Adjectival Agreement

73The following table shows what types of agreement are given to plural nouns that designate man and plural nouns that designate non-humans: 31Statistically, the most common consent to plural nouns that designate persons is an adjective in the plural, that is, a transparent agreement. There are only seven exceptions – four of them are: 63Statistically, the second type of agreement, i.e. plural adjectives, which correspond to a collective noun designating man, is more common in the Qur`an (85 occurrences of an adjective in the plural versus six occurrences of an adjective in the singular). There are two possible explanations for the appearance of an adjective in the plural: for example, in standard English, you can say that I am or that he is, but not “I am” or “he is”. Indeed, the grammar of the language requires that the verb and its subject correspond personally. ==External links== third person, as well as the verb form on and is. The verbal form must be chosen in such a way that, unlike the fictitious agreement based on meaning, it has the same person as the subject. [2] [3] For example, in American English, the term “United Nations” is treated in the singular for the purposes of the agreement, although it is formally plural. Compared to English, Latin is an example of a heavily influenced language. The consequences for the agreement are therefore as follows: 34A for Q 2:25 the two types of agreement, that is to say the adjective in the feminine singular and the adjective in the plural, are allowed: 2According lyon, the linguistic phenomenon of agreement or concordance falls within the domain of the “context-sensitive”. In many languages, the syntactic components of a sentence such as adjectives, pronouns, numbers, articles, and verbs correspond in terms of gender, case, and number. For example, in the French sentence an interesting book “an interesting book”, the articles one and the adjective interesting coincide with the noun in gender (masculine) and in number (singular). Lyons distinguishes between government and agreement by saying that under the agreement, two or more words or phrases are “folded” for the same category, such as number and person.

In government, two components of a syntactic construction do not have the same category (Lyon 1971, p. 241). We can illustrate this principle with two examples from Arabic. In the syntactic structure hāḏā waladun kabīrun “he is a big boy”, the three members of this structure share the same categories: number and sex. However, in a structure such as kuntu fī l-bayti “I was in the house”, the preposition fī does not coincide with the name Bayt, but determines that it is genitive. There are extraordinary or rare types of correspondence in the Qur`an, such as: nuṭfa amšāǧ and an-nuḏur l-ūlā. In the first case, there are some disagreements about the form of the adjective. Some commentators claim that the adjective is in the singular and others argue that it is in the plural. As for the second type, Western grammarians mention that in classical Arabic it is not uncommon to find an adjective with the feminine singular that coincides with the plural of the noun that designates the man. 58The most important fact is that adjectives in the feminine singular usually coincide with a noun in the broken plural.

However, it cannot be argued that, in this case, the plural form affects the correspondence of the adjective. In this type of agreement, gender is neutralized and there is no reference to the number of elements. Languages cannot have a conventional correspondence, such as Japanese or Malay; almost none, as in English; a small amount, as in the spoken French; a moderate amount, as in Greek or Latin; or a large quantity, as in Swahili. 13For the principle of adjective correspondence as presented by traditional Arabic grammarians, Zaǧǧāǧī can be quoted: 61A similar pattern of agreement is found in the Hebrew Bible. Young examines ways of agreeing with the name ʿam (“people, people”).) He explains that the choice of singular or plural verb can be explained by a semantic distinction, for example if the author.B imagined people as a whole or as many individuals. Among the various examples, Young mentions the following verses: 71The types of matches presented in this article are nothing special to the Qur`an. They are found in pre-Islamic texts (6. In classical texts (from the 10th century), in modern texts and in modern dialects. For example, adjectives for colors are plural, regardless of the form of the noun. However, in various works dealing with the historical development of the Arabic language and its grammar, one question of agreement is the most discussed – the types of agreement with the non-human plural.

In their paper, Belnap and Shabaneh (1992) examine the variable grammatical correspondence with non-human head names, drawing on examples from classical Arabic and modern standard Arabic texts. The main conclusions are that in pre-Islamic and classical texts, the common type of agreement are plural adjectives that agree with a plural noun that designates non-human. In addition, Belnap and Shabaneh refer to Reckendorf`s observation that non-human plurals, both broken and feminine sound forms, rarely have a plural adjective agreement. They say this observation seems to be true for post-Quranic Arabic. The shift to distracted chord, i.e. adjectives in the feminine singular coincide with nouns designating non-human, seems to have gradually preceded the broken plural and gradually became the common type of adjective. Ferguson (1989) examined the type of correspondence in Old Arabic and New Arabic to refute Versteegh`s hypothesis that the Altarabian, as represented by the classical Arabic of grammarians, was pidginized in the early centuries of Islam, that is, greatly simplified. This Pidgin Arabic was then creolized, that is, it became the language of the ancient non-Arabic speakers. Finally, he points to the Diglossian use of classical Arabic alongside dialects, where many classical features have invaded dialects. Ferguson argues that this hypothesis cannot be considered proven because there are other processes in the language that can explain the similarities between classical Arabic and dialects. To prove this claim, Ferguson attempts to examine the history of certain phenomena of grammatical agreement.

The discussion of the distracted agreement is relevant here. He mentions that both types – the strict and the distracted – were found in the Altarabian, while there is a strong preference for one or the other. According to Ferguson, distracted agreement is very common, for example in Damascus Arabic. 1Traditional Arab grammarians and Western grammarians uniformly agree that in the example of raǧulun karīmun (“a noble man”), the adjective in terms of determination or vagueness, as well as gender, number, and case, is entirely consistent with the noun.1 This example also fits the working definition of the term “agreement” – a definition that should be presented here to better understand this term. . . .