# plural noun - gender



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

1- If a noun is masculine in the singular form, so it is also masculine in the plural form.

2- If a noun is feminine in the singular form, so it is also feminine in the plural form.

These two assertions are true or false?

 Merci.


----------



## Samih

I thinkg the first may be wrong. In fact, we say " الشعب" ( the people ) but in plural we have " الشعوب " and it's in feminine form. 

For instance: الشعب الذي شارك in masculine 
and in plural we'll say الشعوب التي.

Nonetheless some words in maculine form in singular stay masculine in plural, it depends on the nature of the noun. When it's " alive" it stays masculine... 

 De rien mon ami pour ta question. Cela fait plaisir de voir des gens francophones comme moi qui s'intéressent à la langue d'Averoes.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Samih said:


> De rien mon ami pour ta question. Cela fait plaisir de voir des gens francophones comme moi qui s'intéressent à la langue d'Averoes.



Bienvenu à toi, ça fait plaisir un francophone de plus qui nous rejoint, il y en a si peu, la majorité étant anglophone. Tant mieux car je ne suis pas bon du tout en anglais...



Samih said:


> I thinkg the first may be wrong. In fact, we say "  الشعب" ( the people ) but in plural we have " الشعوب " and it's in  feminine form.
> 
> For instance: الشعب الذي شارك in masculine
> and in plural we'll say الشعوب التي.



Tout d'abord merci pour ta réponse. Ensuite il me semble (corrige-moi si je me trompe) que le mot شعوب  est un pluriel irrégulier, non ? Or il me semble concernant les accords en genre que les pluriels irréguliers pouvaient être considérés au choix comme féminin ou masculin... Mais peut-être que j'ai mal compris, qu'en penses-tu ?

Dans tous les cas je te remercie.


----------



## Samih

Mon ami, je tiens à te remercier de m'accueillir avec tant de chaleur - que dieu te bénisse. 

Pour ce qui est de ta question, il est à signaler - et je n'en suis pas sur à 100 pour cent- qu'à partir du moment que le mot "chou'oube" et suivi par " alati" il devient féminin.  

  Car ta question n'a-t-elle pas pour finalité de s'intéresser à la nature du mot pour ne pas commettre d'erreur grammatical ?

  Si c'est c'est le cas, tu as la réponse. Néanmoins, si c'est par curiosité qu'émane ta question, il faudrait demander à un spécialiste de langue arabe. Pour ma part, je ne suis qu'un francophone encore simple étudiant de littérature arabe, ce qui fait que je ne peux répondre à de telles questions - alambiquées. 

Merci mon ami, bonne soirée


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Merci. Oui tu as raison il est considéré comme féminin ici mais je pensais qu'on avait le choix, c'est-à-dire qu'on pouvait le considérer soit comme féminin soit comme masculin.


----------



## Samih

Mais de rien mon cher.

Pour ma part, je ne me pose pas ces questions dans la mesure où, je ne fais qu'appliquer la règles que m'apprit ma professeure:

 - quand un nom est non un homme : كلب جمع كلاب on utilise la structure الكلاب التي

- quand il s'agit d'une entité animé : الرجال الذين

Voilà ce que je sais, mais encore une fois, je ne suis pas une référence .


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Merci. En fait tu veux parler des êtres doués ou non de raison si j'ai bien compris...


----------



## Josh_

Ibn Nacer said:


> Hello,
> 
> 1- If a noun is masculine in the singular form, so it is also masculine in the plural form.


Generally speaking, this assertion is false as inanimate masculine nouns (nouns referring to non-human objects) are feminine in the plural. The term I most often like to use to illustrate this point is the Arabic term for jackal -- one jackal is ابن آوي (literally "son of aawi"), and the plural jackals is بنات آوي (literally "daughters of aawi"). The logical plural of ابن is أبناء and so one might expect the plural of ابن آوي to be أبناء آوي, but since inanimate objects are treated syntactically as feminine in the plural the masculine ابن آوي becomes the feminine بنات آوي in the plural.

In terms of nouns relating to humans, we could perhaps say it is true -- masculine nouns referring to humans are also masculine in the plural.
However, there _appears_ (being the operative word) to be exceptions in that certain nouns referring to humans, such as collectives, are treated as feminine in the plural; شعوب being one of them, as Samih noted. However, it could be argued that شعب/شعوب, and other collectives referring to humans, do not actually directly refer to humans, but merely to some abstract idea relating to humans; شعب referring to the abstract idea of a group or collection of people who make up a nation. Assuming this is the case it is still technically an inanimate noun and as such its plural is treated syntactically as feminine. And so the assertion that "If a noun referring to humans is masculine in the singular form, so it will also be masculine in the plural form" would hold true (unless some other exception that I am not thinking about arises).


