# Rules for broken plurals جمع التكسير



## Whodunit

Ahlan yaa asdiqaa2, 

This is supposed to be an informative thread, where you may ask questions and suggest new ideas for this interesting but utmost difficult topic.

I want to try to procure you the most important rules and patterns to the broken plural according to which you should be able to form some of them. Of course, this topic is so vast that it is nearly impossible to cover all possible plurals. Some words have more than one (depending on the meaning), some have very irregular ones, where some other plurals are totally unpredictable. 

The first two are nearly 100% reliable, the latter two are only almost safe: 

four consonant nouns without a long vowel (vowel sequence: a-sukuun-a) get a long a vowel for the sukuun and an i vowel for the second a in the plural: [maf3al] - [ma'faa3il]; [fa3lal] - [fa'3aalil]; [qunSul] - [qa'naaSil]; [qanTara] - [qa'naaTir]; ...
four consonant noun with a long vowel in the last syllable (vowel sequence: a-sukuun-long) gets a long a vowel for the sukuun and a long i vowel for the long vowel in the last syllable: [maf'3uul] - [mafaa'3iil]; [finjaan] - [fanaa'jiin]; madda-letters will be split: [khuTTaaf] - [khaTaa'Tiif]
three consonant nouns with a long vowel in the first syllable (vowel sequence: long-i) and an i vowel in the second get a waw, with an a vowel preceding it, between the first consonant and the long vowel: [faa3il] - [fa'waa3il]; [3aamil] - [3a'waamil]; [faa3ida] - [fa'waa2id]; [raatib] - [ra'waatib]; [muusaa] - [ma'waasin]
three consonant nouns with a long vowel in the second syllable (vowel sequence: a-long-a), if it's not a person, change their long vowel to a long a vowel, while the last a becomes an i with a hamza in front: [fa'3iila] - [fa'3aa2il]; [qa'biila] - [qa'baa2il]; [ja'biira] - [ja'baa2ir]
If you need more examples, I will search for them or let the natives think about it. 

Moreover, it is important to know the following pattern according to which one should be able to get the right singular of a plural (this holds for some adjectives, too):

[fu3a'laa2] and [af3i'laa2] belong to the singular [fa'3iil]:
[wusa'Taa2] to [wa'siiT]
[busha'raa2] to [ba'shiir]
[3uma'laa2] to [3a'miil]
[2adhki'yaa2] to [dha'kiiy]

[fu'33aal] and [fa'3ala] (taa2 marbuuTa) belong to the singular [faa3il]:
[zu'wwaar] to [zaa2ir]
[shu'rraa7] to [shaari7]
_example missing_

If you know more about the broken plurals and their peculiarities, please contribute to this thread. If there's something wrong in my examples, you should also correct them.


----------



## Qcumber

Whodunit said:


> four radical nouns without a long vowel (vowel sequence: a-sukuun-a) get a long a vowel for the sukuun and an i vowel for the second a in the plural: [maf3al] - [ma'faa3il]; [fa3lal] - [fa'3aalil]; [qunSul] - [qa'naaSil]; [qanTara] - [qa'naaTir]; ...


Sorry, could you please explain what you mean by "four radical nouns"?


----------



## WadiH

I'm so glad I never had to learn Arabic.


----------



## Whodunit

Qcumber said:


> Sorry, could you please explain what you mean by "four radical nouns"?


 
They are nouns that have four consonants. Maybe I should have called them consonants rather than radicals. The noun "*m*a*dr*a*s*a" (مدرسة) has as many consonants as "*m*u*d*a*rr*i*s*" (مدرس) or "*m*u*d*a*rr*i*s*a" (مدرسة). This kind of noun I have called "four radicals nouns."

I hope it's clearer now.


----------



## Qcumber

Whodunit said:


> They are nouns that have four consonants. Maybe I should have called them consonants rather than radicals. The noun "*m*a*dr*a*s*a" (مدرس) has as many consonants as "*m*u*d*a*rr*i*s*" (مدرس) or "*m*u*d*a*rr*i*s*a" (مدرسة). This kind of noun I have called "four radicals nouns."


Yes, it's clear now: four-letter nouns > quadriliteral nouns. Thanks a lot.
Yes, your rules are interesting.
P.S.1. I wonder if you couldn't use the concepts of "consonantal template" and "vocalic melody".
P.S.2. madrasa(t) needs a (t) at the end in Arabic spelling.


