Re: questions about Arabic

In a message dated 3/20/01 2:50:07 AM, christophe.grandsire@FREE.FR writes:

<< Not exactly. The shaddah marks a double consonnant, so a more exact

transliteration would be kawwana. It is the derived form number 2 (there are 9

of them, numbered from 2 to 10) of the root KWN (the derived form n°2 is
simply

made by doubling the second consonnant, and is regularly formed this way even

with irregular verbs) and means according to my book "to form, to compose".
This

looks quite correct knowing that the main meanings of the derived form n°2 is

intensification or repetition of the action, or factitive ("to compose" looks

quite correct as factitive of "to be", doesn't it?). But part of your point

remains, since kawwana: to compose is indeed derived from kâna: to be (or
rather

they both derive from the same root, since for Arabic grammarians the simple

verb derived from a root is considered to be the form n°1 - that's why derived

forms are numbered from 2 to 10 -). >>

I know.

<<Still, sometimes the alif can mark an /i/ (in the beginning of words like
ibn:

son, written alif-baa-nûn), but that's probably splitting hair in four :) .>>

That's not alif, that's hamza with a kesra.  Don't let the orthographic form
fool you.

-David

Reply