Lesson Forty-Four

الدَّرْسُ الرَّابِعُ وَالْأَرْبَعُونَ

The Third Observation: كُلْ، خُذْ, and مُرْ

الْإِفَادَةُ الثَّالِثَةُ: كُلْ، وَخُذْ، وَمُرْ

They said: The deletion of the two hamzahs in كُلْ، خُذْ, and مُرْ is irregular under the rule of أُومِنَ.

قَالُوا: إِنَّ حَذْفَ الْهَمْزَتَيْنِ فِي “كُلْ وَخُذْ وَمُرْ” شَاذٌّ مِنْ قَاعِدَةِ “أُومِنَ”.

The teacher said: Metathesis has occurred in these forms. They placed the first radical in the position of the middle radical and the middle radical in the position of the first radical. Thus الْكُولُ came from الْأَكْلُ, الْخُوذُ from الْأَخْذُ, and الْمُورُ from الْأَمْرُ. The second hamzah was then deleted according to the rule of يَسْأَلُ (Rule 7), and the first hamzah was dispensed with because it was no longer needed.

قَالَ الْأُسْتَاذُ: إِنَّ فِي هَذِهِ الصِّيَغِ وَقَعَ قَلْبٌ مَكَانِيٌّ بِأَنْ وَضَعُوا الْفَاءَ مَكَانَ الْعَيْنِ وَالْعَيْنَ مَكَانَ الْفَاءِ، فَصَارَتِ “الْكُولُ” مِنَ “الْأَكْلِ”، وَ“الْخُوذُ” مِنَ “الْأَخْذِ”، وَ“الْمُورُ” مِنَ “الْأَمْرِ”، فَحُذِفَتِ الْهَمْزَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ وَفْقًا لِـ”يَسْأَلُ” (ق: ٧)، وَالْهَمْزَةُ الْأُولَى اسْتِغْنَاءً عَنْهَا.

Question: The rule of يَسْأَلُ is permissive, whereas deletion in كُلْ، خُذْ, and مُرْ is obligatory?

سُؤَالٌ: قَاعِدَةُ “يَسْأَلُ” جَوَازِيَّةٌ وَالْحَذْفُ فِي “كُلْ، وَخُذْ، وَمُرْ” وُجُوبِيٌّ؟

Answer: We state the rule as follows: Every moving hamzah that occurs after a vowelless letter other than an added long-vowel letter or the yāʾ of the diminutive may have its vowel transferred to the preceding letter, after which it is obligatorily deleted. If, however, it follows a letter made vowelless through transposition or occurs in a verb of the heart, the transfer is obligatory. Hamzah was therefore obligatorily deleted in verbs of seeing and in these three forms, while it was not deleted in nouns of seeing, all according to the rule of يَسْأَلُ (Rule 7).

جَوَابٌ: إِنَّمَا نُبَيِّنُ الْقَاعِدَةَ هَكَذَا: “كُلُّ هَمْزَةٍ مُتَحَرِّكَةٍ إِذَا وَقَعَتْ بَعْدَ سَاكِنٍ غَيْرِ مَدَّةٍ زَائِدَةٍ وَيَاءِ التَّصْغِيرِ تُنْقَلُ حَرَكَتُهَا إِلَى مَا قَبْلَهَا جَوَازًا ثُمَّ تُحْذَفُ وُجُوبًا، إِلَّا إِذَا كَانَتْ بَعْدَ سَاكِنٍ مُقْلَبٍ أَوْ فِي فِعْلٍ مِنْ أَفْعَالِ الْقُلُوبِ فَوُجُوبًا”، فَوَجَبَ حَذْفُ الْهَمْزَةِ فِي أَفْعَالِ الرُّؤْيَةِ وَفِي هَذِهِ الصِّيَغِ الثَّلَاثَةِ، وَعَدَمُ حَذْفِهَا فِي أَسْمَاءِ الرُّؤْيَةِ، كُلُّهَا بِحَسَبِ قَاعِدَةِ “يَسْأَلُ” (ق: ٧).