> 2- If a noun is feminine in the singular form, so it is also feminine in the plural form.


Yes, this assertion is always true.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello Josh,

Thank you very much for your helpful answer.



Josh_ said:


> However, there _appears_ (being the operative word) to be  exceptions in that certain nouns referring to humans, such as  collectives, are treated as feminine in the plural; شعوب being one of  them, as Samih noted. However, it could be argued that شعب/شعوب, and  other collectives referring to humans, do not actually directly refer to  humans, but merely to some abstract idea relating to humans; شعب  referring to the abstract idea of a group or collection of people who  make up a nation. Assuming this is the case it is still technically an  inanimate noun and as such its plural is treated syntactically as  feminine. And so the assertion that "If a noun referring to humans is  masculine in the singular form, so it will also be masculine in the  plural form" would hold true (unless some other exception that I am not  thinking about arises).



I think the irregular plural may be considered feminine or masculine.


----------



## Faylasoof

Ibn Nacer said:


> Hello,
> 
> 1- If a noun is masculine in the singular form, so it is also masculine in the plural form.
> 
> 2- If a noun is feminine in the singular form, so it is also feminine in the plural form.
> 
> These two assertions are true or false?
> 
> Merci.


 
Hello, I hope I don’t confuse you! 

Technically, both statements may regarded as false depending on whether we are talking of morphology or syntax and / or modern or classical usage! 

The first is generally considered wrong, in syntactical terms, as has been abundantly dealt with by both Samih and Josh, but … (more below).

The second is by and large true but may not always be so! Hence my second puzzle – also below!



Josh_ said:


> … And so the assertion that "If a noun referring to humans is masculine in the singular form, so it will also be masculine in the plural form" would hold true (unless some other exception that I am not thinking about arises).


 The syntactical state of (some) collectives and double plurals?

رجل (masc. sing.) gives  رجال (masc. plural) but we also have رجالات

رجالات is morphologically feminine so one might err and assume that it would be syntactically feminine too, despite the fact that it refers to 1) great men; 2) a large group of men. It ought to be masculine! Certainly Tabari uses it as masculine, and I assume he means (1) above:

فاغتصبه إياه فمشى عبد المطلب إلى رجالات قومه فسألهم النصرة على عمه

As a word, رجالات_was_ discussed (here) but we never discussed its generally accepted syntactical state. 

Some plurals might have been treated masculine by some classical writers but not by others and at times the same author used either gender for the same word in the same text! This might have been particularly so for non-rational beings. This too we discussed once at least,concerning the use of either gender for نحل by al-Jahiz (here).

In the same thread, Josh mentioned that some collectives of rational beings can also be either masculine or feminine and a link in the same thread gives other examples of rational collectives being treated as either feminine or masculine(here ) _depending whether we are dealing with modern or classical usage*!!*_

If رجالات was ever considered to be grammatically feminine, then we have an exception. One could still argue, however, that رجالات could conceptually be treated as شعوب , hence feminine! 

Not sure which is correct: always masculine / either masculine or feminine?



Josh_ said:


> 2- If a noun is feminine in the singular form, so it is   also feminine in the plural form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this assertion is always true.
Click to expand...

 Almost always all non-rational (i.e. human) plurals are syntactically feminine. But we also have these:

سِنَة (fem. sing.) has سَنوات (fem. plural) OR سِنونَ (masc. plural)!

Similarly,
أرض (fem. sing.) has أراض (fem. plural) OR أرضونَ (masc. plural)!

Now, I grant you that سِنونَ and أرضونَ are a lot less common but when used, I would assume, they'd be treated syntactically as masculine, i.e. سِنونَ کَثیِرونَ and _not_ سِنونَ کَثیرَۃ (?)


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello Faylasoof,

How are you? A long time ago that you did not write in the forum.



Faylasoof said:


> Technically, both statements may regarded as false depending on whether we are talking of morphology or syntax and / or modern or classical usage!



A plural noun who is masculine can be treated syntactically as feminine? Example the word "أصول" is feminine or masculine? (in singular it is masculine).



