Lesson Forty-Three

الدَّرْسُ الثَّالِثُ وَالْأَرْبَعُونَ

Chapter Four

الْبَابُ الرَّابِعُ

On Beneficial Observations

فِي الْإِفَادَاتِ النَّافِعَةِ

1. الإِقَامَةُ and الِاسْتِقَامَةُ. 2. أَبَى يَأْبَى. 3. كُلْ، خُذْ, and مُرْ. 4. لَمْ يَكُ and إِنْ يَكُ. 5. اِتَّخَذَ (تَخِذَ). 6. The originality of the verb and the verbal noun, and the derivativeness of each. 7. Deletion of wāw and yāʾ from the two masculine plural forms and the singular feminine present form.

١- الْإِقَامَةُ وَالِاسْتِقَامَةُ. ٢- أَبَى يَأْبَى. ٣- كُلْ وَخُذْ وَمُرْ. ٤- لَمْ يَكُ، وَإِنْ يَكُ. ٥- اِتَّخَذَ (تَخِذَ). ٦- أَصَالَةُ الْفِعْلِ وَالْمَصْدَرِ وَفَرْعِيَّتُهُمَا. ٧- حَذْفُ الْوَاوِ وَالْيَاءِ مِنْ جَمْعَيِ الْمُذَكَّرِ وَوَاحِدِ الْمُؤَنَّثِ الْحَاضِرِ.

Introduction: My teacher, Shaykh Muḥammad al-Barelwī, may Allah have mercy on him, was highly skilled and proficient in morphology. He would remove the irregularities alleged by morphologists by explaining the rule in an ingenious manner. I therefore wish to explain some of those observations for the benefit of beginning students.

التَّمْهِيدُ: كَانَ أُسْتَاذِي الشَّيْخُ مُحَمَّدٌ الْبَرِيلَوِيُّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ مَاهِرًا حَاذِقًا فِي الصَّرْفِ، يَدْفَعُ شُذُوذَ الصَّرْفِيِّينَ بِبَيَانِ الْقَاعِدَةِ عَلَى وَجْهٍ بَدِيعٍ، فَأُرِيدُ أَنْ أُبَيِّنَ شَيْئًا مِنْ تِلْكَ الْإِفَادَاتِ لِصَالِحِ النَّاشِئِينَ.

The First Observation: إِقَامَةٌ and اِسْتِقَامَةٌ

الْإِفَادَةُ الْأُولَى: إِقَامَةٌ وَاِسْتِقَامَةٌ

Weak-letter modification occurs in the hollow verb of the forms الْإِفْعَالُ and الِاسْتِفْعَالُ according to the rule of يَقُولُ، يَبِيعُ، يُقَالُ، يُبَاعُ (Rule 8), as in أَقَامَ، إِقَامَةً and اِسْتَقَامَ، اِسْتِقَامَةً. Sound formation also occurs, as in أَرْوَحَ، إِرْوَاحًا and اِسْتَصْوَبَ، اِسْتِصْوَابًا. Indeed, sound formation is more common than weak-letter modification, to the extent that it has been said that sound formation is a distinctive feature of the forms الْإِفْعَالُ and الِاسْتِفْعَالُ.

قَدْ وَقَعَ التَّعْلِيلُ فِي أَجْوَفِ بَابِ الْإِفْعَالِ وَالِاسْتِفْعَالِ طِبْقًا لِـ”يَقُولُ، يَبِيعُ، يُقَالُ، يُبَاعُ” (ق: ٨)، مِثْلُ: “أَقَامَ، إِقَامَةً، وَاِسْتَقَامَ، اِسْتِقَامَةً”، وَوَقَعَ “التَّصْحِيحُ” أَيْضًا، مِثْلُ: “أَرْوَحَ، إِرْوَاحًا، وَاِسْتَصْوَبَ، اِسْتِصْوَابًا”، بَلِ التَّصْحِيحُ أَكْثَرُ مِنَ التَّعْلِيلِ حَتَّى قِيلَ: إِنَّ التَّصْحِيحَ مِنْ خَوَاصِّ الْإِفْعَالِ وَالِاسْتِفْعَالِ.

Thus, because of their limited skill and their failure to explain the rule fully, some morphologists declare many words in which weak-letter modification does not occur to be irregular, including some words from these two forms.

