← Back to Taj al-Arus

همتع

Root entry · 3 derived lemmas

This entry discusses a rare and possibly non-existent Arabic root, 'همتع'. The author questions its validity and origin, suggesting it might be a misspelling of another root or a term for a specific plant part.

Derived headwords

الهتمعnoun
  1. 1.
    Fruit of the thorny shrubclassical

    This refers to the fruit of the thorny shrub known as 'تنضب'. The author suggests this is the intended meaning.

تنضبnoun
  1. 1.
    Thorny shrubclassical

    A type of thorny shrub, the fruit of which is referred to by the lemma 'الهتمع'.

همقعother
  1. 1.
    Possible misspellingclassical

    The author suggests that 'الهتمع' might be a misspelling of 'همقع', noting the similarity between 'ق' and 'ت' in old scripts.

Parallel reading

الهتمع، بالمثناة من فوق، كعصفر، أهمله الجوهري والصاغاني وصاحب اللسان، ومن بعدهم ومن قبلهم، ولا أدري من أين أخذه المصنف وهو جنى التنضب وحينئذ فوزنه فعلل، أو وزنه هفعل، لأنه من متع فالصواب أن يذكر هناك وقوله: ليس بتصحيف الهمقع، بالقاف فيه نظر، فإن القاف شديد الالتباس بالتاء في الخطوط القديمة، والمعنى واحد، فأي وجه للعدول عنه ولم ينبه أحد من الأئمة عليه، فتأمل.
Al-hmt' (with the dot above, like 'asfar'), neglected by Al-Jawhari, Al-Sagani, the author of Al-Lisan, and those after and before them. And I do not know where the author took it from, and it is the fruit of the thorny shrub, and in that case its pattern is falal, or its pattern is haf'al, because it is from 'm-t-' so the correct thing is to mention it there. And his saying: 'It is not a misspelling of Al-hmq', with a Qaf in it, is debatable, for the Qaf is very easily confused with the Ta' in old scripts, and the meaning is the same. So what is the reason for deviating from it, and none of the imams alerted to it? Then ponder.