Talk:Arabic grammar

message: Is اقتران really the term for conjugation in Arabic??? I thought that meant pairing, in fact I know it does, but that doesn't mean it can't mean both....  it isn't تصريف الفعل??? or something close to that??  I know تصريفي  means inflectional ... cullen (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conjugation

message: This is quite impressive, but examples (such as actual plural nowns) would make this page incredibly more valuable.  Without it, though, it's still quite good.
Most sections need much greater detail (voice, syntax, complete explanation of irregular verbs etc. etc.)
Dbachmann 13:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. but I would be grateful if you could follow the article's convention of italicizing arabic text, and using the transliteration with diacritics (you can copy-paste form the "phonology" section). dab 23:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: which paragraph? did you forget to include the link? the statement sounds indeed unlikely. dab (ᛏ) 11:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah... it seems that "pausa" redirects to Pausha. D'oh! - Mustafaa 01:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (*lol*) I will fix it :oD dab (ᛏ) 07:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: .

message: for ayin please use ʿ not `. dab (ᛏ) 15:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: transliteration

message: I have a question (Mustafaa?): I understand there are a few nouns which have the "feminine" ta marbouta in the singular, but not in the plural, e.g. riqatun, riqu:na "cash". My question is, what about adjective and verbal agreement? does the singular take feminine adjectives and verbs, and the plural masculine ones, or is the plural only "masculine" on the surface and still takes feminine agreement? dab (ᛏ) 10:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Arabic, inanimate plurals always take feminine singular agreement, irrespective of the gender of their singulars.  However, for an animate case - eg `umdah "governor", pl. `umad - both the singular and the plural take masculine agreement. - Mustafaa 18:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks (true, the cash example was stupid). I suppose I knew that :o\ I just never thought about it from a `genus alternans' perspective.... dab (ᛏ) 18:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: `genus alternans'

message: A lot of the letters signifying the Arabic alphabet and how to pronounce them is missing in my screen, all I see are little boxes, same thing for the List of Arabic names. Really annoying to try to get around this and go through all these loopholes just to find about why I see these danged Cargo-Crates that stupid Gnomes (Issues with my computer/the files) leave in front of these. Took me almost an hour just to get a small clue of what it is and I'm still confused! Have to print these out now...
I think that the pronouns paragraph needs more attention. What about tuin akal-tu for example?
The issue with the boxes is entirely down to your own set up and not the article. You need to search something like "how to make Arabic letters display on my computer"  Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter's ain't showing much 

message: I've also noticed the empty blocks for the "ayn."  I totally understand that this can be very frustrating for someone who is looking for more information on Arabic.  I'm proposing to use either 9 or ? (probably the former) to remedy the situation, since these characters appear on almost every computer screen.  What does everyone think about this?  To the person who made a suggestion as to the transliteration of the "ayn," my screen just displayed an empty block and no character.  
:I would go for the previously mentioned option of including both Arabic script and transliterated words. However, for the purpose of people without script support on their browsers, maybe the characters already in widespread use by Arabs for sms/internet. eg "3" for ayn, "2" for hamza, "7" for haa. etc.. As is evident, they were selected because they look like the arabic letters.  Bassemkhalifa (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, there is a good explanation of phonology on Arabic language, and a good explanation of the alphabet on Arabic alphabet, and a good overview of transliteration schemes on Arabic transliteration. No need to repeat this here. As for the ayin symbol, it should be put inside the "Unicode" template, thus: ʻ. If it still doesn't render, I'm afraid lots of articles will be 'broken' for you, and you should try to fix your browser, not Wikipedia. 81.63.114.127 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic Transliteration Conventions 

message: Hello, I have proposed an expansion of the article about section on Arabic case endings.  I created a table and included a few examples with the case endings in red for the nonspecialists.  I have uploaded it to my talk page.  Would you mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think?  How can it be improved?  Also, what are your opinions/comments/suggestions about both the presentation of the transliterated Arabic and the English translation?  Should I have also included the Arabic, or is that overkill?  Please feel free to edit the examples to include more or change the existing ones.
Carmen 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Arabic Case Endings 

message: I see that the Arabic transliterations in this article use a special template and are italics. Should the prefixes and suffixes table have the transliterations that way, because I think that may create some problems (would the whole word, or just the prefix/suffix use that form?). I think it's OK now, but what does everyone else think? --Latinus 15:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics and templates