----------



## Josh_

Actually, I don't think it is clear.  مدرس  is a four-letter word, but مدرسة is a five-letter word.  Remember that taa2 marbuuta is not a vowel, but rather a (pseudo-)letter/consonant.  And both are from a triliteral root made up of three radicals.  As far as Arabic goes the term 'radical' is usually used with reference to the letters of the root whereas consonant/letter is used to refer to letters in general.  For example the three radicals د-ر-س make up the underlying framework of the word مدرسة which is made of five letters.


----------



## Whodunit

Okay, my dictionary used the word "radical" in this context, so I thought it would be understandable. If you prefer, I'll edit my message above. However, by "four radical" words, I was not referring to the number of letters but of consonants. That's why I mentioned the word مدرسة, because it has four consonants and one vowel letter (just like the waw or alif can be in some cases).

I'm not sure if quadriliteral still works ... this would indicate that فاعل is a quadriliteral word, right? However, I'd consider it a "three consonant word" or "three radical word."


----------



## Qcumber

Whodunit said:


> That's why I mentioned the word مدرسة, because it has four consonants and one vowel letter (just like the waw or alif can be in some cases).


Well ... by "letter" I mean a letter of the Arabic alphabet. The short vowels are not letters. This word - madrasa(t) - is quintiliteral / a five-letter word.



> I'm not sure if quadriliteral still works ... this would indicate that فاعل is a quadriliteral word, right? However, I'd consider it a "three consonant word" or "three radical word."


Yes faa3il is a four-letter / quadriliteral word because it has four letters of the Arabic alphabet.

Your system is unclear because, if I adopt your term "radical", for me (I may be wrong), madrasa(t) above has three radicals - d r s. The miim and the taa2 marbuuTa(t) are not radicals, they belong to the pattern of the derivative.
Ditto with faa3il. It has three radicals, the alif belongs to the pattern of the derivative.

By the way, if you want to keep the expression "four-radical words", please don't forget the *hyphen *because, without it, it means "four [radical words]" if you see what I mean.


----------



## Whodunit

Call it whatever you want. 

However, this was not the question of my thread. If you'dlike to contribute something informative to broken plurals, I'd enjoy your post.


----------



## miggylog

In arabic lenguage, the word "maadrasa", for instance, doesn´t means has 5 letters, his root is three; initial m, mean "place where" and "ta marbuta" is the suffix that means femenine gender.


----------



## Fractal7

It seems people didn't get what you mean with "four radical nouns". Only a beginner like me can see it . 

But this is something very important for those who suffers while studying plurals. Because these forms are almost half of the broken plurals, I think. And the half of the rest is feminie form. (Just adding alef and ta.) So after these two, the trouble is reduces to almost 30%. 

Instead I would call it "Even though the singular has 3 roots, the plural behaves like a four-root word." And the missing letter are added with mim, waw or hamzah. 

You don't have to make an algorithm to get the plural form. It is absolutely clear how to get it from the singular one. All we need to do to memorise that this word takes a four-root-like plural. That's it.

There are 13 plurals I know for this type, easy to memorise. There is a pattern.



فَعَالِلُ فَعَالِيلُ​ 


مَفَاعِلُ مَفَاعِيلُ​ 


فَوَاعِلُ فَوَاعِيلُ​ 


أَفَاعِلُ أَفَاعِيلُ​ 


فَعَائِلُ​ 


فَعَالَى فَعَالٍ فَعَاليٌّ
 

فَعَالِلَة​ 

In fact these plurals are all THE SAME. The differences are because of the singular form. When you see the singular form you see which one to choose if you remember that it will be fit to "four-root-form" as these examples:



لقلق / لقالق​ 
ثعبان / ثعابين​ 
منزل / منازل​ 
مفتاح / مفاتيح​ 
زاحف / زواحف​ 
جاموس / جواميس​ 
أرنب / أرانب​ 
إبريق / أباريق​ 
بهيمة / بهائم​ 
مرآة / مرايا​ 
سحلية / سحالٍ​ 
كرسيّ / كراسيّ 

تلميذ / تلاميذ تلامذة​ 


I hope this helps....​


----------



## Xence

I remember one of the questions we used to ask our Arabic teachers in this kind of lessons was: "_What is the plural of_ *عندليب* ?"


----------



## Faylasoof

Oh yes! ... and it was a hot favourite for exams too! The teachers loved throwing some of these to their unsuspecting students.