فَبَعْضُ أَهْلِ الصَّرْفِ لِقِلَّةِ مَهَارَتِهِمْ وَلِعَدَمِ تَوْضِيحِهِمُ الْقَاعِدَةَ حَقَّ التَّوْضِيحِ قَائِلُونَ بِشُذُوذِ الْكَلِمَاتِ الْكَثِيرَةِ الَّتِي لَمْ يَقَعِ الْإِعْلَالُ فِيهَا، مِنْهَا بَعْضُ الْكَلِمَاتِ مِنْ هَذَيْنِ الْبَابَيْنِ.

As for my late teacher, he explained this rule in a manner by which irregularity disappeared entirely and all the words conformed to that rule. It is:

أَمَّا أُسْتَاذِي الْمَرْحُومُ: فَهُوَ بَيَّنَ هَذِهِ الْقَاعِدَةَ عَلَى أُسْلُوبٍ زَالَ بِهِ الشُّذُوذُ مُطْلَقًا، وَانْطَبَقَتِ الْكَلِمَاتُ كُلُّهَا عَلَى تِلْكَ الْقَاعِدَةِ، وَهِيَ:

A moving wāw or yāʾ, when preceded by a sound vowelless letter and not followed by a vowelless alif in the verbal noun, has its vowel transferred to the preceding letter when the other conditions are fulfilled. If that vowel is fatḥah, the wāw or yāʾ becomes alif (Rule 8), as in إِقَامَةٌ from إِقْوَمَةٌ, اِسْتِقَامَةٌ from اِسْتَقْوَمَةٌ, إِشَاعَةٌ from إِشْيَعَةٌ, and اِسْتِشَاعَةٌ from اِسْتَشْيَعَةٌ.

“الْوَاوُ وَالْيَاءُ الْمُتَحَرِّكَتَانِ اللَّتَانِ قَبْلَهُمَا حَرْفٌ صَحِيحٌ سَاكِنٌ، وَلَيْسَتْ بَعْدَهُمَا أَلِفٌ سَاكِنَةٌ فِي الْمَصْدَرِ، فَعِنْدَ تَحَقُّقِ الشُّرُوطِ الْأُخْرَى تُنْقَلُ حَرَكَتُهُمَا إِلَى مَا قَبْلَهُمَا، وَإِذَا كَانَتْ تِلْكَ الْحَرَكَةُ فَتْحَةً تَصِيرَانِ أَلِفًا (ق: ٨)، مِثْلُ: إِقَامَةٌ مِنْ”إِقْوَمَةٍ“، وَاِسْتِقَامَةٌ مِنْ”اِسْتَقْوَمَةٍ“، وَإِشَاعَةٌ مِنْ”إِشْيَعَةٍ“، وَاِسْتِشَاعَةٌ مِنْ”اِسْتَشْيَعَةٍ“.”

As for إِرْوَاحٌ and اِسْتِصْوَابٌ, a vowelless alif follows the wāw in each, so this rule does not apply to them. The alleged irregularity is thereby removed.

أَمَّا “إِرْوَاحٌ وَاِسْتِصْوَابٌ”، فَهُنَاكَ أَلِفٌ سَاكِنَةٌ بَعْدَهُمَا فَلَا يَجْرِي فِيهِمَا هَذَا الْقَانُونُ، فَانْدَفَعَ الشُّذُوذُ.

Note: Just as the verbal noun of these two forms occurs on the patterns إِفْعَالٌ and اِسْتِفْعَالٌ, it also occurs on the patterns إِفْعَلَةٌ and اِسْتِفْعَلَةٌ, as stated above. Examples are إِقَامَةٌ and اِسْتِقَامَةٌ, whose original forms are إِقْوَمَةٌ and اِسْتَقْوَمَةٌ. Likewise, all verbal nouns of weak hollow verbs from these two forms occur on these two patterns.