As for مُرْ, both metathesis and the absence of metathesis may be assumed. If metathesis is assumed, the hamzah is obligatorily deleted; for this reason اُمْؤُرْ never occurs. If metathesis is not assumed, the permissive rule of يَسْأَلُ does not apply to it, so deletion is neither obligatory nor permissible. The rule of أُومِنَ then applies, changing the hamzah to wāw and producing the verb أُومُرْ.

وَأَمَّا “مُرْ” فَيَجُوزُ فِيهَا الْقَلْبُ وَعَدَمُ الْقَلْبِ كِلَاهُمَا، فَعَلَى تَقْدِيرِ الْقَلْبِ تُحْذَفُ الْهَمْزَةُ وُجُوبًا، وَلِهَذَا لَمْ يَأْتِ “اُمْؤُرْ” قَطُّ، وَعَلَى تَقْدِيرِ عَدَمِ الْقَلْبِ لَا يَنْطَبِقُ عَلَيْهَا قَانُونُ “يَسْأَلُ” الْجَوَازِيُّ، فَلَا يَكُونُ الْحَذْفُ لَا وُجُوبًا وَلَا جَوَازًا، نَعَمْ يُوَاجِهُهَا هُنَاكَ قَانُونُ “أُومِنَ” فَتُبْدَلُ بِالْوَاوِ فَيَصِيرُ الْفِعْلُ “أُومُرْ”،

Metathesis occurs frequently in the speech of the Arabs:

وَالْقَلْبُ الْمَكَانِيُّ يَقَعُ فِي كَلَامِ الْعَرَبِ كَثِيرًا:

1. Sometimes the first radical is placed in the position of the middle radical and the middle radical in the position of the first radical, as in آدُرٌ from أَدْؤُرٌ. Its original form was أَدْوُرٌ, the plural of دَارٌ. The wāw became hamzah according to the rule of وُجُوهٌ. The hamzah was then moved backward from the position of the middle radical to that of the first radical, producing أَأْدُرٌ. The second hamzah was then changed to alif according to the rule of آمَنَ, producing آدُرٌ on the pattern أَعْفُلٌ.

١- أَحْيَانًا بِوَضْعِ الْفَاءِ مَكَانَ الْعَيْنِ وَالْعَيْنِ مَكَانَ الْفَاءِ، مِثْلُ: “آدُرٌ” مِنْ “أَدْؤُرٍ”، كَانَ فِي الْأَصْلِ “أَدْوُرٌ” جَمْعَ دَارٍ، فَتَبَدَّلَتِ الْوَاوُ هَمْزَةً طِبْقًا لِقَاعِدَةِ “وُجُوهٍ”، ثُمَّ قَهْقَرَتِ الْهَمْزَةُ مِنْ مَكَانِ الْعَيْنِ إِلَى مَكَانِ الْفَاءِ، فَصَارَ “أَأْدُرٌ”، ثُمَّ قُلِبَتِ الْهَمْزَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ أَلِفًا طِبْقًا لِقَانُونِ “آمَنَ”، فَصَارَ “آدُرٌ” عَلَى وَزْنِ أَعْفُلٍ.

2. They sometimes place the middle radical in the position of the final radical and the final radical in the position of the middle radical, as in قِسِيٌّ from قُوُوسٌ, the plural of قَوْسٌ. They placed the sīn in the position of the wāw and the wāw in the position of the sīn, producing قُسُوٌّ. It then became قِسِيٌّ according to the rule of دُلِيٌّ (Rule 15).

٢- إِنَّهُمْ يَضَعُونَ الْعَيْنَ مَكَانَ اللَّامِ وَاللَّامَ مَكَانَ الْعَيْنِ، مِثْلُ: “قِسِيٌّ” مِنْ “قُوُوسٍ” جَمْعِ قَوْسٍ، فَجَعَلُوا السِّينَ مَكَانَ الْوَاوِ، وَالْوَاوَ مَكَانَ السِّينِ فَصَارَ “قُسُوٌّ”، ثُمَّ صَارَ “قِسِيٌّ” طِبْقًا لِقَاعِدَةِ “دُلِيٍّ” (ق: ١٥).

