Talk:ʾIʿrab

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Special unicode characters do not appear correctly

I suggest we use an alternative transliteration that is only ASCII characters. Buckwalter is not easy or intuitive. Bikdash Transliteration is a possibility. Hence we can write: eiEraab is the maSdar of the verb eaEraba أَعْرَبَ not Earaba َ عرَب, as it seems to me. Kattuub (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct unicode

The correct unicode title of this page is Iʿrāb (or ʾiʿrāb or ʾIʿrāb. If you want to move it to an ASCII name, move it to I`rab. I`rāb is acceptable too. I'rab or I'rāb however are wrong. dab (ᛏ) 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mood vowels

Doesn't it also refer to verb mood vowels (imperfect u vs. subjunctive a, for example)? AnonMoos 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on kana and inna

This is wonderful stuff, and I would be reluctant to remove it, but it is turning this article into an essay on Arabic grammar as a whole. As I understand it, Iʿrāb refers only to the morphological changes, that is, how cases are formed. When cases are used is an entirely different question, falling within the field of syntax.

Should the new paragraphs be moved to "Arabic grammar", or do we need a new article on "Use of cases of the noun in Arabic"? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nunation?

The Nunation article is small, and seems to be dealing with the same phenomenon as this one, or some aspect of it. FilipeS (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

الاعراب

188.71.226.148 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Shouldn't this article be moved to a less opaque location, such as Arabic case or something similar? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declensional Paradigms

I recently added them remaining declensional paradigms to this page and they were deleted. Why?

5 The Dual - These nouns denote two of something. They decline very similarly to the sound masculine plurals because they are not marked for definiteness and look the same in both the accusative and genitive cases. For the nominative, the marking is "-āni" and for the accusative/genitive, "-ayni." An example is "parents," which is wālidāni and wālidayni respectively.

6 'ism ul-manqūṣ (Deficient Nouns Ending with yaa') - These nouns, like their close relative 'ism ul-maqṣūr, behave differently due to the instability of a final vowel. When indefinite, these nouns take a final "-in" in the nominative/genitive, and "-iyan" in the accusative. When definite, they take a long "-ī" in the nominative/genitive, and "-iya" in the accusative. These nouns were reckoned by the grammarians to have originally taken the triptotic endings, but through morpho-phonotactic processes, the latter resulted. An example is "judge," which is qāḍin, qāḍiyan, and al-qāḍī, and al-qāḍiya respectively. Also, a noun can be both 'ism ul-manqūṣ and diptotal: for example, layālin, the word meanings "nights," is a broken plural with a final unstable vowel. This word combines the two declensional paradigms and is layālin, layāliya, and al-layālī, and al-layāliya respectively.

7 'ism ul-maqṣūr (Deficient Nouns Ending with 'alif or 'alif maqṣūra) - These nouns, like their close relative 'ism ul-manqūṣ, behave differently due to the instability of a final vowel. These nouns are marked ONLY for definiteness, as morpho-phonotactic processes have resulted in the complete loss of the case distinction. When indefinite, they take "-an," which rests on an 'alif maqṣūra or occasionally 'alif. When definite, they are not marked, and they simply retain their long 'alif or 'alif maqṣūra. An example is "hospital," which is mustašfan and al-mustašfā respectively. If a noun is both 'ism ul-maqṣūr and diptotic, then it is completely invariable for case and belongs to declensional paradigm eight.

8 Invariable Nouns - Invariable nouns are usually those foreign names that end in 'alif or nouns that end in an additional 'alif or 'alif maqṣūra (when that 'alif or 'alif maqṣūra is not part of the root). Also, nouns that are both 'ism ul-maqṣūr and diptotic fall into this category. Additionally, there are rare invariable nouns which have other endings, like any name ending with "-ayhi," like sībawayhi. An example of a common invariable noun is fusḥā (al-fusḥā), meaning "formal Arabic," or literally, "the most eloquent." Another example is dunyā (ad-dunyā), or "world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukebeadgcf (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Nominal' and 'verbal' sentences

What are these terms supposed to mean? They are not defined in any other way besides the word order they cause - VSO and SVO, respectively. Then the rule is given that in nominal sentences the word order is VSO and in verbal sentences the word order is SVO, making this a circular definition. In both word orders, as long as there is an overt verb, the grammatical case choice for the subject and the object is the same, making the distinction irrelevant anyway. (In international terminology, only equational sentences without overt verbs like 'I writer/famous' would usually be called nominal.) To confuse things further, the claim is made that sentences with an overt copula are actually nominal, too, even though they behave like the verbal ones in every respect - both in word order and in case choice. Most of this does not relate directly to the choice of grammatical cases at all. As far as I can see, it's enough to say that: 1. a predicative ('predicate noun' / 'predicate adjective') is in the nominative, when it is in an equational sentence without an overt copula ('I writer/famous'), but it is in the accusative in an equational sentence with an overt copula ('I was writer/famous'); 2. certain particles (inna and some subordinating conjunctions) require the subject to be in the accusative case, too. Instead, we are treated to an English translation of some (traditional?) Arabic classification/analysis of sentences as a whole, which isn't necessary for the explanation of the case endings, and one that doesn't seem particularly elegant, justified and suitable for describing other facts about the sentences either, on top of it all. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]