message: * /ɡ/ became palatalized /ɡʲ/ at the time of the Qur'an, and /ʤ/ in the standard modern pronunciation of Classical Arabic. (The dialects variously have /ʤ/ (Arabian Peninsula), /ɡ/ (Cairo), /ʒ/ (North Africa), /j/ (Persian Gulf area), and original /ɡʲ/ (a few isolated pockets here and there).)
"a few isolated pockets here and there"??? How scientific! Could anyone more well versed in Arabic dialectology do us the favor of clarifying that phrase, please???201.21.202.214 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ???=

message: Shouldn't there be a section on the root system (as in kataba (to write), kitAb (book), kAtib (writer), maktaba (office, desk),..., which is a charactersitic of Arabic?--Soylentyellow 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More precisely, its a characteristic of Semitic languages in general, but it definitely should be discussed here. -Fsotrain09 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Root system

message: Is there a reason why the numbers are declined? Why is the term * 1 wāḥidun listed, and not * 1 wāḥid. It is in my view confusing to decline words, since they can be declined into wāḥidin and wāḥidan as well... I suggest getting rid of the -tu ending in that list.
*Hey Xevorim, it is convention in all languages without exception to list words out of context in the nominative form.  If noun declension exists in a language, nouns technically cannot not be declined.  If it's confusing, then I would suggest further study of the Arabic language to the extent that the trilateral root system is ingrained in your head and it becomes second nature for you to identify '-un' as the nominative suffix, and not the ending of the word itself, unless of course, that is the end of the word before grammatical declensions, which is a inescapable phenomenon of Standard Arabic.  Similarly, when you look up the word for one in German, you won't find all 24 manifestations (4 cases x 2 numbers x 3 genders) of it, you'll find ein unless you're looking up the grammar, which would be more confusing than this instance since the declensions in German often change the entire form and spelling of the word whereas Arabic happens to have declensions that are merely suffixes. cullen (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cardinal numbers declensions 

message: Some massive editing by Benwing. It looks like the article needed it, and the new discussion is easy to read, but I think the following points are erroneous. Someone who knows Arabic better than I do should check.
*"MSA tends to use SVO word order and allow less word order variation"
::Modern Standard Arabic still uses VSO as the default syntax, but is more flexible than classical, so SVO can sometimes be seen. This is also true of modern dialects.
*"The exception is in relative clauses, where the verb is usually first"
::In a relative clause, the first thing is ALWAYS the relative pronoun, where it is used at all. (Relative clauses for indefinite nouns do not use relative pronouns.) The NEXT thing is ALWAYS the verb.
*"Subject pronouns are normally omitted . . . when using a participle as a verb (participles are not marked for person)."
::Sorry, I don't understand this one. When is a participle used 'as a verb'? An example might help to clear this up.
*"Adjectives follow the noun they are modifying, and agree with the noun in case, gender, number, and state"
::"State"?  What's this?
::Note that non-human plurals are ALWAYS matched up with singular feminine adjectives and verbs. This is an important point and must be made clear. Someplace in the article, there should be some mention of the use of singular verb forms with plural subjects - I don't know whether that would be considered a "syntax" issue.
* "Subjects are marked with the nominative case, as are objects in non-verbal sentences."
:: Sorry, what's a 'non-verbal sentence'? Can you give an example of an object which appears in the nominative case? (And I don't mean nouns where the case markers are swallowed up, as in 'akala Mūsā l-kūsā.')
* "The genitive case is used for nouns that modify other nouns and for the objects of prepositions."
:: The 'genitive' case is used for objects of prepositions, and also for the second noun in the two-noun constructs called 'iDāfa' (pardon my non-use of the correct transliteration). Which of the two nouns 'modifies' the other?
* "There is no dative case; instead, the preposition "li-" is used."
:: True, but there is a whole raft of other cases known in Indo-European languages which are also inapplicable to Arabic. I would delete this sentence.
* "'inna s-samaa´a zarqaa´u"
:: Two errors here, I think. The adjective should be indefinite, not definite (-un, not -u). I can't remember: what's the gender of sky? And isn't it usually used in the plural? (as-samawātu) Maybe a simpler example would illustrate the point better. How about al-waladu saghīratun?
:: inna wa anna wa layta wa la'alla - could we mention these here?
* ""'inna", along with its "sister" terms "'anna" ("that", as in "I think that ..."), "'inna" ("that" after qaala/yaquulu "say"), "walakinna" "but" and "ka'anna" "as if" require that they be immediately followed by a noun or attached pronominal suffix, and a following noun must be in the accusative case."
:: This implies that it is correct to say, "Qultu innahu l-walada fī l-madrasati." Is that right?
:: walakinna -> walākinna
* Deletion of discussion of masdar, Active and Passive partiples, and the different 'kinds' of sentences
:: I don't know whether these should have been taken out. Is the material covered somewhere else in the article?
* How about some references?
Cbdorsett 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whoa! Edits of January 18 contain errors - please verify

