif.
As you yourself have noticed the dual form cannot be مرتين but rather مراتين but this is only in theory. In practice people either say تنتين نسوان or sometimes if the context is clear enough تنتين would suffice.
If you are speaking about someone's wives then you could also say مراتو التنتين or نسوانو التنتين


----------



## Derakhshan

We also say ثنتين نسوان or simply ثنتين. I'd imagine it's the same in pretty much all dialects.


----------



## elroy

In Palestinian Arabic the usual order is نسوان تنتين.  

تنتين نسوان is unlikely unless you needed to specify that the two females were _women_, as opposed to girls.

The theoretical dual would be مَرَتين.  This might be said by a child who was over-generalizing the standard dual formation pattern.


momai said:


> مراتو التنتين


 Really?   مرات doesn’t exist in Palestinian Arabic — again, with the possible exception of children over-generalizing.


----------



## Matat

Thank you everyone!


----------



## Schem

What's curious to me is that marrah مرّة loses its gemination in the dual. The same isn't true for my dialect where we have mertén (two women) and marretén (twice).


----------



## WadiH

Schem said:


> What's curious to me is that marrah مرّة loses its gemination in the dual. The same isn't true for my dialect where we have mertén (two women) and marretén (twice).



I think the germination goes away as soon as you omit the vowel (since it's hard to distinguish one _sukuun_ from two _sukuuns_ in a row).  By the way, why _marteen _and not _mrəteen_?

To the OP, I would say that مرْتين (two women) and مرّْتين (two times) are simply homophones that are distinguished by context.  I don't see or hear anything 'off' about this.


----------



## elroy

Wadi Hanifa said:


> I would say that مرْتين (two women) and مرّْتين (two times) are simply homophones that are distinguished by context.


 In what dialect?


----------



## WadiH

I was commenting on the OP's educated guess about the Syrian dialect, which he thought made sense but sounded 'off'.  It is consistent with Syrian speech as I've encountered it though.


----------



## elroy

As I said, in Palestinian the theoretical dual would be مرَتين، بفتح الراء، وليس مرْتين بتسكينها.  It may very well be different in Syrian, though: Syrians say مرْتي, for example, while we say مرَتي.


----------



## WadiH

Why do you call it 'theoretical' though?

I've been trying to think of another word on the same pattern (CaCat/h or even CaCaa) to apply it to but I can't think of any (even in my own dialect).  Maybe there aren't any because there just aren't many مرأة-style words in Old Arabic or Classical Arabic to begin with?

But I've just thought of something that might be close enough: how would you say "his wife"?  _maratuh_ or _martuh_?  Here is how it would sound in other dialects:

- Egyptian: _mraatuh _(I think the standalone word with no pronoun is extinct in their dialect so there probably is no dual form)
- Najdi: _mrutah / mrutuh _(depending on dialect) and the dual would be _mruteen_ at least in my dialect
- Gulf: _murtah_ (and the dual would be _murteen_)
_- _Urban Hijazi: it would be _maratu_ (and the dual would be _marateen_, exactly like your theoretical version, but Urban Hijazi is distinguished by how many consecutive short vowel segments it allows compared to other dialects)
- Syrian and Lebanese: _martu _(I'm about 90% sure this is the case, and if that's right there is no reason for the dual to be _marateen _and not _marteen_)

Of the above, Urban Hijazi is the only one that I know for sure would retain the short vowel after the _r._


----------



## elroy

It’s theoretical because we don’t say it.   We say نسوان تنتين.

“his wife” is “marato,” and yes, in Syrian it’s “marto,” so yes, the theoretical dual may be “martēn” and not “maratēn” as in Palestinian.  (This is what I said in my last post.)


----------



## Derakhshan

In Bahrani and probably Qatifi it's _maratah_ or _marattah_


----------



## WadiH

elroy said:


> It’s theoretical because we don’t say it.   We say نسوان تنتين.
> 
> “his wife” is “marato,” and yes, in Syrian it’s “marto,” so yes, the theoretical dual may be “martēn” and not “maratēn” as in Palestinian.  (This is what I said in my last post.)



