short vowel between two identical consonants

Discussion in 'العربية (Arabic)' started by Jana337, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. Jana337

    Jana337 Senior Member

    čeština
    When studying the comparative, I learned that I cannot say "aqlal" (like "akbar") due to the following rule: A short vowel cannot occur between two identical consonants.

    Is it a reliable rule? I have some doubts because you have many occurances of "tat-" at the beginnings of verbs etc. But derived words may not count, I don't know.

    I will appreciate your comments. :)

    Jana
     
  2. borhane

    borhane Senior Member

    Algiers
    Algerian Arabic
    please , can you explain more !
    what you are saying sound wrong if you are speaking Arabic !! I'm just joking :D
     
  3. Jana337

    Jana337 Senior Member

    čeština
    OK, more information. :)
    Jana
     
  4. cherine

    cherine Moderator

    Alexandria, Egypt
    Arabic (Egypt).
    Hi Jana,
    Sorry for the late reply, but I wasn't so sure about this and they way your book presents the "rule" looks strange to me.
    So here's my take :
    1- there's no rule forbidding short vowels between two identical consonants. The only rule I know of about vowelisation is : there can't be two consecutive silent consonant لا يجوز التقاء ساكنين , this is why lots of Arabic native speaker find great difficulty pronouncing words like (cheat, chalk, ....) because of the consecutive t+sh sounds, so they add a short (e) between them.

    2- the word aqall is still على وزن أفعل for the simple reason that the verb qall قـَلَّ is على وزن فعل the two lam are equivalent of (3ein, lam) consecutively. Its being a doubled letter doesn't mean that the verb is على وزن فعّ , for when giving the morphological equivalent of any word we must فَـك الإضغام (not sure how to say in English, but let's say the عّ are 2 ع so we put them back as 2 ع before forging any form of the word.

    We don't say "aqlal" simply because it's not the usage. The usage is to generally "merge" إضغام the doubled letter. Aqlal is morphologically right, it's actually how we learned the "shadda" when we were at school, to learn that the الحرف المشدد is actually two letters in one (if I may say it this way).

    I'm not sure my explanation is clear, so please if you feel the same let me know and I'll try to give further explanation :)
    Cherine
     
  5. Jana337

    Jana337 Senior Member

    čeština
    Thanks, Cherine. :)

    I thought the rule was quite fishy. If I happen to find another reference to the same in the book, I will keep you posted. :)

    Jana
     

Share This Page

Loading...