message: I added Arabic parts in parentheses to a few bits already and would be happy to do the rest of it. The phonology part might not have been necessary, but I tried it anyway. If anyone is sure about any corrections or errors on my part go ahead and fix them. I wanted to ask everyone's opinion of whether it would be better to write it with or without vowel points. I've done them so far without, but if anyone thinks it's better with, then say so.
Slamoureux1 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this: it really improves the article. On vowelling, I'm not sure which is preferable... Drmaik 09:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic script

message: Why only Literary? Yes, I realize this is formal Arabic but the article is about all of Arabic grammar. Would it not be better to distinguish in the individual sections between Modern Standard and colloquial Arabic? Perspicacite 09:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, as it is, everything is about the literary variety. Varieties of Arabic#Morphological and Syntactic Variation has a good section on general difference between them and Classical, which could be referred to somewhere. Or the page could be moved to the Grammar of Standard/Literary Arabic, but when people talk about Arabic Grammar, they mean of literary. For example, Haywood and Nahmad's grammar concerns the litrary language, without stating so in the title. Drmaik 10:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's implied then why does it need to be mentioned? Perspicacite 11:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication works only for people who already understand this distinction, which most (or many) of the people reading the article will not. The difference between standard Arabic and its dialects is not on a par with the differences found for European languages. Drmaik 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literary Arabic

message: (Which I look at several times a day, as I'm learning Arabic and it is a huge help) It says that the prefixes for imperfective verbs are (for example) ya, ta, a, etc. However, that's not always the case: for the verb "to love", for example, the respective prefixes are yu (yuhibb) tu (tuhibb) 'u ('uhibb) and so on. Should I change it so that it reads something like "y*-STEM; t*-STEM; t*-STEM-iina; '*STEM", where "*" is that verb's "default" vowel?
Deshi no Shi (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I noticed that there's no mention of the damma that follows most verbs. While it's unpronounced and almost never written, it does have significance for Classical Arabic, specifically Qur'anic reading. Should a section or comments be inserted about this? Deshi no Shi (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the Verb Prefixes and Suffixes section 

message: First of all I'd like to thank anyone and everyone that has contributed to this article.
According to the article, every verb has at least an active participle and most have verbal nouns.  Now although the chart provides the vowelings required to form these participles and verbal nouns, a definition does not always exist.  With verbal nouns this can simply mean that the particular verb doesn't have a verbal noun, but what about the participles?  Is it possible that not all verbs have a corresponding active participle?  If this is so it should be noted in the text.  I will start by clarifying which derived verbs and nouns actually exist for the root ف ع ل in the chart.
Also, how flexible are the vowelings for all of the derived nouns?  For example from the root س ل م we can derive the verb-stem سَلَّمَ (sallama) and according to the chart its active participle would be مُسَلِّمٌ (musallimun) and its passive مُسَلَّمٌ (musallamun).  However in the Hans-Wehr dictionary only مُسَلَّمٌ (musallamun) is found. Is it possible that مُسَلَّمٌ (musallamun) is the active participle for this verb-stem, or perhaps that only a passive participle exists for this word, or, again is the voweling flexible? 
Now for the verb-stem  سالَمَ (saalama) the active participle مُسالِمٌ (musaalimun) exists and so does the word مُسالَمة (musaalama[tin]) (again this is according to the (Hans Wehr).  This word is basically in the same form as the passive participle for verb-stem III in the chart, with the exception of the ending.  Are the derivations flexible in this manner as well?
And lastly, can anyone shed any light as to how certain roots have certain verb-stems and why others do not?  
Thanks again.  codectified 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots and their Verbal Nouns and Participles 

message: Even though the article mentions the availability of many stems, I do believe that the 'ifʻawʻala' one is not that rare, especially its maṣdar, as in izliqaq (إزلقاق). So I'm adding it as number XI with the following forms:
ifʻawʻala, yafʻawʻilu, ufʻulila, yufʻawʻalu, mufʻawʻilun, mufʻawʻalun, ifʻilalun. 
I'm not sure if the numbers assigned to the stems are based on an order that I'm unaware of, but if it is, then the stem I just added might not be number XI, and I would need to rectify.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadibk (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The form you added is called XII, and I have relabelled it; I have also added brief info on XI, XIII, XIV, and XV.  I don't know if it's worth adding full details on them, as they are very rare (according to Wright). --macrakis (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Stem 