تَنْبِيهٌ: مَصْدَرُ هَذَيْنِ الْبَابَيْنِ كَمَا يَأْتِي عَلَى وَزْنِ “إِفْعَالٍ وَاِسْتِفْعَالٍ”، هَكَذَا يَأْتِي عَلَى وَزْنِ “إِفْعَلَةٍ وَاِسْتِفْعَلَةٍ” أَيْضًا كَمَا مَضَى آنِفًا، مِثْلُ: “إِقَامَةٌ وَاِسْتِقَامَةٌ” أَصْلُهُمَا: إِقْوَمَةٌ وَاِسْتَقْوَمَةٌ، وَهَكَذَا جَمِيعُ مَصَادِرِ الْأَفْعَالِ الْمُعَلَّةِ مِنَ الْأَجْوَفِ مِنْ هَذَيْنِ الْبَابَيْنِ تَأْتِي عَلَى هَذَيْنِ الْوَزْنَيْنِ.

These two patterns are particular to the hollow verb, but the hollow verb is not confined to them. It also occurs on the patterns إِفْعَالٌ and اِسْتِفْعَالٌ, as in إِرْوَاحٌ and اِسْتِصْوَابٌ. Similarly, the pattern فُعَلٌ, as a verbal noun of the unaugmented triliteral verb, is particular to the defective verb, as in هُدًى, originally هَدْيٌ, and is not found elsewhere. Yet the defective verb is not confined to it; it also occurs on other patterns, as in الدَّعْوَةُ، الْخَشْيَةُ, and الْبُكَاءُ.

وَهَذَانِ الْوَزْنَانِ خَاصَّانِ بِالْأَجْوَفِ، وَلَكِنَّ الْأَجْوَفَ لَا يَخْتَصُّ بِهِمَا بَلْ هُوَ يَأْتِي عَلَى وَزْنِ “إِفْعَالٍ وَاِسْتِفْعَالٍ” أَيْضًا، مِثْلُ: إِرْوَاحٌ وَاِسْتِصْوَابٌ، كَمَا أَنَّ وَزْنَ “فُعَلٍ” مَصْدَرُ الثُّلَاثِيِّ الْمُجَرَّدِ مُخْتَصٌّ بِالنَّاقِصِ، مِثْلُ: “هُدًى” أَصْلُهُ هَدْيٌ، وَلَا يُوجَدُ فِي غَيْرِهِ، وَالنَّاقِصُ لَيْسَ بِمُخْتَصٍّ بِهِ، بَلْ هُوَ يَأْتِي عَلَى أَوْزَانٍ أُخْرَى أَيْضًا، مِثْلُ: “الدَّعْوَةُ وَالْخَشْيَةُ وَالْبُكَاءُ”.

In summary, the hollow verb from these two forms sometimes undergoes weak-letter modification, as in إِقَامَةٌ، اِسْتِقَامَةٌ، إِبَانَةٌ, and اِسْتِبَانَةٌ, and sometimes remains sound, as in إِرْوَاحٌ، اِسْتِصْوَابٌ، إِحْيَاءٌ, and اِسْتِحْيَاءٌ. The first group was modified because no alif follows the wāw or yāʾ in the verbal noun, while the second was not modified because an alif follows the wāw or yāʾ in the verbal noun. Both conform to the rule; thus no word falls outside it and no irregularity is required.

فَالْحَاصِلُ: أَنَّ الْأَجْوَفَ مِنْ هَذَيْنِ الْبَابَيْنِ قَدْ يَأْتِي مُعَلًّا، مِثْلُ: إِقَامَةٌ وَاِسْتِقَامَةٌ وَإِبَانَةٌ وَاِسْتِبَانَةٌ، وَقَدْ يَأْتِي مُصَحَّحًا، مِثْلُ: إِرْوَاحٌ وَاِسْتِصْوَابٌ وَإِحْيَاءٌ وَاِسْتِحْيَاءٌ، فَأُعِلَّ الْقِسْمُ الْأَوَّلُ؛ لِعَدَمِ الْأَلِفِ بَعْدَ الْوَاوِ وَالْيَاءِ فِي الْمَصْدَرِ، وَلَمْ يُعَلَّ الْقِسْمُ الثَّانِي؛ لِوُجُودِ الْأَلِفِ بَعْدَ الْوَاوِ وَالْيَاءِ فِي الْمَصْدَرِ، وَكِلَاهُمَا بِحَسَبِ الْقَاعِدَةِ، فَلَمْ تَخْرُجْ أَيَّةُ كَلِمَةٍ مِنَ الْقَاعِدَةِ وَلَمْ يَلْزَمِ الشُّذُوذُ.

