# plural of the collective noun



## Serafín33

Hello! This is a question that's been bugging me for a long time, but I always forget to ask about it...

We know that some nouns, in comparison to English, tend to have a distinction between being "collective" and being "countable", often related to elements in nature. 

The first one, the collective noun, is often used to talk about the noun in general. The second one, the unit noun, is used when we want to count it, i.e. when we want to say that there's only one or two or want to use the numbers 3-9, which require a countable plural.

تمر -‎ تمرة -‎ تمرتان -‎ ثلاث تمرات
dates (collec.) - one date - two dates - three dates
سمك -‎ سمكة -‎ سمكتان -‎ أربع سمكات
fish (collec.) - one fish - two fish - four fish
شجر -‎ شجرة -‎ شجرتان -‎ خمس شجرات
trees (collec.) - one tree - two trees - five trees
لحم -‎ لحمة -‎ لحمتان -‎ ست لحمات
meat (collec.) - one piece of meat - two pieces of meat - six pieces of meat

This question arises from something I've seen in dictionaries, where plurals are sometimes given for the *collective*. Relating to the examples above, they would be تمور,‎ أسماك,‎ أشجار and لحوم respectively.

I've never seen any explanations for how these plurals of collectives are used, so I would want to know if anybody here could provide an explanation of their use. In particular, how are they (تمور,‎ أسماك,‎ أشجار and لحوم) different from their collectives (تمر,‎ سمك,‎ أشجار and لحم) and their unit noun plurals (تمرات,‎ سمكات,‎ شجرات and لحمات)?


----------



## Kinan

Well, tough question, we need some expert to explain it for us, but in dialects we use all of these plurals when we speak.
By the way, I think Russian language has a similar thing too.


----------



## clevermizo

Well technically تمور as a plural of تمر might mean "kinds of dates" and أسماك might mean "kinds of fishes". However in practice it turns out that some plurals are simply more common than others, even for counting. For example, أشجار is more common that شجرات even for the meaning of counting individual trees (i.e., أشجار is used as a plural of شجرة rather than شجر). (Here is an old thread discussing شجرات vs. أشجار).So actually sometimes the "plural of the collective" might be a more common plural of the singulative, and this has to be learned case by case (just as in the case of other nouns that have more than one possibe pluralization).


----------



## Serafín33

Thank you very much for your straightforward answer!


----------



## Milad__7

salam, these are types of Jam3 Attakseer جمع التكسير , read the following:
جمع التكسير: ما دلَّ على أكثر من اثنين، ولم يسلم بناء مفرده من التغيير، أقسامه:
أ) جمع القلة: للعدد القليل من 3- 10 أوزانه أربعة: أَفْعُلٌ : أَحْرُفٌ ، أَفْعَالٌ: أَجْدادٌ ، أَفْعِلَةٌ: أَزْمِنَة، فِعْلَةٌ : فِتْيَةٌ.
ب) جمع الكثرة: للعدد الكثير من 11 إلى ما لا نهاية، أوزانه سبعة عشر:
فُعْل: بُكْم، فُعُل: رُسُل، فُعَل: غُرَف، فِعَل: قِطَع، فَعَلَة: خَدَمَة، فُعَلَة: رُمَاة
فِعَلَة: دِبَبَة، فَعْلى: مَرْضى، فُعَّل: رُكَّع، فُعّال: قُرّاء، فِعال: كِرَام، فُعُول: بُحُور
فَعِيل: حَجِيج، فِعْلان: غِلْمان، فُعْلان: قُمْصان، فُعَلاء: بُخَلاء، أَفْعِلاء: أَغْنِياء.
ج) صيغة منتهى الجموع: كل جمع بعد ألف تكسيره حرفان أو ثلاثة وسطها ساكن أشهرها: فَوَاعل: فَوَارس، فَعَائِل: صفائح، فَعَالي: الصّحاري، فَعَالى: عذارى فَعَاليّ: كَرَاسيّ، فَعَالِل: جَمَاجِم... 
- صيغة منتهى الجموع : ممنوع من الصرف لعلة واحدة .
- صيغة منتهى الجموع، وهي عبارة عن جمع تكسير مكون من خمسة أحرف وسطها ألف، نحو: مساجد- كنائس-كتائب، أو مكون من ستة أحرف ثالثها ألف، وما قبلها ساكن، نحو: مصابيح- عناقيد- مساحيق براهين- جواسيس. 
منقول


----------



## Tensor78

Hi,

I have a question about collective nouns e.g. Hajar, shajar, baqar, etc. If I add a taa marbuTa to the end of them, I can refer to just one stone, tree, cow, etc. Further, the plural of those singulars is just the sound feminine (I think). 

