Hi, I didn't really know what to call this thread, so I used a term that one of my grammar books used to describe the extra nominal definitions that verbal nouns may have. At any rate, active participles, passive participles, and verbal nouns can all have strong nominal meanings that remain removed from any verbal force. Example: kaatib = author (not writing) maktuub = letter (not written) Here, it seems that because kaatib and maktuub have acquired these nominal definitions, we forfeit the opportunity to use them as progressive and perfect aspect markers. Example: 'anaa kaatib = I'm an author (not I'm writing) huwa maktuub = It's a letter (not It's written) However, we can get around these limitations using the indicative active and passive voice and relative clauses to construct Hal adverbials, describe nouns, and use the progressive and perfect aspects. But, what about verbal nouns? Kitaab = book was probably the first word I learned. After I began studying forms and their modifications, I realized that kitaab is actually the verbal noun of the third form. I looked up the root k-t-b in the dictionary, and it has a valid third form meaning "to correspond with" or "exchange letters/notes with". So, my question is if we are "locked into" using kitaab to mean book how do we express the meaning of "corresponding with"? We've forfeited the opportunity to use kitaab with a verbal force/gerund. But, I can't see a way around it using other aspects of Arabic grammar the way I can with the participles. I have seen that the subjunctive mood of the indicative replaces the verbal noun and vice versa in many situations. Is it possible to get around this problem with the subjunctive as well? Thanks.