 Whenever a noun has more than 4 radicals, this needs to be reduced to 4 before a broken plural can be formed. Hence:

_3andaliib_ عندليب(s) , _3anaadil_عنادل (pl).
_3ankaboot_عنكبوت (s) , _3anaakib_عناكب (pl).
_‘imbaraaToor_إمبراطور  (s) , _‘abaaTirah _أباطرة (pl). 
 ترجمان_ turjumaan_ (s) , تراجمة_ taraajimah_ / تراجيم
 _taraajiim_ (pl). 

.... and so on.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Wadi Hanifa said:


> I'm so glad I never had to learn Arabic.


I know what you mean 

I have a few notes:

1. First of all, you will only confuse everyone (native speakers as well as learners) when you call a form like مفعل a "four constant noun" and then say that فعلل is also a "four constant noun". The two forms differ a lot even if they both have four constant.

2. It is important to note that a long vowel does not change the form of the noun. موعد is just as much a maf3il as منزل is and that a long vowel can in fact be a radical, and can be considered a constant (depending of the word, but most of the time the waaw is a constant and the alif is not); also, having a long vowel does not mean that the form of the broken plural is sure to change.


Whodunit said:


> four consonant nouns without a long vowel (vowel sequence: a-sukuun-a) get a long a vowel for the sukuun and an i vowel for the second a in the plural: [maf3al] - [ma'faa3il]; [fa3lal] - [fa'3aalil]; [qunSul] - [qa'naaSil]; [qanTara] - [qa'naaTir];


 
I know that this might be a little picky, but qunSul is not of the form fa3lal, it's of the form fu3lul; but the plural is still as you mentioned fa3aalil. Generally, in four-constant-root nouns (or four radicals, whichever) you tend to get less variety in almost everything. So I would agree that it's about 90 to 99% accurate.


Whodunit said:


> four consonant noun with a long vowel in the last syllable (vowel sequence: a-sukuun-long) gets a long a vowel for the sukuun and a long i vowel for the long vowel in the last syllable: [maf'3uul] - [mafaa'3iil]; [finjaan] - [fanaa'jiin]; madda-letters will be split: [khuTTaaf] - [khaTaa'Tiif]


This time it's not being picky: finjaan is not of the form maf3uul, it's of the form fi3laal and khuTTaaf is not of the form maf3uul it's of the form fu33aal (are you sure it's khuTTaaf not khaTTaaf?). There is a great difference even if the broken plural "seems" to be the same form. Actually, it's fa3aaliil and fa3aa3iil respectively.

It's worth noting that the form maf3uul takes a جمع سالم in almost all cases and you can add to that a broken plural; but in many cases it takes a جمع مؤنثسالم. While mafa3iil is quite common for those that do have a broken plural, I wouldn't totally depend on that:
جمع مَعْمُول ليس مَعَامِيْل بل هو جمع مذكر سالم للعاقل وجمع مؤنث سالم لغير العاقل وكذا لمسدود، ومعدود وموجود ومفقود​


Whodunit said:


> three consonant nouns with a long vowel in the first syllable (vowel sequence: long-i) and an i vowel in the second get a waw, with an a vowel preceding it, between the first consonant and the long vowel: [faa3il] - [fa'waa3il]; [3aamil] - [3a'waamil]; [faa3ida] - [fa'waa2id]; [raatib] - [ra'waatib]; [muusaa] - [ma'waasin]


I wouldn't even attempt to try to find a rule for the form faa3il (or fa3il or fa3iil)

Just note:

قائد، قوّاد - عامل عمّال - عاقل، عُقّال = fu33aal
عاذل، عُذَّل - صائم، صوَّم - نائم، نوَّم - راكع، ركّع = fu33al
ساحر، سحرة - آمن، أمنة - خائن، خونة = fa3ala(t)
قارب، قوارب - راتب، رواتب - سائل، سوائل = fawaa3il
راهب، رُهبان - شابّ، شُبّان - راع، رُعيان - فارس، فرسان = fu3laan
حائط، حيْطان = fi3laan
شاهد، شهود - طائر، طيور - واقف، وقوف = fu3uul
قاض، قضاة - ساع، سعاة = fu3aal
هالك، هلكى = fa3la
عالم، علماء - عاقل، عقلاء - شاعر، شعراء = fu3alaa2

That's ten different forms, not to mention جمع المذكر السالم وجمع المؤنث السالم.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Fractal7 said:


> It seems people didn't get what you mean with "four radical nouns". Only a beginner like me can see it .
> 
> But this is something very important for those who suffers while studying plurals. Because these forms are almost half of the broken plurals, I think. And the half of the rest is feminie form. (Just adding alef and ta.) So after these two, the trouble is reduces to almost 30%.