But, what about the plurals of the collective nouns themselves? For example, "shajar" "trees (collective)" has a plural " 'ashjaar ". How would I translate the plural of a collective? 

Thanks.


----------



## barkoosh

Generally speaking, it's translated the same as the collective noun itself. "shajar" and "ashjaar" are 'trees' in English, also "shajaraat".


----------



## Tensor78

^OK. So, putting collective nouns into the plural just keeps them collective. That is, it doesn't change the meaning.

I wonder why the plurals exist in the first place.


----------



## Abu Talha

See this thread: collective vs plural nouns + هذا الـ / كثير

Also, as far as I know, you can't use the collective when using numbers. "Three trees" have to be ثلاث أشجار and not ثلاث شجر.

And a small correction. I think حَجَر is not a collective even though it is listed as such in Haywood and Nahmad's Grammar.


----------



## barkoosh

Abu Talha said:


> "Three trees" have to be ثلاث أشجار and not ثلاث شجر.


I might be wrong but I think it should be ثلاث شجرات not ثلاث أشجار nor, of course, ثلاث شجر.


----------



## Abu Talha

That's interesting. Would you say this is the case for all collective nouns that have broken plurals? Here are some examples from my notes:



بثربثورpimplesبلاطأبلطةtilesبيضبيوضeggsتمرتمورdatesدمعدموعtearsذبابةذِبّانfliesزهرةأزهارflowersصخرةصخورrocksفأرةفِئرانmiceبندقبنادقhazelnuts


----------



## rajulbat

Not a native, of course, but I always see ثلاث أشجار in MSA material, and the same goes for all of the examples above. The plural is used if the number is from 3 to 10.


----------



## barkoosh

I don't know guys. I did some extensive research about it but found nothing. For some reason, I usually say
كسرتُ ثلاث بلاطات not كسرتُ ثلاثة أبلطة
أكلتُ ثلاث بيضات not أكلت ثلاث بيوض
انهمرت ثلاث دمعات not انهمرت ثلاثة دموع
قتلتُ ثلاث ذبابات not قتلتُ ثلاثة ذبّان
قطفتُ ثلاث زهرات not قطفتُ ثلاثة زهور 
etc...
As for فأر, I don't think that it's a collective noun.

I'll keep on searching.


----------



## fdb

To return to the original question:

شجرة = one tree
شجر = أشجار = شجرات trees
الشجر = the genus ‘tree’
الأشجار  = الشجرات  the trees, a specific set of trees

According to the prescriptive grammars, the numbers 3 to 10 are construed with the pluralis paucitatis (جمع القلة), if it exists, otherwise with an ordinary broken plural, and with a sound plural only if no broken plural exists. By this token one ought to say ثلالة أشجار not ثلاث شجرات. But I am not sure whether classical authors always abide by this rule.


rajulbat said:


> Not a native, of course, but I always see ثلاث أشجار in MSA material, and the same goes for all of the examples above.



This is ungrammatical, of course (wrong gender).


----------



## ajamiyya عجمية

According to the head-splitting drilling I undertook in the perilous world of using the proper forms of numbers in Arabic (The rules really are daunting), the rules require use of a feminine number with masculine words and vice-versa.  

That is, even though  بنات  is a feminine word, we modify it with a masculine number, thus ثلاث بنات is the correct construct.


----------



## rajulbat

fdb said:


> This is ungrammatical, of course (wrong gender).


