# hollow verb - derived stems



## lena55313

Hi everybody
I'm trying to find similarities and differences in formation of weak verbs in which the weak sound is the second one. 
Everything is very easy with the verb قال. We can found in the dictionary that the alif turns to W and then we can change the verb as a regular: qawwala - qaawala - aqwala - taqawwala.
But in some verbs, for example, the جاز, the alif - according to the dictionary - should be turned to the W but in forms № 4,8 it remaines as the alif: ajaaza (4) and ijtaaza (10) - not ajwaza and ijtawaza. 

And I found many other verbs that remains with alif. But I found a lot of verbs that are changed according to the dictionary and rules of the verb formation. Are there any rules about the changing of the second weak consonant instead of leaving it as in the initial verb?


----------



## Ghabi

lena55313 said:


> We can found in the dictionary that the alif turns to W and then we can change the verb as a regular: qawwala - qaawala - aqwala - taqawwala.


Hi Lena. Where did you find these?


----------



## lena55313

What do you mean? Where I found the vowel that is being changed or where I found the forms of the the initial verb?


----------



## Ghabi

Did you find these words in a grammar book?


----------



## lena55313

I found the verb forms in the Arabic-Russian dictionary by Baranov as verbs with the same root. We have there №№ 2.3.4.5
Their meanings are:
qawwala(2) - to retell or to speak a lot
qaawala(3) - to argue
aqwala(4) - to say that smb said something, to attribute the words to
Also you can see some of them in LL Suplement, page 15. (forms 5 and 8)
 Oh, it's very interesting, in LL there is the 8th form that doesn't exist in Russian dictionary. And this form also doesn't change alif. It's iqtaala not iqtawala.
Wehr also mentioned them, but only the number of the form and its meaning, look page 933. There you can see only №№ 3,5,10.

About the hollow verbs I read there
"Verbs where the second radical is either a و (as with قال - يقول) or ي (as with باع - يبيع); in the perfect, the و or ي is replaced by an alif."

I just found in the Lisan al Arab on page 3779, the right colomn, in the middle - qawwaltani wa aqwaltani - also the double W, that looks like form №2. Unfortunately, I don't know what the phrase means.


----------



## fdb

Have a look in Wright's Grammar, I, section 160 sqq.


----------



## Mahaodeh

You chose two words that work exactly the same, but one mistake made you thing that they are different:



lena55313 said:


> qawwala - qaawala - aqwala - taqawwala.



These forms are respectively: فَعَّل - فَاعَلَ - أَفْعَلَ - تَفَاعَلَ
For قال they would be: قَوَّلَ - قَاوَلَ - أَقَالَ - تَقَاوَلَ ; aqwala is irregular (سماعي). The standard is aqaala.
For جاز they would be: جَوَّزَ - جَاوَزَ - أَجَازَ - تَجَاوَزَ; exactly the same.

Then you have:


lena55313 said:


> ajaaza (4) and ijtaaza (10) - not ajwaza and ijtawaza.



First one أجَازَ, already mentioned, and which you simply got it wrong in the case of قَالَ, and اِجْتَازَ of the form اِفْتَعَلَ that becomes اِقْتَالَ for the root قال


----------



## Ghabi

lena55313 said:


> "Verbs where the second radical is either a و (as with قال - يقول) or ي (as with باع - يبيع); in the perfect, the و or ي is replaced by an alif."


I think you should take it as the rule for the forms af3ala/ifta3ala/infa3ala/istaf3ala, and simply forget the "aqwala" you found before.

As you go on learning, you will find that there are indeed some verbs where the و is preserved (e.g. ازْدَوَجَ، استجْوَبَ), but those are exceptions, and you should not let them distract you.


----------



## lena55313

fdb said:


> Have a look in Wright's Grammar, I, section 160 sqq.


Thank you, fdb, the grammar book is great! I've never heard about it before. 
But in sections 160-163 it is written the things that I was afraid to read -no exact rules: some verbs, many verbs, a few verbs))) 
Oh, I'm lucky, I've found the section 149 where is written that the verbs with the middle W differ from the strong ones only in forms 1.4.7.8.10. 
I already did the same conclusion because checked the dictionary - all weak verbs started with B - and made a table))) 



Ghabi said:


> and simply forget the "aqwala" you found before.


Probably that would be the best solution.

Maha, I was shoked, because I've trusted my Russian dictionary. I use the electronic one and thinking that this could be just a typo I downloaded PDF. In it there was the same 4th form - aqwala (with W). Do you think it was a mistake? Maybe it was the very old exclusion that is not in use nowadays? This dictionary - Baranov - is very popular in Russia and it is trustworthy.


