# verbal noun مصدر - nomen vicis اسم المَرّة



## lukebeadgcf

I wanted to talk about the _nomen vicis_. How do lexicographers decide whether or not a noun is an اسم مرّة or not. Wright (Wright, vol. i pages 122-123 § 219) says:



> That an act has taken place _once _(مرّة), the Arabs indicate by adding the feminine termination ة to the verbal noun. For this purpose the form فَعْلٌ is always selected in the first form of the triliteral verb, تَفْعِيلٌ in the second, and فِعْلَالٌ in the first form of the quadriliterals. E.g. نَصْرَةٌ, قَعْدَةٌ, ضَرْبَةٌ



Usually, in Wehr's lexicon, he will mention whether a noun is considered a _nomen vicis_ or not with "(n. vic.)" (see ضربة for instance). But in the case of نهضة, you find no such indication. I find this strange, particularly because the only verbal nouns mentioned are نَهْضٌ and نُهوضٌ, which seems to suggest that the ة is not an original constituent of the verbal noun, but rather a development, and what else could it signal but a _nomen vicis_?

I suppose the other theory is that نهضة was a primitive noun and that the verb نَهَضَ is a denominal verb.

What is your take? When you say نهضة, do you sense a one-timeness (i.e. rising once) in the same way that you do when you say ضربة, or is the meaning less specific? Do you think نهضة is a primitive noun, or is it deverbal, derived from نَهَضَ? An if it is derived, what kind of noun is it?

Thanks for you input.


----------



## rayloom

Hello lukebeadgcf,

نهضة with the meaning of renaissance does strike me as a nomen vicis. Haven't got access to Wehr at the current moment, but the reason of not mentioning that the word is a nomen vicis probably is that the word نهضة can also refer to a (physical) object (taken from the entry نهض in the Lisan):
والنَّهْضةُ، بسكون الهاء: العَتَبةُ من الأَرض تُبْهَرُ فيها الدابةُ أَو الإِنسان يَصْعَدُ فيها من غَمْضٍ، والجمع نِهاضٌ

Also regarding the plural of نهضة (in your other question), I think it's only safe to say that نهاض applies to نهضة referring to the عتبة من الأرض. Not to the word used for renaissance. For that I'd go with نهضات, but more on that in your other thread.

P.S. اسم المرة is also considered (technically at least) a verbal noun in Arabic grammar. Just thought it might be worth mentioning


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Thank you. The language of the لسان is always a bit difficult for me. Let me try to translate the entry you cited to see if I understand:

And _nahda_, with a sukuun on the yaa', is the (threshold?) of the (earth/termite?) where the creature or human loses its breath and rises from its slumber...

So that doesn't make sense. Could you help me with the translation?

I still find it strange that Wehr doesn't mention this to be a _nomen vicis_. Perhaps it wasn't originally one, but because of its form it has taken on that meaning?


----------



## rayloom

lukebeadgcf said:


> Thank you. The language of the لسان is always a bit difficult for me. Let me try to translate the entry you cited to see if I understand:
> 
> And _nahda_, with a sukuun on the yaa', is the (threshold?) of the (earth/termite?) where the creature or human loses its breath and rises from its slumber...
> 
> So that doesn't make sense. Could you help me with the translation?


And _nahda_, with a sukuun on the yaa', is the threshold/bump on the ground where a beast (of burden) or a human is startled thus rising  from somnolence...
(with some modification)

Like a speed bump which ends up making you more alert while driving 



> I still find it strange that Wehr doesn't mention this to be a _nomen __vicis_. Perhaps it wasn't originally one, but because of its form it has taken on that meaning?


Yeah...Perhaps Wehr treats it as a noun in its own right. A noun meaning "renaissance".


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ah... okay. I did not get "bump," from العتبة من الأرض. Now that makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## rayloom

You're welcome


----------



## Abu Talha

lukebeadgcf said:


> What is your take? When you say نهضة, do you sense a one-timeness (i.e. rising once) in the same way that you do when you say ضربة, or is the meaning less specific? Do you think نهضة is a primitive noun, or is it deverbal, derived from نَهَضَ? An if it is derived, what kind of noun is it?



I see this in المعجم الوسيط:


> (النَّهْضَة) : الطاقة والقوة . و _ الوثبة في سبيل التقدم الاجتماعي أو غيره . ويقال : كان من فلانٍ نَهْضَةٌ إلى كذا : حركةٌ . وهو كثير النَّهَضات . (محدثة) .