Question: You have made the verb the basis in weak-letter modification and the verbal noun a derivative, as is understood from قَامَ، قِيَامًا، قَوَامًا (Rule 13). Here the reverse follows, because the verb has become dependent on the verbal noun in weak-letter modification.

سُؤَالٌ: إِنَّكُمْ جَعَلْتُمُ الْفِعْلَ أَصْلًا فِي الْإِعْلَالِ وَالْمَصْدَرَ فَرْعًا، كَمَا يُفْهَمُ فِي “قَامَ، قِيَامًا، قَوَامًا” (ق: ١٣)، وَهُنَا يَلْزَمُ عَكْسُهُ: بِأَنَّ الْفِعْلَ صَارَ تَابِعًا لِلْمَصْدَرِ فِي الْإِعْلَالِ.

Answer: The claim of originality and derivativeness in weak-letter modification is extremely weak. The basis in weak-letter modification and other rulings is consideration of uniformity in the ruling of a conjugational class across all its forms, so that correspondence among the forms is not lost. When we find in one form a strong cause for weak-letter modification, we apply it to all the forms; and when we find in one form a strong cause for sound formation, we judge all the forms to be sound.

جَوَابٌ: الْأَصَالَةُ وَالْفَرْعِيَّةُ فِي الْإِعْلَالِ كَلَامٌ ضَعِيفٌ جِدًّا، وَالْأَصْلُ فِي الْإِعْلَالِ وَغَيْرِهِ مِنَ الْأَحْكَامِ: “هُوَ الْمُرَاعَاةُ لِوَحْدَةِ حُكْمِ الْبَابِ فِي جَمِيعِ الصِّيَغِ؛ لِئَلَّا تَفُوتَ الْمُنَاسَبَةُ بَيْنَ الصِّيَغِ، فَإِذَا رَأَيْنَا سَبَبًا قَوِيًّا لِلْإِعْلَالِ فِي صِيغَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ، أَجْرَيْنَاهُ فِي الْجَمِيعِ، وَإِذَا رَأَيْنَا سَبَبًا قَوِيًّا لِلتَّصْحِيحِ فِي صِيغَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ نَحْكُمُ بِالتَّصْحِيحِ عَلَى جَمِيعِ الصِّيَغِ”.

As for considering whether the cause occurs in the basis or in the derivative, that is never taken into account. For example, the occurrence of wāw between yāʾ and kasrah is heavy and requires deletion of the wāw. Hence the wāw was deleted in يَعِدُ, and it was deleted in the other forms to maintain correspondence among all the forms. Likewise, the meeting of two additional hamzahs at the beginning of the first-person present form, أَأَكْرَمُ, is heavy and requires deletion of the second hamzah. Because of that heaviness it was deleted from أَأَكْرَمُ, and then it was deleted from all the other forms solely for correspondence, even though the cause of deletion is not found in them. This does not involve considering يَعِدُ to be the basis and the other forms derivatives, or أَأَكْرَمُ to be the basis and the other forms derivatives. Otherwise, if the third-person form يَعِدُ were the basis, يُكْرِمُ could not follow أَكْرَمَ in the loss of the hamzah; and if the first-person form أَأَكْرَمُ were made the basis, أَعِدُ could not follow يَعِدُ in the loss of the wāw.

