# glottal stop همزة الوصل - همزة القطع



## Qcumber

From a previous thread I concluded the glottal stop in Classical Atabic is not an easy matter.
Could we consider there are both a weak glottal stop (²) that is a mere prosthetic consonant that accompanies the initial vowel of a word, and another one would be a strong glottal stop (2) that is part of the ductus of the word.

To differentiate them, we could use the preposition *bi* as a test, the rule being the vowel and its weak glottal stop are erased after _bi_ whereas the strong one is not.
e.g. 
*bi + ²ism "name" > bism "in the name (of)"*
*bi + 2arD "earth" > bi 2arD "in the land (of)"*

Apart from the definite article, is there such a thing as a list of words like _²ism_ beginning with the weak glottal stop?

In the case of borrowed names, how are they treated? For example with *Andalus *"Spain", is it _bi ndalusi l 3arab(i)_ or _bi 2andalusi l 3arab(i)_ "in the spain of the Arabs"?


----------



## cherine

I don't know if this is correct Qcumber, but then I'm not sure I understood your question well. 
I'll just comment on 2 points :

First, we don't say bi-2ism for the simple reason that the word ism has a hamzat waSl, so we say: bism. (no glottal stops).

As for Andalus, we say bil-2andalus. In some poems, poets sometimes say bi-2andalus.


----------



## Hibou57

cherine said:


> First, we don't say bi-2ism for the simple reason that the word ism has a hamzat waSl, so we say: bism. (no glottal stops).


And in other words please Cherine, I'm curious... What's that hamza wasl ? The little wave above the alif in article ? _(there is a link some where with the hamza in this wave which appear in some article)_


----------



## Josh_

cherine said:


> I don't know if this is correct Qcumber, but then I'm not sure I understood your question well.
> I'll just comment on 2 points :
> 
> First, we don't say bi-2ism for the simple reason that the word ism has a hamzat waSl, so we say: bism. (no glottal stops).


That is what Qcumber was saying -- the hamza on 'ism' is elided when 'bi' is prefixed, whereas it is not on '2arD'.

To answer the question there is not a list per se, but with certain types of words there is always the so-called weak hamza:

Verb forms VII-X always have it and so it is easy to remember:
انكسر VII
ابتسم VIII
احمرّ IX
استقبل X

The command form of verb forms VII-X as well as the command form of form I use it.

And certain common words:
ابن
اسم
امرأة
etc.

There is no rule here (that I am aware of) so they just have to be memorized when encountered.


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> I don't know if this is correct Qcumber, but then I'm not sure I understood your question well.
> I'll just comment on 2 points :
> 
> First, we don't say bi-2ism for the simple reason that the word ism has a hamzat waSl, so we say: bism. (no glottal stops).
> 
> As for Andalus, we say bil-2andalus. In some poems, poets sometimes say bi-2andalus.


 
All right, Cherine,  So what I call the "weak glottal stop", you call it *hamza waSl*.
So I'd better reformulate my question: Barring the definite article, is there a list or words like *²ism* that begin with the hamza waSl?
P.S. While I was typing this message, Josh Adkins answered my question. Thanks a lot.

As *²ibn* "son" begins with a _hamza waSl_, then with _bi_, I should have: *bi bnii* "with my son". Is that correct?


----------



## Josh_

Yes, it would be pronounced 'bibni' but the preposition 'bi' is used concomitantly, not when referring to human accompaniment (generally anyway).  For example:

shay bi-talj -- tea with ice or iced tea
khubs bi-jubna -- bread with cheese

You would not say 'zhahabtu ila 'l-maHalli bi-bni', but rather you would you the preposition 'ma3' -- zhahabtu ila 'l-maHalli ma3a bni.


----------



## Hibou57

Forgive me for coming back with the same question again : what's that hamza wasl Cherine was talking about ? The little wave on the alif which sometime occur in the arabic article ?


----------



## Qcumber

Hibou57 said:


> Forgive me for coming back with the same question again : what's that hamza wasl Cherine was talking about ? The little wave on the alif which sometime occur in the arabic article ?


