> The structural change is regular. That is you don't have to learn each name plural.
Not all the time. And if they do, there still are subtle variations in suffixes. For example:
- Kalb (dog) => Kilab (dogs)
- Liss (thief) => Losous (thieves)
- Karoura (bottle) => Kawarir (Bottles)
- etc.
> I thought the same thing for English and French, no? When I learn English and French in school, we join letters.
Yes, but that doesn't change the letter's shape as in Arabic, you just add a line to connect letters.
> The same for french. (Il, Ils, Elle, Elles, On)
Not quite: what you cite are just pronouns, but the conjugation and grammar doesn't vary.
For instance, conjugating the verb manger (to eat) with feminine plural "elles" and masculine plural yields the same "mangent", whereas in Arabic you have different forms.
> Not true. The real Arabic numbers are the ones used today. The Indian numbers were used in the middle east region because of the strong Indian influence.
Agreed. I myself have a hard time reading numbers written in the Hindi numerals (٠ - ١ - ٢ - ٣ - ٤ - ٥ - ٦ - ٧ - ٨ - ٩)
> Not quite: what you cite are just pronouns, but the conjugation and grammar doesn't vary. For instance, conjugating the verb manger (to eat) with feminine plural "elles" and masculine plural yields the same "mangent", whereas in Arabic you have different forms.
It's mostly true that the verb form stays the same in French regardless of the gender of the subject. However, they are exceptions. If a verb conjugates conpound tenses with être, then the past participle is considered an adjective and must agree with the subject, e.g.:
> Not all the time. And if they do, there still are subtle variations in suffixes.
There are many patterns and forms in the broken plurals themselves which you can pick up on and learn so that you often can correctly predict new ones without memorization. For example, you give:
-liss => lusuus
And likewise, most doubled nouns of this form take the same plural:
-jadd => juduud
-hass => husuus
-hamm => humuum
Still... this is far from a hard and fast rule, and it also takes a lot of time to build familiarity and notice these patterns. It's also something that al-Kitaab (for example) doesn't ever mention.
(just explaining... not implying that you aren't aware of this)
Not all the time. And if they do, there still are subtle variations in suffixes. For example:
- Kalb (dog) => Kilab (dogs)
- Liss (thief) => Losous (thieves)
- Karoura (bottle) => Kawarir (Bottles)
- etc.
> I thought the same thing for English and French, no? When I learn English and French in school, we join letters.
Yes, but that doesn't change the letter's shape as in Arabic, you just add a line to connect letters.
> The same for french. (Il, Ils, Elle, Elles, On)
Not quite: what you cite are just pronouns, but the conjugation and grammar doesn't vary. For instance, conjugating the verb manger (to eat) with feminine plural "elles" and masculine plural yields the same "mangent", whereas in Arabic you have different forms.
> Not true. The real Arabic numbers are the ones used today. The Indian numbers were used in the middle east region because of the strong Indian influence.
Agreed. I myself have a hard time reading numbers written in the Hindi numerals (٠ - ١ - ٢ - ٣ - ٤ - ٥ - ٦ - ٧ - ٨ - ٩)