Talk:ابن

It is obviously wrong to say that ابن is derived from تبني . In language, complex forms derive from simple forms, and the form ibn is elemental, far predating the form tabanna (to adopt). I strongly suggest that this etymology be removed from Wiktionary.

The derivation is lexicologically correct from a synchronic (not diachronic, as you refer) point of view. Backinstadiums (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

بُنَيّ

Could sb. please check whether بُنَيّ can actually be decomposed in 'little son' + 'my'? Also, this 'little' is diminutive or affectionate? Thanks in advance. Backinstadiums (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. "My son" (not little, just son) is ابني (ibnī) but the initial alif can be dropped in pronunciation after words ending in a vowel, including prepositions or conjunctions, e.g. وابني (wa-bnī) "and my son". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, بُنَيّ (bunayy) or بُنَيَّ (bunayya) can mean "my son". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev: where is the suffix possessive pronoun in بُنَيّ or بُنَيَّ ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums. اِبْن (ibn) is an anomalous noun, which may have some strange forms with vowels. A normal possessive is اِبْنِي (ibnī) or بْنِي (bnī) "my son". The form بُنَيَّ (bunayya) (this pronunciation is correct according to Hans Wehr dictionary) is a possessive form of اِبْن (ibn) / بْن (bn) where the initial vowel is dropped (it happens in a few cases, e.g. بْن (bn) - an alternative form of اِبْن (ibn)) and a vowel is added. Not sure if the vowel here is "-a" or "-ay". When there is a final vowel, the possessive changes from the simple ـِي (-ī) to ـَيَّ (-(ay)ya).

From An Introduction to Koranic & Classical Arabic by Wheeler M. Thackston:

ـِي supersedes all short inflection vowels, so, ـِي is used for all cases.

When the 1st sing. enclitic is preceded by a long vowel or diphtong, it is -ya - كِتَابَايَ (kitābāya) my two books (nominative), كِتَابَيَّ (kitābayya) my two books (oblique case). Judging from this بُنَيَّ (bunayya) is the stem "bun" + diphthong "ay" + suffix "-ya". The inserted vowels "u" in "bun" an "ay" before the possessive ending must be anomalous. I can't find anything else, unfortunately. Also: @Wikitiki89, Benwing89, Stephen G. Brown. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The same source shows an example of ـِيَ "-iya" ending before an elidable alif: بَيْتِيَ الْكَبِيرُ ― baytiya l-kabīru ― my large house. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev فُعَيْلٌ is the pattern for diminutives, قُبَيْلَ ٱلظُّهْرِ , but if 2Consonants + long vowel, then → ـَـيِّـ: booklet كُتيِّب . I'd like to add its morphemes to the entry. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of the vowels in your examples are stuffed up but anyway, the diminutive pattern فُعَيْل (fuʕayl) (in the pausal form) explains it all, thanks. It's بُنَي (bunay, “sonny”) + possessive form ـيَ (-ya, “my, mine”), which should be used after diphthongs (see above). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the Tea Room a few months ago. بُنَيّ (bunayy) does not end in a diphthong, because the yaa is geminated; so the expected form with the suffix "my" in standard Arabic would be بُنَيِّي (bunayyī). I suspect that بُنَيَّ (bunayya) is a vocative form, without the suffix "my", but the sense of "my" is implied because you wouldn't normally call someone else's son a "son" when speaking to them. So literally it just means "little son", but in English we would normally add "my" in such vocative expressions. --WikiTiki89 16:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

'or بَنَات ‎(banāt),'

Hi, this is a feminine plural, so it must appear to the right of feminine forms. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the usage note please. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 By the way, is there any way to see systematically all the 'usage notes' appearing in the entries of arabic terms? There isn't any category, so I do not know how to find them. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: I can't think of a way, besides doing a regex search. Though perhaps @DTLHS or another clever programmer could use a bot to make a list? — Eru·tuon 10:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums, Erutuon User:DTLHS/Arabic usage notes DTLHS (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Hi again, according to the entry for اِبْنَة , the form بَنَات ‎is one of its plurals. Does the usage note applies here as well? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Root?

Should the root be given as "ا ب ن"?

70.172.194.25 18:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

ʾAlif is not counted by Arabic lexicographers as a radical usually, but as an allomorph of a kind that shifts between long vowels (ā,ī, ū) and diphthongs ending in a glide (aw, aj). With اِسْم (ism), for instance, one would not say that the "root" is "ا س م" but would have to look for other derivates that share the word's meanings and its last to consonants, like وَسَمَ (wasama, “to label, to tag”) and سَمَّى (sammā, “to name; to denominate; to designate”). These two verbs, however, do not share the same consonantal root: the form II of وَسَمَ (wasama) would be وَسَّمَ (wassama), and the form I of سَمَّى (sammā) would, through back-formation, be likely سَمَا (samā, “to soar”). It is thus mainly from this that the disputes over the "root" of اِسْم (ism), whether it is "و س م" or "س م و", arose among medieval Arabic lexicographers. As for اِبْن (ibn), you would likewise have to scour for other derivatives with like meanings, like تَبَنَّى (tabannā, “to take up; to adopt”) and بُنُوَّة (bunuwwa, “sonship”). Hence, the root would be hypothesized to be "ب ن و" Roger.M.Williams (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Would that apply to بنت too? Currently that is not listed as having a root, although the Moroccan and South Levantine Arabic sections list the root as "ب ن ت". I guess that makes sense, given the t, but the t is just an ending that makes it feminine, so should it be the same root as ibn? 70.172.194.25 21:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

One could create a denominal root from بنت, ب ن ت, and have verbs with such a form, especially in the dialects. The word itself, though, is just an irregular feminine that occurs mainly, but not solely, in names and lineages (as in X, daughter of Y, son of Z). Its regularly derived counterpart is اِبْنَة (ibna) Roger.M.Williams (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That all makes sense, thanks. 70.172.194.25 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)