I'm in the same boat as *ajamiyya*. I learned that you have to look at the gender of the singular noun (in this case, shajara is feminine) and then use the OPPOSITE gender for the number.

You can find confirmations of this in the Qur'an, for example:
2:196: ثلاثة أيام
2:226 أربعة أشهر
24:6 أربع شهادات
2:29 سبع سماوات


----------



## Finland

Hello!


rajulbat said:


> I'm in the same boat as *ajamiyya*. I learned that you have to look at the gender of the singular noun (in this case, shajara is feminine) and then use the OPPOSITE gender for the number.



But the singular is شجر, not شجرة, no?

HTH
S


----------



## fdb

Finland is right.


----------



## rajulbat

If the meaning you want is "tree", then no, the singular is شجرة
If you want something more like a forest or a cluster of trees/vegetation, شجر

And أشجار is the plural of شجرة, whereas شجرات is the plural of شجر


----------



## Finland

No but the singular شجرة gives شجرات, and the singular شجر gives أشجار.

SE&O
S


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks Barkoosh.





fdb said:


> According to the prescriptive grammars, the numbers 3 to 10 are construed with the pluralis paucitatis (جمع القلة), if it exists, otherwise with an ordinary broken plural, and with a sound plural only if no broken plural exists. By this token one ought to say ثلالة أشجار not ثلاث شجرات. But I am not sure whether classical authors always abide by this rule.


Good input, fdb. I pretty much read the same thing when trying to research this. See Wright, vol. ii., §96, p. 234D. (By the way, I have to disagree with regards to the gender of the numeral: I think ثلاث not ثلاثة will be correct.)

However, Wright also says regarding broken (plurales fracti) and sound plurals:





> As regards their meaning, the plurales fracti differ entirely from the sound plurals ; for* the latter denote several distinct individuals of a genus, the former a number of individuals viewed collectively, the idea of individuality being wholly suppressed*. For example, عَبْدُونَ are slaves (_servi_), i.e. several individuals who are slaves, عَبِيدٌ _slaves_ collectively (_servitium_ or _servitus_) ; شُبَّانٌ _young men, youth (juventus)_, = شَبَابٌ ; مَشْيَخَة _old men_ in general. The plurales fracti are consequently, strictly speaking, _singulars_ with a _collective_ signification, and often approach in their nature to _abstract nouns_.
> Source: Wright, vol. i., §300, p. 233D


So perhaps for numbers 3-10, the sound plural is used because for such small numbers the idea of several distinct individuals is conveyed. Hence the sound plural.

Also, when trying to look for examples from Classical Arabic, I found only شجرات used with numerals. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Similarly, for تمرات. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4 (strangely, this one has ثلاثــة تمرات), ... (and many more.)


----------



## rajulbat

Finland said:


> No but the singular شجرة gives شجرات, and the singular شجر gives أشجار.
> 
> SE&O
> S


No, the other way around.


----------



## Finland

Ok... How odd, I could have sworn I was right. I've used Arabic in this way for the past ten years, but it wouldn't be the first time I make mistakes...

S


----------



## Xence

According to Lisan al-Arab, all three words (شجر - أشجار - شجرات) are considered as plurals of the same singular noun  شجرة .



> الشَّجَرَة الواحدة تجمع على الشَّجَروالشَّجَرَات والأَشْجارِ


----------



## Tensor78

fdb said:


> To return to the original question:
> 
> شجرة = one tree
> شجر = أشجار = شجرات trees
> الشجر = the genus ‘tree’
> الأشجار  = الشجرات  the trees, a specific set of trees
> 
> According to the prescriptive grammars, the numbers 3 to 10 are construed with the pluralis paucitatis (جمع القلة), if it exists, otherwise with an ordinary broken plural, and with a sound plural only if no broken plural exists. By this token one ought to say ثلالة أشجار not ثلاث شجرات. But I am not sure whether classical authors always abide by this rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is ungrammatical, of course (wrong gender).



Thanks for you input; you simultaneously put the thread back on track and answered my questions. incidentally, you also answered a question I asked lower down on the forum that no one answered. 

Thanks again.


