# definite article - generic



## Tensor78

Hi,

I know that the definite article is used when referring to a whole class of things indicated by a noun. 

My question, though, is what happens when the noun in question is a count noun? Do I use the singular or plural of the noun to refer to all members of that class? 

Example: Men (all men, in general) are tall = alrajul Tawiil or alrijaal Tiwaal ???

Or, would I use the plural but grammatically treat it as singular because I'm referring to the class and therefore put the predicate in the singular? 

Men (all men, in general) are tall = alrijaal Tawiil ???

Also, in such a situation, how do I know if we're talking about the whole class or just specific members of that class. After all, my examples can be translated as: the man is tall / the men are tall.

Thanks.


----------



## barkoosh

> Do I use the singular or plural of the noun to refer to all members of that class?
> Example: Men (all men, in general) are tall = alrajul Tawiil or alrijaal Tiwaal ???


They both work.


> would I use the plural but grammatically treat it as singular because I'm referring to the class and therefore put the predicate in the singular?
> Men (all men, in general) are tall = alrijaal Tawiil ???


Never  "alrijaal" is a real plural.


> how do I know if we're talking about the whole class or just specific members of that class. After all, my examples can be translated as: the man is tall / the men are tall


It depends on the context. If the context doesn't help and you need to avoid confusion, you may use any construction that sets one apart from the other. For example: this man is tall / those men are tall.


----------



## Mighis

The sentence *al-rrajulu tawîl *consists of subject and predicate, so basically every morphological operation you want to perform should include both elements.

As regards your question about specification and generalization, I think you can determine that by adding the definite article to the predicate while the subject has always to be defined.
- Al-rrajulu tawîl. 
- Al-rrajulu al-ttawîl. (refers to specific man)
- Al-rrijâlu tiwâl.
- Al-rrijâlu al-ttiwâl. (refers to specific men)

In principle: subject always comes first followed by the predicate and the subject has always to be defined but there are exceptions.


----------



## إسكندراني

At risk of confusing you, there is an expression that goes
ـ[أنت] رجل والرجال قليل
but that's an exception to the rule...


----------



## Tensor78

Thanks.........


إسكندراني said:


> At risk of confusing you, there is an expression that goes
> ـ[أنت] رجل والرجال قليل
> but that's an exception to the rule...


Can you explain further, please? Why is anta in brackets? What is the form of this expression? Is it singular + wa + plural + adjective? I can use this with any noun?

Thanks.


----------



## Qureshpor

Tensor78 said:


> Can you explain further, please? Why is anta in brackets? What is the form of this expression? Is it singular + wa + plural + adjective? I can use this with any noun? Thanks.


You are a man and men are few


----------



## Tensor78

QURESHPOR said:


> You are a man and men are few



Yes, I understand that. But, I'm confused as to why he posted that in the first place. What does that expression have to do with my question? 

I read it really quickly at first and assumed that it had something to do with my question. However, upon further review, I realize that it really doesn't.


----------



## Tracer

Tensor78 said:


> Or, would I use the plural but grammatically treat it as singular because I'm referring to the class and therefore put the predicate in the singular?



To answer your specific question, the answer is no, you wouldn't.  No more than you would in English.  In English you say:

*(the) Men ARE tall.*  You can never say   *(the) Men IS tall.** (which is what you're thinking you might do in Arabic) *even though you're treating the "Men" as a single class.  

Arabic works precisely the same in this case as in English.  That is to say, if the NOUN is singular, so is the verb.  If the NOUN is plural, so is the verb regardless of what it "refers to".


----------



## إسكندراني

It should be الرجال قلائل or some other plural if it followed the rule.


----------



## Tensor78

إسكندراني said:


> It should be الرجال قلائل or some other plural if it followed the rule.



I'm still confused how this refers to my question. My examples referenced height as an example, but you continue to use the adjective for scarceness. Please, explain.


----------



## إسكندراني

So الرجال طوال is the only correct way to use the adjective - that is the rule - but the expression I brought forward is quite common and is an exception to that rule.


----------



## Tensor78

إسكندراني said:


> but the expression I brought forward is quite common and is an exception to that rule.



Ah, I see. Your example was the one instance of mixing the plural noun with a singular adjective; you were trying to show me that such a construction does exist. 



إسكندراني said:


> So الرجال طوال is the only correct way to use the adjective - that is the rule -



I have an issue here, though. barkoosh is saying that both are acceptable. That is, that you can use the article with both the singular and the plural for generalization. However, you are saying that ONLY the plural can be used here. 

I wonder if barkoosh will chime in here.


----------



## barkoosh

اسكندراني didn't rule out the use of the plural for generalization. He only said that, with a noun in plural, the correct way to use the adjective is in plural, not in singular.

Obviously اسكندراني wanted to draw your attention to that exception, in case you came across it. You see, قليل was one of few words that could be kept, in Classical Arabic, in its masculine singular form, even with nouns that are feminine singular, masculine or feminine plural. But this is rarely seen in MSA. That's why he said: "It should be الرجال قلائل or some other plural if it followed the rule".


----------



## Ali Smith

So, if you were talking about water in general would you say الماء جيد ('Water is good.') and شربت الماء ('I drank water.')?


----------



## zj73

Ali Smith said:


> So, if you were talking about water in general would you say الماء جيد ('Water is good.') and شربت الماء ('I drank water.')?


Yes, but in the second case you could just as well say شربت ماءً with no difference in meaning.

But in the first case you could not say ماء جيد if you wanted to say "Water is good."


----------



## Romeel

zj73 said:


> Yes, but in the second case you could just as well say شربت ماءً with no difference in meaning.


Slight difference


----------



## Ali Smith

alialikhalid said:


> Slight difference


Which is?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ali Smith said:


> Which is?


I would say شربت الماء means either "I drank water" where water is the substance known as water and "I drank the water" when context implies, e.g "I drank the water that was offered to me".

For شربت ماءً, this could be understood as "I drank some water".

Just my rupee's worth!


----------