3. They transfer the final radical to the position of the first radical, the first radical to that of the middle radical, and the middle radical to that of the final radical. An example is أَشْيَاءُ on the pattern لَفْعَاءُ. Its original form was شَيْئَاءُ on the pattern فَعْلَاءُ, as the plural of شَيْءٌ, like نَعْمَاءُ as the plural of نِعْمَةٌ.

٣- يَنْقُلُونَ لَامَ الْكَلِمَةِ إِلَى الْفَاءِ، وَالْفَاءَ إِلَى الْعَيْنِ، وَالْعَيْنَ مَكَانَ اللَّامِ، مِثْلُ: أَشْيَاءُ عَلَى وَزْنِ لَفْعَاءَ، كَانَ فِي الْأَصْلِ “شَيْئَاءُ” عَلَى وَزْنِ فَعْلَاءَ جَمْعِ شَيْءٍ، مِثْلُ: “نَعْمَاءُ” جَمْعِ نِعْمَةٍ.

It is not valid to place أَشْيَاءُ on the pattern أَفْعَالٌ because it is diptotic. If it were accepted as being on the pattern أَفْعَالٌ, أَشْيَاءُ would have to be diptotic without a cause. They therefore said that its original form was شَيْئَاءُ on the pattern فَعْلَاءُ. The extended alif is a cause that stands in place of two causes. After metathesis it became أَشْيَاءُ on the pattern لَفْعَاءُ.

وَلَا يَصِحُّ أَنْ يَكُونَ “أَشْيَاءُ” عَلَى وَزْنِ “أَفْعَالٍ”؛ لِأَنَّهُ غَيْرُ مُنْصَرِفٍ، فَإِنْ سُلِّمَ كَوْنُهُ عَلَى وَزْنِ “أَفْعَالٍ” يَلْزَمُ أَنْ يَكُونَ “أَشْيَاءُ” غَيْرَ مُنْصَرِفٍ بِدُونِ سَبَبٍ، فَلِذَا قَالُوا: أَصْلُهُ “شَيْئَاءُ” عَلَى وَزْنِ فَعْلَاءَ، وَالْأَلِفُ الْمَمْدُودَةُ سَبَبٌ قَائِمٌ مَقَامَ السَّبَبَيْنِ، وَبَعْدَ الْقَلْبِ صَارَ “أَشْيَاءُ” عَلَى وَزْنِ “لَفْعَاءَ”.

Rule for Recognizing Metathesis

ضَابِطَةُ مَعْرِفَةِ الْقَلْبِ الْمَكَانِيِّ

Metathesis is recognized in two ways:

إِنَّ الْقَلْبَ الْمَكَانِيَّ يُعْرَفُ مِنْ وَجْهَيْنِ:

1. Metathesis may be recognized through careful examination of related derived words belonging to the same family. Thus آدُرٌ is recognized through its singular دَارٌ, its plural دُورٌ, and its diminutive دُوَيْرَةٌ, showing that the middle radical moved from its position to that of the first radical. Likewise, قِسِيٌّ is recognized through its singular قَوْسٌ and its verbal noun تَقَوُّسٌ, showing that its original form was قُوُوسٌ and that the final radical moved from its position to that of the middle radical.

١- قَدْ يُعْلَمُ الْقَلْبُ بِإِمْعَانِ النَّظَرِ فِي الْكَلِمَاتِ الِاشْتِقَاقِيَّةِ الْمُتَجَانِسَةِ لِتِلْكَ الْكَلِمَةِ، مِثْلُ: “آدُرٌ” يُعْرَفُ مِنْ وَاحِدِهِ “دَارٌ”، وَجَمْعِهِ “دُورٌ”، وَتَصْغِيرِهِ “دُوَيْرَةٌ” بِأَنَّ الْعَيْنَ انْتَقَلَتْ مِنْ مَكَانِهَا إِلَى مَكَانِ الْفَاءِ، وَهَكَذَا “قِسِيٌّ” يُعْرَفُ مِنْ وَاحِدِهِ “قَوْسٌ”، وَمَصْدَرِهِ “تَقَوُّسٌ” بِأَنَّ أَصْلَهُ كَانَ “قُوُوسٌ”، فَاللَّامُ انْتَقَلَتْ مِنْ مَكَانِهَا إِلَى مَكَانِ الْعَيْنِ.

