Here are a few options for a

You could say لا مالَ عندي to be dramatic ('I possess absolutely no wealth'), but usually people say ما عندي مال or ليس عندي مال for simple possession. The Absolute La sounds more formal or emphatic.

It sounds weird to a native ear, like saying 'There is no doubts' in English. The grammar requires the light fatha construction to bond the word to the La. Stick to La shakka.

Jins means 'genus' or 'category/species'. It negates the entire species of the noun. If you say La rajula, you are negating the existence of the entire category of 'men' in that context.

Yes! In fact, it's deleted all the time. In La budda (No escape), the predicate is implied to be something like 'mawjood' (existing) or 'minhu' (from it). We usually drop it because it's obvious.

Actually, yes! It's closer to the French 'Il n'y a pas de doute' (absolute) vs 'Il n'y a pas un doute'. It's a categorical negation rather than a numerical one.

You can repeat the La! لا طعامَ ولا شرابَ (La ta'ama wa la sharaba). Both nouns get the single Fatha treatment. It flows very poetically.

Yes, but it gets tricky. If you say 'No lazy student', it becomes لا طالبَ كسولاً or كسولٌ. The adjective can follow the case or the meaning. For C2, just know it's possible, but keeping it simple is safer.

Constantly. La rayba fih (No doubt in it), La tathriba 'alaykum (No blame on you today). It's a key feature of Quranic rhetoric to establish absolute truths.

Laysa is a verb (or behaves like one) that negates a sentence (Laysa al-jawwu harran - The weather isn't hot). La is a particle. La is generally stronger and more categorical in this specific structure.

No. The bond must be immediate. If you introduce Kan (was), the structure changes entirely.

Grammatically, it looks singular (no plural markers usually), but the *meaning* is plural/collective. La rajula means 'no men' generally, not just 'no single man'.

If you stop, you don't pronounce the vowel. La shakk. But if you continue, you pronounce the Damma on the predicate (if present) or the Fatha on the noun. La shakka fi...

It takes the accusative dual ending ya/nun but without the nun usually in constructs, or ya alone. e.g., لا رجلينِ (La rajulayni) - No two men. It’s rare but follows the accusative rules.

Heavily. Poets love it because it sets a definitive mood. 'There is no sword like Zulfiqar' -> La sayfa illa Zulfiqar.

Big NO. Al- is the enemy of this La. If you use Al-, you must change the structure to La al-shakku mawjudun... and you lose the 'absolute' flavor.

You can say Innahu la shakka fi... (Verily, there is no doubt...). The La clause acts as the predicate or part of the sentence structure smoothly.

No! La ta'kul (Don't eat) is La al-nahiyah (Prohibitive La). That one tells someone NOT to do something. Absolute La states that something DOES NOT exist.

You could say La ahada (No one). It's a very succinct way to say 'Not a single soul'.

Absolutely. La hiyalata (No trick/method). The gender doesn't change the grammatical rule, just the matching words.

Yes, La muslimina (No Muslims...). It takes the ya ending of the sound masculine plural because it acts accusative.