ائتني بالقجة الفلانية فأتى بها

< Previous | Next >

Baldomero123

Member
Spanish - Spain
Sources:
Arabic :
ااف ليلة وليلة ,,الكتبة الشرقية
Translated into English by Sir Richard F. Burton
I find in the text a word that seems like being a mistake, or perhaps not?
In English is said
"Give me such a parcel". So Aziz brought it and opened it before him.
In Arabic:
"إِئْتِنِيب بالقحة الفلانية’ .فاتى يها عزيز وخلًها بين يديه (أتى a-i)
Is this Word يها my problema, where I could wait اتاها

Is it really a mistake? Since I can't find it nowhere. Thanks.
 
  • VRG

    Banned
    English - United States of America
    It should be إيت, not إئت. This is a common mistake in Arabic.
    A lot of people say أؤمن instead of أومن when they want to say "I believe".
     

    analeeh

    Senior Member
    English - UK
    Does this rule really apply to hamzat waSl?

    The Qur'an verse has:

    ائْتِ بِقُرْآنٍ غَيْرِ هَٰذَا أَوْ بَدِّلْهُ
     

    Baldomero123

    Member
    Spanish - Spain
    Very interesting your remarks, but my written rules perhaps need be modified:

    a) Imperative: alif is vocalized with the intermediate vowel (of imperfective): كتب يكتُت أُكْتُبْ,, أَتى يَأَتِي إِ...
    b) Verbs with hamza in first position
    b.1) first radical having a prefix: uses as support of the hamza the semivowel of the vowel present in preceeding syllable
    يَأْخُدُ ,, يُؤْخَدُ
    And according with all this, should be, loosing the third radical
    أَتَى ,, يَأَتِي ,, إِئْتِ
    Isn't it? Thank you.
     

    wriight

    Senior Member
    English (US) / Arabic (Lebanon)
    Does this rule really apply to hamzat waSl?

    The Qur'an verse has:

    ائْتِ بِقُرْآنٍ غَيْرِ هَٰذَا أَوْ بَدِّلْهُ
    It does apply, but only if the word is produced in isolation or at the very beginning of an utterance in order for the hamzat waSl to be able to actually surface as a glottal stop. Reading the verse from the beginning puts this into context more-clearly: the preceding vowel causes the hamzat waSl to be unnecessary, so it's elided, and that's the reason the overt ئ is able to reappear right after it. قَالَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَرْجُونَ لِقَآءَنَا ائْتِ بِقُرْآنٍ غَيْرِ هَٰذَا أَوْ بَدِّلْهُ

    Otherwise, if the word occurs at the very beginning of an utterance, its 'correct' pronunciation is /ʔiːti/ (as well as /ʔiːtiː, ʔiːtijaː, ʔiːtuː/) rather than */ʔiʔti/, which technically shouldn't be possible. So the correct spelling for that case is اِيتِ (and اِيتِي، اِيتِيَا، اِيتُوا), in particular using a hamza-less alif rather than إِ to indicate the possible elision (and/or that the glottal stop isn't morphologically actually there).
     

    lukebeadgcf

    Senior Member
    English – US
    Hello Baldomero,

    Thank you for posting this question.

    I don't think القجة or القحة is right as meaning "parcel." I think it should be: ائتني بالبُقْجة الفلانية فأتى بها عزيز وحلها بين يديه.

    I think the words أومن and أؤمن both occur while أومن (with the second glottal stop transformed into a واو) may be considered more eloquent and correct. In other cases, you would hardly ever hear the latter form: you would not hear إئمان instead of إيمان even though the root is ء م ن. However, I don't think, as could be understood from @VRG, that this means that there's a general rule against having two glottal stops back to back, especially when the first همزة is a همزة وصل, as is the case here. Consider, for example, the word ائتمان as in بطاقة ائتمان. If ائتمان comes at the beginning of a sentence, both the first همزة, which is a وصل, and the second, which is a قطع, are pronounced, and you would not hear ايتمان.

    The imperative form of the verb أتى presents the question of whether to transform into a ياء the second of two adjacent hamzas the first of which is a همزة وصل and the second of which is a همزة قطع. This situation is thus more similar to ائتمان, where a ياء is NOT formed, than to إيمان, where a ياء IS formed. The verse from the Quran cited by @analeeh in which this word is written ائْتِ (without the suffix) provides additional evidence in support of the correctness of this spelling.

    However, I'm not arguing that the form ايتني is necessarily incorrect. But I'd point out that this form, which would result from the transformation of the همزة قطع into a ياء, creates a potential problem of pronunciation. Since the همزة وصل would be elided by the preceding vowel, how would you pronounce this sentence if it were preceded by a واو or ضمة? For example, what if the sentence were:

    قال الأمينُ ايتني بالبُقْجة الفلانية فأتى بها عزيز وحلها بين يديه


    If you try to pronounce the above sentence, you'll notice that the diphthong اُيْ occurs. This seems problematic to me because this diphthong is generally thought of as "forbidden." It never occurs within words (there are rules to make changes where it would), and I have never seen it occur between words, as would be the case here.

    I'd be interested in others' thoughts!
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top