2. Metathesis is also recognized when failure to assume it would produce a defect in the word. Examples include declaring a word diptotic without a cause, as is apparent in أَشْيَاءُ, or having to declare a form irregular, as with خُذْ and مُرْ. Weakening a hamzah or applying weak-letter modification without a cause is contrary to analogy, just as making a word diptotic without a cause is contrary to analogy and requires metathesis to be assumed.

٢- وَهَكَذَا يُعْرَفُ الْقَلْبُ مِنْ أَنَّهُ لَوْ لَمْ يُعْتَبَرْ بِهِ يَلْزَمُ الْخَلَلُ فِي الْكَلِمَةِ، مِثْلُ: الْقَوْلِ بِمَنْعِ الصَّرْفِ بِدُونِ السَّبَبِ كَمَا هُوَ ظَاهِرٌ مِنْ “أَشْيَاءَ”، أَوْ يَلْزَمُ الْقَوْلُ بِالشُّذُوذِ، كَمَا فِي “خُذْ وَمُرْ”؛ لِأَنَّ تَخْفِيفَ الْهَمْزَةِ أَوِ الْإِعْلَالَ بِدُونِ عِلَّةٍ خِلَافُ الْقِيَاسِ، كَمَا أَنَّ الْمَمْنُوعَ مِنَ الصَّرْفِ بِدُونِ سَبَبٍ خِلَافُ الْقِيَاسِ وَمُقْتَضٍ لِتَقْدِيرِ الْقَلْبِ.

The Fourth Observation: لَمْ يَكُنْ and إِنْ يَكُنْ

الْإِفَادَةُ الرَّابِعَةُ: لَمْ يَكُنْ، وَإِنْ يَكُنْ

Sometimes the nūn is deleted from لَمْ يَكُنْ and إِنْ يَكُنْ, producing لَمْ يَكُ and إِنْ يَكُ. They therefore said that this deletion is irregular.

تَارَةً تُحْذَفُ النُّونُ مِنْ “لَمْ يَكُنْ” وَ“إِنْ يَكُنْ” فَيَصِيرُ الْفِعْلُ “لَمْ يَكُ” وَ“إِنْ يَكُ”. فَقَالُوا إِنَّ هَذَا الْحَذْفَ شَاذٌّ.

But the teacher said: This is not irregular; rather, it has a rule: Every nūn occurring at the end of a defective verb may be deleted when a jussive particle enters upon it. Although this rule is confined to one individual instance, namely the word كَانَ alone, the confinement of a universal rule to one individual does not harm its universality. The failure of some particulars to follow a universal ruling, however, is certainly harmful.

وَلَكِنْ قَالَ الْأُسْتَاذُ: إِنَّ هَذَا لَيْسَ بِشَاذٍّ بَلْ لَهُ قَانُونٌ، وَهُوَ: “أَنَّ كُلَّ نُونٍ وَاقِعَةٍ فِي آخِرِ الْفِعْلِ النَّاقِصِ يَجُوزُ حَذْفُهَا حِينَ دُخُولِ الْجَوَازِمِ عَلَيْهَا”، مَعَ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْقَاعِدَةَ مُنْحَصِرَةٌ فِي فَرْدٍ وَاحِدٍ أَيْ: فِي كَلِمَةِ “كَانَ” فَقَطْ، وَلَكِنِ انْحِصَارُ الْكُلِّيَّةِ فِي فَرْدٍ وَاحِدٍ لَيْسَ بِمُضِرٍّ، نَعَمْ تَخَلُّفُ بَعْضِ الْجُزْئِيَّاتِ عَنِ الْحُكْمِ الْكُلِّيِّ مُضِرٌّ حَتْمًا.

An analogue of what we have stated is the view of some critical scholars concerning the expression اللَّهُ: its hamzah remains with a vocative particle, as in يَا اللَّهُ. They state the rule as follows: Every divine name in which alif and lām occur in place of a hamzah has its hamzah become a hamzat al-qaṭʿ when a vocative particle enters upon it. It is known that this universal rule is confined to one particular instance, namely the majestic name اللَّهُ. It is therefore established that the confinement of a universal rule to one particular instance is not harmful. Further discussions of this matter are given in the extensive works.

