Syrian Arabic: I was born

J

jmt356

Senior Member
الجزيرة العربية
English/U.S.
Syrian Arabic: I was born

I believe “I was born” is the same in Syrian Arabic as in MSA:
وُلِدْتُ

However, I believe I have heard it as:
خَلَقْتُ
But wouldn’t this mean “I created”?

Or perhaps what I am really hearing is the passive:
خُلِقْتُ
?
 
    • I'm not Syrian, but both are used. In Moroccan, we say "خَلَقْتُ" wich is as you said, the passive, "I have been created". Both are correct.
     
    jmt356 said:
    Syrian Arabic: I was born

    I believe “I was born” is the same in Syrian Arabic as in MSA:
    وُلِدْتُ

    However, I believe I have heard it as:
    خَلَقْتُ
    But wouldn’t this mean “I created”?

    Or perhaps what I am really hearing is the passive:
    خُلِقْتُ
    ?
    Click to expand...
    Hi
    "2na 5leqet" lit: I was created .
    "2na wledet" lit: I was born .
    They both mean the same meaning .
     
    You're right, it's the active form, but in dialects, we use it in a passive way. I'm not able to explain why... Also, the pronounciation of the dialects is very different from MSA, so it can also be the passive form pronounced like the active.
     
    Can it be that some Syrians in colloquial are being lazy with pronunciation and saying خَلَقْتُ rather than the correct, and more difficult to pronounce خُلِقْتُ, because the former (active) pronunciation comes more naturally and is thus easier to pronounce?
     
    It's not a question of "being lazy" (sorry for my English, French is my native language), it's just that no one pronounce words like in Standard Arabic. Dialects are much more simple, in term of grammar and pronounciation. So in Syrian (as in other dialects) people pronounce it "khalaqt" (or khala2t) instead of "khulaqtu" ;).

    About the pronounciation of active form, in standard Arabic, it's "khalaqtu", while in dialects, it can be:
    -khalaqt
    -khalagt
    -khala2t ("2" = ء)
     
    It's not pronounced khala2et, it's khli2et. There's no internal passive in dialect but it's also not pronounced like the active form.

    انولدت (passive) is occasionally used but far less frequent.

    وُلِدت (wulidet) would just be a full-on fuSHa form. Not impossible to hear in colloquial but not very likely in normal speech - more likely in an interview or a more structured context.
     
    analeeh said:
    It's not pronounced khala2et, it's khli2et. There's no internal passive in dialect but it's also not pronounced like the active form.

    انولدت (passive) is occasionally used but far less frequent.

    وُلِدت (wulidet) would just be a full-on fuSHa form. Not impossible to hear in colloquial but not very likely in normal speech - more likely in an interview or a more structured context.
    Click to expand...
    ْوُلِدَت?
     
    No. That would be wulidat. This e is a helping vowel breaking up the cluster of d and t. If a word beginning with a vowel follows wulidet it can be dropped: wulidt.

    It's often not very useful to write dialect with fuS7a tashkiil because there are vowel sounds for which there is no tashkiil. I suppose if you really wanted to write it you could write it ْوُلِدِت or وُلِدْتْ depending on how you want to represent the helping vowel.
     
    Hemza said:
    I'm not Syrian, but both are used. In Moroccan, we say "خَلَقْتُ" wich is as you said, the passive, "I have been created". Both are correct.
    Click to expand...

    momai said:
    Hi
    "2na 5leqet" lit: I was created .
    "2na wledet" lit: I was born .
    They both mean the same meaning .
    Click to expand...

    How would one say 'I created [something]' and 'I gave birth' in Moroccan and Syrian? Perhaps (خلّقت) and (ولّدت)?
     
    Tilmeedh said:
    How would one say 'I created [something]' and 'I gave birth' in Moroccan and Syrian? Perhaps (خلّقت) and (ولّدت)?
    Click to expand...
    خلق in Moroccan dialect (and I think this goes for other dialects as well) is specifically linked to God creation. Hence using خلق for making something would sound presumptuous. I think that for "I created something" we would say
    اخترعت (شي) حاجة جديدة
    although many people would simply use درت/عملت (to do/make)
    As for I gave birth, "ولّدت"
     
    Last edited:
    I know that this thread is a bit old, but...

    In my online Syrian Arabic program, they have "My grandmother was born in Lebanon" as "ستي خلقانة بلبنان." Is this also correct?

    (As I understand it, Syrians frequently use the active participle or an adjective ending in ان/derived from a verb [e.g. تعبان from تعب] to speak of states or emotions. خلقان would fall in the latter category, as odd as it seems in my mind to use this would-be-stative adjective to describe something in the past.)
     
    Yes, that's correct. خلقان is the participle. The participle broadly describes a state resulting from a change described by the verb.
     
    BreannaD-K said:
    I know that this thread is a bit old, but...

    In my online Syrian Arabic program, they have "My grandmother was born in Lebanon" as "ستي خلقانة بلبنان." Is this also correct?

    (As I understand it, Syrians frequently use the active participle or an adjective ending in ان/derived from a verb [e.g. تعبان from تعب] to speak of states or emotions. خلقان would fall in the latter category, as odd as it seems in my mind to use this would-be-stative adjective to describe something in the past.)
    Click to expand...
    I generally say 5al2aan خلقان when saying I was born. I used to say wildaan ولدان, but I learned that 5al2qaan is more common in Syrian.
     
    Like analeeh said, there is no internal passive in Syrian like there is in فصحى. However, one dictionary lists two internal vowel patterns in Syrian Arabic for خلق, one with the transitive meaning of "to create," and the other with the intransitive meaning of "to be created" or "to be born."

    1694292515443.png

    To me, the internal vowel changes that are occurring in this verb in the Syrian dialect look less like an internal passive along the lines of how فُعِلَ is the passive of فَعَلَ in فصحى and more like how verbs on the pattern فَعَلَ often have a transitive meaning and verbs on the pattern فَعِلَ often—and فَعُلَ always—have an intransitive meaning in فصحى.
     
    When saying that someone was born in a certain year, what's the difference in what's communicated by these options vs. by saying that someone is مواليد كذا سنة? Or is it just that it's idiomatic to use one of these terms to say *where* someone was born but to use مواليد to say when?
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top