----------



## lukebeadgcf

Ah. Very interesting, thank you. I wonder what Wehr based his entry on... It also seems less that the word نهضة, was derived as a اسم مرّة originally, since it meant طاقة/قوّة. What I would be interested to find out is when it took on the meaning that we know today that is so characteristic of اسم مرّة. Perhaps they are two words altogether. One a primitive noun and the other an اسم مرة. Please forgive my free speculation. 


rayloom said:


> P.S. اسم المرة is also considered (technically at least) a verbal noun in Arabic grammar. Just thought it might be worth mentioning



I don't know if I agree. It seems more to be derived from the verbal noun, a more specific type of verbal noun if you will. According to Wright, it expresses the act of the verbal noun happening _once_. He draws a definite distinction, saying that if the regular verbal noun already takes the form of the _nomen vicis_, then you should add واحد, like رحمه رحمةً واحدةً or قابلتُه مقابلةً واحدةً, as this is the only way, he goes on to say, to distinguish between the _nomen vicis _and the _nomen verbi_.


----------



## Abu Talha

I understood by Rayloom's statement that it can do what the maSdar can, grammatically, e.g.,
فوجئتُ بضَرْبةِ زيدٍ عمرًا
Just speculating here. I'm not sure.

I have some questions about this _nomen vicis_. I'm not familiar with the terminology so please excuse me if I mess it up. Is this also known as the noun of unity?

Can this noun be formed on-the-fly whenever you think you need to modify the maSdar to signify that it was a single, one-time action. In other words, if I have memorized only the maSdar, can I safely assume I can tack on a ـة to make it a _nomen vicis_ when needed? (Of course, if the action can not meaningfully be a one-time action then there is no use to form one.) Or do there exist verbs that could have the significance of a one-time action yet have no _nomen vicis_ ending with ـة?
Does this exist for verb forms > I, e.g., is there a تفعيلة signifying a one-time action for  تفعيل? I know that there is a variant تفعلة for form II but I don't think that is _nomen vicis_.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

> I understood by Rayloom's statement that it can do what the maSdar can, grammatically, e.g.,



Yes, I agree that it is a "type" of مصدر.



> Is this also known as the noun of unity?



I had never heard of the "noun of unity" before, so I googled it. It seems that on Wikipedia, they are calling اسم الوحدة or _nomen unitatis _(the noun that expresses one individual of a genus like سمكة from سمك) the "noun of unity," which is a bad and inaccurate translation of the Arabic term. I think وحدة here means "unit" or "individual" and not "unity."

So the answer is no, the _nomen vicis _or اسم مرّة, is in English, "the noun that denotes the happening of an action once."



> Can this noun be formed on-the-fly whenever you think you need to  modify the maSdar to signify that it was a single defined action. In  other words, if I have memorized only the maSdar, can I safely assume I  can tack on a ـة to make it a _nomen vicis_ when needed? Or do there exist verbs that could have the significance of a one-time action yet have no _nomen vicis_ ending with ـة?



According to Wright, yes, you can. The restrictions being that you must select فَعْل in the first form, تفعيل in the second, and فِعْلال in the first of the quadriliterals. Tack on ة and you have an اسم مرّة. The caveat being, as I mentioned earlier, that they cannot be derived from verbal nouns that already have ة. To respond to the last point, I cannot think of any verbs that denote something being done once all by themselves. 



> Does this exist for verb forms > I, e.g., is there a تفعيلة  signifying a one-time action for  تفعيل? I know that there is a variant  تفعلة for form II but I don't think that is _nomen vicis_.



Yes, with the restrictions I mentioned. Some examples Wright gives are تقليبة التفاتة تدحرجة اقشعرارة.


----------



## Abu Talha

lukebeadgcf said:


> According to Wright, yes, you can. The restrictions being that you must select فَعْل in the first form, تفعيل in the second, and فِعْلال in the first of the quadriliterals. Tack on ة and you have an اسم مرّة. The caveat being, as I mentioned earlier, that they cannot be derived from verbal nouns that already have ة. To respond to the last point, I cannot think of any verbs that denote something being done once all by themselves.



That's very interesting. Thanks for the helpful reply. I did some quick research and it seems that for, at least some verbs that don't have, or have lost, a فَعْلٌ maSdar, there still exists a فَعْلة for an اسم مرة. Example وقع and سقط. 


Of course, this is by no means conclusive. 

I wonder if verbs of the type فعِل and فعُل too can have a اسم مرة if conceivable. Hava gives  غَرْقة to mean "submersion" for the verb  غَرِقَ يَغْرَقُ غَرَقًا but I couldn't find it in any other dictionary.


----------



## lukebeadgcf

One of the examples Wright gives is شربة, and شَرِبَ is of course, مكسورة العين. I think it probably doesn't matter, but perhaps أسماء مرة are more common from certain forms. I can't think of, for example, an اسم مرّة that would make sense from a verb of the paradigm فَعُلَ, which usually denotes a permanent characteristic.

