# feminine verb + masculine plural subject



## Sidjanga

Hi again,

I've heard that, in فصحى, the _"plurals take feminine verb forms"_ rule _actually _applies to all plurals, i.e. not just to plural nouns referring to things; e.g., that it would have to be 

خرجت الرجال

and _not_

خرج الرجال,

and that the latter is actually just a "common mistake".

Does anyone agree?


----------



## clevermizo

I've not heard this. I'm pretty sure it's خرج الرجال. There are some collective nouns that take feminine agreement idiomatically (تقول العرب) but I wouldn't say it's all plural nouns.


----------



## פפאיה

Hi,

I also learned that in فصحى this rule applies only to non-human nouns, but it sounds very familar from العامية - where you can say for instance راحت الناس or اجت الشباب when the noun indicates a group of people. 
I wonder if this can also be used in فصحى, and if so, whether it is correct, or maybe borrowed from العامية and shouldn't really be said that way.


----------



## ajami

قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

وَقَالَ نِسْوَةٌ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ امْرَأَةُ الْعَزِيزِ تُرَاوِدُ فَتَاهَا عَن نَّفْسِهِ قَدْ شَغَفَهَا حُبًّا إِنَّا لَنَرَاهَا فِي ضَلاَلٍ مُّبِينٍ

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ

These are just off the top of my head.


----------



## Sidjanga

Thanks for your replies.





clevermizo said:


> There are some collective nouns that take feminine agreement idiomatically (تقول العرب) ...


Is the feminine agreement optional or simply a rule in this/these case(s)?


----------



## clevermizo

I'm pretty sure it's optional and that you can say يقول العرب/العرب يقولون. I don't know if there's a rule. I also don't know all the collective nouns this applies to.


----------



## ajami

Sidjanga said:


> Thanks for your replies.Is the feminine agreement optional or simply a rule in this/these case(s)?


This is an optional and rule applies on all broken plurals as well as non haqeeqi nouns and collective nouns.especially when the subject doesnt follow directly after the verb.

Also, apart from being optional, it is usual.

The question is not asked about the nominal sentence, where when the verb comes after the noun, it has to agree with the seegha and gender of the subject, which it refers to.


----------



## Sidjanga

Hi ajami,

May I ask what your mother tongue is and/or where you're from?


----------



## Mahaodeh

I'm not sure about the rule because I don't recall reading such a rule, but I do read a lot and what Ajami said seems right.


----------



## Sidjanga

Thanks, Maha.

I'm not sure I understand this correctly though:





ajami said:


> Also, apart from being optional, it is usual.


Are you saying it is normal to say تقول العرب - and less usual to say يقول العرب ?


----------



## ajami

Yes,this case is the  of when subject is ism aljins(collective)
both are correct but they say taqoolu al3arab.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Sidjanga said:


> I'm not sure I understand this correctly though:Are you saying it is normal to say تقول العرب - and less usual to say يقول العرب ?


Yes, even in collequal Arabic.


----------



## Ali Smith

I suspect the reason why قالت العرب and تقول العرب are correct is because عرب is a broken plural. Its singular is عربي.

Remember that a broken plural is any plural that is not formed by adding ون or ات. Thus, even فُلْك is considered a broken plural, even though it looks identical to the singular, فَلْك (a ship).

Thus, one can say ذهبت الرجال and ذهب النساء, because both are broken plurals.


----------



## Ihsiin

No, you can also have sound plurals treated as singular feminine - as I have referred to previously on this forum, in the Qur'an 10:90 we find: آمنتُ أنه لا إله إلا الذي *آمنتْ* به *بنو* إسرائيل.

Also, عرب is not a broken plural but a collective noun.


----------



## Ali Smith

ihsiin: I believe there's another rule: if there is something separating the verb from its فاعل, then it (the verb) can be of either gender. This rule might be at play in وَجَاوَزْنَا بِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ الْبَحْرَ فَأَتْبَعَهُمْ فِرْعَوْنُ وَجُنُودُهُ بَغْيًا وَعَدْوًا ۖ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَدْرَكَهُ الْغَرَقُ قَالَ آمَنتُ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا الَّذِي آمَنَتْ بِهِ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ وَأَنَا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

By contrast, I don't think ذهبتِ المسلمون would be correct, but I may be mistaken.


----------



## WadiH

I think we should treat بنو as a special case.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Perhaps بنو اسرائيل is treated as feminine because they are قبيلة أو عشيرة, or perhaps جماعة بني إسرائيل.


----------



## Ali Smith

Is بنو actually بَنُوْنَ but the ن dropped out because it's مضاف to إسرائيل? If so, it seems to be a جمع مذكر سالم.


----------



## WadiH

It is technically جمع مذكر سالم but seems to be treated as a collective noun (i.e. a special case).  I'm sure you'll find some more 'rigorous' rationalization in one of those books dedicated to the grammar of the Qur'an.


----------

