59Jespersen says that a word such as herd or herd refers to a compilation of things as a phrase and that they are rightly called collectives. Such words refer to a unit of several things or beings that can be counted separately. Therefore, a collective nomun from one point of view is “one,” and from another point of view is “more than one.” (Jespersen 1953, 195) The double side of collective nouns is presented grammatically: the verb, if it refers for example to plurality, may be plural (Jespersen 1953, p. 195). A similar statement is presented in the research literature dealing with the issue of adjective agreement with collective subtantifs in Arabic, as the following quotation shows: Contrary to the adjectives in the plural according to the collective noun, adjectives in male or female singularity, which correspond to collective subtantes, were collective, as in “and mahz`m” the adjective in singular masculine as the reference to the collective , to the group and not to the individual. One could argue that even adjectives in female singulars, which correspond to substants in the plural non-human terms of community and generalization, for example ayy`m ma`d there, where it is not clear on which days and how many days, unlike ayy`m ma d`t. 41 If one turns to the debate on the types of contracts , an important issue should be addressed with regard to this section – plural forms in Arabic, both names and adjectives. 51 According to Beeston, plural adjectives that correspond to a non-human plural are not uncommon in CA. However, it is interesting to see that the predicates and nominal verbs that indicate the colors are feminine in singular, if they correspond to the non-human plural, as below: 71The types of correspondence presented in this article are not specific to the Koran. They are found in pre-Islamic texts (6th century), in classical texts (of the 10th century), in modern texts and in modern dialects. The adjectives that refer to colors, for example, are independent of the form of the noun in the plural form. However, in various works that deal with the historical evolution of the Arabic language and its grammar, a subject of concordance is most discussed – the types of agreements with the non-human plural.
In their paper, Belnap and Shabaneh (1992) examine variable grammatical correspondence with non-human head substrates, drawing on examples from the Arabic and modern Arabic texts. The main results are that in pre-Islamic and classical texts, the common type of concordance is adjectives in the plural that correspond to a noun to the non-human plural. In addition, Belnap and Shabaneh refer to Reckendorf`s observation that non-human plurals, both broken and feminine sound forms, rarely have a pluralistic adjective agreement. They say that this observation seems to be true for post-Qurenic Arabic. The transition to the distracted chord, i.e. the adjectives in the female singular correspond to nouns that refer to non-human, seems to have been gradually made with the broken plural and has gradually become the common type of adjective. Ferguson (1989) studied the type of concordance in ancient and new Arabic to refute Versteegh`s hypothesis that ancient Arabic, as represented by classical Arabic grammaatics, was spidized in the early centuries of Islam, that is, it was considerably simplified. This Pidgin Arabic was then creolized, that is, it became the language of the former non-Arab spokesman.