# CA/MSA: VV+CC, VG+CC sound sequences



## Saley

One more thread with unpronounceable title 

I have several questions about Classical Arabic / Modern Standard Arabic phonotactic rules.
The questions are marked with bullets.
Abbreviations used: V = vowel, G = glide (_w_ or _y_), C = consonant.

*1. Long vowel + two consonants (VV+CC)
*
_a) within a word_
The only chance for a long vowel to be followed by two consonants is when the vowel is *ā* and the consonants are identical.
A common example is the Form I active participle of doubled verbs: تَامٌّ _tāmmun_, دَالٌّ _dāllun_, شَاكٌّ _šākkun_ etc.

How many morae do the syllables in the above words count for?
How are these words pronounced in pause (وقف)?
_b) at the word boundary_
When a word that ends with *ā* is followed by a word that begins with two _identical_ consonants (e.g. عينا الطفلة _ʕaynā + ṭ-ṭiflati_, على ادّخار _ʕalā + ddixārin_) the resulting sound sequence is admissible.

Does *ā* nevertheless shorten to *a*?

*2. aw or ay + two consonants (VG+CC)
*
_a) within a word_
I haven’t come across a description of such combinations, but what I know is that *ay* followed by two _identical_ consonants can be encountered in diminutives: دُوَيْبَّةٌ _duwaybbatun_, شُوَيْبَّةٌ _šuwaybbatun_ etc.

Again what’s the number of morae in respective syllables?
Are there any other instances of VG+CC apart from similar diminutives?
_b) at the word boundary_
What happens if a word ends with *aw* or *ay* and the following word begins with two consonants (examples from Wright: مصطفو الله _muṣṭafaw + llāhi_, مصطفي الله _muṣṭafay + llāhi_)?

Is a helping vowel inserted giving rise to an additional syllable or does the intial consonant of the second word become a coda of the syllable with a diphthongal nucleus?

Hope for your help.


----------



## Matat

I don't have an answer to all your questions because I don't know enough phonology jargon to understand what you're asking in some of them, but I'll answer what I know.



Saley said:


> A common example is the Form I active participle of doubled verbs: تَامٌّ _tāmmun_, دَالٌّ _dāllun_, شَاكٌّ _šākkun_ etc.
> 
> How many morae do the syllables in the above words count for?
> How are these words pronounced in pause (وقف)?


In pause, they would be _tāmm, dāll, _and_ šākk. _The shaddah on the last letter would still be pronounced.



Saley said:


> When a word that ends with *ā* is followed by a word that begins with two _identical_ consonants (e.g. عينا الطفلة _ʕaynā + ṭ-ṭiflati_, على ادّخار _ʕalā + ddixārin_) the resulting sound sequence is admissible.
> 
> Does *ā* nevertheless shorten to *a*?


Yes, it shortens in these instances. You can make a more general statement than simply saying that it shortens when "followed by a word that begins with two identical consonants." If the following word starts with a sukuun, the _*ā*_ would be shortened.



Saley said:


> _b) at the word boundary_
> What happens if a word ends with *aw* or *ay* and the following word begins with two consonants (examples from Wright: مصطفو الله _muṣṭafaw + llāhi_, مصطفي الله _muṣṭafay + llāhi_)?
> 
> Is a helping vowel inserted giving rise to an additional syllable or does the intial consonant of the second word become a coda of the syllable with a diphthongal nucleus?


Yes, a helping vowel would need to be added. مصطفَوُ اللهِ and مصطفَيِ اللهِ.


----------



## Saley

Matat said:


> In pause, they would be _tāmm, dāll, _and_ šākk. _The shaddah on the last letter would still be pronounced.


Are any other extra-long CVVCC syllables possible (apart from CaaCC with identical final consonants)?



Matat said:


> Yes, a helping vowel would need to be added. مصطفَوُ اللهِ and مصطفَيِ اللهِ.