Are you sure of that?



Fractal7 said:


> You don't have to make an algorithm to get the plural form. It is absolutely clear how to get it from the singular one. All we need to do to memorise that this word takes a four-root-like plural. That's it.
> 
> There are 13 plurals I know for this type, easy to memorise. There is a pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> فَعَالِلُ فَعَالِيلُ​
> 
> 
> مَفَاعِلُ مَفَاعِيلُ​
> 
> 
> فَوَاعِلُ فَوَاعِيلُ​
> 
> 
> أَفَاعِلُ أَفَاعِيلُ​
> 
> 
> فَعَائِلُ​
> 
> 
> فَعَالَى فَعَالٍ فَعَاليٌّ​
> 
> فَعَالِلَة​


 
Arn't these already plurals (the other plural is what is called جمع الجمع); I'm trying to think of a singular in that form and I just can't get one.



Fractal7 said:


> In fact these plurals are all THE SAME. The differences are because of the singular form. When you see the singular form you see which one to choose if you remember that it will be fit to "four-root-form" as these examples:
> 
> 
> لقلق / لقالق​
> ثعبان / ثعابين​
> منزل / منازل​
> مفتاح / مفاتيح​
> زاحف / زواحف​
> جاموس / جواميس​
> أرنب / أرانب​
> إبريق / أباريق​
> بهيمة / بهائم​
> مرآة / مرايا​
> سحلية / سحالٍ​
> كرسيّ / كراسيّ​
> تلميذ / تلاميذ تلامذة​
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this helps....​


 
I am so sorry, but I can't possibly agree with this! how do you see them the same - I just do not get it. The singulars are different and so are the plurals.  Moreover, the number of constants differ and the number of letters differ (assuming you are looking at the number of constants only or the totall number of letters).


----------



## Xence

Faylasoof said:


> The teachers loved throwing some of these to their unsuspecting students.


Have you ever got the أخطبوط one?


----------



## Faylasoof

Xence said:


> Have you ever got the أخطبوط one?



I didn't then! But now that you've presented it, and applying the rules I state above, I gues the broken plural(s) would be (are):

 أخاطب / أخاطبة  (?)
(for أخطبوط = octopus).

         The  أخاطب from < <_3andaliib_ عندليب(s) , _3anaadil_عنادل (pl)> >

  The  أخاطبة from << _‘imbaraaToor_إمبراطور (s) , _‘abaaTirah _أباطرة (pl) >> 

 - perhaps even  أخاطيب (?) <- by instinct!

What is / are supposed to be the officially recognised plural / plurals.
  
Did you ever get to do the plurals of proper names?
 جعفر
فاطمة
سقراط
أرسطو


----------



## Fractal7

Mahaodeh said:


> Are you sure of that?


No, it is just my guess. Who has the correct percentages?


Mahaodeh said:


> Arn't these already plurals (the other plural is what is called جمع الجمع); I'm trying to think of a singular in that form and I just can't get one.


They are all plurals. I just gave all list so that one can see what are the possibilities. Because the first thing the beginner asks is what is list of plurals. I just put them there because it is better that talking with CaCaaCiC.
And I didn't say anything about plural of plurals.


Mahaodeh said:


> I am so sorry, but I can't possibly agree with this! how do you see them the same - I just do not get it. The singulars are different and so are the plurals. Moreover, the number of constants differ and the number of letters differ (assuming you are looking at the number of constants only or the totall number of letters).


The forms look different but the "idea" to make plural is the same. And that is فَعَالِلُ . The differences are coming from the singular, accept the last one I added later, _ta_ is unpredictable. So one doesn't have to memorise all forms and can consider them as one. That is helpful for beginners, I hope, as it was to me. 

There is only one form and that is فَعَالِلُ . And there may be _ta marbuta_ that is unpredictable.

Look at the other plural forms and get the differences from فَعَالِلُ . Those diferences are already exist in the singular forms and they are carried to the plural forms. But they are not always the same letters.

I am sorry, too. I don't really understand why people can not understand such an easy thing. I think it is because people can not relearn their own language.

Before anyone flame me let me say that I didn't claim to be an expert of Arabic but just wanted to share my understanding of these plurals to make memorizing easier for beginners like me.

I just gave all examples to show them. I think I have to explain them all. The bone structure is فَعَالِلُ and we will decorate it.