وَأَمَّا رِعَايَةُ هَذَا الْمَعْنَى بِأَنَّ السَّبَبَ وُجِدَ فِي الْأَصْلِ أَوْ فِي الْفَرْعِ، فَلَيْسَ بِمَلْحُوظٍ أَبَدًا، مَثَلًا: وُقُوعُ الْوَاوِ بَيْنَ الْيَاءِ وَالْكَسْرَةِ ثَقِيلٌ وَهُوَ يَقْتَضِي حَذْفَ الْوَاوِ، فَلِذَا حُذِفَتِ الْوَاوُ فِي “يَعِدُ”، وَحُذِفَتْ فِي الْأُخْرَى؛ لِلْمُنَاسَبَةِ بَيْنَ الصِّيَغِ كُلِّهَا، وَهَكَذَا اجْتِمَاعُ الْهَمْزَتَيْنِ الزَّائِدَتَيْنِ فِي أَوَّلِ صِيغَةِ الْمُضَارِعِ - أَأَكْرَمُ - ثَقِيلٌ يَقْتَضِي حَذْفَ الْهَمْزَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ، فَلِأَجْلِ الثِّقَلِ حُذِفَتْ مِنْ “أَأَكْرَمُ”، ثُمَّ حُذِفَتْ مِنَ الْجَمِيعِ لِلْمُنَاسَبَةِ فَقَطْ، وَإِنْ لَمْ تُوجَدْ عِلَّةُ الْحَذْفِ فِيهَا، بِدُونِ مُلَاحَظَةِ هَذَا الْمَعْنَى أَنَّ “يَعِدُ” أَصْلٌ وَغَيْرَهَا فَرْعٌ، أَوْ “أَأَكْرَمُ” أَصْلٌ وَالصِّيَغُ الْأُخْرَى فَرْعٌ، وَإِلَّا لَوْ كَانَ الْغَائِبُ - يَعِدُ - أَصْلًا فَلَا يَصِحُّ اتِّبَاعُ “يُكْرِمُ” لِـ”أَكْرَمَ” فِي سُقُوطِ الْهَمْزَةِ، وَلَوْ جُعِلَ الْمُتَكَلِّمُ - أَأَكْرَمُ - أَصْلًا، فَلَا يَجُوزُ اتِّبَاعُ “أَعِدُ” لِـ”يَعِدُ” فِي سُقُوطِ الْوَاوِ.

Question: It is clear from this explanation that the rule operates originally in يَعِدُ and that the other forms follow it. Yet in the rule of يَعِدُ and يَهَبُ (Rule 1), you explained that the rule should be stated as follows: ‘Every wāw that occurs between the present-tense prefix and kasrah or fatḥah …’ It should not be stated as: ‘Every wāw that occurs between a yāʾ bearing fatḥah and fatḥah or kasrah,’ because this is needless lengthening. Is there not a contradiction between your two statements?

سُؤَالٌ: اتَّضَحَ مِنْ هَذَا الْبَيَانِ أَنَّ الْقَانُونَ جَرَى فِي “يَعِدُ” أَصْلًا؛ وَالصِّيَغُ الْأُخْرَى تَابِعَةٌ لَهَا، مَعَ أَنَّكُمْ بَيَّنْتُمْ فِي قَاعِدَةِ “يَعِدُ وَيَهَبُ” (ق: ١) أَنَّهُ يَنْبَغِي بَيَانُ الْقَاعِدَةِ هَكَذَا: “كُلُّ وَاوٍ وَقَعَتْ بَيْنَ عَلَامَةِ الْمُضَارِعِ وَالْكَسْرَةِ أَوِ الْفَتْحَةِ… إِلَخْ”، وَلَا يَنْبَغِي الْبَيَانُ هَكَذَا: “أَنَّ كُلَّ وَاوٍ وَقَعَتْ بَيْنَ الْيَاءِ الْمَفْتُوحَةِ وَالْفَتْحَةِ أَوِ الْكَسْرَةِ”؛ لِأَنَّهُ تَطْوِيلٌ بِدُونِ فَائِدَةٍ، فَهَذَا تَنَاقُضٌ بَيْنَ عِبَارَتَيْكُمْ؟

Answer: In explaining rules there are two aspects. The first is stating the rule, and the second is explaining the subtle point and the reason for the rule’s ruling. In the first aspect, a universal statement encompassing all the particulars is necessary. In the second, that rule is explained by showing that it is found in a particular form in a particular manner or for a particular reason, and that the other forms were made to follow it. Giving that explanation in the first aspect would cause diffuseness. For this reason, critical scholars first state rules universally and comprehensively, then explain them with conditions, qualifications, and subtle points, as you see in الْفُصُولُ الْأَكْبَرِيَّةُ, الْأُصُولُ الْأَكْبَرِيَّةُ, and the other works of accomplished scholars. The question of originality and derivativeness between the verbal noun and the verb will be discussed in detail in this chapter according to the observations of my teacher, may Allah have mercy on him.