message: Please check the section. --Anatoli (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinal numerals 

message: Is there any relationship between the quran and arabic grammar? Faro0485 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran and arabic grammar 

message: There is not a single book listed for further reading! Furthermore, the given reference does not match the huge amount of information, which I'm impressed of, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.157.38 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Reference 

message: I've been so lucky to have a small private project with my teachers about redoing this article. I have made a new structure, while keeping all earlier information. I will also add a lot of information (hopefully), and compress paragraphs so it will be more of an encyclopedic styled article. I will also add any suitable references. Before June 2010 it should be ready for publishing. However, I copied everything from the article (except templates) to Word 2007, for ease of editing, and therefore you will not see any differences before that time. Someone might have to help me converting it back to wiki-style, I cant seem to get neither WikiEd, nor WikiPlus to work properly.
Please do not use time on the same thing as I am doing now (reorganizing). You can, however, add any additional information, spell check, and so on, to the article as normal. i will update my own edition.Sda030 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to this, and I wonder how it is coming along. The article as it stands now is somewhat focussed in the wrong direction. By the way, for future reference, you can use your userspace to develop drafts of articles, to save yourself the trouble of having to reconvert things. For example, you could have created User:Sda030/Arabic grammar for this purpose. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now you tell me... :) Well, I'll sort that out later. By the way, it wont be as amazing as I thought, since my main source (a professor) is a bit busy. But we'll try. 85.164.44.16 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete makeover in progress 

message: The section on the History of Arabic Grammar is very badly and unclearly written, as well as missing any sources. Can someone please rewrite and organise that section? Also removed part about collection of works by Arab Gramatarians by some Persian scholar - that does not constitute a relevant or significant part of the development of Arabic Grammar - maybe past the notion of making some self-deluded Persian Nationalists think they invented their enemy's language. Also, what sources are there backing up the other gramatarians mentioned in that section being the first? And maybe there should also be a mention relating to the slow development of the Arabic language from Aramaic, therefore difficulty determining the exact first Arab grammatarian and last Aramaic gramatarian.
Also according to both Sources 1 and 2, the only Arab schools were Kufa and Basra, which Source 1 mentions only arose following the rapid rise of Islam. Pink Princess (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: I was thinking about adding a link to Appendix:Arabic verbs on English Wiktionary, which details the Arabic verb stems from I – XV. Does anyone object? —Stephen (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, in fact I'm going to add it already. It used to be linked to here, I don't know why the link was removed, it gives some relevant information about the derivations after all.--Serafín33 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Thanks for you works
Adjectives can precede nouns in Arabic
for example
rajulun tawil al-qama
Humanbyrace (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Precede" means "to go before". In the example you give, the adjective isn't preceding the noun, as it's after the noun. However, it is true that the adjective can go before the noun it modifies, but it usually happens as an annexation (the noun is always in the genitive/oblique), and in very particular phrases (idioms), e.g. ...حسن الرأي في Hasanu r-ra'yi fii.. "a good opinion of...".--Serafín33 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjectives can precede nouns in Arabic 

message: First of all thanks for your works I would like to ask if we could say "aynakom" (where are you) in Arabic since we can also say "minkom" (from you) 
Also can we say "mankom"=who are you?
Thanks
Humanbyrace (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is NOT a forum, you cannot ask questions about Arabic here, unless it's about changing or adding something in the article. (And no, you can't say *أينكم or *منكم, they should be أين أنت؟ and من أنت؟ instead.)--Serafín33 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question 

