--- title: "Analysis of the Arabic Broken Plural and Diminutive — Kiraz 1995" description: "Arabic broken plurals and diminutives, such as ^undub → ^anaadib 'locust', are nonconcatenative and… 19 references, cited by 1 paper here." authors: ["George A. Kiraz"] year: 1995 venue: "arXiv:cmp-lg/9512001" source: "https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9512001" doi: "10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9512001" arxiv: "cmp-lg/9512001" licence: "arXiv — no licence stated (read only)" summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License" canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kiraz-1995-analysis-arabic-broken-plural-diminutive/" --- [Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kiraz-1995-analysis-arabic-broken-plural-diminutive/) [home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [1995](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1995/) / Analysis of the Arabic Broken Plural and Diminutive # Analysis of the Arabic Broken Plural and Diminutive **Authors:** [George A. Kiraz](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/george-anton-kiraz/) · **Year:** 1995 · **Venue:** arXiv:cmp-lg/9512001 · **Licence:** arXiv — no licence stated (read only) **Links:** [Publisher's page](https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9512001) · [PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/cmp-lg/9512001) · [DOI 10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9512001](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9512001) · [arXiv cmp-lg/9512001](https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9512001) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W1556629610) **Citations:** 5 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · 1 in our library, of the 149,439 papers whose bibliographies we read ## Summary Arabic broken plurals and diminutives, such as ^undub → ^anaadib 'locust', are nonconcatenative and depend on prosody. Standard two-level morphology cannot model them well because it treats a lexical string as a simple chain of morphemes. Kiraz implements the prosodic account of McCarthy and Prince. The singular is split into a kernel (its first foot) and a residue. The kernel is fitted onto a plural template CaCaa, and the residue takes the vowel [i]. Earlier approaches, including traditional grammars and the ALPNET system, list a plural pattern for every root. This paper instead treats pluralisation as rules in a multi-tape two-level formalism. The lexical side of each rule is a tuple over separate pattern, root and vocalism tapes, and the lexical and surface strings may differ in length. The plural rules recognise the unstored singular on the lexical tapes but write the plural on the surface. This "implicit derivation" avoids adding a third level. A unification-based morphotactic grammar filters out spurious analyses. The implementation covers all stem classes. Because pluralisation is productive, lexicon maintenance becomes simpler. ## Key points - The analysis follows McCarthy and Prince (1990a): kernel/residue factoring, the plural template CaCaa, and the default residue vowel [i]. The default melody is {ai}, except in CVCC and CVCVC singular stems. - Wright (1988) lists 31 broken plural patterns, which traditional approaches must mark root by root. ALPNET (Beesley et al.) works the same way. - The rule formalism comes from Ruessink (1989) and Pulman and Hepple (1993), with optional and obligatory operators and feature structures attached to rules. Kiraz (1994) extended it to n-tuple lexical expressions over multiple tapes, an idea originating with Kay (1987). - Singular rules R4–R5 apply under the feature [number=sing]. Plural rules R6–R8 apply under [number=pl] and operate on three lexical tapes. All plural rules are obligatory. - Rules are interpreted directly rather than compiled into automata. Testing covered all stem classes, including insertion of a default consonant [w] and its glottal-stop variant. Diminutives and maṣādir are said to follow the same scheme. ## Interesting ideas - A rule can detect an intermediate form that is never stored (here, the singular) and output the derived form directly, which collapses a multi-step derivation into a single mapping. - Capture a regular process with rules instead of marking each lexical entry, so productive new words like a borrowed noun receive the right form automatically. - Keep independent information layers on parallel aligned tapes (template, root, vowels) and let rules refer to all of them together. - Let a cheap analyser overgenerate, then prune its candidates by feature-structure unification in a later grammar. - Attach a feature structure to each rule that must unify with the lexical entry before the rule fires, so rules are gated by grammatical properties. ## For Mova How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests: - **I1** (tokens): Analysing derived English words (e.g., nominalisations) could check against the implied base inside one rule, without materialising every intermediate string. - **I2** (tokens): Lemmatisation and inflection of out-of-vocabulary words could rely on pattern rules, with lexicon flags used only for true exceptions. - **I3** (back): Generation could keep lemma, morphological features and orthographic template as separate aligned tracks, so the realisation rule that produced each surface character stays traceable. - **I4** (tree): The morphology layer could pass several feature-annotated readings to the parser and let agreement constraints during parsing remove the incompatible ones, keeping every rejection explainable. - **I5** (frames): VerbNet-style frame assignment could be gated by unification with verb and argument features, yielding an explicit reason whenever a frame is accepted or refused. *Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.* ## Institutions - [University of Cambridge](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-cambridge/) — University, Cambridge, United Kingdom · 243 works · 121,396 citations 📚 Shelves (4): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 16,667 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 16,194 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 16,039 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 15,891 works 🧭 Topics (1): [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) · 2,908 works ## Cite Cite as: George A. Kiraz. 