Durham E-Theses
Arabic grammatical studies in the late 9th and early 10th centuries, with particular reference to the Us©ul al-Nahw of Ibn al-Sarr©aj
Cassels, David Andrew
How to cite: Cassels, David Andrew (1979) Arabic grammatical studies in the late 9th and early 10th centuries, with particular reference to the Us©ulal-Nahw of Ibn al-Sarr©aj, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7911/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support O ce, Durham University, University O ce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
2 i
ARABIC GRAMMATICAL STUDIES II THE LATE $TR AMD EASLY 10!M CWTORIESp WISH PAFHCULAH HKMJCE TO W, T®Wh AL°flflHW OF IBM Al=SAlHlj
3Y
BATTED AMDHSJ CASSEXJS
Thosisi erabfflitted to tho IPosial'fey ©f AgtQ
ia th@ Uhivox'sity of Bastes
£®s ths BsgE©©' of Bootes of Philosophy
Sobsol of OsiQsatel Studios„ The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Elvet Hill No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Hay, 11979 ii
Abstract
©lis thesis gives particular attention to tho Ugul of the noted
grasaaarian,, Ibn al~Sarrajp but some attention is also given to ths
Muqtadab of al=Mubarrad9 his teacher0 although this latter work is less significanto Ms dissertation also provides a more general discussion of grammatical thought a® relevant material from the works of earlier
and later scholars has also boon introduced0
Chapter I consists of an account of the history of Arabic gram~
matical thought up until the early 10tho century and special attention is given to al=Mubarra& and Ibn al=Sarra,j and their writing® on grammar,,
Chapter II deals with the methodical and syatoaatic approach of
Ibn al^Ssrraj to his subject matter and a@s©@i3es the significance of thiso
Chapter III deals with Ibn al~Sarr&j8 s discussion of the regent
4 ( aail) and consider® related questions0
Chapter IV is a discussion of aspects of qiyas and taqdir<, tw important concepts in the methodology of the Arab grasBaarianso
Chapter V looks specifically at how giyas determines the relation^ ship of asjL and fasfo
Chapter VI examines how al~Mabarrad and Ibn &l~Sarraj approach
e tw© specified topicsg the tamyiz and the verb of wonder (fi l
e al°ta ajjub)0
Chapter VII deal® with Ibn al-Sarraj°s treatment of Kufan gram~
matieal thoughtp and his use of the egression "the Baghdadis" is consideredo In addition^ the question of Kufan influence on Ibn al~Sarraj is discussedo
Chapter VIII consists of an examination of material taken from the Usui by Ibn lavish and incorporated into his commentary on the
Mttfaasal of al~Zamakhshari0 iii
CONTENTS
Ti. tuL®PSl^£© OOOOOSGOGOOO0GOOOOOOOOOOOO i
AfoS"fc3»®>Cfc oooooooooooooooooooooooooo ii
TStbl© Of COntefttS ooooooooooooooooooooo iii
LiS'b Of "fcStbl©® ooooooooooooooooooooooo iV
AckHO^fl©d^9M©Sl,t@ ooooooooooooooooooooooo V
!1^2?&XlSli^f®3?S"fci.Ori ooooooooooooooooooooooo Vi
Chapter
I„ INTRODUCTION OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1
IIo CLASSIFICATION, ANALYSIS9 AND DEFINITION 0 « . . • . . 2?
IIIo REGENTS, THEIR CLASSIFICATION,, AND RELATED THEORY . . 55
IVo THE USE OF QJYAS AND TAQDIR ° „ o o « o <, o » 0 o . o 79
Vo QJYAS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF A§L AND FAR6 o o . o « 102
VIo THE TAMYIZ AND THE VERB OF WONDER o o o o o . ° o o 117
VII„ THE U5UL AND THE KUFAN SCHOOL OF GRAMMAR o o . a e o 139
VIII. IBN YA&ISH AND THE USUL OF IBN AL=SARRAJ o . . . . . 166
©ooooeooooeoooooooooooooooooooooooo
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ooooooooooooooooooaa 182 Li@t of tmbl®s
1S The diTisioa of th© pests of sp@©eh into s^goats
e aeeo&*d±ng t© Ibn al<>Sa££aj ooooooooooooooos 56
w w 20 Tfaateaafe®d s©g©nta Becoming to al^dfejaxd. 0 o » o o o o 57 In eooneetion with this thesis I would like to sekaowlo&g® the
help ©sd ©&©©ug©g©BQmt of sgr ®ttp©Evi©o»9 J. A» Haysjood0 fsq99 R©ad@E in Arable in the Univ©g©ity of XtoehMo I wwld also lik© to ask®
mentioa of th© assi^tsae© giv@n "by Ftes0 Jo B©t"foa^tj©rth ©f th© library
staff at Elvet Hill «ho asds OVQS^ effost to ©btato n®e@©saEy wxkse vi Transliteration
Consonants
I
no b UP s
•k (J t *) k « B « th J 1
f m h il> n
kh 8 h t J> d £ - i) w 3 dh £ gh cS y
Vowels and diphthongs
a i u
LI i T
o 0 ay aw 1
CHAPTER I
IMROZrOCEEON
Comparatively littles attention has been given "by scholars in the
¥©st to th© detailed study of the development of Arabic grammatical
thoraghto . While they have been interested in th© graaaaatical tradition
of the Arabs,they havo largely directed their efforts to preparing
edition® of th® classics of Arabic gstwm&Eo Th® first detailed European
study of th© Arabic grasEaatical tradition is Gust&v Fl%el°s work of
18629 Die pgpaaBBatiBehen Schmlem der Araber0 but this is essentially an account of th© lives and work® of the grasEoariangi based on the then available biographical sources and no attention is given in it to the
study of grammatical thought,, The first proper ©tody of grammatical
thought by a Western scholar is the essay by Gotthold Weil which appears
in the Introduction to his odition of the KitEb al-in®af of Ibn al=Anb'arl •j which was published in 1913© This essay remain© important and other later European scholars who havo given attention to Arabic gr&^natical thought can be seen to have based theraselve® firmly on the work of 2 Weilo In the Middle East wseful studieo have been sad© of the lives
y and works of individual grammariansc but ©ore general works on grammatical bought have tended to be biographical in nature and little emphasis ha© been put on critically examining the developnent of the ideas and techniques of the graanaarianso ^
Although there is considerable ©cope for undertaking research on the development of Arabic granraatical thought there are certain limits
on what can be done0 Shis is because there are some qr&ite considerable gaps in the works readily available of grsswaarians frosa the period 2 between the tiia® @f Sibewayh in tho lat® 8th century and that of
al~Zaai&khEiharI in the late 11th and early 12th centurie©0 Many work® of this period appear to b© irrevocably lost although manuscript® of works thought to bo lost ©TO still being discovered ©sad eataloguedo
Although research into Arabic grammatical thought is hindered by th© loss of much valuable material it has beea greatly assisted in roeent times by the publication of further grssmaatical texts based both on long^kaown and newly discovered manuscripts,,
Th© publication of editions of th® Muqtadab of al~Mubarrad and
the Usui of his pupils Iba al~Sarraj9 is an important contribution to 5
asking easily available the works of the aarly grssm&ri&ns0 Together thes© two works provide such information about grammatical studies ia th© later 9th and early 10th centfaries which is a period to which up
until recently little attention ooTsld resilly bo givea0 Because of the availability of these two works it is possible to show how th® grasaoatical scholarship of this particular period relates to that of the later pariod of th© femow classics of Arabic grasjm&r and to show how grasN- matical studies had progressed sine© the time of Sibawsyho However^ ia this present thesis attention is restricted to the grammarians0 work oa syntax and their work on aorphology and phonology has not been taken into consideration This step has been taken to put necessary limitations on th© scop© of the thesis and can be justified because syntesj morphology and phonology are rather different branches of linguistic study,.