message: Many of the articles on Arabic have mentioned a shift from VSO word order in Classical Arabic to SVO word order in Modern Standard Arabic and the modern Arabic dialects. However many prominent linguists specializing in Arabic strongly disagree with this assertion. Their explanation is that the apparent shift from VSO word order to SVO word order is actually the result of topic-comment structure, which is found in all varieties of Arabic, and the different types of discourses that are available and analyzed in historical texts versus modern texts and speech. For example, Dr. Kristen Brustad's "The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Dialects", Georgetown Univ. Press, 2000, states "However, no frequency studies of modern Arabic have yet been undertaken to either support or challenge this assumption. Both VSO and SVO are common enough in all varieties of Arabic to be considered "basic;" a thorough study of word order typology in all varieties and registers of Arabic would be necessary to show if or how the basic typologies of Arabic have changed over time. Until such a study is conducted, the discussion must remain limited to indirect evidence.” Dr Brustad proceeds to present evidence that VSO remains a basic word order in the modern Arabic dialects and that fronting of nouns (subjects and objects) in all varieties of Arabic is best explained by a topic-comment structure of a topic-prominent sentence structure rather than the contrasting the subject-prominent sentence structure of the VSO word order.
Many others have also suggested similar analyses and this may even be becoming the more-accepted view among linguists specializing in Arabic. Although the topic-comment structure in all Arabic varieties is widely recognized, the articles on Arabic only mention VSO vs. SVO and increased usage subject initial sentences in MSA and dialects. It would be beneficial if someone could please add information about the topic-comment sentence structure in Arabic. (The article on Tuareg Languages mentions the option for the topic-comment sentence structure in those languages/dialects that may be a useful example that could be expanded.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.86.55 (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic-Comment Structure in Arabic 

message: It's not entirely correct that kāna yaktubu and kāna kātiban both express the meaning of the Past Continuous Tense. As far as I understand, only the latter does express this meaning whereas the former denotes a habitual, repeated action, i.e. what is expressed in English by 'would'(or 'used to')+inf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.241.225 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenses 

message: I'd like to add an external link to this article:
consult or download Wright's Arabic Grammar
and was about to do so until I saw the warning "Please don't add links without prior agreement".
So, who is it that has to agree and how do I communicate with that person?
Thank you.
Also, the first external link:
Arabic Grammar through the Quran is dead.
--Akhooha (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To me that link to Wright seems perfectly fine and reputable. Go ahead! Sda030 (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking permission to add external link (and dead link report) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Arabic grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://quran.uk.net/documentation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 08:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hi, according to wiktionary, there's a form 'ـنِيَ ‎(-niya)', ending in فتحة. Could, sb., please, add a reference to its use with some example? Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The enclitic forms ـنِي ‎(-nī) and ـنِيَ ‎(-niya) are attached to verbs, prepositions ending in نْ ‎(n)' 

message: Hi, I'd like to know both an example of that type of plural, as well as the reason for the uncertainty "presumably" added to the statement. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'presumably, -aw of masculine defective -an plurals is similarly assimilated to -ay' 

message: The article states "Verb initial word orders like in Classical Arabic are relatively rare across the world's languages, occurring only in a few language families including Austronesian, and Mayan.", but VSO is standard in Celtic. -- Evertype·✆ 23:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it's found in Celtic, but Template:Language word order frequency says it's in 9% of languages, which makes it pretty infrequent. — Eru·tuon 00:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but "only a few language families" is misleading. VSO is found in Indo-European, one of the largest families in the world. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  VSO is not so rare 

message: Technically, a language's "grammar" includes phonology. I think this article would benefit from a re-title, but I'm not sure what other name could encompass the kitchen sink that this article is. Catrìona (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a convention of Wikipedia's not to discuss phonology in "[language] grammar" articles. Phonologies get their own separate article, as is the case with Arabic as well, see Arabic phonology (and also the articles for the phonologies of the Egyptian, Levantine, Tunisian and Hejazi dialects). I do agree with your sentiment this article feels like a kitchen sink by the way.--Ser be etre shi (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: فـ‎ fa- 	[and] then 
This is a conjunction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepositions 

message: Hai 2402:3A80:192B:4D21:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  تلک vs دلک 

message: Hai 2402:3A80:192B:4D21:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  تلک vs دلک 

message: اردو میں ترجمہ کریں:
الأمة العربية ليست كالامم ولا ترمى اهدافا تافهة محدودة بل لها هدف سام رفيع هو الحاض البشرية جمعاء وهدايتها الى الحق والسعادة والرشاد وهى امة قد رباها مرشدها الأكبر رسول الله بسيرته السنية على حب العدل والايفاء بالعهود و اتفاق الاموال في وجود
الخير والتأخى فى نصرة الحق والترفع عن سنفسات الأمور 87.228.186.226 (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  اردو میں ترجمہ کریں:  الأمة العربية ليست كالامم ولا ترمى اهدافا تافهة محدودة بل لها هدف سام رفيع هو الحاض البشرية جمعاء وهدايتها الى الحق والسعادة والرشاد وهى امة قد رباها مرشدها الأكبر رسول الله بسيرته السنية على حب العدل والايفاء بالعهود و اتفاق الاموال في وجود  الخير والتأخى فى نصرة الحق والترفع عن سنفسات الأمور