بنى

اِبْنٌ أبان أبن أبنن ابن بان بنى ٱبن آب , meaning A son; (M, Mgh, K;) because he is the father's building, made to be so by God; (Er-Rághib, TA;) and (tropical:) a son's son; and (tropical:) a descendant more remote; (Msb;) is with a conjunctive ا [when not immediately preceded by a quiescence, written ا@بْنٌ]; (Zj, T, M;) [and when immediately preceded by the proper name of a man and immediately followed by the proper name of his parent, written without the ا, as in زَيْدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو Zeyd the son of 'Amr (in which case it should also be observed that the former proper name is without tenween); unless the words compose a proposition, as in زَيْدٌ ا@بْنُ عَمْرٍو Zeyd is the son of 'Amr; or in the case of an interrogation, as in هَلْ زَيْدٌ ا@بْنُ عَمْرٍو Is Zeyd the son of 'Amr? ]: the pl. is ↓ بَنُونَ (T, S, Mgh, Msb) in the nom. case, and بَنِينَ in the accus. and gen.; (Mgh;) and أَبْنَاآءٌ, (T, S, M, Mgh, Msb, K,) which is a pl. of pauc.: (Msb:) [and hence it is argued that] the sing. is of the measure فَعَلٌ with the final radical letter elided and the conjunctive ا prefixed; (M;) originally بَنَىٌ, (M, K,) with ى, as we judge, because [the aor.] يَبْنِى is more common than يَبْنُو: (M:) or originally بَنَوٌ, (S, Msb, K,) with two fet-hahs, because it has بَنُونَ for a pl., and the perfect pl. does not admit of change [in its vowels beyond that which is here made in بَنُونَ for بَنَوُونَ]; (Msb;) and because it has for a pl. أَبْنَاآءٌ, like as جَمَلٌ has أَجْمَالٌ; (S;) and the elided letter is و, (Akh, T, S,) as in أَبٌ and أَخٌ, (S,) because و is more commonly elided than ى; (Akh, T;) or because the fem. is بِنْتٌ and [that of أَخٌ is] أُخْتٌ; for we do not see this ه [or ت] affixed in the fem. except when و is elided in the masc., as is shown by أَخَوَاتٌ and هَنَوَاتٌ; (S;) though بُنُوَّةٌ is not a decisive proof that the last radical is و, for a reason stated above in the explanation of it: (T:) or, as some say, it is originally بِنْوٌ, with kesr to the. ب, like حِمْلٌ, because they say بِنْتٌ, and a change [of a vowel] in a case of this kind is rare: (Msb:) [but J says,] it may not be of the measure فِعْلٌ nor فُعْلٌ, because it has بَنُونَ with fet-h to the ب, for a pl.; nor of the measure فَعْلٌ, because this has [generally] for its [broken] pl. أَفْعُلٌ or فُعُولٌ: (S:) Zj says that it is originally بِنْىٌ or بِنْوٌ, or it may be originally بَنًا; that it is app. the last accord. to those who say بَنُون; and that أَبْنَاآءٌ may be pl. of the measure فَعَلٌ and of فِعْلٌ; that بِنْتٌ favours its being of the latter; but that it may be of the measure فَعَلٌ changed to فِعْلٌ, as فَعَلٌ is changed to فُعْلٌ in the case of أُخْتٌ. (T.) Beside the pls. mentioned above, اِبْنٌ has a quasi-pl. n., namely ↓ أَبْنَى, of the same measure as أَعْمَى; (Mgh, TA; *) a sing. denoting the pl.: or, as some say, اِبْنٌ has for pls. أَبْنَاآءٌ and أَبْنَى. (TA.) Lh mentions the phrase, هٰؤُلَاآءِ أَبْنَا أَبْنَائِهِمْ [or أَبْنَى ابنائهم These are the sons of their sons. ]. (M.) Sometimes م is affixed to اِبْنٌ [so that it becomes ↓ اِبْنُمٌ or اِبْنَمٌ at the beginning of a sentence, and ↓ ا@بْنُمٌ or ا@بُنَمٌ in other cases]: the word is then doubly declinable [like اِمْرُؤٌ or ا@مْرُأٌ]: you say, هٰذَا ا@بْنُمٌ [ This is a son ], and رَأَيْتُ ا@بْنَمًا [ I saw a son ], and مَرَرْتُ بِا@بْنِمٍ [ I passed by a son ]; making the ن similarly declinable to the م; and the ا is with kesr in every case [when the word commences a sentence, whether you make the word doubly declinable or not]: (AHeyth, * S:) [for] some make it singly declinable, leaving the ن with fet-h in every case [as the ر in اِمْرَأٌ or ا@مْرَأٌ]; saying, هٰذَا ا@بْنَمُكَ [ This is thy son ], and رَأَيْتُ ا@بْنَمَكَ [ I saw thy son ], and مَرَرْتُ بِا@بْنَمِكَ [ I passed by thy son ]. (AHeyth, TA.) Hassán says, وَلَدْنَا بَنِى العَنْقَاآءِ وَا@بْنَىْ مُحَرِّقٍ ↓ فَأَكْرِمْ بِنَا خَالًا وَأَكْرِمْ بِنَا ا@بْنَمَا [ We begot the sons of El-'Ankà, and the two sons of Moharrik; and how generous are we as a maternal uncle! and how generous are we as a son! ], (S, K, *) i. e., ا@بْنَا: the م is augmentative, and the hemzeh [or rather ا] is that of conjunction. (K.) And Ru-beh says, ↓ فَهْىَ تُنَادِى بِأَبِى وَا@بْنِيمَا بُكَاآءَ شَكْلَى فَقَدَتْ حَمِيمَا [ As the weeping of a bereft woman, who has lost a relation, therefore she calls out, With my father would I ransom thee, and a son ]; meaning ا@بْنِمَا. (TA.) The fem. of اِبْنٌ is ↓ اِبْنَةٌ or ا@بْنَةٌ [with the conjunctive ا when not commencing a sentence] and ↓ بِنْتٌ [meaning A daughter; and (assumed tropical:) any female descendant ]: (T, S, M, Mgh, Msb, K:) accord. to Sb, (M,) اِبْنَةٌ is formed from اِبْنٌ by affixing ه [or ة]; but not so بِنْتٌ; for this is formed by affixing ى as a letter of quasi-coordination, and then substituting for it ت: (M, K:) [but if the ت be substituted for ى, it seems more probable that the ى is the final radical:] or, as some say, the ت is substituted for و: (M:) [Mtr says,] the ت is substituted for the final radical: (Mgh:) accord. to Ks, it is originally with ه [or ة], because it has a fem. meaning: (IAar, Msb:) [my own opinion is most agreeable with this of Ks; and with that of Zj, which will be mentioned below; or, perhaps, is identical with that of Zj: I think it most probable that, as اِبْنٌ is generally held to be originally بَنَىٌ or بَنَوٌ, so اِبْنَةٌ and بِنْتٌ are both originally بَنَيَةٌ or بَنَوَةٌ, and that بِنْتٌ is formed from اِبْنَةٌ by suppressing the alif, transferring its kesreh to the ب, making the ن quiescent, and changing the ة into ت, which is therefore said to be not the sign of the fem. gender, either because it is not ة, but is a substitute for ة, or because it is preceded by a quiescent letter:] AHn says that the ت is substituted for the final radical letter, which is و; and that it is not the sign of the fem. gender, because the letter [next] before it is quiescent: this [he says] is the opinion of Sb, and is [...]