In the history of Arabic grammatical studios the later 9th and oarly 10th centuries constitute th© period of al=Mubarrad and his issdiate followers amongst whom was Iba al=Sarrajo While there are positive reasons for tskiag the later 9th century as a point of departure
there is an importantp but negative reason for so doingo Because of
•fca® action of time the work© of scholars who flourished in the period 3
feott7©oa SifeQus^fe em& alc4feboss,a& B©QD Isss-goly t@ hswo bo®& lost m& tltois1 @®xats£bTati®» "8® ^asati©®! tteegtot ©am ©mly bo topssfoetly faa@ra& tfc@®gj2i lotos ao@®iai&Qsy g@n22©QQo Eho2"o QSO ©staat tr@2fes as tta> SbGJglf. @f oJ^Efeaial uaa tSi© omfe^o©^ ©£ a ©@sa©Batasy feyXb m Jiaai
oafi feoo oia5EViv©fi tfcs®'®^ tto ©®EMQ&t&Eyp ^ feat ESJ@S t?®2feo @£ ggajETas
fe®a this pes£@d d@ a@t ©ppsas ts haws si&sviT@do
Bs@boMy tfao G®st topes'tssit OTEJS @£ gpsQnaos £E@H tfeo p©gi@d
feotcraoa tfoo IELtib ©£ §ffeQC7afta sad i^ao Efi^tadak ^4&abaEE,afi ma tfeo
fesS'il ©£: eA^JOsafasfo ml^Awm^ (do 83©) t&o mo a setelca? ^£®i7Q
©so f^q^Qsatly qaotofi fey lata? ®ei*EE2£srfL®30o 1® ©aansseElpts @f tM.s
t5®5^2 as© y©t taa®m ae&flp &a&® ISlao &0=8api^£ (1445=115®5) 'A*b&' sl<=^afe s&^Bc^riafil (1 at ^hois i&£sp®0al @@pi©g ©f tM.® TOsfeo 1&io t?®Tald tsai t® e@Eafisa ttet •&i'D wsis asaiagst ot&QE© ©£ aX~AMa£aai&i0Q uas l®ot at a ©©BpasatlTOl^y oasly &ato0 ©ltfo@TSJ<^ t3£®to a ©©c^oatOEy « £tD It £o poooifelo by ©©asaltirag go©©aiiasy o@ss®oo t® &£o@@yos> tfeo viouo ®f a •©tolas' life© al^AttfasM p@£ato aM ©vssa t@ fiai assy Oiabotitat®. f©s boiag afel© t® eeairolt bio wsdlso at first haad ssMdhi £s> vital £®s ©fetsdjaiag1 a fetaly aee'issat® rlcaj ®f tto d©v©l@psiQat @f ^sOH~!3t£@al tfe«Ts^!ito B®@asas© @f tM® l@ssi @f wosto of Qehalas® llkQ aic^idflifaoks it i® a®©©ssiiEy la attostptiag t@ ta&Q mp i® detail fs>sn pjiaasy gieTOeos tfeso M.ot®2y ©f ^aHsmtiosl tfee^^t of tag SifeatTeya -fei) oalso a st&st uith -^i© u@s?s of sd^SfebasssiL Alttos^n tte p®i®t Jiast osd® e@Eiotitiato0 a oeostJtet aQgativ©. dsgBQsat f@s tsJkiag tlio lato^ past @f tJai®. ftk ©©atiasy ao a poiat ®f , iojjastEEO Sos tbs pEtDOoat ot\afiy0 tfe©s© @EQ E©SO poeitivo eom©id©Eat£®m® f®2> a® fleiiago Bassca s©fo@©l ®f gscoDSSo t5Sd,©fci boogss the sefeool @f /Isibie ^SM3BE0 %®mhQ& ®& tepo^teat Qtag© ia ito d©v©l@pB©mt ui"^ @l=SM)Gssadl £@s9 uSxem ho oovoi. fa?©a Moss^i to tsto mp s©sid©5B!3Q iffi lagj&i&a&o ^ao ^OEffia @©to@l £t©©lf was visteally SQBOV©<& fs©a its toraa @£ ©slQto Bo^idafio % mftil tfeo clival of ol=Pfelbcss>aS to BogfoflcyS. (^sGCBatioal o@fo@@l uM@& h®& flowsiofeofi ®aoso uaa tkyfe ©f KmfcA QSIS, £$ 1@JSS feooia ootablia&od to tho Qofe@p®l£o0 IMocx&0 tfeio B ooslioist K@£oa ^parngsiaas @f a©"te>0 Ql°SioQ I (fio@04) cm& D1=F®ESO,' (fio@22)0 feo-^oi lof"S Bafak •&© t®So ®g gooitoaoQ to lo^sfe&o ocosrwfct ©naif £©<$. ©ad woo MO l@ngQE> ps©fimeto® gpesBsasssisHQ ©f tho fisot > i®si @f tho Q©a® statifflE® es his Fifmenwm pE©dL©e®sffl©rs!) &l=»KisE*2 sad ©l=S'aEEi.,>o Wmm ©l=BabsssEad ssttled to Baghdad an alternative tradition of gressaar aad philology beeam® readily accessible,, Students were attracted to the circlo of &l~Hub&rrad and the Bararan school took firm root to Baghdad ©ad oventually cospl©toly omsted the K&fan schoolo Another reason for taking the lat®r 9$h century as a point of departure is that the leading grammarian of the period9 al-=EM>arrad,, is chronologically th© aost distinguished Basran scholar after Sibawayh who gave particular attention to grammar0 Sib&wayh's pupil9 al=Akhfashp was a noted and often quoted grammariam but he cannot be said even to approach th© rank of al<=S5ubarrad as a philologist0 B^en if sl~Sfobarrsd was a ffioted grammarian his reputation was established by his great uork of adabp tho Kamil0 and by his general standing as a philologist th© position of the Basran school of grajsmar in particular must have been immeasurably strengthenedo While there ar® particularly clear reasons for beginning a study of grammatical thought with the later 9th century9 the period of al~M>arradD terminating it with th© early 10th centuryD the period of hi® studentsp is somewhat more arbitrary but is justified simply by th© n©ed to limit th® scope of th© study0 However;, there ar© oth©r considerations for setting such a limito From among th© pupils of al=£?ubarr&d this study gives attention to the work of Xbn al-Sarraj andp if &l==M>arrad can bo said to have inaugurated a particular phase in the development of the Basran sohoolp then his pupil„ Xbn al=SarraJp brought it to a particular highpoint with hi® renowned work, the Ui^ul0 <, Al=J5ubarrad !3 sost outstanding pupils were al°Zajjajp whose work has largely been loat0 and Ibn al=Sarrajp whose sajor work on grssaar is extanto The grammatical works of lesser grammarian pupil® of al=Mubarrad are also largely lost like those of al=Zajjaj and in any case did not attract such attention,, la shortp this) means that the work of &l<=Ptabarrad and Ibn sl~Sarraj fora together a convenient subject for a study which covers th® work on graaraar of two generations ©f scholars0 Having explained the period which this present mtudy intends to coverj, it is necessary to give some account of the prior history of the study of grasnaaro In undertaking" suoh a review of the history of Arabic grammatical thought the work of Sibawayh0 which is contained in the Kitabo for®s a convenient and suitable starting pointo Firstly9 R ,m the Kitabn which was acclaimed as theQur*an of graam®s 0 is the earliest monument of th® Basran grammatical tradition and was a work whieh was universally praised for its excellence and had a decisive influence on the subsequent study of gsewwo Secondly9 knowledge ©£ the grammarians of the Basran school who preceded Sibawayh is to be derived fro® what is recorded of their work in the Kitab because this book seems to have superceded at ©n early date the works of preceding Basran scholars0 In considering the further development of the Basran school in the period between Sibawayh and al-=Mubarrad an important point which