I am not looking at the number of letters or consonants. I am not even counting anything. I am just trying to match it to فَعَالِلُ .

Firstly look at the singular and get three roots. After that they are need to be made four roots _fa2, ayn, lam1 _and _lam2 _by _somehow_ choosing one letter from the singular. (If this choice is not possible then, _I guess_, Arabs try the other ways of pluralisation.)

Depending on this choice, _fa2 _can be _mem _or _alef;_ _ayn_ can be _waw; lam1_ can be hamza_ and lam2_ can be _ya2._

فَعَالِيلُ : _ya2_ is due to any long vovel of _waw, alef_ or _ya2_ in the last syllable of the singular, second letter from the last. 

مَفَاعِلُ : _mem_ is due to the _mem_ in the singular for _fa2_. It replaces the missing_ fa2_ in the plurals. _mem_ and three roots in the singular makes 4 letters to choose as roots for the plurals.

فَوَاعِلُ : _waw_ is due to any long vovel of _waw, alef_ or _ya2_ in the second letter of the singular and when the singular has only three roots, _waw_ is added to make it four.

أَفَاعِلُ : _alef _is due to the _alef as the first letter_ the singular. It replaces the missing_ fa2_ in the plurals.

فَعَائِلُ : _hamza_ is due to any long vovel of _waw, alef_ or _ya2_ in third letter of the singular.

فَعَالٍ : The hidden _ya2_ is the forth root _lam2 _and it is due to any long vovel of _waw, alef_ or _ya2_ in fourth letter of the singular. This is not _fe3aal form._
فَعَالَى This time _ya2_ appears because of no reason. That is another unpredictibility. It is usually because _lam1_ is _waw, alef_ or _ya2. _
فَعَاليٌّ : It is in fact فَعَالِيلُ while _lam2_ is _ya2. _It just keeps double _ya2_ in the singular.

..and combinations of these.

Sigh! These broken forms look like fractals. They look simple outside but when go in the details, it never ends and you get lost....


----------



## clevermizo

Eh ... to be honest, the easiest way for me to learn broken plurals is just to learn the plural along with the singular when I learn a new noun. I know the basic patterns, but I had a headache just sorting through this thread. 

I know people hate some good old fashioned memorization, but sometimes it's just simpler. Unless the point of this thread was theoretical and not pedagogical, which isn't clear to me.


----------



## Xence

Faylasoof said:


> What is / are supposed to be the officially recognised plural / plurals.
> 
> Did you ever get to do the plurals of proper names?
> جعفر
> فاطمة
> سقراط
> أرسطو


The first two, being Arabic words, have their official plurals which are جعافر and فواطم .
As for سقراط and أرسطو , I would suggest (and have already read these somewhere, in fact): سقارطة and أراسطة .

Regarding أخطبوط , I am not sure we will ever get a final and definitive "correct answer". All the forms you have mentioned (أخاطب - أخاطبة - أخاطيب) and also أخابط، أخابيط (if the singular is taken to be أخبوط) could be considered as correct when applying the rule about more than 4 radicals. I even saw خطاطيب and خطابيط . The problem here is which letter we have to remove from the singular in order to get a plural fitting with the official patterns.

Here's what Al Mubarrid says in his MuqtaDab (criticizing Sibawayh by the way !):



> *باب ما كان على خمسة أحرف وفيه زيادتان ملحقتان أو غير ملحقتين *





> *اعلم أنه ما كان كذلك مما استوت فيه زيادتان فإنك في حذف ما تشاء منهما مخير إذا كانتا متساويتين، إما ملحقتان وإما غير ملحقتين؛ وذلك قولك: حبنطىً ودلنظىً وسرندىً.*​
> 
> *فالنون زائدة وكذلك الألف وهما ملحقتان بباب سفرجل.*​
> 
> 
> *فإن شئت قلت: حباطٍ، ودلاظٍ. وسرادٍ. وإن شئت قلت: حبانط، ودلائظ، وسراند، لأن الألف في الزيادة كالنون. وكذلك يكون هذا في التصغير.*​
> 
> 
> *و من ذلك قلنسوة؛ لأن الواو والنون زائدتان وهي على مثال قمحدوة. فإن شئت قلت: قلانس فحذفت الواو، وإن شئت: قلت: قلاسٍ فحذفت النون.*​
> 
> 
> *و كذلك فعلهما، يقال تقلنس وتقلسى. والتصغير على هذا جرى.*​
> 
> 
> *فأما جحنفل فليس فيه إلا جحافل. وكذلك قرنفل لا يجوز فيه إلا قرافل:؛ لأنه ليس هاهنا زيادة إلا النون.*​
> 
> 
> *و اعلم أن كل شيءٍ حذفت منه فالعوض فيه جائز. وهي ياءٌ تلحق قبل آخره. وكذلك قولك في سفرجل سفاريج. وإن شئت قلت في حبنطى: حباطي إن حذفت النون وعوضت. وإن حذفت الألف وعوضت قلت: حبانيط. والتصغير على هذا يجري.*​


