Idgham language and idiomatically: Idgham language: Linguistic dictionaries have known Idgham under the substance Dugham, so Al-Farahidi defined it: Daghma: the name of someone who mixed a letter into a letter, and you put a horse into a bridle: you inserted it into it. If you enter it, and it merges letters into each other.

Al-Azhari defined him in (Tahdheeb al-Lughah) as “dumping the bridles in the mouths of animals, and Sa’idah bin Ju’iyyah said: With close-ups with their own hands, they were helped by khaws. And it is said that I mixed the letter and I made it into it, some said, and from it the derivation of the slur in the letters, and it was said that this derives from the fusion of letters.

It: It includes the meaning of insertion, i.e. inserting the bridle into the mouths of animals, and from it taking the letters into each other, and this is what we will find in the idiomatic definition of the insertion. It is voweled, and there is no movement separating them, so by overlapping them they become like one letter that you lift the tongue from.

And Ibn Yaish defined it as: “You connect a consonant letter with a vowel like it, without separating them with a movement, or stopping, so that because of the intensity of their connection they become as one letter, the tongue rises from them by one extreme lift, so the first letter becomes like a consumer, not on the reality of overlapping and merging, and that is towards tightening Abd al-Sabour Shaheen discusses the phrase Ibn live in the mufassal: to connect a consonant letter with a letter like it is a vowel, as he says: The phrase al-Mufassal is an affair that connects a consonant letter with a vowel like it, suggesting that the grammarians treat in this definition the process of fusion alone, without reference to What precedes it is the deletion of the movement, and the reversal of the first sound from the example of the second, and whether it is homogeneous or close, … that is, they were limited to depicting the phonetic process, and it is assumed that the insertion is only from two instances, whether it is an act, a transformation, or a heart.

It seems that Ibn Yaish did not pay attention to what Sibobeh referred to in his book, about the idea of ​​approximation, that is, bringing letters closer together. Such as what happens in tilting with a thousand tamal if there is a broken letter after it, and rounding the r from the zay in the word (issued). Where he finds Sibawayh makes all this a matter of slurring, as he says: “With a thousand you turn if there is a broken letter after it, and that is your saying: Abed, scholar, mosques, keys, forefathers, and Abel. From Zai, when they said: A chest, so they put it between Zai and R to seek lightness, because the r is close to the indicative, so it is close to the letters in its place with the dal, and the clarification of that in the diphthong: Just as he wants in the diphthong to raise his tongue from one position, he also brings the letter closer to the letter as much as that Ibn Jana referred to the idea of ​​approximation, so he dealt with it in his book al-Khassas, defining slurring by saying: It has been proven that the usual familiar singularity is the approximation of a sound to a sound. He made it into two forms:

The first: that the two examples meet on the provisions about which the asshole is, so the first is merged into the other towards cutting and tightening. Wamaze, be patient

The diphthong according to Ibn Jinni is the combination of two like letters, the first of which is a hand that is consonant and is inserted into the second. And not only that, but the fusion includes the idea of ​​bringing the letters together, so if two close letters meet, he turns the first of the second gender, and then he mingles in it towards: erase, whose origin is erased.

As for the lesser diphthong: it is bringing the letter closer to the letter and bringing it close to it without it being there. He has also divided it into variants as follows:1. Inclination: rounding the A to Z.2. And it is that you fall into a fa’, or make a rhyme, or a thud, or a ta’a, or a za’, and then the ta’a turns into a ta’a towards: persevere, turbulent, expelled, and darkened.3. And from that, the faa falls (make a zayah, or a dal, or a dhala, so that the ta’ah turns into a sign, towards Azdan, claim, and dhikr.4. And from that, the sein falls before the letter of the alphabet, so she draws near to him with her heart Sada, as they say in Saqat: Saqat.5 It also includes the approximation of the sound to the sound with the letters of the throat: like barley, camel, and loaf.6 And from that also their saying (verb to do) from what he specified, or to his mother is a ring letter, like asked – asks, read reads, price – price, and that is that they Speak with the eye opening in the present tense, the gender of the letter of the throat, since it is a place of the exit of the alif from which is the fatha. This includes weakening the movement in order to bring it closer to stillness: towards my neighborhood, I live and I am tired. These are the cases of smaller diphthongs mentioned by Ibn Hani, which he counted as a matter of bringing the sound closer to the sound, as he says after talking about the previous cases: All of this is a state of what brings the sound closer to the sound. The voice is in the process of rapprochement with what we have mentioned of approximation.The rapture for him is not only a combination of two examples, but rather includes the idea of ​​approximation that he quoted from Sibawayh, so the dwarfing with this concept applies to analogy among the modernists. Endowed him late grammarians, and reading, alike.

We conclude by saying that Sibawayh and Ibn Jana’s conception of slurring was broader and more general than the conception of some grammarians and linguists as Ibn Yaish and other grammarians, as they put a definition of slurring, so they did not notice the accuracy of Sibawayh’s statement and what he wanted by bringing the sound closer to the sound, they imagined slurring in the context of silent sounds, and on The image that resulted in a weakened sound, whether from the doubles, or the convergent ones. As for him, he used the word dwarfing, intending by it to express the absolute effect of a sound with a sound, whether it is silent or moving, and whether the effect is complete, resulting in the annihilation of the affected voice, or if it is partial, it loses It has an element of its elements. As for the definition of diffraction in the terminology of the modernists, it is: the tendency of two sounds to symmetry, that is, to have common qualities that facilitate the merging of one into the other.

And dwarfism, as Dr. Abdel-Qader Maree sees it, is a form of phonetic analogy, which is the complete reactionary analogy, where the first sound is completely affected by the second sound and is identical, and it is completely destroyed, and in this case the first sound has no effect on the pronunciation. What is with the idea of ​​approximation that Sibawayh and Ibn Jana talked about. The dwarf for the modernists means the complete similarity between two adjacent and close voices in the exit, with common characteristics that help to merge one into the other.

Diffraction definition: Types of immersion