# Quf-Resh-Alef/Qaf-Ra-Alif Root Similarity



## CrazyDiamond88

Hello,

I've been learning Arabic from my Arab friends (while teaching them Hebrew), and it just occurred to me that *Quran* means "recitation". That word has the root of qaf-ra-alif. Similarly, the Hebrew word for "recitation" is *Qriah* and has the root of quf-resh-alef (the cognates of qaf-ra-alif). Is this a coincidence? My studies have shown me that Hebrew and Arabic share a great deal, but this particular similarity caught my attention earlier today. 

What are you thoughts? Do Hebrew and Arabic share the root Q-R-A concerning words that have to do with recitation/reading/calling?


----------



## origumi

Hebrew quf (or qof) = Arabic qaf. Slightly different name to the same letter and sound (historically, not in modern times). Same for resh = ra, alef = alif. So root q-r-' is shared by both languages, with similar meaning.


----------



## CrazyDiamond88

origumi said:


> Hebrew quf (or qof) = Arabic qaf. Slightly different name to the same letter and sound (historically, not in modern times). Same for resh = ra, alef = alif. So root q-r-' is shared by both languages, with similar meaning.
> 
> Hebrew kaf = Arabic kaf.



Thanks for confirming my suspicions! 

I actually created a chart that compares Hebrew letters to Arabic ones; it includes the qaf/quf and kaf/kaf comparisons. I'm very excited to learn that in Arabic, Q-R-A refers to reading/reciting.


----------



## berndf

CrazyDiamond88 said:


> I actually created a chart that compares Hebrew letters to Arabic ones; it includes the qaf/quf and kaf/kaf comparisons. I'm very excited to learn that in Arabic, Q-R-A refers to reading/reciting.


Here you find a list of etymological correspondences in various Semitic language, among them Hebrew and Arabic.

One more thing: That Aleph and Alif occur both in the Hebrew root קרא and in the Arabic القرآن word is pure co-incidence. Though the two letters are eventually derived from the same source, they are not equivalent. The Hebrew letter is a consonant sign and the Arabic a vowel sign. In القرآن the Maddah on top of the Alif corresponds to Hebrew Aleph. Normally, Aleph corresponds to Hamza but in this case to Maddah.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> One more thing: That Aleph and Alif occur both in the Hebrew root קרא and in the Arabic القرآن word is pure co-incidence. Though the two letters are eventually derived from the same source, they are not equivalent. The Hebrew letter is a consonant sign and the Arabic a vowel sign. In القرآن the Maddah on top of the Alif corresponds to Hebrew Aleph. Normally, Aleph corresponds to Hamza but in this case to Maddah.



Small correction there, madda is actually two hamzas in a row, so actually the first hamza is etymologically the same as the aleph in the Hebrew. The second one I'm not sure what it's role is.


----------



## arielipi

amat-kri'a?


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> amat-kri'a?



כן. קריאה


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Small correction there, madda is actually two hamzas in a row, so actually the first hamza is etymologically the same as the aleph in the Hebrew. The second one I'm not sure what it's role is.


In the sequence [?a:] it is to avoid two Alifs (not Hamzas) in a row (one to carry the hamza and one as long vowel): أا > آ  .


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> In the sequence [?a:] it is to avoid two Alifs (not Hamzas) in a row (one to carry the hamza and one as long vowel):أا > آ  .



I suspect it could be this, but it's not always the case. For instance the defective verb أخذ (he took) when conjugated into the present tense must have an alef+hamza prepended to it, and this results in أ + أ = آ


----------



## arbelyoni

> For instance the defective verb أخذ (he took) when conjugated into the present tense must have an alef+hamza prepended to it, and this results in أ + أ = آ


Why? The root is أخذ, the paradigm (wazn) is فاعل. So it's actually أا > آ, isn't it?


----------



## rayloom

A madda can be as Berndf said, a hamza followed by a long vowel ā, as in Qurʼān  قرآن.
Or it can be as Abu Rashid said, the elision of the second hamza (after a first hamza).
We say 2āḫuḏu آخذ instead of 2a2ḫuḏu أأخذ "I take" (1st person singular imperfect indicative). ِ(Although the latter remains correct if used)
For the paradigm فاعل of the active participle, it would be 2āḫiḏun آخذ, just like in "Qurʼān" (a hamza followed by the long vowel ā). Both as Arbelyoni noted, are spelled the same in Arabic آخذ (without the diacritics).


----------



## Abu Rashid

arbelyoni said:


> Why? The root is أخذ, the paradigm (wazn) is فاعل. So it's actually أا > آ, isn't it?



I said when it is conjugated into present tense, not when it is made into ism faa3il.

Conjugation into present tense is على وزن أفعل


----------



## arbelyoni

> I said when it is conjugated into present tense, not when it is made into ism faa3il.
> 
> Conjugation into present tense is على وزن أفعل


Yes, thank you, I figured it out later and rayloom gave an excellent explanation (thank you too!).
What you call "present tense" I know as "يفعل form", or "present-future".


----------



## Abu Rashid

arbelyoni said:


> Yes, thank you, I figured it out later and rayloom gave an excellent explanation (thank you too!).
> What you call "present tense" I know as "يفعل form", or "present-future".



That is third person. I was talking about 1st. person, sorry I should've mentioned as those not familiar with Arabic conjugations would not realise.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> That is third person. I was talking about 1st. person, sorry I should've mentioned as those not familiar with Arabic conjugations would not realise.


It's not that. The Hebrew imperfect has the /?/ prefix in 1st person singular, too. As he said, what sent him off track was that you called the imperfect (يفعل) "present tense". From a Hebrew perspective you wouldn't associate "present tense" with imperfect.


----------



## arbelyoni

> It's not that. The Hebrew imperfect has the /?/ prefix in 1st person singular, too. As he said, what sent him off track was that you called the imperfect (يفعل) "present tense". From a Hebrew perspective you wouldn't associate "present tense" with imperfect.


That's exactly what puzzled me, thanks!


----------

