Talk:ليس

There's a mistake on this page
The verb «ليس» comes only in past tense, such verbs called «أفعال جامدة» in arabic grammar.--Krzys kurd (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

it is not
Hi, I'd like to know whether a better translation would be 'to be not', without any subject. Thank you in advance. Backinstadiums (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A translation of would be "[it] is not". However, in our entries, we define lemmas with lemmas, so in that sense you're right that it should use the infinitive. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * hi, how about adding 'there is/are not'? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a defective verb.
Hi, could sb., please, the reason why an arabic verb is defective. Also, a category for defective verbs might be created. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are asking for an explanation, defective means it doesn't have some forms: in this case, no present forms. I'll make the category. — Eru·tuon 09:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, the category already exists: Category:Arabic defective verbs. — Eru·tuon 09:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed its conjugation drops the middle consonant before a sukuun, yet I do not know if it's due to ي being a weak consonant or to the 'defectiveness' of this verb. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the consonant is dropped in the same way that it is dropped in, say, (from ). My theory is that *laystu would be illegal according to Arabic phonotactics: three consonants in a row (yst) is not allowed, so one of the consonants has to be deleted. — Eru·tuon 10:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Should its root ل ي س be added? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It governs a noun...
Hi, عالم is derived from the active participle of the verb عَلِمَ ‎(ʿalima, “to know”), so it's not a noun. What would be a better definition? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

or takes بِـ ‎(bi-) and the genitive.
Hi, could sb. please add whether this usage is also copulative? Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. I'm not sure, but I think the definition of copulative is that the subject is linked to the argument of the verb, so it doesn't matter if the argument is inside a prepositional phrase. But it reminds me of another question: whether verbs that take prepositional phrases as obligatory arguments are transitive or not. — Eru·tuon 08:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know of other verbs which behave similarly? Could a category be created for them? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)