Arabic definite article
, is the definite article in the Arabic language: a particle whose function is to render the noun on which it is prefixed definite. For example, the word كتاب kitāb "book" can be made definite by prefixing it with al-, resulting in الكتاب al-kitāb "the book". Consequently, al- is typically translated as "the" in English.
Unlike most other Arabic particles, al- is always prefixed to another word and never stands alone. Consequently, many dictionaries do not list it, and it is almost invariably ignored in collation, as it is not an intrinsic part of the word.
Al- does not inflect for gender, number or grammatical case. The sound of the final -l consonant, however, can vary; when followed by a sun letter such as t, d, r, s, n and a few others, it assimilates to that sound, thus doubling it. For example: for "the Nile", one does not say *al-Nīl, but an-Nīl. When followed by a moon letter, like m-, there is no assimilation: al-masjid. This affects only the pronunciation and not the spelling of the article.
This article deals with the use of the definite article in Literary Arabic, which slightly differs among varieties of Arabic.
Overview
To put al- into perspective, there are many ways in which Arabic words can be made definite. These include the use of personal pronouns like "me", the use of proper nouns like "Saudi Arabia", demonstrative pronouns like "this man", relative pronouns like "the man who...", vocation like "O man", possession like "my man", and of course the definite article like "the man". Apart from possession, prefixing a noun with al- is the weakest form of definiteness. That is, saying "the man" does not define the man being referred to as clearly as saying "this man", for example.Arabic has an indefinite article indicated by nunation which is declined for three cases.
Etymology
There are several major opinions in regards to the origins of the Arabic definite article. The earliest evidence of the article, besides a 1st-century BC inscription in Qaryat al-Faw, occurs in the 5th century BC, in the epithet of a goddess which Herodotus quotes in its preclassical Arabic form as Alilat, which means "the goddess".Proto-Semitic particle hypothesis
While the Proto-Semitic language did not have any articles, the most likely theory is that the article al- comes from the same proto-Semitic source as the Hebrew definite article ה־ ha-. That theory is based primarily on the fact that the two share many similarities. Both particles are prefixed to nouns, and both geminate with certain following letters. Moreover, neither particle is prefixed to non-final nouns in a genitival construction. Finally, both are prefixed to relative clauses. According to David Testen, many northern and southwestern Semitic languages have particles that bear similarities to al-. With this fact, he posits that al- has a proto-Semitic antecedent.There are three major possibilities regarding the form of the proto-Semitic particle that is the putative antecedent of al-:
- hal;
- ha;
- ‘a;
Often cited is the Arabic word for 'this', هذا hādhā, which, when combined with a definite phrase, has been known to become shortened from هذا البيت hādhā al-bayt to هلبيت hal-bayt. However, hal-bayt may merely be a shortening of the demonstrative pronoun.
Weingreen also states that the original form of the Hebrew ha- was in fact hal. Hebrew, then, dropped the final l to achieve ha- while Arabic softened the h- to a hamza, resulting in al-. However, there is no evidence supporting the existence of hal from ancient Hebrew texts. In fact, as early as the 6th century BC both han and al were being used simultaneously in different Arabic dialects, namely Northern and Central.
The Arabic word hādhā is equivalent to the Hebrew word זה zé. It appears that over time Hebrew shortened the demonstrative pronoun hazé to simply zé. That indicates that the Hebrew ha- was the accurate retention of the original proto-Semitic source, as opposed to al-, which cannot conclusively be linked to the ancient cognate demonstrative pronoun hādhā/hazé.
Arabic ''lā'' hypothesis
According to Jacob Barth, who was lecturer in Hebrew at the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary, al- comes directly from the Arabic negating particle, لا lā. He conjectures that lā became al- through a process of metathesis. That is to say, the lām and the alif swapped positions. It is noteworthy that the negation denoted by lā and the definiteness denoted by al- are in stark contrast to each other.Barth also asserts that lā could have resulted in al- through a process of syncope so the alif in lā and the vowel over the lām were dropped, resulting in a sukūn over the lām, and a volatile or elidable hamza was added to compensate for that.
David Testen argues against both of these explanations. He says that there is no corroboratory evidence for either metathesis or syncope.