Does this syllabify as _muṣ.ṭa.*fa*.*wul*.laa.hi_ (as the Arabic script suggests)? I don’t understand Wright’s transcription _muṣṭafăü̆ ’llāhi_ (vol. i, p. 21).


----------



## Ectab

1-
a)as Matat explained, they are pronounced as  tāmm, dāll, and šākk.
b)usually long vowels are shortened but long vowels that indicates the cases of masculine plural and dual are not shortened:
على ادّخار shortened (3ala-ddichaar)
عينا الطفلة not shortened (3ainaa -TTiflah)
and the dual verb forms like كتبا (they two wrote) are not shortened too.

2-
a) I actually never knew such words exist in Arabic. Arabic is known to have no more than 2 consonant cluster, even if one of the consonants is a semivowel.

b) a helping vowel (i) is inserted.

and finally, I don't about mora


----------



## fdb

In tajwid the third syllable in words like وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَ is super-long (5 morae; 4 for the vowel and 1 for the first of the two lams). The lengthening of the vowel is indicated by the madda over the alif.


----------



## Saley

Ectab said:


> 1- <...>
> b)usually long vowels are shortened but long vowels that indicates the cases of masculine plural and dual are not shortened:
> على ادّخار shortened (3ala-ddichaar)
> عينا الطفلة not shortened (3ainaa -TTiflah)
> and the dual verb forms like كتبا (they two wrote) are not shortened too.


I didn’t know this distinction exists.
Could you please advise where I can read about that?


Ectab said:


> 2- <...>
> b) a helping vowel (i) is inserted.


If you mean that *i* is added both after *aw* and *ay*, this contradicts what Wright writes. According to him, as for the words ending in *aw*, only two words أَوْ and لَوْ may take helping *i*.

Thanks, fdb. I should get acquainted with the rules of tajwīd.


----------



## fdb

Ectab said:


> long vowels that indicates the cases of masculine plural and dual are not shortened:
> على ادّخار shortened (3ala-ddichaar)
> عينا الطفلة not shortened (3ainaa -TTiflah)
> and the dual verb forms like كتبا (they two wrote) are not shortened too.



I do not agree.

Listen to the qurrāʼ reciting 27:15 وَقَالَا ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ . Definitely wa qāla l-ḥamdu lillāhi (not qālā).

For example here: Tanzil - Quran Navigator | القرآن الكريم


----------



## elroy

It is well known that tajwīd has its own rules, many of which do not apply in non-tajwīd situations.  Ectab is absolutely right for non-tajwīd MSA - which is the default we assume in this forum unless otherwise indicated.


----------



## Matat

Saley said:


> Are any other extra-long CVVCC syllables possible (apart from CaaCC with identical final consonants)?


The only other words I can think of which do this in Arabic are Form III doubled verbs such as حَاجَّ, but you won't come by them very often. Other than that, I can't think of any more.



Saley said:


> Does this syllabify as _muṣ.ṭa.*fa*.*wul*.laa.hi_ (as the Arabic script suggests)? I don’t understand Wright’s transcription _muṣṭafăü̆ ’llāhi_ (vol. i, p. 21).


It would be as the Arabic script suggests, just as you wrote it. I'm not sure what a u with a diaeresis and breve even sounds like to say anything about Wright's transcription.



Ectab said:


> عينا الطفلة not shortened (3ainaa -TTiflah)
> and the dual verb forms like كتبا (they two wrote) are not shortened too.


This is not correct in Classical Arabic. عينا الطفلة would sound no different than عينَ الطفلة. Similarly, the Quraanic verse that fdb wrote وقالا الحمد لله would sound no different than وقالَ الحمد لله. This is not merely a tajwiid rule, but a rule of Classical Arabic pronunciation.



fdb said:


> In tajwid the third syllable in words like وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَ is super-long (5 morae; 4 for the vowel and 1 for the first of the two lams). The lengthening of the vowel is indicated by the madda over the alif.


