Category talk:Arabic roots

Why are there a lot of non-roots in this category?
 * That would be down to error, assuming you are correct. I speak no Arabic. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because many entries use Template:ar-root-entry in their etymology section, which adds this category to the entry. It's fixed by adding nocat=1 to each of these inclusions, e.g. . I've fixed some 70 entries today, feel free to help ;) ✎ HannesP · talk 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This template, and this problem, no longer exists. The template is now Template:ar-root and there is no nocat parameter needed; it's figured out automatically. Benwing (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

2-letter roots
The category is empty but shouldn't I guess? Do Arabic even have two letter roots? If not lets remove the category? Ebrahim (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are two-letter roots. These are often extended with w, y or h in derivatives, but as long as the most basic words still keep the two-letter form, the root must be said to be a two-letter one. Of course, a lot of other roots involving weak consonants or geminates were originally two-letter roots as well, but they aren't anymore. 2.203.201.61 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there aren’t two-letter roots. Such roots do not need to be said at all. The two-consonant word is the root. is a root and  is a root. If we know what the original word is, this is the . Why not? In such words there is often disagreements about the roots from people like you who fail historical realism, like you and most classical Arabic grammarians. Instead of admitting the arbitrariness which forms a part of language, they are urged to perfectionize structure everywhere because it is a lingua sacra and God made the perfect system. As a secular and an anarchist, I don’t need these structures. It is wrong to assume that the roots “must” be said. It sounds like a passion, as a Stoic would say, or a Geist, as  would say (his Anglo followers call it “spook”). Can’t you free your mind of them without loss? Will the loss be in faith in God?
 * You will see, you argue theologically and your arguments disguised as grammatical are apologetics. Fay Freak (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Terms "derived" from roots
The root is the mechanism by which Semitic languages derive words from other words. Words aren't derived "from a root", but "from another word by means of the latter's root". The root is a theoretical unit that doesn't really exist. Therefore it is very problematic to ascribe senses to roots and say that terms are derived from them. The opposite is true. Roots are derived from words and so are their senses. This is very obvious in modern roots where we still know what the original word was, but it is of course true of all roots. It would be better to speak of "related terms" and to give at most a very vague and general semantic field for a given root. 2.203.201.61 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You don’t seem to be strong in logics. If a word is derived from another word through adherence to a root formula, the former word is also derived from the root formula. It is not wrong to say, therefore, that the word is derived from a root. In reality words derive from what is in memory. The idea connecting multiple terms is the root that we try to describe. So words can also be derived from another word without the concept of a root being present, because there is no idea to connect multiple terms. The root can be seen as a family. An index that we use put terms subordinate to a family. For this reason, there may be not enough words of semantic connection to claim a root. So there can be also variants by applying patterns used for consonants a root shares, unlike you claim that under the proposed theory would need to be “another formation from the same root”. No, if there is only one word there isn’t even a root, like there isn’t a family with one person. People change existing words according to known patterns because they are used to certain patterns having certain meanings; this must be so for terms borrowed the first time and aligned to certain patterns. People also irrationally derive words from multiple roots, so  got changed to  apparently by connection to the root.
 * A root is a means to memorize related words and to keep semantic relations in order when coining new words also for other people that are supposed to understand the new words, not to so much to derive words but the patterns (the transfixes, the measures) are the means that come after the roots have already been imagined and also come without roots having been imagined, and here the roots are posited to link related words if that is necessary so people are assisted in collecting the terms in their memory. The consonants might not be the same and we can still see a root, there should be an idea or history. Eine reine Eselsbrücke. Fay Freak (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)