----------



## fdb

rajulbat said:


> I learned that you have to look at the gender of the singular noun (....) and then use the OPPOSITE gender for the number.



I hope you realise that nobody on here is denying that.


----------



## dkarjala

Finland said:


> Ok... How odd, I could have sworn I was right. I've used Arabic in this way for the past ten years, but it wouldn't be the first time I make mistakes...
> 
> S



You're not exactly wrong. Of course, the plural فعلات _must_ be from the singular فعلة. I'd be hard pressed to find another example of فعل /فعلات. I think that since شجرة and أشجار are so much more common, they have been accepted as a pair sg./pl. even though this is historically inaccurate. If you do a google search with parentheses, notice that you  get many more hits ثلاث أشجار. My guess is it's psychological pressure on the paradigm from the commonness of شجرة.


----------



## Xence

dkarjala said:


> If you do a google search with parentheses, notice that you  get many more hits ثلاث أشجار.



You will get a similar result with بقرة/أبقار , simply because this is the correct way to put it.

fdb has made a good post, except for this. There is no reason to write ثلاثة أشجار , since أشجار is also the plural of شجرة  as I mentioned previously.


----------



## fdb

The correctness or otherwise of an Arabic construction is decided not by a google search, but by consulting the classical grammars (Sībawayh, Zamakhsharī etc.) and the usage of early books (Qur’an , hadith, Jahili poetry etc.). The distinction between the masculine and feminine forms of the numerals is lost in (I believe) all modern Arabic dialects, and already in mediaeval texts the use of the numerals is as often as not wrong. I know this because I spend most of my time reading old Arabic manuscripts and inscriptions. Number constructions in post-classical texts are a big mess. Arabic fuṣḥā is not a living spoken language, there are no “native speakers” to consult, even the Shaykh al-Azhar speaks to his children in Egyptian dialect. The number of hits on the internet is thus of no value in determining correct usage.


----------



## Xence

We are not saying that because you get more hits then it's correct, but because it's correct you are most likely to get more hits. A google search can give you an idea about the subject, though it's not a grammar reference and should not be one.

This being said, MSA, as any other modern language, has its standardized rules, whether people comply with them or not.


----------



## fdb

As an afterthought to all this I would like to add that we have collective nouns in English too, though they are less common than in Arabic. Thus:

_thamar_ = ‘fruit’
_thamarah _= ‘a piece of fruit’
_thimār _= ‘fruits’
_thamarāt_ = ‘pieces of fruit’.

I would maintain that in Arabic too there is a difference between the last two of these: _thimār_ implies different kinds of fruit (apples + oranges etc.), while _thamarāt_ can mean either ‘pieces of the same fruit’ or ‘pieces of different kinds of fruit’.

_thamar, _like ‘fruit’, is grammatically singular. Both imply a collection of individual fruits conceived as a single entity.


----------



## Xence

fdb said:


> I would maintain that in Arabic too there is a difference between the last two of these: _thimār_ implies different kinds of fruit (apples + oranges etc.), while _thamarāt_ can mean either ‘pieces of the same fruit’ or ‘pieces of different kinds of fruit’.



It wouldn't be difficult to find a lot of counter-examples in either classical or modern Arabic.

For instance, the word ثمرات is used several times in Quran to mean _fruits _and not _pieces of fruits_ (see for example 7:130)


> *( لقد أخذنا آل فرعون بالسنين **ونقص من** الثمرات** لعلهم يذكرون )*
> ​And We certainly seized the people of Pharaoh with years of famine and a deficiency in fruits that perhaps they would be reminded.





On the contrary, the Arabic translation of the Bible verse "_For every tree is known by its fruits_" (Luke 6:44), where one would expect _pieces of fruit _ثمرات, we rather have ثمر :


> * لأن كل شجرة تعرف من  ثمرها*






*********



Now, it should be pointed out that many examples suggested in this thread are not to be considered as collective noun اسم جمع , but as generic noun اسم جنس .