emerges is that the Basran study of grammar was continued and developed by comparatively few specialists„ Sibawayh was succeeded by his older contemporary and pupil9 al-Akhfash al~Awsa$ (do 830);, and he was TOceeeded by his pupils, al=Jarmi (d„ 840) and &l~Mazini (do 862)p of 6 10 who® the latter was also a pupil of th© former0 These two scholars were succeeded - in turn by their pupil„ al=Mubarrad0 Al=Akhfash was undoubtably a more distinguished scholar than his two pupils0 al=Janai and al=MaziniP and his views are very frequently quoted by later authors0 His saost famous work^ which is often mentioned by naaaepis the Masa'ila It is apparent that he wrotQ two works of that nasa©0 th© 1 Kltab al^aaai'il al°kabir and the Kitab al-masa '!! al°Baghir0 but often the two titles are not clearly distinguished and reference is mad® simply to the ^jaBa/ilp It is recorded that Ibn al=Sarraj mad© particular us© of th® Masa/il which is an indication of the esteem in which the, work was heldo 12 However, the Mas=a *1 1 does not seea to have been giv©n the attention in later times which a work like the Usui of Ibn al-=Sarraj was given and after a period of popularity it fell into disuse o Al~Akhfash°s pupils j, al-Jasai and ®l=Mazini9 were scholars of not© and their views are referred to by later scholars but they had th© stature neither of their teacherp al~Akhfash0 nor far less of their pupil, &l~I5e.barrad5 and no further mention of their work is necessary here0 Abu 1= "Abbas Muhammad b0 Yazid al~Mubarrad (826=98) was bom in Basrah and as was natural his training in the linguistic sciences was 1? in the Basran tradition^, He began his grammatical training by studying the Kitab of Sibawayh under al=Jarmi and on this scholar°s death he continued his study of the Kltab with al<=Masini0 An eye• witness account indicates that al-Jlubarrad distinguished himself even as a pupil studying under al<=fflazini8 S a ** 7 Al=4^barrad did not remain in Basrah but at some time moved to Saaaorra whioh was thon tho seat of the caliphal govornmento It is said that the reason for his coming was that ho was summoned to settle a , dispute between th© oaliph0 al=Mutawakkil (847= 6l)0 and his well-known intimate,, al=Fath bQ Khaqan0 over a point of Our"an vowellingo Be that as it may0 aWM>arrad did definitely EQV© in court circles in Sasaarra biat on the murder of the caliphp al-Mubarr&d moved to Baghdad and appears to have resided there until hi® death in 8980 As a result of his arrival in Baghdad al<4fabarrad0 s depth of knowledge became widely known there and he began to attract students somewhat to the detriment of the Kufan scholar„ Tha'labp who was at that time the leading philologist in Baghdado On this matter there £TQP in particularp accounts of how al=Zajjajp who became an important Basran scholar and who had up until then studied under Tha'labo was attracted to &l~Hubarrad and abandoned his studies with his old teachers ©)$X*^) ^!Ui^ J>jr*M ^jj> U>: g Wi/** JU9 *0 S S This account makes dear the immediate impression which al-Ftubarrad Bade on many who heard him in discussion right from his earliest days in Baghdad and it was from such auspicious beginnings that his career in Baghdad developedo Al=Mubarrad°s most important work on grammar is the Maqtadab which is discussed below0 Apart from this work it is also worth mentioning his Radd * all. Sibawayh in which he criticised certain views taken by Sibawayh» This work has not survived but its contents are known from the Intisir of Ibn Wallad (do 943) which is a refutation of &l=43ubarrad and a vindication of Sibawayho This work has survived and "AdiEaahp th© editor of th© yfaqtadabn make© us© of it in hi© marginal 17 noteso AlMffubarrad also wroto quit® a number of works on gremmas? apart froa th© two mentioned h©ro and many of the@ were diroctly concerned with th® study and elucidation of the Kitib of Sibawayh0 However,, thes© works have not survived and do not seem to have attracted such attention ©n the part- of later scholars0 Thoy are only known as 13 titles and th®s© can b© ascertained from the biographical sonarc®s0 After the Kaail sJ.~Mubarrad',8 scat important work was his major treatise on grammar,, th© Huqtadabn which is in fact an earlier work thasa th© Kamil as it is alluded to on several occasion® in itQ ^ It is clear that th© Muqtadab did not have the same high reputation of a work like th© Usui of Ibn al~Sarraj and it was not a grammar which later scholars often had recourse to<, Howevers it did have some popialarity for a periodswhich is indicated by the fact that commentaries were written ©n it0 Ibn al=Sarraj°s pupil0 Abm *Ali al-Farisij, wrot© a commentary and al=4flubarrad°8 own pupil5 Ibn Durustawayh,, wrote 21 a commentary which he did not complete0 A commentary was also done by Ibn Badhiah (1055=1133) who was a Spanish scholar of Granada but a comparatively minor scholar,, although an assiduous commentator on th® 22 classics of grammaro It is clear that th© Mmqtadab continued to be used in Spain after the time of Ibn Badhish because the Spanish scholar9 Ibn Khayr (1108=79)» lists it in his Fahrasah as a work which had been 23 transmitted down to his tisae0 A specialised commentary on the Muqtadab has survived and that is the Tafsir al^masa'll al^nushkilah fi awwal al~muqtad&b by Sa°id •= co <= OA 8 b0 Sa id al=Fariqi (do 100l)o In the Muqtaflab there ar® a number of very complicated,, but artificially constructed sentences which were analysused teo antraid explain studentn sucs anh dsentences in his commentar0 "Adlmayh haal-Fariqs incorporatei undertaked intso t hio s marginal notes, those parts of this commentary which are strictly relevant to the text of the Muqtadab., It is clear from what al-Fariql writes in the introduction to his commentary that the Muqtadab enjoyed considerable popularity in the later 10th century amongst beginners 25 and those who had gone a little deeper into grammar0 Howeverf the sort of commendatory remark about the Usui of Ibn al-Sarraj which can be found in the biographical sources cannot