| > The structural change is regular. That is you don't have to learn each name plural. Not all the time. And if they do, there still are subtle variations in suffixes. For example: - Kalb (dog) => Kilab (dogs) - Liss (thief) => Losous (thieves) - Karoura (bottle) => Kawarir (Bottles) - etc. > I thought the same thing for English and French, no? When I learn English and French in school, we join letters. Yes, but that doesn't change the letter's shape as in Arabic, you just add a line to connect letters. > The same for french. (Il, Ils, Elle, Elles, On) Not quite: what you cite are just pronouns, but the conjugation and grammar doesn't vary.
For instance, conjugating the verb manger (to eat) with feminine plural "elles" and masculine plural yields the same "mangent", whereas in Arabic you have different forms. > Not true. The real Arabic numbers are the ones used today. The Indian numbers were used in the middle east region because of the strong Indian influence. Agreed. I myself have a hard time reading numbers written in the Hindi numerals (٠ - ١ - ٢ - ٣ - ٤ - ٥ - ٦ - ٧ - ٨ - ٩) |
It's mostly true that the verb form stays the same in French regardless of the gender of the subject. However, they are exceptions. If a verb conjugates conpound tenses with être, then the past participle is considered an adjective and must agree with the subject, e.g.:
Ils sont allés = They went (one or more male)
Elles sont allées. = They went (all female)