Just to add, outside of tajwiid, in Classical Arabic, the third syllable would have 3 morae (2 for the vowel and 1 for the first of the two laams).



Saley said:


> If you mean that *i* is added both after *aw* and *ay*, this contradicts what Wright writes. According to him, as for the words ending in *aw*, only two words أَوْ and لَوْ may take helping *i*.


What Wright wrote sounds accurate to me, but I'm sure if you searched all the Classical dialects, there might be a couple that use an (_*i*_) with _*aw*_, but the default is (*u*).


----------



## Saley

Matat said:


> Are any other extra-long CVVCC syllables possible (apart from CaaCC with identical final consonants)?
> The only other words I can think of which do this in Arabic are Form III doubled verbs such as حَاجَّ <...>


A broken plural of some nouns with doubled roots may be added to the list (in pausal form, of course): مَبَارُّ _mabārr_ (pl. of مَبَرَّةٌ _mabarrah_), جَوَادُّ _jawādd_ (pl. of جَادَّةٌ _jāddah_) etc. However the relevant syllables in these and prevoius examples are instances of the same CaaCC type with identical final consonants.



Matat said:


> Does this syllabify as _muṣ.ṭa.*fa*.*wul*.laa.hi_ (as the Arabic script suggests)? I don’t understand Wright’s transcription _muṣṭafăü̆ ’llāhi_ (vol. i, p. 21).
> It would be as the Arabic script suggests, just as you wrote it. I'm not sure what a u with a diaeresis and breve even sounds like to say anything about Wright's transcription.


The diacritics used by Wright here don’t indicate a phonetic alternation. Let me explain his point.


			
				W. Wright said:
			
		

> A diphthong is resolved into two simple vowels, <...> viz. _ai_ into _ăï̆_, and _au_ into _ăü̆_; <...>


The diaeresis indicates that the vowels are separate ones and don’t form a digraph (like English _coöperation_, French _Noël_ etc.).
The breve marks the vowel short.
Thus his transcription differs from mine only in that he didn’t include the *w* sound. But if he means that syllable boundary comes between _*a*_ and _*u*_, this implies that the syllable begins with a vowel (here _*u*_) which isn’t found elsewhere in the language. So I wondered if Wright was right. (Can’t stop making fun of his last name.)


----------



## Matat

Saley said:


> I guess you meant “and 1 for the first of the two laams”.


Yes. Edited!



Saley said:


> Thus his transcription differs from mine only in that he didn’t include the *w* sound. But if he means that syllable boundary comes between _*a*_ and _*u*_, this implies that the syllable begins with a vowel (here _*u*_) which isn’t found elsewhere in the language. So I wondered if Wright was right. (Can’t stop making fun of his last name.)


In that case, your transcription seems more accurate based on what I know.



Saley said:


> _a) within a word_
> I haven’t come across a description of such combinations, but what I know is that *ay* followed by two _identical_ consonants can be encountered in diminutives: دُوَيْبَّةٌ _duwaybbatun_, شُوَيْبَّةٌ _šuwaybbatun_ etc.


I have found the following in لسان العرب under دبب:



> وتَصْغِير الدابَّة : دُوَيْبَّة ، *الياءُ ساكِنَةٌ ، وفيها إِشْمامٌ مِن الكَسْرِ* ، وكذلك ياءُ التَّصْغِيرِ إِذا جاءَ بعدَها حرفٌ مثَقَّلٌ في كلِّ شيءٍ .



There seems to be a very slight كسرة on the ياء.


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> This is not correct in Classical Arabic. عينا الطفلة would sound no different than عينَ الطفلة. Similarly, the Quraanic verse that fdb wrote وقالا الحمد لله would sound no different than وقالَ الحمد لله. This is not merely a tajwiid rule, but a rule of Classical Arabic pronunciation.