----------



## Faylasoof

Xence said:


> The first two, being Arabic words, have their official plurals which are





Xence said:


> جعافر and فواطم .
> As for سقراط and أرسطو , I would suggest (and have already read these somewhere, in fact): سقارطة and أراسطة .


 Thanks Xence! 

These two I too have seen. But these I wasn’t sure of and instinctively had come up with:

  أراسط <- أرسطو 
سقراط  ->  سقارط / سقاريط

But if سقارطة and أراسطة are now official, then who am I to argue! Incidentally, بَطلَمِیوس (Ptolemy), takes, this broken plural: بَطالِسَۃ.



> Regarding أخطبوط , I am not sure we will ever get a final and definitive "correct answer". All the forms you have mentioned (أخاطب - أخاطبة - أخاطيب) and also أخابط، أخابيط (if the singular is taken to be أخبوط) could be considered as correct when applying the rule about more than 4 radicals. I even saw خطاطيب and خطابيط . The problem here is which letter we have to remove from the singular in order to get a plural fitting with the official patterns.
> 
> Here's what Al Mubarrid says in his MuqtaDab (criticizing Sibawayh by the way !) ....



I can see the problem here! Good to read what Al Mubarrid had to say.

 Searching for more plurals of proper Arabic names I found that some just take the simple sound plural, e.g.
عُبَید -> عُبَیدُون; عُثمان-> عُثمانون; ھِند-> ھِندات etc.

Like other nouns, proper noun plurals can take either the sound or the broken plural. More to learn!


----------



## aurelien.demarest

Hi guys,
first of all I hope that the thread is correct..
My teacher told me about some specific words on non being humans which الحركة is not common (not following the standard of الاعراب).
I was wondering if someone could help me by giving me the grammatical rules.
Example. تُنَظِّمُ نَوَادٍ كثيرة مِهْرَجَاناً في المدينة.

In this case the word is نواد which should be مرفوع so with double damma while it is taking a double kasrat. Is it related with the broken plural?
She told me that the following words are having the same behaviour:
جوار
مواشي
دواع
ليل

Thanks in advance 
Aurélien


----------



## analeeh

The underlying forms here are جواري مواشي دواعي ليالي, and this is in fact how these patterns are typically pronounced in spoken Arabic where the _tanwiin_ are not used. However, in fusha the nominative and genitive forms (_*layaali-yun_ and _*layaali-yin_) collapse into one form _layaalin. _This applies to all 'defective' nouns which end in a yaa2 (that is, where the yaa2 represents a root consonant). This includes singulars like قاضِ _qaaDin_ (قاضي) too, not just plurals.

The difference between the plural and the singular comes somewhere else. _layaalin_ is formed on a variant of the broken plural pattern فواعل (i.e. the same pattern you see in, say, أجانب). This pattern, like all similar patterns (i.e. CaCaaCiC, CaaCaaCiC, CaCaaCin, CaaCaaCin etc) is diptote or ممنوع من الصرف. In sound nouns like أجانب this means that in the indefinite they take -_u_ for nominative and _-a_ for *both accusative and genitive.* When the noun is defective, like _layaalin_, this adds an extra complication - the accusative is formed with a simple _-a_. So we get the following forms:

nom: ليالٍ _layaalin_
acc: ليالِيَ _layaaliya_
gen: ليالٍ _layaalin_

compared to a sound noun:

nom: أجانبٌ _ajaanibu_
acc: أجانبَ _ajaaniba_
gen: أجانبَ _ajaaniba_


----------



## aurelien.demarest

That is very very interested Analeeh thank you. I couldn't imagine a such rule.

By the way by reading your explanation I notice I made a typo


aurelien.demarest said:


> مواشي


Actually it was مواش (without the ي) 
I have to admit that for me those rules are quite difficult to remind (it hasn't been so long time since I have been starting learning Arabic).

In any case thank you very much for this explanation 

Aurélien


----------