Ah yes you did but I didn't read carefully after 'theoretical' I guess. 

If it's only theoretical then how would you say "two wives"? (or maybe I'm asking the wrong person )



Derakhshan said:


> In Bahrani and probably Qatifi it's _maratah_ or _marattah_



Yes those dialects allow more short vowel segments than their neighbors.


----------



## elroy

Wadi Hanifa said:


> how would you say "two wives"?


 Also نسوان تنتين. 

فلان عندو نسوان تنتين
أو (على الأغلب) فلان متجوّز تنتين

أجوا عنّا نسوانو التنتين
نسوانو التنتين محترمات ومأدّبات


----------



## WadiH

Interesting.  Didn't know نسوان can mean "wives" and not just "women".



elroy said:


> أجوا عنّا نسوانو التنتين



Ok now *that* is theoretical!


----------



## Finland

Hello!



Wadi Hanifa said:


> I've been trying to think of another word on the same pattern (CaCat/h or even CaCaa) to apply it to but I can't think of any (even in my own dialect).



How about سنة?

s


----------



## elroy

In Palestinian: santēn/sintēn

I’m not sure that’s comparable, though.  “mara” ends in an alif, not a ta marbuta — and that’s probably why we say “marati.”  The Syrian “marti” may be due to treating the final letter as though it were a ta marbuta (paradigm leveling). 

There’s “dawa” and “sama,” which do end in alifs and which I would dualize as “dawayēn” and “samatēn” — so again, the “a” is preserved.


----------



## WadiH

Finland said:


> Hello!
> 
> 
> 
> How about سنة?
> 
> s



Yes! In Urban Hijazi and Egyptian it is _sanateen_.  In all other dialects we've been discussing, the second vowel is dropped (_santeen_, _sinteen, sniteen_).



elroy said:


> In Palestinian: santēn/sintēn
> 
> I’m not sure that’s comparable, though.  “mara” ends in an alif, not a ta marbuta — and that’s probably why we say “marati.”  The Syrian “marti” may be due to treating the final letter as though it were a ta marbuta (paradigm leveling).
> 
> There’s “dawa” and “sama,” which do end in alifs and which I would dualize as “dawayēn” and “samatēn” — so again, the “a” is preserved.



But _mara_ does end in a _taa marbuutah_, even if most people don't pronounce it in some dialects, which is why the _t_ appears (or re-appears) in the dual form and the genetive form (including where a pronoun is attached).  Whether we attribute the reintroduction of the _t _to paradigm leveling (doubtful because then the same would have happened to _dawa _and _sama_) or something else, _dawa _and _sama_ are not correct analogies for this.

_mara_ is no different from any other word with a feminime -_a(h) _ending.  Some dialects (like mine) pronounce the 'h' while others drop it, but everyone recognizes it is the same word.


----------



## elroy

The "t" is used because it's a feminine word; cf. "samatēn" and "vēltēn," which get a "t" even though the singular forms definitely don't end in a ta marbuta.  So the presence of a "t" doesn't support the idea that "mara" ends in a ta marbuta.  In fact, the evidence suggests that it ends in an alif (with the ta marbuta dropped), since, as I showed above, we (theoretically) say "maratēn" (with an "a") just like "samatēn" and "dawayēn" and unlike "santēn/sintēn."


----------



## cherine

I'm pretty sure it ends with a taa2 marbuuta because it's just امرأة with the alef dropped. If people write it with a final alef, then it's most probably to differentiate it from marra مرّة.


----------



## Derakhshan

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Yes! In Urban Hijazi and Egyptian it is _sanateen_. In all other dialects we've been discussing, the second vowel is dropped (_santeen_, _sinteen, sniteen_).


Also _sanatēn_ in Bahrani. But it goes for all _taa marbūtah_ words: _dagīgatēn_ دقيقتين , _waragatēn_ ورقتين etc.


----------



## WadiH

I think _samateen_ is a better example of "paradigm leveling", where it is treated (or perceived?) as having a _ta_ _marbuuta_ when it actually doesn't.  Otherwise you would have _dawateen _as well.