 Again, if someone doesn't specify a specific variety of Arabic, we assume they mean (non-tajwīd) MSA (i.e. not tajwīd, not Classical Arabic, and not Colloquial Arabic), so Ectab's post is just fine.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> Again, if someone doesn't specify a specific variety of Arabic, we assume they mean (non-tajwīd) MSA (i.e. not tajwīd, not Classical Arabic, and not Colloquial Arabic), so Ectab's post is just fine.


This thread says "CA/MSA" and the OP referenced Wright's book, so I think the safer assumption is that the OP is looking for the proper Classical rules.


----------



## elroy

Matat said:


> This thread says "CA/MSA" and the OP referenced Wright's book, so I think the safer assumption is that the OP is looking for the proper Classical rules.


 Indeed, the thread title includes *both* CA and MSA, and the thread starter says "I have several questions about *Classical Arabic / Modern Standard Arabic* phonotactic rules" (again, both are included).  I don't see how anyone who understands English can assume that they mean only CA. 

And Classical Arabic is not more "proper" than Modern Standard Arabic, if that's what you meant.  They're simply different.


----------



## Matat

elroy said:


> Indeed, the thread title includes *both* CA and MSA, and the thread starter says "I have several questions about *Classical Arabic / Modern Standard Arabic* phonotactic rules"


You are saying that the OP is asking about both. The comment which you quoted in #12 clearly indicates I was speaking specifically about Classical Arabic, one of the two variants which you say the OP is asking about. So what exactly are you contesting in #12? You said if someone doesn't specify a particular dialect in Arabic, then we assume it is MSA. But the OP clearly specified that he was interested in CA (as one of the variants, at least), so I don't follow what the point of this conversation is.





elroy said:


> I don't see how anyone who understands English can assume that they mean only CA.


Well, by the context of the conversation of course.  Besides, I don't think the OP's definitions of CA vs. MSA are the same as yours. These are not well-defined terms to begin with and they are certainly not officially recognized terms in the Arab world, let alone clearly defined there. The OP wrote "Classical Arabic / Modern Standard Arabic", not "Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic", which indicates to me he's referring to them as being one and the same variant. I do the same in certain contexts when referring to them as one variant. Taking that into account, and adding the fact that the OP was quoting Wright's Grammar and asking about words like دويْبّة and شويْبّة (clearly not words in your everyday MSA), as well as the fact that he asked Ectab about where he could read about the rules Ectab was talking about (meaning he is looking for formal, written, standardized, and accepted pronunciation rules - which only exist in CA, not in MSA), I decided it was more appropriate for me to answer purely in the realm of CA and I specified that that was what I was doing. Nevertheless, this is all besides the point. Even if I was completely wrong and it turns out that Saley was asking about both, then I answered at least part of his question and it was made clear that that was what I was doing.


----------



## Saley

I initially thought CA and MSA didn’t differ with respect to what I asked in the original post, so, yes, I referred to them as to a single variety.

However, if there are differences, I want to know them, of course. Therefore I appreciate all the answers that have been given. Thank you, Matat, for your great contribution about the Classical Arabic.

As I understand now, Ectab was talking about MSA alone. So is it true for MSA that the helping vowel is always *i* after both *aw* and *ay*?


----------



## elroy

Whether or not there are "formal, written, standardized, and accepted pronunciation rules" for MSA, Ectab's 1b in #4 is absolutely valid for MSA.  Whether or not there are prescriptive rule books that say so, pronouncing عينا الطفل as عينَ الطفل is descriptively incorrect in MSA.


----------



## Matat

Saley said:


> However, if there are differences, I want to know them, of course. Therefore I appreciate all the answers that have been given. Thank you, Matat, for your great contribution about the Classical Arabic.


You're welcome.



elroy said:


> Whether or not there are "formal, written, standardized, and accepted pronunciation rules" for MSA, Ectab's 1b in #4 is absolutely valid for MSA.


I did not contest (or agree with) this.


----------