وَنَظِيرُ مَا قُلْنَا: قَوْلُ بَعْضِ الْمُحَقِّقِينَ فِي لَفْظِ “اللَّهِ”: إِنَّهُ تَبْقَى فِيهِ الْهَمْزَةُ مَعَ حَرْفِ النِّدَاءِ، مِثْلُ: “يَا اللَّهُ”، فَإِنَّهُمْ ذَكَرُوا الْقَانُونَ هَكَذَا: “أَنَّ كُلَّ اسْمٍ مِنَ الْأَسْمَاءِ الْإِلَهِيَّةِ إِذَا جَاءَتْ فِيهِ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ عِوَضًا عَنْ هَمْزَةٍ، تَصِيرُ هَمْزَتُهُ قَطْعِيَّةً حِينَ دُخُولِ حَرْفِ النِّدَاءِ عَلَيْهِ”، وَمَعْلُومٌ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْكُلِّيَّةَ مُنْحَصِرَةٌ فِي جُزْئِيَّةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ، وَهُوَ اسْمُ الْجَلَالَةِ - اللَّهُ -، فَثَبَتَ أَنَّ انْحِصَارَ الْكُلِّيَّةِ فِي جُزْئِيَّةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ لَيْسَ بِمُضِرٍّ، وَفِيهِ أَبْحَاثٌ ذُكِرَتْ فِي الْمُطَوَّلَاتِ.

The Fifth Observation: اِتَّخَذَ

الْإِفَادَةُ الْخَامِسَةُ: اِتَّخَذَ

When the first radical of الِافْتِعَالُ is a yāʾ substituted for hamzah, it does not become tāʾ and is not assimilated into the other tāʾ, as in إِيتَكَلَ and إِيتَمَرَ. In اِتَّخَذَ, however, whose apparent original form is اِئْتَخَذَ, the yāʾ was changed to tāʾ and assimilated into the tāʾ of الِافْتِعَالُ even though the yāʾ had been substituted for hamzah. They therefore said that it is irregular.

إِذَا كَانَتْ فَاءُ الِافْتِعَالِ يَاءً مُبْدَلَةً مِنَ الْهَمْزَةِ فَهِيَ لَا تَصِيرُ تَاءً وَلَا تُدْغَمُ فِي الْأُخْرَى، مِثْلُ: إِيتَكَلَ وَإِيتَمَرَ، وَلَكِنْ فِي “اِتَّخَذَ” أَصْلُهُ اِئْتَخَذَ. قُلِبَتِ الْيَاءُ تَاءً وَأُدْغِمَتْ فِي تَاءِ الِافْتِعَالِ، رَغْمَ أَنَّ الْيَاءَ مُبْدَلَةٌ مِنَ الْهَمْزَةِ، لِذَا قَالُوا: إِنَّهُ شَاذٌّ.

The teacher says: The tāʾ in اِتَّخَذَ is radical because its unaugmented verb is تَخِذَ يَتْخَذُ, not أَخَذَ يَأْخُذُ. Its meaning is indeed أَخَذَ, as al-Bayḍāwī explicitly stated. Thus اِتَّخَذَ is like اِتَّبَعَ from تَبِعَ, and its tāʾ is radical.

وَالْأُسْتَاذُ يَقُولُ: إِنَّ التَّاءَ فِي “اِتَّخَذَ” أَصْلِيَّةٌ؛ لِأَنَّ مُجَرَّدَهُ “تَخِذَ يَتْخَذُ”، وَلَيْسَ “أَخَذَ يَأْخُذُ”، نَعَمْ، مَعْنَاهُ: أَخَذَ، كَمَا صَرَّحَ بِهِ الْبَيْضَاوِيُّ، فَـ”اِتَّخَذَ” مِثْلُ: “اِتَّبَعَ” مِنْ “تَبِعَ”، وَتَاؤُهُ أَصْلِيَّةٌ.