It is, for instance, the hamza that is on top of the alif 
ٲ
 of the definite article at the beginning of a sentence after a pause. It is also the hamza that is under the alif  
ٳ
 of the word ²ism "name" in the same position. When there is a liaison, it is replaced by a waSl (here above the alif) 
ٱ
 to indicate that both the hamza and the vowel are elided / deleted. It looks like any other hamza: ء


Josh Adkins said:


> Yes, it would be pronounced 'bibni' but the preposition 'bi' is used concomitantly, not when referring to human accompaniment (generally anyway). For example:
> 
> shay bi-talj -- tea with ice or iced tea
> khubs bi-jubna -- bread with cheese
> 
> You would not say 'zhahabtu ila 'l-maHalli bi-bni', but rather you would you the preposition 'ma3' -- zhahabtu ila 'l-maHalli ma3a bni.


 
Thank you_._
_Bi_ being the incorrect preposition, let us replace it by *li, *hence : *libnii* "to my son"? Is _libnii_ correct?


----------



## Josh_

Yes, that is how it is pronounced.  In Egypt I would frequently hear "yabni" being yelled out by mothers -- the contraction of يا ابني by way of the hamzat al-waSl.


----------



## cherine

Qcumber said:


> As *²ibn* "son" begins with a _hamza waSl_, then with _bi_, I should have: *bi bnii* "with my son". Is that correct?





Josh Adkins said:


> Yes, it would be pronounced 'bibni' but the preposition 'bi' is used concomitantly, not when referring to human accompaniment


Well, not always 
There's the verb abSara (to see) : أبصرت بابني واقفًا I saw my son standing.


Hibou57 said:


> Forgive me for coming back with the same question again : what's that hamza wasl Cherine was talking about ? The little wave on the alif which sometime occur in the arabic article ?


Yes, that's it. But it's not always marked on the alef. See the examples given by Josh in his post #
All those alef(s) are hamzat waSl, which we can compare to the French "liaison". It means that it can be elided, like (wabni وابني , fistiqbaal في استقبال bism باسم ...)
The other alef that has a hamza above or under it أ-إ is called a hamzat qat3 (like: cutting) because it sort of cuts the flow of the words with the glottal stop, like (bi-2imkaan بإمكان , fi-2amaan في أمان , wa-earkaan وأركان ....)

P.S. The glottal stop and the different types of hamza were discussed in several threads, I invite you all to search for them, maybe you can find the answers you're looking for.


----------



## maxl

Josh Adkins said:


> There is no rule here (that I am aware of) so they just have to be memorized when encountered.



But all those initial alifs are vocalized with a kasra. Isn't there a pattern here? Or is this a necessary but not a sufficient condition?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber said:


> All right, Cherine,  So what I call the "weak glottal stop", you call it *hamza waSl*.
> So I'd better reformulate my question: Barring the definite article, is there a list or words like *²ism* that begin with the hamza waSl?


 
These are the places where the hamzah al-waSl occurs:

(1) *Nouns:*

In 10 nouns only:

امرؤ
امرأة
اثنان
اثنتان
ابن
ابنة
ابنم (not common)
اسم
است (not common)
ايمن (not common)

(2) *Verbs*:

In:
(a) triliteral (form I): the imperative form only (i.e. amr) and occurs in the following 3 patterns:

اُفْعُلْ
اِفْعَلْ
اِفْعِلْ

(b) non-triliteral: perfect, imperative & infinitive (maSdar) forms of the *following patterns*:

انفعل
افتعل
افعلَّ
استفعل
افعللَّ
افعنلل
افعالَّ
افعوَّل

(the last 4 patterns are not common)

Also note that these patterns conprise either five or six letters, so you don't find the hamzah al-waSl in four-letter verbs.

(3) *Particles*:

In the definite article (ال) only.

This in a nutshell is where you'll find the hamzah al-waSl.



maxl said:


> But all those initial alifs are vocalized with a kasra. Isn't there a pattern here? Or is this a necessary but not a sufficient condition?


 
As a rule the hamzah al-waSl is vocalized with a kasrah except in the following cases:

(1) when the third letter after the hamzah al-waSl is vocalized with a Dammah, the hamzah al-waSl is also vocalized with a Dammah

(2) when the hamzah al-waSl occurs in the following two words, it is always vocalized with a fatHah: (اَلْ) and (اَيْمُن) .

This, in short, is the rule for vocalizing the hamzah al-waSl.

Ps. I should add that the hamzah al-waSl in the name (الله) is vocalized with a fatHah because according to one classical view it is a combination of ال + إله . A unique characteristic of this name is that its hamzah al-waSl is not omitted when preceded by the vocative particle يا whereas the hamzah al-waSl is dropped in the case of other nouns commencing with the hamzah al-waSl.