Faylasoof said:


> Almost always all non-rational (i.e. human) plurals are syntactically feminine.



This rule (3aqil/ghayr 3aqil) is widespread but I do not understand why it is not mentioned in the course in Arabic.

 Consider this example:

*مطابقة الفعل للفاعل *تذكيراً وتأنيثاً:

*- **يُذكّر *الفعل *وجوباً *إذا كان فاعلُه *مذكّراً*. مفرداً كان، أو مثنى، أو جمع مذكرسالماً(2)مثال ذلك: [قصَفَ الرعدُ - سقط الجداران - سافر المعلمون].

*- **يؤنّث *الفعل *وجوباً *في حالتين فقط:  

*الحالة الأولى*: أن يكون فاعله *حقيقي التأنيث*(3)*، غير مفصول عنه*، مفرداً كان، أو مثنى، أو جمعاً سالماً(2)نحو: [سافر*ت *الطالبة - سافر*ت* الطالبتان - سافر*ت *الطالبات].        

*الحالة الثانية**: **أن يتقدّم عليه فاعلُه المؤنث،*مفرداً كان، أو مثنى، أو جمعاً(4): مثال ذلك: [الشمس طلعت - زينب سافرت - الطالبتان سافرتا وتسافران - الطالبات سافرت وسافرن وتسافر ويسافرن - والجِمال سارت وسرن وتسير ويسرن](5).

· أما في غير هذه الحالات الثلاث: (أي: حالة وجوب التذكير إذا كان الفاعل مذكراً، وحالَتَيْ وجوب التأنيث إذا كان الفاعل حقيقي التأنيث غير مفصول عن فعله. أو مؤنثاً مطلقاً متقدماً على فعله)، فيجوز التذكير والتأنيث، والمرء بالخيار.

*Source : *http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/...ohoth/Fael.htm​


----------



## Josh_

Ibn Nacer said:


> Hello Josh,
> 
> Thank you very much for your helpful answer.


You're welcome.



> I think the irregular plural may be considered feminine or masculine.


Perhaps. I have not undertaken an extensive study of Arabic plurals and briefly looking through some of my grammar books I could not find any discussion of it. I know that structures like أكابر النساء exist.

One thing we could take into consideration, however, is the distinction between 'natural gender' and 'grammatical gender' -- the former being the sex or gender of physical beings based on biology and social norms, while the latter refers to special types of noun classes. 

These two kinds of genders are unrelated, but they often overlap in that grammatical gender often follows natural gender. For example رجل (man) is grammatically masculine because it follows the natural gender of a man and امرأة (woman) is feminine for the same reason. 

However, with many inanimate objects there is no inherent natural gender. They are designated as either grammatically masculine or feminine due to their morphological structure (e.g. words with feminine markers, such as ـة and ـاء, are generally grammatically feminine while those without the feminine markers are generally masculine. There are exceptions of course such as شمس -- grammatically feminine.

At any rate, the point I am getting at is that while أكابر in أكابر النساء and الجدد in البنات الجدد (as briefly dealt with in this thread) are qualifying feminine nouns (the nouns referring to human beings of natural gender) the adjectives may still be grammatically masculine. That is, of course, assuming that broken plurals are considered grammatically masculine -- something I used to just think, or rather just assumed, probably because most the time (or in most the texts I've read) broken plural adjectives generally qualify masculine nouns (human beings with natural gender), however the discussion in this thread, as well as this recent thread I linked to above has made me question that. 

As I said I have not undertaken a serious study of the issue and so am quite unsure now. I will have to read more about it and get back with what I find. 

The more I delve into the تلافيف of the Arabic language the less I understand it, it seems.


----------



## Josh_

Faylasoof said:


> Technically, both statements may regarded as false depending on whether we are talking of morphology or syntax and / or modern or classical usage!


Very true. 

I should mention that generally, unless otherwise noted, I am referring to Modern Standard Arabic in my posts. 

Since you bring up though, I actually thought about that. I think I finally realize why the modern variety of Arabic is called "Modern Standard Arabic," or perhaps it should be termed "Modern Standardized Arabic." At times, when reading texts in Classical Arabic (CA) it seems like anything goes in terms of gender and even plural agreement, whereas in MSA, there are more strict rules for gender and plural agreement (that are generally not broken), i.e. the rules for gender and plural in the modern variety of Arabic have become more standardized. 