Arabic ''la'' hypothesis
It is possible that al- comes from the same root as the asseverative-cum-precative particle, لـَ la-; it is the la- used at the beginning of nominal sentences for emphasis.Phonology
The ''hamza'' in ''al''-
A classical debate in regards to al- is whether the hamza is volatile or not. The majority opinion is that of Sibawayh, who considers the hamza volatile. In his opinion, the hamza neither is part of al- nor contributes to the definiteness of the following word.Khalīl, Ibn Keisān and Akhfash, on the other hand, consider the hamza not to be volatile. There is a further debate among the proponents of the second theory. Some do not consider the hamza volatile and assert that it contributes to the definiteness of the following word. Others assert that the hamza contributes to the definiteness of the following word but is still volatile.
In his defence, Khalīl argues that when a word prefixed with al- is preceded by the interrogative hamza, the two hamzas mix. For example, when the word الآن al-āna is prefixed with it, the result is آلآن āl-āna. Clearly, the hamza of al- does not drop in this case even though there is no further purpose for it.
Khalīl further argues that the only reason the hamza in al- is ever dropped is not that it is volatile but that it is used too much. When asked why the lām in al- was not simply given a vowel if it is so heavily used and it needs to be easier to pronounce, followers of Khalīl said that if the lām had been given a fatḥa, it would have been confused with the asseverative-cum-precative particle. Had it been given a kasra, it would have been confused with the genitival particle. It could not have been given a ḍamma for fear of the following vowel being a kasra or ḍamma.
Despite the myriad of proofs for the argument, in most classical grammars and in modern Arabic, the opinion of Sibawayh is often taken as an axiomatic fact. There are many proofs and counterproofs, but the overarching argument in favour of this opinion is as follows:
The lām in al- is the only lām particle in the language with a sukūn. Thus, it requires a volatile hamza. Moreover, al- is a particle, and Arabic particles do not drop letters. Yet the hamza in al- drops all the time. Therefore, it must be volatile, or al- would lose its ability to render the following word definite.
Consequently, it turns out that the hamza in al- is considered the only volatile hamza in the language that has a fatḥa vowel.
The ''lām'' in ''al''-
In very early Semitic languages, definiteness was achieved through gemination of the first letter in a word. For example, the word kitāb would be made definite by ak-kitāb. An additional benefit of this construction was to connote "determination". The lām in the Arabic al- was thus a result of a dissimilation process.In Arabic, this gemination occurs when the word to which al- is prefixed begins with one of the fourteen sun letters. Twelve of these letters are originally designed to geminate. Ḍād and shīn have been included due to their similarities in pronunciation with lām and ţā, respectively. For example, the word الرجل 'the man' is actually pronounced "". Notice that the lām is written but not pronounced.
In more modern dialects, the sun letters have been extended to include the velars gīm and kāf.
The ancient people of Himyar replace the lām in al- with mīm. The Islamic prophet Muhammad is recorded to have uttered the following words in that dialect:
In some Semitic languages like Hebrew, words that include the letter lāmed have Arabic cognates that replace it with a Mīm as opposed to Lām, the equivalent letter. For example, skull in Hebrew is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת. Its Arabic cognate is جمجمة. This gives plausibility to the case of Banū Ḥimiar and indicates that lām is frequently equated with Mīm.
The vowels in ''al''-
Regardless of whether the hamza in al- is volatile or not, it is read with a fatḥa when beginning speech with the definite article. For example, if one vocalizes the word البيت 'the house' after a pause, it will be pronounced "al-bayt". In fact, the hamza in al- is largely considered to be the only volatile hamza that has a fatḥa vowel.If, however, al- is vocalized in the middle of speech, the hamza will be dropped in pronunciation. As a result, the vowel preceding the definite article will be linked to the lām of al-. For example, بابُ البيت is pronounced "bābu l-bayt", بابَ البيت is pronounced "bāba l-bayt", and بابِ البيت is pronounced "bābi l-bayt".
If the word onto which al- is prefixed starts with a hamza, the vowel from that hamza may transfer to the lām of al- after which the hamza not be pronounced. See Allah in "Arabic definite article" for an example. If this hamza is volatile, that is required. An example is in the phrase بِئْسَ الإسْمُ bi’sa al-ismu. The phrase is read as بِئْسَ الاِسْمُ "bi’sa lismu". The rule relates to hamza and is not in direct relation to al-. Moreover, it is a rare occurrence and is almost never applied in spoken varieties of modern or classical Arabic.