----------



## Qcumber

Thanks a lot, Abu Bishr.


Abu Bishr said:


> Ps. I should add that the hamzah al-waSl in the name (الله) is vocalized with a fatHah because according to one classical view it is a combination of ال + إله . A unique characteristic of this name is that its hamzah al-waSl is not omitted when preceded by the vocative particle يا whereas the hamzah al-waSl is dropped in the case of other nouns commencing with the hamzah al-waSl.


 
Couldn't it simply be *al + laah* hence the miniature aliif above the shadda?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber said:


> Couldn't it simply be *al + laah* hence the miniature aliif above the shadda?


 
The are several classical views on the issue but the following step-by-step account is the one I subscribe to:

(1) al + 2ilaah    (the + god)
(2) alilaah          (hamzah / glottal stop of "2ilaah" gets dropped, causing two laams to meet & thus setting the scene for a classical assimilation)
(3) al-laah (first laam drops harakah - kasrah - so as to make assimilation possible)
(4) allaah (assimilation is complete)
(5) a*ll*aah (finally, the resultant emphatic laam is "rounded" and read with a "full mouth" almost like "allawh")

So *al+laah* would be the third step in the process. Mind you there are scholars who maintain that "Allaah" comes from "*al+laah*".


----------



## Josh_

Abu Bishr said:


> افعللَّ
> افعنلل
> افعالَّ
> افعوَّل
> 
> (the last 4 patterns are not common)
> 
> Also note that these patterns comprise either five or six letters, so you don't find the hamzah al-waSl in four-letter verbs.


Hi Abu Bishr,
I believe there is an error in your list and it is incomplete.  The bottom three you listed are forms 14, 11, 13 respectively, but the first one is not a form.  You might have just mistyped or something. Plus you only listed four forms when there are five.  The forms 11-15 are:

Form:
XI اِفْعالَّ
  XII اِفَعَوْعَلَ
  XIII اِفْعَوَّلَ
  XIV اِفْعَنْلَلَ
  XV اِفْعَنْلى

And examples:

 XI اِفْعالَّ 
  احمارّ  – to be (temporarily) red.  From root ح- م- ر
  ابياض  – to be (temporarily) white.  From root ب- ي- ض

  XII اِفَعَوْعَلَ
  اجذوذى  – to stand firmly.  From root ج- ذ- و
  اخشوشن  – to become (very) rough or coarse. From root خ- ش- ن
  اعشوشب – to be abundant in عشب (grass or herbs). From root ع- ش- ب

XIII اِفْعَوَّلَ
  اجلوّذ – to last long. From root ج- ل- ذ
  اعلوّد  – to become heavy; to become calm. From root ع- ل- د

  XIV اِفْعَنْلَلَ
  اعفنجج – to go quickly.  From root ع- ف- ج
  اقعنسس – to have a hump in front; to have a protruding chest; also to recede.  From root ق- ع - س 

  XV اِفْعَنْلى
  اعلندى – to be big and strong.  From root ع- ل- د
    احبنطى – to become swollen or inflated (of a stomach). From root  ح- ب- ط

All of the above words can be found in the لسان العرب except اجلوّذ , but it is present in E.W. Lane's Arabic - English Lexicon.


----------



## elroy

Qcumber said:


> It looks like any other hamza: ء


 This is not true.  The hamzatu 'l-waSl is either written like a mini-ص or not at all.  It is *incorrect* to use a ء to represent a hamzatu 'l-waSl, as this sign is used exclusively to indicate the hamzatu 'l-qaT3.  I found out recently that in some grammar books for foreigners, it is used to refer to the pronunciation of hamzatu 'l-waSl as a hamzatu 'l-qaT3 at the beginning of a word, but this is not correct in standard Arabic.


----------



## cherine

Hello Abu Bishr,
I didn't go through all your post, but I noted a mistake :


Abu Bishr said:


> (1) *Nouns:*
> ....است (not common)
> ايمن (not common)


I'm not sure about ist, but I'm sure ayman is written with a همزة وصل, you must've meant ايم الله with is a qaSam, and yes it's not very commonly used.


----------



## Qcumber

elroy said:


> This is not true. The hamzatu 'l-waSl is either written like a mini-ص or not at all. It is *incorrect* to use a ء to represent a hamzatu 'l-waSl, as this sign is used exclusively to indicate the hamzatu 'l-qaT3. I found out recently that in some grammar books for foreigners, it is used to refer to the pronunciation of hamzatu 'l-waSl as a hamzatu 'l-qaT3 at the beginning of a word, but this is not correct in standard Arabic.