be found in the case of the Muqtadabg indeed0 references to it tend to be unfavourableo There is a story that on one occasion^ in the presence of Ibn al~Sarraj,one of his pupils compared al<=Jfubarrad * s Muqtadab unfavourably with the Usui sz£ Ibn al=Sarraj felt obliged to defend 26 his old teacher's reputations 1 J J2h8 JUL® J, Jf? ^ 9 p o - o 0 f There is also a rather derogatory remark about the Mu ab which Yaqut records Abu 4All al-Farisi as having made 27 9 a 5 1 "J 1 This remark is nothing more than an attempt to belittle the value of the Muqtadab and is really a rather fatuous comment because, as "Adimah notes, with respect to the point on which Abu 4All al-Pariai did reputedly 10 benefit from the Muqtadabythere is in fact no more information given _ 20 there than in the Kitab„ After recounting this remark Yaqut goes on to mention a general reason why the Muqtadab was not a work from which profit was derived 8 ^ %JU As %^E\^J>. Cf) ^ CJ® ^ la ** This is again simply a rather abusive remark at al~r/fubarrad' s expense because he had the evident misfortune of being a teacher of the notorious 30 - - heretic Ibn al<=Rawandi0 In actual fact9 although Ibn al=Rawandi may have studied the Muqtadab under al=Mubarrad there is no reason to suppose that he had any great part in continuing the study of this work which would rather have been done by those scholars who were known as grasmarianso Although al=Mubarrad was recognised as a grammarian this did not result in a strong continuing interest in his works which was to last for many centuries0 He did continue to be remembered as a grammarian but later scholars contented themselves with merely citing his views which they seem to have been aware of largely through secondary sourceso It is comparatively rare for the later scholars to cite 0 al=ffubarrad s major work on grammar <, the Muqtadab0 although specific references to it can be found <, As a grammar^ the Muqtadab is quite a large~scale work and in the printed edition occupies four volumes0 One of the very obvious characteristics of this work is the lack of any systematic arrangement of its chapterso In the Kitab the chapters on accidence and syntax are to a large extent kept separate even if beyond this there is no clear 11 seheiae for arranging the material0 However9 in th© Pfaqtadab there is mot even any separation of the chapters on accidence and syntax,, On this point it is worth meting that Ibn ©l~S@rri,3 is specifically described as giving tho aaterial in the Uful en excellent arrangement ®ad this say well indicat® that previous works like th© Piuciit&dab and = 32 th© Kitab were felt to "be somewhat deficient in this respect0 ' !Ehis would tend to suggest that there is no reason for supposing that th® rather haphazard order of th© chapter® in the gfeqtaflab does not represent' very rauch tho original order 4m which al=Mub&rrad composed th© worko Although aAdiaah takes the view that the manuscript on which he bases his printed editi©n is CQapl©tesor very nearly so9 it i® worth noting that al>=Hubarxad seems to neglect certain topics0 There arep for ©sample9 no chapters on th® maf lata ©r th© maf'ml ma'ehuo but apart from thissamd disregarding the haphazard arrangement of material^ the Muqtadab does cover at some point most major topics usually discussed 35 im a grammes o The most important continuator of the work of aWSubarrad was his 34 pupil j, Abu Bakr M^hasaaad bc al^Sari,, generally known as Ibn al=Sarraj0 Although the date of th® death of Ibn al«=Sarraj is given as 316 A0H<, (929 AoDo)9 there is no information on when he was bomQ Tiie editors of hi© brief work on grammarp the tftdag fi l°taahwn El-=Chouemi and Basaer&jip place hi® birth between th© years 260=5 A0H0 and this is based JJ on facts known about him0 FirstlyB according to an anecdote9 Ibn &l~Sarraj was present at the entry of the caliphp al~Mukts.fi0 into Bagdad in 289 A0H0 At that tise Ibn &l=Sarraj was in love with a slav© girl and in mome verses drew a comparison between her and the pomp of tho oaliphal procession*, Secondly9 and this seems a stronger argument9 he was a pupil of al=Mubarrad who died in 285 A<,H„ and before the death of hi® teacher he had sade a reputation for himself as a pupil of distinction As to tho places where he rosidedj, it appears that Ibn al~Sarraj9 unlike al~Mubarrad5 spent ©11 his life in Baghdad and the editors of the Mu,1&z point out in this connection that Yaqut styles him th© "Baghdadi" and that anecdotes about him are set in Baghdad0 Ibn al<=Sarraj received his philological training under al~?3ubarrad and he became an outstanding pupil„ particularly favoured by his teachers >g jj?J>\ ^ *g\jr^ \ Lr) 6 ^ eJ 9 J^f. ^jr^ I . CJJeue ^ There is no record that Ibn al~Sarraj had any teacher other than al~FIubarrad but th the great Kufan eontemporary of al=55ubarradp although he probably could have if he had so wanted0 If al=£habarrad was his only attested teacher, Ibn al=Sarraj was, at leastj an associate of al-Zajjaj, a somewhat old©r pupil of ZD al-Mubarrado There is a mtory recorded of an occasion when Ibn al°Sasrraj and ©l=Zajjaj were together which throws light on the career 39 of th© former as a grammarians u^4^ CsA$> yc^jr& 13 According to the tailpiece to this story Ibn al=Sarr£.j was as good as his word and went on to beeoss the leading grammarian after the death of al=ZajjIj0 Ibn 'al-S&rra j ° s rQptatation as a scholar is firmly based on his s&jor work of grmmsxD the Usui? Although this work did not become one of the great classics of grammar that were in wide use in the later Middle Ages, nevertheless, it was apparently quite widely used in the centuries after its composition and reiaained a work well~kno™ to specialists in grammaro The biographical sources make clear that the Usui was a work that was well thought of although, because such sources tend to take over much E&terial directly from earlier works, it is not easy to date from them th® period when such commendatory remark® were first made0 With perhaps a shade of hyperbole, Yaqut records the remark in praise of Ibn al^S&rraj's scholarship in th© gauls "Oy&\i> <^JLLs nj^g> \a>gJ*jS ^ I0 4° Another commendation of the Usui is recorded by Yaqut in lis ting Ibn al=Sarraj's works 8 0 Q=*A=2i=!