[int_19h]

> In english for example you have : Book, Author, Library In Arabic (kitaab, kaatib, maktaba) which is the same root (k,t,b) and with simple rules you can discover all those words or even invent them if not used previously

I don't see why the word for "author" has to be derived from the same root as "book", logically speaking. There are a great deal more things than books that have authors.

The reason why this particular root that you've picked produces differences between "book" and "library" in most European languages is because they had two major sources from which their roots were borrowed: Latin (where "book" is "liber") and Greek (where "book" is "biblio"); and both roots were borrowed and used in this case. However, for most roots, the principle is exactly the same in European languages - a single common root produces a whole family of words, and new words are derived as needed. It's not something that's unique to Arabic.

[kissickas]

> There are a great deal more things than books that have authors

And those things all have their own words for their authors, as well.

poetry - sha3r

poet - shaa3r

composition (the noun of the verb) - ta2leef

composition (the thing written) - mu2allaf

composer - mu2allef

letter, correspondance - resala

messenger - rasool

correspondent (like a news reporter) - murasel

You can also use kaateb for the author of a letter or perhaps a poem, but not really a symphony. Just like you wouldn't use author. Pardon the use of the numbers in words - it's how people represent letters that aren't in English in Arabic.

[int_19h]

So then the correct translation was "writer"?

Note, by the way, that your examples showcase the same pattern in English - the author of "poetry" is a "poet", the author of a "composition" is a "composer" etc.

[kissickas]

Yes, kaateb can be translated as "author" or "writer" or "scribe" etc.

I was more replying to your comment than continuing GP's argument, but I believe what they were trying to say is that the system used in Arabic is very regular and predictable. If I didn't know English, I might say that the person who writes poems is a poemer. Or a poetrier. I might try to use "to poetry" as a verb.

I wouldn't really make that argument because through learning Esperanto I realized that a truly logical language would make nearly no sense. You can't just invent any word you like in Esperanto, although it is sometimes billed that way, and you can't in Arabic. But at least it's very predictable and, at least, you can derive the meanings of an already-written text fairly easily.

The problem (touched upon in the OP) is that each dialect has its own domain of vocabulary, so even apart from foreign/native language influences, the classical vocabulary that sticks around in each dialect varies widely from one place to another. Some people use the verb for "work" to mean "work" and some use the verb for "preoccupy oneself" to mean "work."

[mohamedattahri]

Indeed, many languages have a concept of root from which words must be derived. In Arabic, it’s much more pronounced, because knowing the root of a word is essential to being able to use the language effectively.

2 of may favorite things about the language: 1/ fun fact is that the vast majority of verbs have only 3 letters in them 2/ Pronouns make a distinction between one, two or more people, and even indicate whether the subject is present or absent. I find it extremely powerful.

[posterboy]

The concept word is not clearly defined. As a programmer it seems natural to assume that a word is a short series of bits. Anything else is composition. Why is of a word but -ed isn't? ab- is from the same origion, as in aberrant. The difference isn't completely arbitrary. Bio Logy might as well be two wods. The keyword is lexicalization and how words are learned. Obviously, shorter words are easier to discover.