I am not sure I understand. How do you write a word like ²ism "name" at the beginning of a paragraph, for instance?
I was taught to write it 
إِسْم


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bishr said:


> (1) al + 2ilaah (the + god)


 
The problem with this reconstruction is that one cannot easily explain the deletion of 2i.
So I understand why linguists prefer ²al + laah because the result can only be ²allaah.


----------



## cherine

Qcumber said:


> I am not sure I understand. How do you write a word like ²ism "name" at the beginning of a paragraph, for instance?
> I was taught to write it
> إِسْم


It's not correct, but I guess you're taught to write it like this so that you learn the pronunciation of the alef as an "i" not and "a".
the word ism must be written without hamza : اسم .


----------



## elroy

Qcumber said:


> The problem with this reconstruction is that one cannot easily explain the deletion of 2i.
> So I understand why linguists prefer ²al + laah because the result can only be ²allaah.


 "Al-2ilaah" is also possible and means "the god."

Cherine already answered you about اسم.  It is never written with a ء - even in the version with all vowels/diacritics: اِسْم.


----------



## Qcumber

Thanks a lot, Cherine & El Roy. Yes this spelling rule is new to me, and I suppose to other readers.
On the other hand, I have just checked it up in a famous 19th-c. Arabic-French dictionary (Kazimirski 1860). Ism is entered with the hamza under the alif so, could it be spelling changed in the course of the 20th century?


----------



## elroy

No. My guess would be that it is simply an indication of the fact that it is pronounced like a hamzatu 'l-qaT3 at the beginning of a sentence or when pronounced in isolation.


----------



## cherine

You're welcome Qcumber 


Qcumber said:


> On the other hand, I have just checked it up in a famous 19th-c. Arabic-French dictionary (Kazimirski 1860). Ism is entered with the hamza under the alif so, could it be spelling changed in the course of the 20th century?


No, it's been always a hamzat waSl. Maybe Kazimirski made a typo


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> No, it's been always a hamzat waSl. Maybe Kazimirski made a typo


 
No, I don't think it's a typo because the same hamza is used on the alif of the article to support the fatHA, etc. So it must have been a convention of the time reflected in Kazimirski's. The best would be to have a look at manuscripts.

Whatever, what matters is how words are written nowadays. I have the fully diacriticized Arabic version of the Christian *Bible* (Cambridge, UK, 1962). Indeed, Cherine & Elroy, there is *no hamza on the alif of the article* after a coda; the fatHa is placed directly above the alif. 

To go back to the question asked by Hibou, I suppose we could define the hamza waSl as the weak glottal stop that is not represented by a hamza, and that is replaced in liaisons by the waSl along with the vowel it accompanies, e.g. bi#+ ²al > bil.

Or,in general terms: if CV# + ²VC, then CV ØC > CVC. 
(# "coda"; C "consonant"; V "vowel"; Ø "nothing / erased item" ).

I have the colour photograph of a page of a book of divinity - a collection of epistles - by Rashid-ad-Din copied in Tabriz in 1310-11 CE. Oddly enough, the title begins with a waSla: "fifteenth epistle"
r risaalatu l xaamisu l 3ašra(t)
 
[I'm still trying to find a way to join a scan.]


----------



## elroy

Qcumber said:


> So it must have been a convention of the time reflected in Kazimirski's. The best would be to have a look at manuscripts.


 I understand your desire to rationalize this, but I can assure you that writing a ء on a definite article or anywhere else where it doesn't belong has _never_ been an acceptable or widespread convention in Arabic.  I repeat that this was probably most likely a pronunciation aid and not a reflector of proper spelling.  I find it extremely misleading, but dictionaries aren't perfect, I guess.


----------



## Qcumber

Oh, I quite agree with you. Didn't I mention the Arabic version of the Bible?


----------



## elroy

You did, and that was a great confirmation, since in a work of such importance as the Bible's great care is taken to write correctly. 

I was only responding to your points about this possibly reflecting a certain development in the language or a time-specific convention by assuring you that that is not the case.


----------



## Qcumber

The glottal stop plays such an important part in Classical Arabic phonology and the subject is so engrossing that this morning I had a look at the Qur'an.