>jr Apart from such commendations of Iba al~Sarraj and his scholarships, th® continued us© of the Ugul itself testifies to the high esteem in which its author was heldo However, it is not possible, due to the lack of the n@ce@sary evidence, to give a complete account of the later 14 history of the use of the Usui but osrtain d©tails can b© given0 First 42 of allp a number of commentaries on it were writtenc Th® sarilost commentary was composed by Ibn al=Sarraj °s own pupil0 al^Russajiml (909= 94)© The nest was done by Ibn Babshadh (d0 1077)9 ©a Egyptian scholar of distinction,, whoa© works had some popularity0 ^ Th© next two commentators ar® scholars of the Islasie Westo Th© first is Ibn Badhish (1055^1153) who ha® already bean mentioned as having written a commentary on th® Moqtadabo Th© secondp who is th© last att©st©d commentator0 ms th© no tab 1© North African grsaamariaap &l~Jazuli AC (do ca0 1205^=19)0 Hi® teacher was anothsr eminent Morth African scholar9 ^ha Barri (1106=87)P and it is recorded that in an hour of need al=Jszuli pawned his copy of th© Usui which ha had made himself while studying th© work with Ibn Barrio Further information on th® USQ of th© Uatal in the Islamic West c@mes from the Fahrasah of Ibn Khayr (1108=79) ia which th© work i® listed as handed down from generation to generation,, Ibn Khayr gives two chains of transeission back to Ibm al=>Sarra5P on® throu^i Abm 'All al-Farisi and the other tteoiagh al^Sirafip th© author of th© *= AS t, _ famous commentary on the Kitabo He also mentions al=Rwmani0s commentary on the Ugul but does not provide & chain of transmission0 From th® evidence of th® commentaries written oa th© Paul and of the Fahrasah of Ibn Khayr it is clear that the Ua5l was in general use down to the 12th century and in particular in the Islamic Westo This last point is supported by th© fact that two of th© fo^sr tests used by al=Fatli in preparing his printed edition of th® Ugul were found in 4.9 - - - North Africao After the time of Ibn al=Sarraj°s pupil9 al^Rusiaianip it i® difficult to trace the history of th© use of th® Usui in the Eastern Islamic world because the Kashf &l°gunun of Hajji Khalifah does not mention any further commentaries from that region, and there are no sources of information for the East comparable with the Fahrasah 15 of Ibn Khayr for Spain0 Th© Uffulp hewsverp did remain tm important work and was on© com=> suited by scholar© undertaking very detailed studies of granraaro Al-Suyu^i (1445=11505) frequently cites Ibn al=Sarrij in tho A®hbah =» n en wa°l°naga ir and in it quote® passag®s from the U®ul0 The Tjfiil i® also th® earliest work which al=Suyu^i drswo on in hio treatise on grammatical methodology the Iqtiriho ^ sAbd &l=Qldir al^Baghdidl (1621=82) also found th© Usui valuable and in his introduction to the Khlzanat al~adab lists th® Ugul as one of th® works which h® particularly 52 consult®d9 - It is of interest that it is •She earliest grassjar after the Kitab in &1-Baghd£d£°s list of works consultedo It is also worth noting her® that Ibn YaToh also found th® Ugul a valuable worko This is because' he takes over material from the TJgul as it stands end works it into his commentary ©n the Mufagg&l of ©l^ZamakhBherio This is ©> EI matter which will be dealt with in detail in a later chapter The Usui has only been partly published in two volumes butB fortunatelys the published parts include all the sections of the work dealing with syntax with which this thesis is particularly concernedo The Usui is a work in which the various chapters are presented in a coherent and well thought out manner and the si^iifieance of this will 54 be discussed in a later chapter0 A particular point about the method of presentation of the material in the Usui is that Ibn al=Saxraj tends to treat the various topics by having a section which constitutes a basic discussion and a section cornstituting an additional discussion of further points which h® calls m&aa "il0 Thusp for instance0 there i® the j^f^^ *=A» which is followed by the ^^e*$\ ^{^^a o To a certain ©stent al=£5ubarrad also uses Si© same device in the Muqtadabo Among other works on grammar by Iba sl-Sarr&j was a commentary on the Si tab but this has not survived and never had the popularity of 16 _ _ _ 55 the later commentary on the Kitab by al-Sirafio Another work on grammar by Tbn al=Sarraj i@ th© Jumal al-uflul which was also known as the Kitab al-uaul al-gaghir and is clearly an abridgment of th® Uaulo ^ Th©r© is also mention in the biographical sources of another work by Ibn al^Sarraj whose title has the consonantal skeleton JH5^ ^ p but what this work is or what the correct vocalisation of this word is 57 cannot be saidc There is no reason to suppose that this is a work on grammar called the Jumal which is to be differentiated from the above~ mentioned Jumal al°ugul0 References to a work on grammar by Ibn al-Sarraj called th© Jumal would ©imply involve an abbreviation of th® fuller title Jumal al^usulo In the Ugul Ibn al=Sarraj mentions a work called simply the Jumal and relates its contents and format to that of the Usulg «=• = 59 It is recorded that al=Hummani wrote a commentary on the Jumal0 and a rather minor scholar called Ibn Rumaydah (1076=-1155) wrote a 60 commentary on the verses cited in the Jumalo Although little is known about this scholar9 the commentary by him is at least evidence that the Jumal was in use up until the middle of the 12th century0 Apart from the U®ul0 another work on grammar by Tbn al~Sarraj — 61 has survived and been edited and this is called th© Mujaza This is a brief resume of Arabic grammar and al<=Ma°arri provides some 62 information on the writing of this works Ir—,] if} J*. ^ f )ly Jf^ Js> ^5 c-*^)' This work had a. certain popularity and is mentioacl Tby Ibm Khayr in hi® FahraBah and h© gives the same two chains of transmission back