Nor can I, but what about "radda" (ردّ)? This is the first word that came to my mind when I read the title. However, I guess it's just the same like with your examples. The root of the 1st stem (I don't know the exact Arabic grammar term for it) is a 2-letter one, but only in the 2nd and 5th stem (others?), there is a "written" consonant doubling (تمم, ردد, ...).abusaf said:However, if words can have a 2-letter root, I don't know. I can't think of any.
حق is from the root ح-ق-ق h-q-q1. haq as from 2 letter roots h-q or h-q-q?
abu is just as your wrote it أ-ب-و (we say أبّ ) but it's not a-b-b, it's a-b-u2. abu as from 2 letter roots a-b or a-b-b?
3. yad as from 2 letter
roots y-d or y-d-d?
4. qama as from 2 letter
قام is the past form of the verb يقوم ; hence you can deduce the root is ق-و-م q-w-mroots q-m or q-m-m?
cherine wrote:Like شم, حج, تم etc, its because the second and third radical (letter) are identical.
mansio wrote:abu is just as your wrote it أ-ب-و (we say أبّ ) but it's not a-b-b, it's a-b-u
I had a discussion recently and a guy quoted that the root of Solaa is S-L and not S-L-W as normally understood. Would appreciate further comments.You also have the two-letter root 'Kh for brother, 'B for father, BN for son, fam the mouth, SM/ShM name.
As for أب its original form is (a-b-w) and not (a-b-b). The latter means 'vegetation, pasture, grass' as in the Quranic verse: وفاكهة وأباًّ (And fruit and grass) Surah 80:31.
mansio wrote:Some historical linguists theorize that two consonant roots existed some time in the dim past<snip>
Sorry for asking in merged reply.I still believe that Arabic has, or had, a number of basic biliteral words <snip>
Sometimes the stem undergoes certain changes that it is not always onbvious to determine what the root letters are. Thus, past scholars have formulated rules for determining the root form, one of these being that the dual, plural, diminutive, imperfect & infinitive forms often reveal a word's root letters. For example: خاف - يخاف does not tell us what the original for of the Alif is. But if we know the infinitive (masdar), for example, that becomes possible, and because the infinitive is خوف we know that the Alif was originally a Waaw but is not obvious from the perfect not the imperfect forms. In fact, this rule is important for using Hans Wehr dictionary. According to past scholars, an Alif is either an additional letter or transformed from a root letter but never a root letter itself. This is the same rule observed by Hans Wehr. Thus, to find خاف in Hans Wehr you won't find it under خ - ا - ف but rather under خ - و - ف . This is the case with a number of a words whose root form comprises weak letters, etc.Can someone please elaborate the proposition by Abu Bishr that in order to see meaning/origin of the biliteral words, one has to see the plural form of it.
I thought that the stem should define the derivatives (plural,etc) and not vice versa.
Occam's razor. Looking at their Ugaritic forms 'b for father, 'x for brother, dm for blood, yd for hand, adding for example my for water, I prefer the interpretation that there really were two-radical words.The word يد is triliteral in origin (يدي) and this is attested to by its plural الأيدي . Notice the Yaa at the end of the plural form. The same applies to to دم the plural of which is دماء , the hamzah being transformed from a Waaw (or Yaa). We also have the verb يدمي (to bleed) derived from it. This goes for فم as wellexcept that its original form is فوه because of the plural أفواه . Also, أب, أخ , etc. are triliteral (أخو and أبو ) because of their dual forms: أبوان and أخوان , and plural forms إخوة or إخوان and آباء .
The important thing about one's interpretation is that it has to be consistent with the facts, and consistent throughout. The facts are:Occam's razor. Looking at their Ugaritic forms 'b for father, 'x for brother, dm for blood, yd for hand, adding for example my for water, I prefer the interpretation that there really were two-radical words.
and four more examples.S. Moscati said:Thus for example in Hebrew: prd 'to separate', prm 'to tear', prs 'to split
(From An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages.)All these verbs have in common the radicals pr and the basic notion 'to divide'.