Are you saying that there exists a word _maraa_ in Arabic that is distinct from _marah_ or are you saying that because the _h _is no longer pronounced it should be treated morphologically as if it never existed?  Because clearly in every dialect the _t_ is retained for _mara_ while it is not normally inserted for words like _sama _and _dawa_.


----------



## Ihsiin

elroy said:


> The "t" is used because it's a feminine word; cf. "samatēn" and "vēltēn," which get a "t" even though the singular forms definitely don't end in a ta marbuta.  So the presence of a "t" doesn't support the idea that "mara" ends in a ta marbuta.  In fact, the evidence suggests that it ends in an alif (with the ta marbuta dropped), since, as I showed above, we (theoretically) say "maratēn" (with an "a") just like "samatēn" and "dawayēn" and unlike "santēn/sintēn."



Would you say مراتي _marāti_ or مرتي _marati_?


----------



## WadiH

Ihsiin said:


> Would you say مراتي _marāti_ or مرتي _marati_?



Also, _samay _or _samati/samaati_?


----------



## elroy

Wadi Hanifa said:


> I think _samateen_ is a better example of "paradigm leveling", where it is treated (or perceived?) as having a _ta_ _marbuuta_ when it actually doesn't. Otherwise you would have _dawateen _as well.


 The "t" is added to "samatēn" because it's feminine.  Then again, some people say "kīltēn" for "two kilos" (although "kīlowēn" also occurs), and "kīlo" is definitely not feminine. 


Wadi Hanifa said:


> Are you saying that there exists a word _maraa_ in Arabic that is distinct from _marah_ or are you saying that because the _h _is no longer pronounced it should be treated morphologically as if it never existed?


 What I'm saying is that the existence of a "t" is not evidence that the original form has a ta marbuta.  Again, "villa" is "vēlla" and "two villas" is "vēlltēn," and "vēlla" definitely ends in an alif, not a ta marbuta.

I was conjecturing that perhaps we say "marati" and not "marti" because "mara" ends in an alif and not a ta marbuta.  But I'm not sure.  Maybe "marati" is just an exception.


Ihsiin said:


> Would you say مراتي _marāti_ or مرتي _marati_?


 "marati"


Wadi Hanifa said:


> Also, _samay _or _samati/samaati_?


 "samāy" -- in this case no "t" is added.


----------



## WadiH

elroy said:


> The "t" is added to "samatēn" because it's feminine.  Then again, some people say "kīltēn" for "two kilos" (although "kīlowēn" also occurs), and "kīlo" is definitely not feminine.



But 't' is not the only feminine marker in Arabic.  There is also ـا (CA/MSA ـاء) and ـى.  There are also feminine words with no maker like شمس.

سماء/سما may be feminine, but that does not necessitate adding a _t  _to it any more than it would be necessary for شمس.



> What I'm saying is that the existence of a "t" is not evidence that the original form has a ta marbuta.  Again, "villa" is "vēla" and "two villas" is "vēltēn," and "vēla" definitely ends in an alif, not a ta marbuta.



It surely is evidence.  Maybe not _conclusive _evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.  We know where _mara _comes from -- it is a reflex of مرأة<مراة>مرة.  We also know فيلا is a borrowing.  It may be that in some Palestinian dialects the final ـا in words like فيلا is sometimes treated as though it represented a reflex of ـة (what you called paradigm leveling), and the fact that it is feminine may well be the reason for this perception or treatment, but it is likely an innovation because it is not applied conistently (e.g. _samaay _and not_ samaati) _and does not appear in neighboring dialects.  And none of this changes the known fact that _mara_ (regardless of how it's pronounced) is etymologically a reflex of a word with a ـة.



> I was conjecturing that perhaps we say "marati" and not "marti" because "mara" ends in an alif and not a ta marbuta.  But I'm not sure.  Maybe "marati" is just an exception.
> "marati"



I think _mraati _(as in Egypt) represents a different form _مراة,_ which is no longer extant in Egyptian Arabic except in the genitive, whereas in other dialects it became مرة and survived as a standalone word.