----------



## cherine

lena55313 said:


> Maha, I was shoked, because I've trusted my Russian dictionary. I use the electronic one and thinking that this could be just a typo I downloaded PDF. In it there was the same 4th form - aqwala (with W). Do you think it was a mistake? Maybe it was the very old exclusion that is not in use nowadays? This dictionary - Baranov - is very popular in Russia and it is trustworthy.


Not Maha, but I think it's just the fact that this form is unknown of in Modern fuS7a that many native speakers would think it's incorrect. So, just follow Ghabi's advise here, to forget about this form and focus on the ones that are actually in use.


----------



## Mahaodeh

lena55313 said:


> Maha, I was shoked, because I've trusted my Russian dictionary. I use the electronic one and thinking that this could be just a typo I downloaded PDF. In it there was the same 4th form - aqwala (with W). Do you think it was a mistake? Maybe it was the very old exclusion that is not in use nowadays? This dictionary - Baranov - is very popular in Russia and it is trustworthy.



Oh, you misunderstood me. Aqwala is _not_ _wrong_ since it actually does exist as a word and is listed in Lisaan Al Arab, so your dictionary was not wrong in listing it. However, it is _inaccurate_ to use it as a comparison of forms because it's an irregular form and its existence does not mean the regular one does not exist for the same root.

My point is you shouldn't use it to compare how similar weak verbs are derived because it simply won't conform.


----------



## lena55313

cherine said:


> many native speakers would think it's incorrect.


That what I ment - an ancient word. 


Mahaodeh said:


> it actually does exist as a word and is listed in Lisaan Al Arab


I've found both variants in Lisaan Al Arab at page 3779  in the middle of the right colomn but I can't translate them. There are two phrases: aqwalahu maa lam yaqul, and aqaalahu maa lam yaqul. 
I know the meaning of aqwala from Baranov dictionary but I've never found the aqaala meaning. Is it the same to aqwala? And it is interesting that Wehr didn't mention both of them - only 3.5.10 forms. Does it mean that other forms don't exist in MSA?


----------



## Mahaodeh

According to the Lisaan, they both have the same meaning. It does not add any other meanings of aqaala (although admittedly I went through it very quickly - it's quite extensive).

However, القاموس المحيط adds the meaning of annulment (of a contract or sale) for aqaala. This makes sense to me because in MSA aqaala means to discharge or dismiss (an employee or a contractor from work/a job).


----------



## lena55313

Many thanks, Maha for naming this new dictionary - a new one only for me, of course))) I found a great on-line Ocean dictionary. It is strangely organized - if one want to look for قال one should start his search from ل not from ق. But I'm really happy because now I can copy words and translate them by google and not to type every letter one by one.
But what I couldn't understand - the phrase وأقْوَلَه ما لم يَقُلْ،وقَوَّلَهُ وأقالَه: ادَّعاهُ عليه It looks like: he attributed to somebody the words that this person doesn't say and he discharged this person: and this person curse him. (I found in my Russian dictionary that دعا علا  = to curse, to damn. 
Or do the words after the colon mark just mean the generalization of the synonyms = to say to somebody?


----------



## cherine

lena55313 said:


> It is strangely organized - if one want to look for قال one should start his search from ل not from ق.


That's how Classical dictionaries are organized: last letter of the root first. But modern dictionaries, and many modern editions of Classical ones start with the first letter.


> But what I couldn't understand - the phrase وأقْوَلَه ما لم يَقُلْ،وقَوَّلَهُ وأقالَه: ادَّعاهُ عليه It looks like: he attributed to somebody the words that this person doesn't say and he discharged this person: and this person curse him. (I found in my Russian dictionary that دعا علا  = to curse, to damn.
> Or do the words after the colon mark just mean the generalization of the synonyms = to say to somebody?


It is better to open a new thread for this, to have a focussed discussion on it. Let's keep this thread for hollow verbs.
Thanks.


----------



## lena55313

cherine said:


> That's how Classical dictionaries are organized


How very interesting! Maybe ancient Arabs used to read the words from left to right and then to make a cipher that would be understood only for them they changed the direction of writing and speaking. 



cherine said:


> It is better to open a new thread for this,


I'll do it now.


----------



## fdb

lena55313 said:


> How very interesting! Maybe ancient Arabs used to read the words from left to right and then to make a cipher that would be understood only for them they changed the direction of writing and speaking.



No, the Arabs did not change the direction of writing, and certainly not the direction of speaking (?!). The old dictionaries arrange roots according to the rhyme letter, which is actually very useful if you are reading poetry, where the most obscure words tend to be at the end of the line.


----------



## lena55313

Thank you, fdb! No conspirology as usual)))


----------