Of course the statement about "anything goes" in CA is an overstatement (I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek saying that), but there is a kernel of truth to it as the rules do seem less structured. There are many structures (I've come across) in CA texts that involve grammar that would be considered wrong in MSA. This leads me to believe that while both CA and MSA have the same basic rules, CA had a more relaxed structure than MSA.

For example, one of the first lines in ابن عبد ربه's book العقد الفريد is:

قالت الحكماء: إمام عادل خير من مطر وابل؛ وإمام غشوم، خير من فتنة تدوم؛
Now, unless الحكماء refers to wise women (which I don't think it does considering this was written in a male dominant society over 1100 years ago) then we have a case of the feminine conjugation of the verb "to say," قالت, used with the masculine plural الحكماء. As far as I know, and generally speaking, this kind of feminine verb-masculine noun agreement would not be found in MSA today.

(By the way, this can be translated as: _Wise men have said, "A just leader is better than downpouring rain, and an unjust leader is better than lasting civil strife"_ -- perhaps something to think about vis-a-vis the current situation in Iraq.)


"Kalila and Dimna" is rife with these kind of grammatical anomalies. For example, an excerpt from the tale of "القبّرة والفيل" (The Lark and the Elephant):

 
...وانصرفت [القبرة] إلى جماعة الطير فشكت إليها ما نالها من الفيل. 
فقلن لها: وما عسى أن نبلغ منه ونحن الطيور؟ 
فقالت للعقاعق والغربان: أحب منكن أن تصرن معي إليه فتفقأن عينيه فإني أحتال له بعد ذلك حيلةً أخرى.
...
[فـ]جاءت إلى غدير فيه ضفادع كثبرة، فشكت إليها ما نالها من الفيل. 
قالت الضفادع: ما حيلتنا نحن في عِظَم الفيل؟ وأين نبلغ منه؟
قالت: أحب منكن أن تصرنَ معي إلى وهدة قريبة منه، فتَنْقِقْنَ فيها، وتَضْجِجنَ. فإنه إذا سمع أصواتكم لم يشكّ في الماء فيهوي فيها.

So here we have singular feminine intermixed with plural feminine. When the lark meets with the birds we have singular -- وانصرفت [القبرة] إلى جماعة الطير فشكت إليها ما نالها,the ها referring to جماعة الطير. In the next line we have the feminine plural conjugation of the verb "to say"-- قلن (they said to her). This plural agreement is continued -- أحب منكن أن تصرن معي إليه فتفقأن. 
The lark then meets with the frogs and agin we start out with singular agreement -- جاءت إلى غدير فيه ضفادع كثبرة، فشكت إليها ما نالها من الفيل. 
قالت الضفادع - 
Then we have plural agreement -- أحب منكن أن تصرنَ معي إلى وهدة قريبة منه، فتَنْقِقْنَ فيها، وتَضْجِجنَ. 

"Kalila and Dimna" may not be the best example as there is a level of anthropomorphization of the animals and as such the use of the plural may be justified. However, both طير and ضفدع are masculine nouns, so the author could have chosen the masculine plural agreement -- قالوا، منكم، تصيروا، تنقوا, etc. -- instead of the feminine, if by the plural he was intending that each particular bird or frog was responding to the lark individually. Instead he chose the feminine, which most likely stems from the idea that inanimate objects or non-rational beings are treated syntactically feminine when in the plural. 

(Translation of the above for those interested: She [the lark] went to a group of birds and complained to them of the injustice done her by the elephant.
They said to her, "but how could we possibly contend with the elephant (literally: what can we possibly do to affect him) when we are [but small and weak] birds."
She then said to the magpies and crows, "I would like for you to come with me to the elephant and peck his eyes out for I am preparing another trap for him.
... 
She then came to a pond with many frogs in it and complained to them about what harm had befallen her from the elephant.
The frogs said to her, "What trick [can we perpetrate against] the great elephant? And how can we have [any kind of] an effect on him?"
[The lark] said, "I would like for you to come with me to a pit, near the elephant, and croak and make a bunch of noise. When he hears the noise he will not doubt that there is water [in the pit, come to it] and fall in. )

As has been noted, this text is written in CA. Some Kalila and Dimna stories have actually been redacted for MSA by Munther A. Younes, in his "Tales from Kalila and Dimna." This story about the lark and the elephant is one of them. For comparison purposes I offer his redaction below of the excerpt I quoted above:

...وذهبت إلى الطيور الأخرى وأخبرتها بما حدث.
فسألتها الطيور: وماذا نقدر أن نعمل للانتقام من الفيل ونحن طيور ضعيفة؟
فطلبت من الغربان أن تنقر عيني الفيل،
...
ثم ذهبت إلى غدير فيه ضفادع كثيرة، وأخبرتها بما فعل ببيضها، وطلبت منها أن تذهب إلى حفرة كبيرة وتنقّ فيها بصوت عال حتى يسمعها الفيل ويظنّ أن في الحفرة ماء فيذهب ليشرب...فوقع فيها...
In this MSA version we find all the gender agreement that we would expect in an MSA text.