جَوَابٌ: فِي بَيَانِ الْقَوَاعِدِ تَكُونُ جِهَتَانِ: إِحْدَاهُمَا: بَيَانُ الْقَاعِدَةِ، وَثَانِيَتُهُمَا: بَيَانُ النُّكْتَةِ وَسَبَبِ حُكْمِ الْقَاعِدَةِ، فَفِي الْجِهَةِ الْأُولَى لَا بُدَّ مِنْ كَلَامٍ كُلِّيٍّ شَامِلٍ لِجَمِيعِ الْجُزْئِيَّاتِ، وَفِي الْجِهَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ شَرْحُ ذَلِكَ الْقَانُونِ: بِأَنَّ الْقَانُونَ وُجِدَ فِي صِيغَةِ كَذَا عَلَى طَرِيقِ كَذَا أَوْ لِسَبَبِ كَذَا، وَجُعِلَتِ الصِّيَغُ الْأُخْرَى تَابِعَةً لَهَا، وَيَكُونُ الشَّرْحُ فِي الْجِهَةِ الْأُولَى مُوجِبًا لِلِانْتِشَارِ، وَلِهَذَا يُبَيِّنُ الْمُحَقِّقُونَ الْقَوَاعِدَ أَوَّلًا بَيَانًا كُلِّيًّا شَامِلًا، ثُمَّ يَشْرَحُونَهَا بِشُرُوطٍ وَقُيُودٍ وَنُكَتٍ كَمَا تَرَى فِي “الْفُصُولِ الْأَكْبَرِيَّةِ، وَالْأُصُولِ الْأَكْبَرِيَّةِ” وَسَائِرِ كُتُبِ أُولِي التَّحْقِيقِ، وَبَيَانُ الْأَصَالَةِ وَالْفَرْعِيَّةِ بَيْنَ الْمَصْدَرِ وَالْفِعْلِ سَيَأْتِي فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ مُفَصَّلًا حَسَبَ إِفَادَاتِ أُسْتَاذِي رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ.

The Second Observation: أَبَى يَأْبَى

الْإِفَادَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ: أَبَى يَأْبَى

أَبَى يَأْبَى occurs in the class فَتَحَ يَفْتَحُ even though neither its middle radical nor its final radical is one of the guttural letters. Morphologists therefore said that it is irregular. The same applies to قَلَى يَقْلَى, عَضَّ يَعَضُّ, and, in some dialects, بَقِيَ يَبْقَى.

قَدْ جَاءَ “أَبَى يَأْبَى” مِنْ “فَتَحَ يَفْتَحُ”؛ مَعَ أَنَّ عَيْنَهُ أَوْ لَامَهُ لَيْسَتْ مِنَ الْأَحْرُفِ الْحَلْقِيَّةِ، فَقَالُوا: إِنَّهُ شَاذٌّ، وَهَكَذَا “قَلَى يَقْلَى” وَ“عَضَّ يَعَضُّ” وَ“بَقِيَ يَبْقَى” فِي بَعْضِ اللُّغَاتِ.

But the teacher said that the rule is as follows: Every sound word that comes from فَتَحَ يَفْتَحُ must have either its middle radical or its final radical as a guttural letter. He added the qualification ‘sound’ to it, and the alleged irregularity was thereby removed, because some of the words mentioned are defective verbs and others are doubled verbs.

لَكِنْ قَالَ الْأُسْتَاذُ: الْقَانُونُ هَكَذَا: “إِنَّ كُلَّ كَلِمَةٍ صَحِيحَةٍ تَأْتِي مِنْ فَتَحَ يَفْتَحُ لَا بُدَّ أَنْ تَكُونَ عَيْنُهَا أَوْ لَامُهَا حَرْفًا حَلْقِيًّا”، زَادَ فِيهَا قَيْدَ “صَحِيحَةٍ”، فَانْدَفَعَ الشُّذُوذُ؛ لِأَنَّ بَعْضَ هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَاتِ الْمَذْكُورَةِ مِنَ النَّاقِصِ وَبَعْضَهَا مِنَ الْمُضَاعَفِ.

As for رَكَنَ يَرْكَنُ, it arises from overlap between two conjugational classes; that is, its past tense is from نَصَرَ and its present tense is from سَمِعَ.

وَأَمَّا “رَكَنَ يَرْكَنُ” فَهُوَ مِنَ التَّدَاخُلِ، أَعْنِي: مَاضِيَهُ مِنْ “نَصَرَ” وَمُضَارِعَهُ مِنْ “سَمِعَ”.