Opening the book at random, I was lucky enough to find this remarkable passage (21:99).

lau kaana ha2aa2ula2aa2i 2aalihatan mmaa waraduu haa wa kullun fii haa xaaliduuna

Incidentally, the glottal stop in 2aalihatan is represented by a hamza directly placed on the line.


----------



## cherine

The "orthography" of the Qur'an is a bit different than the common writing. For example, a word like bism باسم is written like this : بسم with a mark like a "suspended" alef between the siin and the miim. Also see how the word الملائكة is written (verse 103 in the same surate).Some words starting with a hamza have their hamza written on the line instead of above the alef.
So don't get yourself into this confusion just yet 

For the hamza on the line, followed by an alef : they replace the alef madd آ . Look at other words that start with a hamza like : inna إن (verse 101), arsalnaaka أرسلناك (verse 107) (where the alef before the kaaf is replaced by that symbol I mentioned).


----------



## Qcumber

I was not confused by the hamza on the line, and I know they used a small alif where one finds the standard one in modern spelling - with remnants of the old spelling in some cases.
I was just quoting this passage because of its numerous glottal stops.


----------



## cherine

Ok. And please re-read my last post, I did some editing in it


----------



## Qcumber

I have read the new edition. Thanks a lot for the examples. Very interesting.


----------



## Abu Bishr

cherine said:


> Hello Abu Bishr,
> I didn't go through all your post, but I noted a mistake :
> 
> I'm not sure about ist, but I'm sure ayman is written with a همزة وصل, you must've meant ايم الله with is a qaSam, and yes it's not very commonly used.


 
Hi Josh & Cherine

I'm sorry I could not respond earlier to your posts. 

As for Josh's post I do concede having forgotten the form (افعوْعَل) as I was trying to do it from memory, and I normally do not present these forms in this format. As for the other forms that you have mentioned I do not include them as original forms but rather as "affiliated forms" (ملحقات) which is what they are called in the classical tradition, and there is a long discussion on this issue in the classical literature including numerous forms not mentioned here. I take it that you follow Wright's and "Wehr's classification of the verb which is in consonance with the European orientalist tradition. So what you have mentioned is correct according that tradition but not according to the classical tradition. If you wish we could take up this point in another thread.

As for Cherine's post, I would just like to point out that there exist just over 10 dialectical variations for (ايمُن) pronounced as "aymun" and it comes from the word (يمن) (meaning "barakah or blessings", and is made up of the root letters y – m – n or ي – م – ن ) and the ن (nun) at the end in the original form attests to its presence in the derived form. In fact, in (ايم الله) the nun has been dropped thus giving rise to this particular dialectical variation. So when I wrote (ايمُن) "aymun" I meant just that, and not (أيْمَن) "Ayman" as you thought. The view that I presented above is that of the Basran school of grammar. The other rival school, the Kufan school, maintain that (ايمن) is the plural of (يمين) (meaning “oath”) with the hamzah dropped in speech due to frequent usage. According to both schools (ايمُن) is used exclusively for oaths, and according to both schools it comes from a root the final root letter of which is the nun.

Ps. Also, Cherine, I think you meant to say (همزة القطع) and not (همزة الوصل) in your post?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Guys

To conclude my posting in this thread I thought it opportuned to quote the following five verses from the famous didactic poem on Arabic called "Alfiyyah ibn Malik" , that is, "the Thousand Verse Didactic Poem" of Ibn Malik, followed by my attempted translation. The Alfiyyah is normally difficult to read and understand, but I think in light of what we have been discussing in this thread, this section of the poem should be rather straightforward. So at the same time this is also an exercise for me in translation albeit a translation of the type that is interspersed with annotations.



*فَصْلٌ في زيادة همزة الوصل *​

*938) لِلْوَصْلِ هَمْزٌ سَابِقٌ لا يَثْبُتُ * إلاَّ إِذَا ابْتُدِى بِهِ كَاسْـتَثْبَِـتـُوا *
*939) وَهْوَلِفِعْـلٍ مَاضٍ احْتَوَى عَلَى * أَكْبَـر مِنْ أَرْبَعَةٍ نَحْوُ انْجَـلَى *​*

940) وَالأمـْرِ وَالْمَصْـدَرِ مِنْهُ وَكَذَا * أمْر الثُّلَاثِى كَاخْشَ وامْضِ وانْفُذَا ​ 
941) وَفِي اسْمٍ اسْتٍ ابْنٍ ابْنِمٍ سُمِعْ * وَاثْنَيْنِ وَامْــرِئٍ وَتَأْنِيْث تَبِـعْ 