Here are a few definitions:

> *اسم الجمع: هو ما تضمّن معنى الجمع، ولكن لا واحد له. نحو: [جيش وقوم ونساء وشعب...]. ولك الخيار في أن تعامله معاملة المفرد، أو معاملة الجمع. فتقول مثلاً:النساء سافرت، والنساء سافَرْنَ، والقوم رحل، والقوم رحلوا...و
> *
> *اسم الجنس الإفرادي: هو ما دلّ على الكثير والقليل من الجنس، نحو: لبن، عسل، ماء...ءاا
> *
> *اسم الجنس الجمعي: هو ما تضمن معنى الجمع، دالاّ على الجنس، نحو: بطيخ وتفاح وتمر. ويفرق بينه وبين مفرده تاء تلحق المفرد، فيقال في حالة الإفراد: بطيخة وتفاحة وتمرة... ا*



َAnd finally, what seems to be a problem here, namely the plural of collective nouns, can be related to what is known as جمع الجمع . And here, most Arab grammarians agree that there isn't a formal rule, but a few cases that might be learned by heart, so to speak.

> *جمع الجمع : **جاء عن العرب أنهم جمعوا الجمع أحياناً. وذلك كلمات معدودات بأعيانها. وجمع الجمع - على هذا - سماعي، فما ورد منه يحفظ **ويستعمل، ولكن لا يقاس عليه. من ذلك: بيوتات ورجالات وجمالات وأقاويل وأظافير...**ر*




Sibawayh goes even further by saying that not all collective nouns have plurals :


> واعلم أنه ليس كلُّ جمع يجمع، [...] كما أنَّهم لا يجمعون كلّ اسم يقع على الجميع نحو: التَّمر، وقالوا: التُّمرات
> 
> Source


----------



## fdb

Xence said:


> On the contrary, the Arabic translation of the Bible verse "_For every tree is known by its fruits_" (Luke 6:44), where one would expect _pieces of fruit _ثمرات, we rather have ثمر :



As a matter of fact, the Greek original has the singular/collective “fruit” (εκαστον γαρ δενδρον εκ του ιδιου καρπου γινωσκεται), correctly rendered in the KJV as “For every tree is known by his own fruit”, and in the Smith/Van Dyke translation as لان كل شجرة تعرف من ثمرها. There is, by the way, no such thing as “the Arabic translation of the Bible”: there are lots of different translations of greatly varying quality.


----------



## Xence

fdb said:


> There is, by the way, no such thing as “the Arabic translation of the Bible”: there are lots of different translations of greatly varying quality.



Yes, you are right. I should have said "one Arabic translation...".

What is the original Greek version of Matthew 7:17 ? The above mentioned Arabic translation reads: 


> *هكَذَا كُلُّ شَجَرَةٍ جَيِّدَةٍ تَصْنَعُ أَثْمَارًا جَيِّدَةً، وَأَمَّا الشَّجَرَةُ الرَّدِيَّةُ فَتَصْنَعُ أَثْمَارًا رَدِيَّةً*


----------



## fdb

In Mt 7:17 the original has “good fruits .... evil fruits” (καρπους καλους  .... καρπους πονηρους), in the plural. The KJV has: “good fruit .... evil fruit” (singular). I admit gladly that there is no real difference in meaning between “fruit” in Lk 6:44 and “fruits” in Mt 7:17, and that in Arabic too the difference between the collective and the plural is at best very subtle.


----------



## Xence

fdb said:


> In Mt 7:17 the original has “good fruits .... evil fruits” (καρπους καλους  .... καρπους πονηρους), in the plural.



Thanks for this.


----------



## Abu Talha

barkoosh said:


> I don't know guys. I did some extensive research about it but found nothing. For some reason, I usually say
> كسرتُ ثلاث بلاطات not كسرتُ ثلاثة أبلطة
> أكلتُ ثلاث بيضات not أكلت ثلاث بيوض
> ...


What if there were three dates but they are referred to without using a numeral. In that case would you still use تمرات or will you now use تمور? Here is a sample exchange:
أ: أين التمرات/التمور التي تركتها هنا؟
ب: أكلتُ تلك التمرات/التمور.

Thanks.