to 63 its author which he gives for the jjgulo The tjjujaz was also the subject of a commentary by al=Rummini and this work is again mentioned by Ibn Khayr0 ^ Eva only other Basran pupil of ©l=Hubarrad who can b© ranked with Ibn al~Sarraj as a grammarian is al=Zajjaj (dQ 923) bmt he did not have the lasting reputation of Ibn al=SarrSj nor were his writings held in 6s = — such high regardo However, his Ma'ani l-^-Qur'Ih did have a certain popularity and was a work which Ibn Khayr studied with hi® teachers 66 and whose transmission chain h© could trace back to al=Zajjaj0 He was th© first pupil of al=Mubarrad after the latter arrived in Baghdad, and he seems to have beea a particular intimate of his teacher because anyone interested in becoming a pupil of al-Mubarrad first took up the matter with him0 H© was a much older man than Ibn al-Sarraj and9 according to al°Zubaydi9 he was over eighty when he died which would make him probably some twenty years olderG After the death of al=Mubarrad it was he who became the senior Basran scholar and h© was 67 recognised as the head of the Basran school„ The next most distinguished grammarian from among the pupils of al-Mubarrad was Ibn Durustawayh (872-958) who wrote a number of gram= 68 statical works0 He was reckoned to hold very firmly to the Basran 18 gchool and wroto a work called tho R&dd 4&la Thc/lab fi khtilaf ejl^aahwiyin which was a reply to Tha4lab°@i ©^position of tho difference® botwesn th© grammatical school©p th© JO^&^IfcjaJ^^ ^ Araojag lesser Basraa grammarians of this generation it is worth mentioning th® nassses of MabrasEan (d0 956) wh© ms a pupil of both al=Kfeb®rrad and e al=Zajjajs and Ali bG Sul©ymia al=Akhf&sh ©l~SaghJr (do 928) who studied both uader the Ba®E>sa9 ©l^Fhabasrafip and th® Ku£@a0 Teha^labo ^ tfhon th© ganer&tioa of Basran scholars who wor© pupil® of al=Mu.bsrrad ©re takon into oonsid©rationsit is clear that thsy produced no othez work of gra&a&r which can compare in reputation with th© Wigul of Xbn al^Siarra js @M this its confirmed by th© fact that no such WOJSC ha© aurvivedo For this reason ©a assessment, of Basren grammatical thought ia the early 10th century Erast be firmly baa©d ea a etrady of the Usulo lihis th©sis is particularly eoncesaed with Basran gruffimatic©! thought bocaus© la th© period under consideration it reached an important stage ia its development into th© dosin&nt school of Arabic grsnaaro On th© other handp the rival school of Kufah was ia d®cliae and was making no signifioaat advances in tho field of grammatical thought,, Kufan grammatical study oonsist©d largely of giving attention to th© work® of past scholars and ther© was little new work of amy vit&lity0 Howey©rp for the sake of complet©n©@o9 it is n®e©ssary to giv® some consideration to the history of th© Kufaa school of grammas' and to take particular account of its stat© during the period considered in th® preseat study0 Although considerable work ha© still to b© doa® oa the history of Soften grasam&tieal thoughts, with particular need for a study of th® 0 Ma^EaS l°QBr in of al<=Farra*p certain general judgment® can be mad© on 71 th© dovolopment of th© school0 It is clear that th© only Kufan scholars who were grammarians of not© wer© &L=Kisa i (do 804) ami 19 2 al^Farra* (do ca0 822)0 ^ When individual Kufan grammarians are particularly mentioned it is these two scholars who are singled out on aost occasionso Outside the field of graffiaar9al=Kisa'i is best remembered as the scholar who established one of the three set© of Kufan canonical Qur'am readings0 Al=Farri.* is best remembered as th© author of tho still extant and partly published M&'ini l°0ur'ano This is a vers©~by~vers©0 sur&h~by==surah commentary on the Qur'an which is predominantly concerned with grammar0 This work was held in hig$i — - 75 repute and was used by aL=Baghdadi in th© Khisanat al°adab0 After al<=Farra1' thero did not emerge assy Kufan grasmnarian of great note and this had the corresponding result that Kufan grammatical thou^it did not develop any furtherQ This placed it in an unfavourable position to compete with th© Basran school of grammar which continued to be developed by able scholars0 The Kufan school also had a great weakness in that there was no Kufan work of grassaar which had the undisputed authority of th® Kitab of Sibawayh among th© Basran® <, This last work was instrumental in firmly establishing the position of the Basran school0 j In th© history of th© Basran school9the later 9th and early 10th centuries constitute the period of al=Kubarrad and his pupils„ and correspondingly in the history of th© Kufan schoolpthe same time~spam constitutes the period of tho outstanding scholarp Tha'lab9 and his pupilso While it cannot be denied that Tha'lab was a distinguished philologist;, as a grammarian he was much less than an equal of al<45ubarrado It appears that the main weakness of Tha1lab as a gram= marian was that he had learned his grammar by studying the ^®rks of his Kufan predecessors and did not have much aptitude for reasoning things out on his own0 This is made clear by an account of his teaching style 75 as it appeared to his contemporaries 8 20 ^ j±^> UW.