942) وَايْمُنُ هَمْـزُ ألْ كَذَا وَيُبْـدَلُ * مَـدًّا فِي الاِسْتِفْهَامِ أَوْ يُسَـهَّـلُ​**


​
* 


*The section on the addition of the hamzah al-waSl*​ 
(938) For the purpose of waSl (i.e. enabling the pronunciation of a word starting with an unvowelled letter) there is a hamzah that comes before (i.e. at the beginning) and is not affirmed (in pronunciation) except when it is commenced with like: (اِسْتَثْبَِتُوا) .​ 
(939) It also occurs in the perfect verb that contains more than four letters, like (اِنْجَلَى) …​ 
(940) … as well as in the imperative and infinitive (maSdar) forms thereof (i.e. the imperative and infinitive of the previously mentioned perfect form), and likewise in the imperative form of the triliteral verb like: (اِخْشَ ، اِمْضِ ، اُنْفُذْ) .

(941) In (the nouns) اسْم , اسْت , ابْن and ابْنم , it (i.e. the hamzah waSl) has been heard, as well as in اثْنَان , امْرُؤ and the feminine which follows (the masculine forms) (i.e. the feminine of ابْن , اثْنَان and امْرُؤ )…​ 
(942) … and in ايمُن . The hamzah of (الْ) is the same (i.e. the same as the hamzah mentioned in the previous instances), and it is transformed into a _madd_ (prolonged letter / long vowel) in the case of the interrogative hamzah or pronounced with ease (i.e. a sound between that of the hamzah and the alif).​ 
( End of Translation)​ 
The last verse makes inter alia the point that should the hamzah al-waSl be preceded by the hamzah alistifhaam (interrogative hamzah) then it is prolonged or eased, and this is clearly the case in the following Quranic verses:​ 

(قُلْ آلله أذن لكم؟) Yunus (59)​ 

(آلله خيرٌ أم ما يُشْرِكُوْنَ؟) al-Naml (59)​ 

(آلآنَ وقَدْ عَصَيْتَ؟) Yunus (91)​ 

(آلآنَ وقَدْ كُنْتُمْ بِهِ تَسْتَعْجِلُوْنَ؟) Yunus (51)​ 

(قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الأُنْثَيَيْنِ؟) al-An'am (143, 144)​


----------



## Josh_

Abu Bishr said:


> Hi Josh & Cherine
> 
> I'm sorry I could not respond earlier to your posts.
> 
> As for Josh's post I do concede having forgotten the form (افعوْعَل) as I was trying to do it from memory, and I normally do not present these forms in this format. As for the other forms that you have mentioned I do not include them as original forms but rather as "affiliated forms" (ملحقات) which is what they are called in the classical tradition, and there is a long discussion on this issue in the classical literature including numerous forms not mentioned here. I take it that you follow Wright's and "Wehr's classification of the verb which is in consonance with the European orientalist tradition. So what you have mentioned is correct according that tradition but not according to the classical tradition. If you wish we could take up this point in another thread.


Yes, I am always up for learning something new.  And I love learning obscure, little known things (This explains my (some may call it impractical) interest in another Semitic language -- Aramaic).  And my taking a course in medieval Arabic texts has piqued my curiosity of Classical Arabic.  If there are other verb forms I am not aware of, then I am very interested in knowing what they are as well as the classical tradition of classification.  I have a few Arabic-Arabic grammars (modern Arabic) and they all seem to list verbs according to your so-called European orientalist tradition (but I have not delved into them in depth yet).  So, if the modern tradition (that I am aware of) is not the original tradition, how could the influence of the West have had such a big impact on the changing this? Couldn't we just chalk it up to a difference of modern and classical Arabic?

Anyway, regarding this thread: regardless of classification as ملحقات why should they be left out?  They do, after all, start with همزة الوصل and are considered legitimate verb forms.  I didn't include them in my first post as they are basically not in use except for the occasional افعوْعَل form.  Even Wright says that there is really no need to learn them and so only gives a compendious overview of the forms.


----------



## Josh_

Hello again Abu Bishr,

I was taking a closer look at my Arabic grammars and I believe I understand what you are talking about regarding the ملحقات.  I will post my reflections later when I have more time and can process the information.  

I can say right now that the  افعللَّ form that you listed is categorized as a ملحق according to the grammars.

In the meantime, I'd be interested in knowing what classical grammar and/or other resources you use.


----------