1995. Analysis of the Arabic Broken Plural and Diminutive. arXiv:cmp-lg/9512001. The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. ```bibtex @misc{kiraz1995analysis, title = {{Analysis of the Arabic Broken Plural and Diminutive}}, author = {George A. Kiraz}, year = {1995}, doi = {10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9512001}, eprint = {cmp-lg/9512001}, archivePrefix = {arXiv}, url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9512001} } ``` - [← previous A Formalism and an Algorithm for Computing Pragmatic Inferences and Detecting Infelicities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/marcu-1995-formalism-algorithm-computing-pragmatic-inferences/) - [next → An Implemented Formalism for Computing Linguistic Presuppositions and Existential Commitments](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/marcu-1995-implemented-formalism-computing-linguistic-presuppositions/) - [↑ back to papers of 1995](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1995/) ## References 19 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet. 1. Bear, J. (1986). A morphological recognizer with syntactic and phonological rules. In COLING-86 , pp. 272{6. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bear%2C+J%2E+%281986%29%2E+A+morphological+recognizer+with+syntactic+and+phonological+rules%2E+In+COLING%2D86+%2C+pp%2E+272%7B6%2E) 2. Beesley, K. (1990). Finite-state description of Arabic morphology. In Proceedings of the Second Cambridge Conference: Bilingual Computing in Arabic and English . [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beesley%2C+K%2E+%281990%29%2E+Finite%2Dstate+description+of+Arabic+morphology%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Second+Cambridge+Conference%3A+Bilingual+Computing+in+Arabic+and+English+%2E) 3. Beesley, K. (1991). Computer analysis of Arabic morphology. In Comrie, B. and Eid, M., eds., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III: Papers from the Third Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics . Benjamins, Amsterdam. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.80.11bee) 4. Beesley, K., Buckwalter, T., and Newton, S. (1989). Two-level nite-state analysis of Arabic morphology. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Bilingual Computing in Arabic and English . [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beesley%2C+K%2E%2C+Buckwalter%2C+T%2E%2C+and+Newton%2C+S%2E+%281989%29%2E+Two%2Dlevel+nite%2Dstate+analysis+of+Arabic+morphology%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Seminar+on+Bilingual+Computing+in+Arabic+and+English+%2E) 5. Bird, S. and Ellison, T. (1994). One-level phonology. Computational Linguistics , 20(1), pp. 55{90. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5555/972509.972512) 6. Kay, M. (1987). Nonconcatenative nite-state morphology. In Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 2{10. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kay%2C+M%2E+%281987%29%2E+Nonconcatenative+nite%2Dstate+morphology%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Third+Conference+of+the+European+Chapter+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics+%2C+pp%2E+2%7B10%2E) 7. Kiraz, G. (1994). [Multi-tape two-level morphology: a case study in Semitic non-linear morphology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kiraz-1994-multi-tape-two-level-morphology/). In COLING-94: Papers Presented to the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , vol. 1, pp. 180{6. [↗](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9407023) 8. Kiraz, G. (1996). Computational Approach to Non-Linear Morphology . PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kiraz%2C+G%2E+%281996%29%2E+Computational+Approach+to+Non%2DLinear+Morphology+%2E+PhD+thesis%2C+University+of+Cambridge%2E) 9. Kornai, A. (1991). Formal Phonology . PhD thesis, Stanford University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kornai%2C+A%2E+%281991%29%2E+Formal+Phonology+%2E+PhD+thesis%2C+Stanford+University%2E) 10. Koskenniemi, K. (1983). Two-Level Morphology . PhD thesis, University of Helsinki. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Koskenniemi%2C+K%2E+%281983%29%2E+Two%2DLevel+Morphology+%2E+PhD+thesis%2C+University+of+Helsinki%2E) 11. McCarthy, J. (1993). Template form in prosodic morphology. In Stvan, L. et al. , ed., Papers from the Third Annual Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica Conference , pp. 187{218. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McCarthy%2C+J%2E+%281993%29%2E+Template+form+in+prosodic+morphology%2E+In+Stvan%2C+L%2E+et+al%2E+%2C+ed%2E%2C+Papers+from+the+Third+Annual+Formal+Linguistics+Society+of+Midamerica+Conference+%2C+pp%2E+187%7B218%2E+Indiana+University) 12. McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1990a). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , 8, pp. 209{83. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00208524) 13. REFERENCES McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1990b). Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. In Eid, M. and McCarthy, J., eds., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics II: Papers from the Second Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics , pp. 1{54. Benjamins, Amsterdam. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.72.05mcc) 14. Narayanan, A. and Hashem, L. (1993). On abstract nite-state morphology. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 297{304. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Narayanan%2C+A%2E+and+Hashem%2C+L%2E+%281993%29%2E+On+abstract+nite%2Dstate+morphology%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Sixth+Conference+of+the+European+Chapter+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics+%2C+pp%2E+297%7B304%2E) 15. Pulman, S. and Hepple, M. (1993). A feature-based formalism for two-level phonology: a description and implementation. Computer Speech and Language , 7, pp. 333{58. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/csla.1993.1018) 16. Ritchie, G., Black, A., Russell, G., and Pullman, S. (1992). Computational Morphology: Practical Mechanisms for the English Lexicon . MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ritchie%2C+G%2E%2C+Black%2C+A%2E%2C+Russell%2C+G%2E%2C+and+Pullman%2C+S%2E+%281992%29%2E+Computational+Morphology%3A+Practical+Mechanisms+for+the+English+Lexicon+%2E+MIT+Press%2C+Cambridge+Mass%2E) 17. Ruessink, H. (1989). Two level formalisms. Technical Report 5, Utrecht Working Papers in NLP. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ruessink%2C+H%2E+%281989%29%2E+Two+level+formalisms%2E+Technical+Report+5%2C+Utrecht+Working+Papers+in+NLP%2E) 18. Wiebe, B. (1992). Modelling autosegmental phonology with multi-tape nite state transducers. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wiebe%2C+B%2E+%281992%29%2E+Modelling+autosegmental+phonology+with+multi%2Dtape+nite+state+transducers%2E+Master%27s+thesis%2C+Simon+Fraser+University%2E) 19. Wright, W. (1988). A Grammar of the Arabic Language . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3rd edition. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wright%2C+W%2E+%281988%29%2E+A+Grammar+of+the+Arabic+Language+%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2C+Cambridge%2C+3rd+edition%2E) *Updated 1 November 2026*