There is an ancient town near Riyadh called مرات.  In ancient times it was مرأة then مراة before coming مرات.  It's name comes from امرؤ القيس, the name of the native clan.  So مراة is attested elsewhere as a reflex of مرأة.


----------



## elroy

Wadi Hanifa said:


> سماء/سما may be feminine, but that does not necessitate adding a _t _to it any more than it would be necessary for شمس.


 I realize that.  I was saying that "sama" gets a "t" while "dawa" doesn't because "sama" is feminine while "dawa" is not.  In other words, this is not due to an across-the-board paradigm leveling process.  As I said, though, "kīltēn" complicates matters since "kīlo" is not feminine.  But then why don't we have "dawatēn"?  Maybe the process just isn't stable/consistent. 


Wadi Hanifa said:


> It surely is evidence.


 What I meant is that _on its own_ it doesn't prove anything.  We need some other way to determine whether it was the alif or the ta marbuta that was dropped. 


Wadi Hanifa said:


> the known fact that _mara_ (regardless of how it's pronounced) is etymologically a reflex of a word with a ـة.


 Sure, but that doesn't mean that it had to be the alif that was dropped and not the ta marbuta, does it? 

By the way, I'm not sure if this will help us settle this, but in idafa we say "mart," not "marat"! 

_mart axūy_, _mart xāli_, etc. 
but
_marati_, _marato_, etc.


----------



## Ihsiin

I'm not sure why one would analyse _mara _as مرا rather than مرة in this case, particularly considering that the ة remains in all other dialects as well. In the case of _samatēn_, I guess سما is being re-analysed as سمة here (I assume it's سمتين, not سماتين), though I'm not sure that necessarily has to do with سما being feminine (as you mention, there are counter examples).

An instance of non-etymological ة in Iraqi (and maybe other dialects, I don't know), is معنى, which is _maʕna_ normally but becomes _maʕnāt_ (with a long _ā_) when constructed in إضافة. However, other words ending in etymological long _ā_, such as سما or دما or حشا or چلا don't acquire a ة when in إضافة. I don't know why معنى becomes, for example, معناتها _maʕnātha_, but دما would become دماها _dmāha _etc., but there doesn't seem to be any correlation in regards to gender.

Another slightly related question, in how many dialects is it common to say مرية in isolation, rather than مرة?


----------



## elroy

Yes, this further supports my point that the use of "t" in and of itself does not prove that the original form ends in a ta marbuta and not an alif.  As I said, the reason I posited an alif is the "a" before the "t" in "marati," but that may be the exception.


----------



## momai

I pesonally can't think of any context where you have to dualize the word سما. But If I had to, I would fall back on MSA (or better semi-MSA) and use samaa'een and for the plural samaawaat. I still wonder what older generations would have used, though.
As in PA in Syrian Arabic we use samaaye with no Ta' for _my sky._
Two women in Syrian Arabic is always تنتين نسوان and knowing how old such words are it is plausible to think that this was the case from the beginning. maraateen was only a smart guess nothing more or less.


----------



## fenakhay

In Morocco, the construct form of مراة is either mrāt- or mart- depending on the dialect. Meaning that the first construct form is مراة's and the second one is مرة's. For سما, it is smā-; for example smāya (my sky). For معنى, it is ma3nāt-; for example ma3nātha (its meaning). As you see, some words had their -a endings leveled to ة but some didn't. 

For all borrowings that end with -a, they are treated as feminine with ة ending.For example, bishklīttu (his bicycle) from bishklīTa (with Tt -> tt assimilation); līgtu (his glove) from līga.


----------



## Hemza

Another word coming to my mind is داء which in Morocco (and the Maghreb in general) would be said داي and دايي in possessive case (although I feel the word decreased in use)

@fenakhay معنى distinguishes Hassaniya from the rest of Moroccan dialects in which it always remains masculine (معناه or معناها)
In Morocco, I heard ma3nātha and ma3antha


----------