(And my translation:
She [the lark] went to the other birds and told them what had happened.
The birds asked her, "what can we do to exact revenge against the elephant when we are [but] weak birds?"
She asked the crows to peck out the eys of the elephant
...
Then she went to a pond with many frogs in it and told them what he [the elephant] did to her eggs. She asked them to go into a big hole and croak loudly so that the elephant would hear and think that there was water in the hole. He would then go to it to drink...and fall in.)


----------



## Josh_

Faylasoof said:


> The second is by and large true but may not always be so! Hence my second puzzle – also below!
> 
> The syntactical state of (some) collectives and double plurals?
> 
> رجل (masc. sing.) gives رجال (masc. plural) but we also have رجالات
> 
> رجالات is morphologically feminine so one might err and assume that it would be syntactically feminine too, despite the fact that it refers to 1) great men; 2) a large group of men. It ought to be masculine! Certainly Tabari uses it as masculine, and I assume he means (1) above:
> 
> فاغتصبه إياه فمشى عبد المطلب إلى رجالات قومه فسألهم النصرة على عمه
> 
> As a word, رجالات_was_ discussed (here) but we never discussed its generally accepted syntactical state.


True, رجالات looks feminine in form, but as you noted and showed by example, it seems to be syntactically masculine, most likely since the word follows natural gender. Words like this are sometimes termed "crypto-masculine." Likewise, words which are not overtly feminine (such as شمس, sun) are sometimes termed "crypto-feminine." Words like رجالات and شمس may look feminine and masculine in form (respectively), but they are nonetheless masculine and feminine (respectively) in terms of syntax. So this in itself does not prove the assertion wrong; just becasue a word looks feminine or masculine in form does not mean that it is feminine or masculine in syntax. رجل is masculine (following natural gender), so would رجال be masculine, and likewise رجالات (again following natural gender, I would assume). Of course, this goes for MSA. Its usage in CA may vary.




> Some plurals might have been treated masculine by some classical writers but not by others and at times the same author used either gender for the same word in the same text! This might have been particularly so for non-rational beings. This too we discussed once at least,concerning the use of either gender for نحل by al-Jahiz (here).


True, which confirms my theory that the grammatical rules in CA are more relaxed than that of MSA.
Yes, the distinction of modern versus classical is important. In light of what I've been thinking about in this thread in CA some collectives can be treated as eith masculine or femine. But as far as MSA, I think it is more or less standard for collectives to be treated as masculine. I mentioned something to that effect in that thread linked to. 




> In the same thread, Josh mentioned that some collectives of rational beings can also be either masculine or feminine and a link in the same thread gives other examples of





> rational collectives being treated as either feminine or masculine(here ) _depending whether we are dealing with modern or classical usage*!! *_


Yes, قالت العرب, and other examples, kind of goes along with what I was saying in my post above about finding قالت الحكماء in ابن عبد ربه's book. In this case الحكماء is not a collective (although perhaps ابن عبد ربه is using it in a collective sense as he does not specify any wise men in particular) which is why I found it puzzling.




> If





> رجالات was ever considered to be grammatically feminine, then we have an exception. One could still argue, however, that رجالات could conceptually be treated as شعوب , hence feminine!
> 
> Not sure which is correct: always masculine / either masculine or feminine?
> 
> 
> Almost always all non-rational (i.e. human) plurals are syntactically feminine. But we also have these:
> 
> سِنَة (fem. sing.) has سَنوات (fem. plural) OR سِنونَ (masc. plural)!
> 
> Similarly,
> أرض (fem. sing.) has أراض (fem. plural) OR أرضونَ (masc. plural)!
> 
> Now, I grant you that سِنونَ and أرضونَ are a lot less common but when used, I would assume, they'd be treated syntactically as masculine, i.e. سِنونَ کَثیِرونَ and _not_ سِنونَ کَثیرَۃ (?)