^L-J£: J*jw.oto Part of th© reason why Thaslab did not beeom© a good grammarian was that he had not been trained up to th© level of th© best Basran graisaarians„ Although he received a philological training from Kufan teachers, Tna*lab himself draws attention to his own personal study of the works of al~Farra 0 N© doubt much of his grammatical knowledge was acquired in precisely this same way and he seemed to lack the advantage of a really thorough gramn&tical training with a teacher0 There is evidence indicating that Tha'lab studied grammar under Salmah b0 'Asim but this scholar cannot be ranked with al-Mubarrad's grammar I 0 teachersf al-Jarasd and al~ffezlnl0 Tha lab s lack of grammatical training with particular regard to the Kitab0 which he did study although it was a Basran work, is made clear by an anecdote<, Tha*lab's son=in=law, who to his annoyance used to go to al=Mubarrad to study the Kitab0 was asked why sl-Mubarrad was more knowledgeable on the Kitab than Tha'lab, and he answered that the former had studied it under scholars whereas 78 the latter had studied it under himself0 It also seems to be the case that in the main the Kufans regarded grammar as a subject which was to be studied as an introduction to a general philological training and they did not lay the emphasis on studying grammar for its own sake which the Basrans did„ Although Tha4lab wrote several works on grammar these have not 79 - survivedo He does cover grammatical questions in his Majails which has survived, but this provides no real basis for making meaningful 80 comparisons with the output of th© Basran school0 It is clear that neither Tha4lab nor those of his pupils who remained within the Kufan tradition produced works that were the equal of contemporary Basran works, and this is confirmed by the fact that no such works have survivedo 21 For this reason the present study is oentred on the Basran school„ although in a later chapter attention will be given to the Basran 81 approach to Kuf&n scholarship at this p©riod0 After dealing with the Basran and Kufan schools during the period under studyp it is worth noting that there were a number of scholars who were pupils of both al=3M>arrad and The0 lab and in their work, were reckoned to have drawn both upon the grammatical traditions of th© 1 Basr&ns and of the Kufans0 What this "mixing the two school® " meant in practice is difficult to assess beoause there ar© no relevant works extant to form the basis for a judgment Such scholars never constituted a uepara'fce school but wer© seen as inclining morQ towards one school than th© other0 The most important of these scholars were Ibn Khayyat (do 932) and Ibn Kaysan (d0 911)9 the latter of who® is reckoned by al=Sirafi to have been with al~Zajjaj th© leading Basran scholars after the death of al~Mubarxad9 although al-Sirafi points out that Ibn Kaysan 82 ra 0 did mis the two schools '0 This eclectic approach seems to have been a short=lived phenomenon and did not survive long beyond the generation of the pupils of the pupils of al=>Mubarrad and Tha'labj, and there is no evidence that it had any profound effect on the development of the mainstream Basran school0 A study of any Arab grammarian inevitably involves reference to the works of other grammarians and some indication is now given of th© principle works referred to in the present study which were composed outside of the period considered in this present studyc In a detailed study of grammatical thought it is necessary to refer chiefly to the more compendious works of grammar and for this reason little attention is given to such small-scale works as th© well=known treatises of Tbn Hishamo ^ The main earlier work which is consulted in this present study is, of eourse9 th® Kitab of Sibawayho Of later works particular reference is made to the Sharh al^mufaasal of Tbn Ya*ishc Although 22 th® profundity ©ad originality of this work is opon to question^ it is on© which hao boon widely usod in th© lalssaio worldo As evidence of this may b© ait@d th© vory fr©qu©Mt roforono©© to it in tho Aohb&h ! wa°l°na%a 'ir of al~Suyuti0 ^ Another work consulted is th© commentary by ©l^Radi al<=Astarabadhi on th© Kafiyah of Ibn Hajibo A ©ompendious work to which reference has also been mad© but whieh is not so well-known is th© Majaha.1 al°salik of the famous Spanish scholar, Abu Hayyin Athir — 86 = — ©l=Diao Shis work is a eosssnentary on the Alflyah of Ebn Mmlik and is particularly useful beeaus© of th© attention given to making clear th© vi©ws of Sibawayh and to relating th© vi©ws of th© Basran and Kufan scholars as u©ll a® those of later scholar® of th© Islasaic Westo 23 Notes to Chapter I ^ Go Fltlgel, Die grammatischen Schulen der Araber0 Leipzig, 1862? Ibn al=Anbari, Kitab al-ingaf0 edited and with an Introduction by G„ Weil, Leiden, 1913- 2 See Ho Fleisch, Tralte de philologie arabe„ 1 volo published (Beirut, 1961), pp0 1-365 Go Lecomte, Ibn Qutaybah0 l'hommen son oeuvren ses idees (Damascus, 1965)9 PP» 377=96^ c \ Eogo A0_Io Shalabi£ Abu Ali al~Farisi0 Cairo, 1958? M0 Mubarak, Al°Rummani al~nahwi0 Damascus, 1963o 4_ Eogo Ho 4Awn, Tatawwur al-dars al~nahwi, Cairo, 1970? Shawqi Dayf, Madaris al°nahwiyah0 Cairo,, 1968g AP ai~Sayyid0 Madrasat al-Basrah al°nahwlyahn Cairo, 19680 £ Al-Mubarrad, Muqtadab0 4 vol80, edited and with an Introduction by No A0 'Adimah {\^y-^ ), Cairo, 1965-85 Ibn al=Sarraj, Usui fi 1-nahvfp 2 vols0 published, edited and with an Introduction by A0 al-Fatli, vol, 1, Najaf, 19739 and volo ii, Baghdad, 1973<> 6 Ibn Jinni, Munsif„ sharh kitab al-tasrif li-l-Mazini, Cairo, 1954o J_ For further mention of al~Akhfash and his work see p0 6 above and n0 10 belbWo 8 Al=Qifti, Inbah al°ruwahp 3 vols0 (Cairo, 1950=5), vol0 ii, p0 295« 2 Abu Tayyib al~Lughawi, Maratib al-nahwiyin (Cairo, 1955)P P° 65o 10 For al-Akhfash al=Awsat see Encyclopaedia of Islam,, 2nd ed0, s0v0 2 al-Akhfasho (Hereafter this work is abbreviated to E0I )? for al-Jarmi see U0 R0 Kahhalah, Mu^.jam al-mu'allifinn 15 vols0 (Damascus, r 1957-61volo v, p0 3f fo al-Mazinx see Kahhalah, volo iii, p0 71« 11 See for instance the passages cited in n, 12 belowc 12 Al~Qifti, vol„ iii, pc 1455 Yaqut, Mu'.jam al~udaba' „ 7 vols. (Leyden and London, 1907=31)» vol, vii, p» 10o 2£ For a comprehensive list of biographical sources on al=Mubarrad see Kahhalah, volo xii, pp„ 114-5» In particular see al-Qifti, volo iii, pp„ 241-53.5 Yaqut, volo vii, ppD 137-445 al-Zubaydi, Tabaqat al°nafawiyin (Cairo, 1954)9 PP« 108=20o 14 Al=Zubaydi, pc 108o In quoting Arabic passages from unpunctuated texts some punctuation has been added for convenience, baaed on standard Arabic practice0 In punctuated texts, particularly in the Usui of Ibn al-Sarraj, some changes in punctuation have been made for the sake of uniformity and convenienceo 1£ For Tha'lab see Kahhalah, vol0 ii, pp» 203-4o 16 Yaqut, vol, vii, p0 14o 24 17 'Adimah, Introduction to the Muqtaflab0 ppD 89=95o For Ibn Wallad see Kahhalah9 volo ii„ pD 167<> 18 Tbn al=Nadim9 Fihrist (Leipzig, 1872), pc 59? al=Qifti9 volD iii9 pp0 251=2$ Yaqut, vol. vii9 pp„ 143-4o 19_ See 'Adimah9 pp0 78=800 20 Hajji Khalifah9 Kashf al~zununn 2 vols,, (Istanbul, 1941=3), vol„ ii, p0 1793o 4 2 a 21 For Abu Ali al«=Farisi see E0I0 „ s0v„ Abu AlI al=Farisis for Tbn Durustawayh see EQI 9 s0v0 Tbn Durustawayh0 22 For Ibn Badhish see Kahhalah, volo viip p0 15„ 23_ Tbn Khayrs Fahrasah (Saragossa, 1894=5) , p» 307. 