Talk:آن

Root ʾ-n-y‎ or ʾ-w-n

user:Profes.I. : not ʾ-n-y‎ but ʾ-w-n. Micheletb (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Micheletb And why would it be ʾ-w-n? This does not exist. You must learn to think historically. ʾ-n-y‎ has been chosen by its meaning. The correspondence is irregular. But positing a “ʾ-w-n” does not explain anything. It is just the root formula. I. e. by its shape آن (ʔān) looks like belonging to ʾ-w-n – but ʾ-w-n doesn’t have much in it, while ʾ-n-y‎ contains relevant related terms. Fay Freak (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Please see my source dictionary : ء و ن ('-w-n) does exist, and its meaning is related with leisure and rest (taking time), so there is no need to construe an artificial link with something else - the link with "time" is plain enough. آنٌ is the regular form taken by فَعَلٌ for hamzated and hollow roots like '-w-n. What would the scheme be if '-n-y was the root? there is no way you can obtain a آنٌ with a -y as third letter, you get at most آنٍ so that the spelling would be incorrect with diacritics added. And, indeed, the declension given is incorrect for a '-n-y root. Micheletb (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Micheletb That’s why I say it’s irregular. Rules are broken, language is also arbitrary. I already looked into the dictionaries. That single verb يَؤُونُ (yaʔūnu) is little to posit a “root”. Those other words أَوَان (ʔawān, “time”) and إِيوَان (ʔīwān) are Iranian borrowings. The next question would be: Where is this verb from? The answer is likely: From آن (ʔān, “time”). Do you even know that verb, from usage? Surely you don’t but only see it in dictionaries. But note the root ء ن ي (ʔ n y) which is well known. It has meanings related to rest, for instance أَنَاة (ʔanāh, “equanimity”).

But after all, these categorizations are all fictitious. This word is probably not formed at all in Arabic but before Arabic, it can well be from Proto-Semitic unchanged. That’s why we have comparisons of other Semitic languages given. ܐܢ‎ (ʾān, “where, at a place; until when, how long”), Akkadian 𒀭𒉡 (annu, “now; see, look”).

You can think that you get آنٌ from ʾ-w-n regularly from an *ʾawan or *ʾayan but do you really think that existed? If we wrote that on the page it would be only to soothe your mind, inclined to surface analysis, but against reality. The other Semitic languages point towards the opposite. It was always there, like يَد (yad, “hand”) does not belong to any root either. Do you also derive words like هُوَ (huwa) and إِي (ʔī) from roots? Fay Freak (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak You (we) are mixing two matters, I'm afraid.

• A word like آنٌ is regularly formed by applying the فَعَلٌ mould on '-w-n, so it makes sense to say that the underlying triliteral root is '-w-n - this allows a correct declination, whereas '-n-y does not. And, given that fact, a logical denominal form for آنٌ is therefore يَؤُونُ (yaʔūnu) - though rare. With that deverbalization, the '-w-n root has been de facto created and confirmed.
• Like many other defective verbs, a word like آنٌ is basically biliteral. Denominal forms (if and when needed) must manage to add a semi-voyel or a hamza somewhere and hope for the best, to force its way into a triliteral grammar, often leading to several solutions with interconnected senses (like 'sm and smw). In that case, both connected triliteral roots take their etymology in the ancient biliteral form, which predates them.

For آنٌ the underlying root is '-w-n and the etymological form can have been something/anything like *a'ana, a two-letters form. The two-letters form may have had two denominals, one rare '-w-n and a frequent '-n-y, and a direct descendant آنٌ. In that case, it is incorrect to say that آنٌ derives from '-n-y, both historically and grammatically, the root is a sibling. On the other hand, آنٌ correctly derives from "-w-n grammaticaly, though historically it is probably the other way around.

Micheletb (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Micheletb I am mixing nothing. You have driven logics and reason to far. A word like آنٌ isn’t regularly formed and has no mould applied. Yourself admitting that يَؤُونُ (yaʔūnu) is denominal we don’t need such a root. The use of the root pages is exhausted in being indices. No index needed if there is only one word we can list derived terms under. People have listed words like بُرْنُس (burnus) under a “root” because it has a denominal verb, or two, but we can just list these verbs under the noun as derived terms. No root entry needed.

Listen to yourself taking: “correctly derives from "-w-n grammaticaly, though historically it is probably the other way around.” So your “grammar” contradicts history, you have confessed it yourself. I have written the history into the etymology then. Fay Freak (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Listen to all I'm saying : "it is incorrect to say that آنٌ derives from '-n-y, both historically and grammatically, the root is a sibling". Micheletb (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)