I think that غرقة makes perfect sense, and I don't think that lexicons would generally list the اسم مرّة unless it was a common word or it took on an otherwise unpredictable meaning, much in the same way that you usually don't see اسم التصغير mentioned.


----------



## Abu Talha

lukebeadgcf said:


> ... and I don't think that lexicons would generally list the اسم مرّة unless it was a common word or it took on an otherwise unpredictable meaning, much in the same way that you usually don't see اسم التصغير mentioned.


Is the forming of the اسم مرة done in the modern language when it should or is it often neglected? For example, should "a meeting" be اجتماعة instead of اجتماع?


----------



## rayloom

The nomen vicis of الأفعال المزيدة is commoner I think in dialectal Arabic than FuSHa (Classical or modern standard).


----------



## barkoosh

_Theoretically_ speaking, according to the grammatical rule, you _may_ add the ة to اجتماع to denote اسم المرة of it, but please don't.  Sometimes the masdar itself is used to denote a one-time occurrence, and it can be made dual and plural to denote multiple occurrences. اجتماع is such a case.


Following are additional examples:
تحسين - إجراء - احتمال - تصرّف - بلاغ - تمرين - تدريب- اختلاف - نجاح - انتصار - صراع


----------



## Ustaath

context influences the meaning regarding these different maSdars. During the time Wehr was collating his dictionary, nahdah was a buzz word, regarding the Arab renaissance, 'عصر النهضة" and the subsequent"loosening up' of the emergent MSA  - it is more frequently used to convey this type of meaning much more frequently than a nomen vicis -


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks everyone. What piqued my interest in this was two posts on this forum, both in the context of welcoming.


rayloom said:


> مرحبتين
> The feminine form is جوعى, not جوعانة...Classicaly speaking.
> مجمع اللغة العربية في القاهرة أجاز إضافة تاء التأنيث لمثل هذه الصفات التي تنتهي بالألف والنون.





Wadi Hanifa said:


> خالد
> يا مرحبا ترحيبة البدو بالسيل
> ...


So when forming the dual, or ascribing the act of welcoming to a person, it was preferred to say مرحبــة and ترحيبــة respectively. So I was wondering if these occasions are when the اسم مرة should be formed?

Also I heard تجويف once in a documentary to refer to a specific cavity in a rock, or a den and I was wondering if تجويفة should have been used instead, because تجويف is the act of making something hollow, not one particular instance of it. What do you think?


----------



## barkoosh

The word مرحبتين is slang. It's used as the dual of مرحبا in spoken language, not in MSA. For example, it's common in Lebanon to respond to some salutations with dual form:
مرحبا - مرحبتين
And from French:
بونجور - بونجورين
بونسوار - بونسوارين

As for ترحيبة and ترحيبتان, they are correct and common.

Both تجويف and تجويفة can be used for cavity (or socket), the first is more common.

One should count on common usage. Some words would look awkward with ة (such as اجتماع), others would look awkward without ة (such as دقّة القلب), others work with both cases (such as غلط and غلطة).


----------



## Haydari

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
I first want to make sure I understand this concept properly. The Masdar (verbal noun) does not have a plural form. From the Masdar, the Ism al-Marrah (noun of instance) can be derived which has a plural form.

For example:

Verb: Sajada = He prostrated

al-Masdar: Sujood = Prostrating/to prostrate

Ism al-Marrah: Sajdah = Prostration , Sajadaat = Prostrations


Is this correct? Is this the case for every Masdar?

Another Example:

Verb: Rahima = He showed mercy

al-Masdar: Marhamah (not sure if correct masdar?) = showing mercy/to show mercy

Ism al-Marrah: Rahmah = Mercy , Rahamaat = Mercies

Correct?


----------



## ساره

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ حَدَّثَنِى أَبِى حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ عَنْ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بْنِ رُفَيْعٍ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِى مُلَيْكَةَ عَنْ حَنْظَلَةَ بْنِ رَاهِبٍ عَنْ كَعْبٍ قَالَ لأَنْ أَزْنِىَ ثَلاَثًا وَثَلاَثِينَ زَنْيَةً أَحَبُّ إِلَىَّ مِنْ أَنْ آكُلَ دِرْهَمَ رِبًا يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ أَنِّى أَكَلْتُهُ حِينَ أَكَلْتُهُ رِبًا

Here is زَنْيَةً a مصدر المرة?


----------



## Ibn Nacer

ساره said:


> Here is زَنْيَةً a مصدر المرة?


I think so.


----------



## Ali Smith

If it’s a مصدر المرة why isn’t it زَنَيات? It’s referring to several instances of fornication, isn’t it?


----------



## analeeh

Thirty-three is always followed by a singular noun.

'I would rather commit adultery thirty-three times than...'


----------