EDIT: I just looked up the entry in Lane and he says:





> the n. un. is with ة: and the pl. of تَمْرٌ is تُمُورٌ and تُمْرَانٌ, (T, S, M, Msb, K,) meaning _sorts_ or _varieties_ [of تَمْر]; for a coll. gen. n. has not a pl. in the proper sense: (S and in like manner the dual تَمْرَانِ means _two_ sorts [of تَمْر]: (Sb cited in the M in art. بسر the pl. of تَمْرَةٌ is تَمَرَاتٌ.
> Source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...rseus:text:2002.02.0017:root=tmr:entry=tamorN


So it seems in my sample exchange above, تمرات would be used, correct?

Also, I think I now understand something of fdb and Xence's discussion above.


----------



## barkoosh

Personally, I would say تمرات. But تمور could be right, I don't know.


----------



## Abu Talha

Many thanks Barkoosh.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

fdb said:


> As an afterthought to all this I would like to add that we have collective nouns in English too, though they are less common than in Arabic. Thus:
> 
> _thamar_ = ‘fruit’
> _thamarah _= ‘a piece of fruit’
> _thimār _= ‘fruits’
> _thamarāt_ = ‘pieces of fruit’.
> 
> I would maintain that in Arabic too there is a difference between the last two of these: _thimār_ implies different kinds of fruit (apples + oranges etc.), while _thamarāt_ can mean either ‘pieces of the same fruit’ or ‘pieces of different kinds of fruit’.
> 
> _thamar, _like ‘fruit’, is grammatically singular. Both imply a collection of individual fruits conceived as a single entity.


Cela me semble logique cette façon de voir les choses mais alors justement si je veux dire : "trois fruits" dans le sens de "trois éléments du même fruit" (trois fruits distincts de la même espèce) on devrait logiquement utiliser le mot *thamarāt* et non le mot *thimār*, non ?

Je comprends que _thamar_ désigne une espèce de fruit donc _thimār _désignerait plusieurs espèces de fruits, non ?


fdb said:


> To return to the original question:
> 
> شجرة = one tree
> شجر = أشجار = شجرات trees
> الشجر = the genus ‘tree’
> الأشجار  = الشجرات  the trees, a specific set of trees


Le  mot شجر sans l'article al n'est pas un nom d'espèce comme الشجر ? Je  pensais que oui, c'est-à-dire que شجر désignait une espèce d'arbre comme  par exemple peuplier, chêne, sapin... Je pensais aussi que أشجار étant  le pluriel de شجر désignait plusieurs espèces d’arbre.

Merci.


rajulbat said:


> *And أشجار is the plural of شجرة, whereas شجرات is the plural of شجر*





Finland said:


> No but the singular شجرة gives شجرات, and the singular شجر gives أشجار.





rajulbat said:


> No, the other way around.





Finland said:


> Ok... How odd, I could have sworn I was right.  I've used Arabic in this way for the past ten years, but it wouldn't be  the first time I make mistakes...



It seems to me that "rajulbat" is wrong, right?

See source :

شَجَر : جمع الجمع أشجار ، مفرد شجرَة
شجر - شَجَرٌ : جمع : أَشْجَارٌ. جمع شَجَرَة

and source : شَجَرات      : جمع شَّجَرَةُ

I understand that شَجَرات is the plural of شَّجَرَةُ and that أَشْجَارٌ is the plural of شَجَرٌ, what do you think?


----------



## Ghabi

barkoosh said:


> Personally, I would say تمرات. But تمور could be right, I don't know.


In Sibawayhi (§412) one sees سبع تمرات, so I guess this is the way for the ancient grammarians.


----------



## Ali Smith

Today I came across أعطنا ثلاثة كباب (Give us three kebabs)
Is this grammatically correct? Is kabaab a collective noun (إسم جمع)?


----------



## barkoosh

When you say أعطنا ثلاثة كباب you mean أعطنا ثلاثة سندويشات/شطائر/أسياخ كباب.

Here's another example. In Lebanon, when buying manakish, we say:
بدّي 4 زعتر، 3 جبنة، و5 لحمة, which are different types of toppings. We just don't say مناقيش every time because it's implied.


----------