Yes, those are rare. I think in MSA the ـون plural seems to be more or less restricted to plurals referring to masculine human beings, one of the only exceptions I can think of for the moment being multiples of ten -- عشرون، ثلاثون, etc.


----------



## Xence

Faylasoof said:
			
		

> Now, I grant you that سِنونَ and أرضونَ are a lot less common but when used, I would assume, they'd be treated syntactically as masculine, i.e. سِنونَ کَثیِرونَ and not سِنونَ کَثیرَۃ (?)



In fact, those are particular cases of feminine nouns that have been formally annexed to masculine plural ملحقة بجمع المذكر السالم , in that you have to say سنين in accusative and genitive cases, but still their grammatical gender is considered as feminine. And yes, we say سنون كثيرة as in Abu Madhi's verse:

تلك السنون ببؤسها ونعيمها ***** مالت بعودي وانطوت بروائي​


			
				Ibn Nacer said:
			
		

> A plural noun who is masculine can be treated syntactically as feminine? Example the word "أصول" is feminine or masculine? (in singular it is masculine).



As I have explained in another thread, and as it is also dealt with in this one (Josh, Faylasoof...), the rule for broken plural should be as follows:

singular *feminine *---> plural *feminine *نوافذ كثيرة - نساء كثيرات
singular *masculine *---> plural *masculine *(*rational *being) رجال كثيرون
..........................---> plural  *feminine *(*non rational* beings) كلاب كثيرة - أبواب كثيرة - أصول كثيرة

Please, note that we are dealing here with the "grammatical gender", as mentioned by Josh, i.e. we are not saying the dogs are becoming female, but only that any word (adjective, pronoun, etc) related to the noun كلاب should agree with it as feminine.



			
				Ibn Nacer said:
			
		

> This rule (3aqil/ghayr 3aqil) is widespread but I do not understand why it is not mentioned in the course in Arabic.



The rule you mentioned in post #11 concerns only *subject and verb agreeing*. So, if the subject is a broken plural, the verb may be either masculine or feminine. جاء الرجال / جاءت الرجال - جاء النساء / جاءت النساء - جاء الكلاب/ جاءت الكلاب

But in MSA, as explained Josh, we tend to be more strict and more logical. That's why the rule (3aqil/ghayr 3aqil) is implicitly added to (combined with) the aforementioned rule, so that you have more chance to hear/read nowadays:
جاء الرجال
جاءت الكلاب
جاءت النساء
جاءت الأيام


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello Ibn Nacer,

Sorry for the late response – been inundated with work - but I see you have been in the good hands of Josh and Xence, so I shall not say more than what has already been said by them, other than give yet another example:

خَليفة (masc. sing.), خُلفاء (masc. plural)

The singular by morphology is feminine but syntactically has always been treated as masculine.

Josh, I think we are in agreement with what you say in _both_ your posts in reply to what I said earlier and I have indeed seen discussions about the idea of terms being crypto-masculine or crypto-feminine. This is a good way to describe the situation. 

I too noticed the anomalies you mention in _Kalila and Dimna_ – a great piece of Arabic literature in itself and though nominally a translation of a work in Pahlavi (Middle Persian) which in turn was a translation of a Sanskrit work called _Panchatantra_, it is _much more _than that. This work (by Ibn al-Muqaffa3 ابن المقفع) represents one of the first and finest masterpieces of Arabic literary prose and should be read notwithstanding the grammatical anomalies!  _There are other examples too, apart from at-Tabari. I’ve seen similar usage by al-Baladhuri – a well-reputed historian and genealogist._


… and Xence, many thanks for this:



Xence said:


> Originally Posted by *Faylasoof*
> Now, I grant you that سِنونَ and أرضونَ are a lot   less common but when used, I would assume, they'd be treated syntactically as   masculine, i.e. سِنونَ کَثیِرونَ and not سِنونَ کَثیرَۃ (?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, those are particular cases of feminine nouns that have been formally annexed to masculine plural ملحقة بجمع المذكر السالم , in that you have to say سنين in accusative and genitive cases, but still their grammatical gender is considered as feminine. And yes, we say سنون كثيرة as in Abu Madhi's verse:
> 
> تلك السنون ببؤسها ونعيمها ***** مالت بعودي وانطوت بروائي
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

 I have been looking for something like this!


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

Sorry for the late response, thank you very much for your answers, I'll review later...


----------