24 See 'Adimah, pp0 83~60 For al-Fariqi see Kahhalah9 vol0 iv9 p0 224« 25_ 'Adimah9 pc 84, 26 Ibn al-Nadlm, p0 62 0 27, Yaqut, volo vii, p0 143o 28 'Adimah9 p0 70o See al=Mubarrad9 vol„ ii, ppQ 57=8 and volc iii9 p/1785 Sibawayh, Kitab„ 2 vols0 (Bulaq9 1316=7 A0H0)9 volo i9 p» 435S Wo Wright, A grammar of the Arabic language, 3rd edos 2 vols0 (reprinted Beirut, 1974)9 vol. ii9 pD 345C0 29_ Yaqut, vol0 vii9 p0 143D 2 - JO See Eolo , s0vD Tbn al=Rawandio ~%\_ See 'Adimahp pp» 77=8C See also M0 Ac Maiman, Iqlid al=khizanah (Lahore, 1927)? 80v0 Muqtadab, J2 See pp0 27=9 belowo See 'Adimah, ppa 74=81» J4, For a comprehensive list of biographical sources onlbn al=Sarraj see Kahhalah, volo x, p0 19o In particular see al-Qifti, volo iii, PPo 145=9? Yaqut, vol,, vii, pp» 9=12? al~Zubaydi, ppc 122=5« J55_ Tbn al=Sarraj, Mujaz fi l-nahwo edo MB El=Chouemi and Bc Damerdji, (Beirut, 1965), pp0 5-60 This particular work is subsequently referred to by itB author's name and title together to distinguish it from the Usui, 36^ Tbido, p0 5° Ibn al-Nadlm, p» 32o Also al=Qifti, volo iii, pB 148o In 1. 4 of >i this quotation the L_^ ^ of the Fihrist has been changed to the t_rJ*\* of the Inbaho J8 For al-Zajjaji see Kahhalah, vol» i, p0 33° 25 39 Ibn al-Nadim9 pD 62o Also al=Qifti, vol, iii, p. 149, In 1° 4 of this quotation the * K'-J L of the Fihrist has been changed to the >tOJl j iX%-^J^> of the Inbah, 40 Yaqut, vol, vii, pe 10o 41, Ibidog ppe 10-1 o 42 Hajji Khalifah, vol, :L, pc 1110 43 For al-Rummani see Kahhalah, vol0 vii9 p0 162, 44 For Ibn Babshadh see Kahhalah, voln v, p, 32o 2 - - 4J), See E.I. 9 SoVo al=Djazuli, 46 See ibid,, s,v, Ibn Barri, 4J. Ibn Khayr, pp„ 307=8, 48 For al-Sirafi see Kahhalah, volQ iii, pp0 242=3° Tbn al-Sarraj, volc i9 pp, 33-4« 30 Al-Suyuti, Ashbah wa=l=naza'ir0 4 vols0 (Hyderabad, 1359-61 A,H,), volo i,''pp- 139 28, 90, 143-49 241, 2689 274* 322s vol, ii9 pp, 119 51, 79, 879 909 91, 131. 51 Idem9 Iqtirah (Hyderabad,, 1359 A,H„), pp, 6, 49, 'Abd al-Qadir al-Baghdadi, Khizanat al=adab9 4 volsc (Beirut9 nadu)9 vole i9 p. 8, §ee Maiman, s„v, TTgul, _5_3_ See pp, 166=79 below, Ibn Ya'ish, Sharh al-mufagsal, 10 vols,, Cairo;, n0d, ^ See pp, 27=9 below, 55 Ibn al-Nadim, p, 62, ^6 Yaqut, vol, vii, p0 110 2L ibid0 _58 Ibn al~Sarraj9 vol, ii9 p„ 271o 5JL Al-Qifti, vol, ii, p0 295, 60 Yaqut9 vol, vii, p, 40, 61 See nV 35 above, 62 Yaqut, vol, iiis pp, 13=4, See also al-Ma'arri, Risalat al°ghufran„ ed. Bint al=Shati> (Cairo, 1950), pp, 357=8, 63_ Ibn Khayr, p, 310, 64 Ibid., p, 316, See also al-=Qifti, vol, ii, p, 295; Yaqut, vol, v, p, 281, 26 63 See n. 30 above. 66 Ibn Khayr, pp0 64=5» 67 Ibn al=Nadim„ p. 60; al~Sirafi, Akhbar al=nahwiyin al°Ba§riyin (Cairo, 1955)» PP° 80=1. 68 See n„ 21 above0 6£ See Fleisch, ps 19° 70 For Mabraraan aee Kahhalah, volc x, p. 307? for al-Akhfash al~Saghir see Eolo1 , 3,v, al-Akhfash. 71 Al-Farra', Ma'ani l=Qur*an0 2 vols0 published, Cairo, 1955= o r 72 For al=Kisa*i see Kahhalah, vol0 vii, p0 845 f° al=Farra' see E.I. SoV. al-Farra.*e t 21 See Maiman5 s.v„ Ma ani l-Qur' an. 74 For Tha'lab see Kahhalah, vol0 ii, ppD 203=4o J5_ Al-Qifti, vol. i, p. 1445 Yaqut, vol. i, p. 141. 76 Yaqut, vol. i, pp. 135» 140. 77 Al-Zubaydi, p. 150. See also Abu Tayyib, p. 96. For Salman b0 'Asim see Kahhalah, vol. iv, pp„ 240=10 78 Al-Qifti, vol. i, pp. 144=55 al=Zubaydi, p. 156. 22, See Ibn al~Nadim, p„ 745 al=Qifti, vol. i, pp. 150=1| Yaqut, vol„ ii pp. 152=3* 80 Tha'lab, Majalis Tha'-lab, 2 volse, Cairo, 1948=9o 81 See pp. 139-62 below. ^ - - 2 - 82 Al-Sirafi, pp. 80=1. For Ibn Khayyat see EJ, , s0v0 Ibn Khayyat| for Ibn Kaysan see Ed*, SoV, Ibn Kaysan. 8^ See ibid.., s.v. Ibn Hisham. 84 See p. 180, n, 2 below. 85_ Al-Astarabadhi, Sharh al-kafiyah0 2 vols., Turkey (Istanbul?), n.d. 86 Abu Hayyan, Manha.j al-salik, New Haven, Connecticut, 1947« 27 CHAPTER II CLASSIFICATION, AMALYSIS, AMD DEFINITIOI In the Kitab of Sibawayh little attention is given to arranging the various chapters in a logical and systematic manner0 There ar©0 of course j, many instances of chapters on related but separate topics being grouped in a sequenceD but there is nothing truly comparable with the ordered presentation of subject matter to be found in later workso This may well b® due to the fact that the chapters of the Kitab are largely arranged in the order in which Sibawayh happened to deal with them<, In addition,, the Kitab is described in the biographical sources as a work unlike any previously ifritten and its author would probably have been working without a convenient model for planning the lay=out of his workQ More importantly, it is recorded that Sibawayh never taught the Kitab to any of his students and this may well indicate that by the time of his death Sibawayh may not have completed revising 2 and arranging the work. The next major extant work of a Basran grammarian is the Muqtadab 3 of al~Mubarrad and, as has been mentioned in the introduction this grammar also lacks a logical and systematic arrangement of its various chapterso However, the Usui of Ibn al-Sarraj0 unlike the Kitab and the Muqtadabn is a work which is arranged in a careful and planned manner„ It seems safe to assume that it is a characteristic which different" iates the Usui from other preceding major works of grammar and this would apply even in the case of works which are no longer extanto An indication that this assumption is correct is provided by a passage quoted by al-Qif$is ^ 28 2 JguaJ L3 4> «Jf ID 0 1 ^ J&i> 1 cj^> e-»\^*l ^ «J^=*==::a^ i With regard to the content of this passage it may also be mentioned that Yaqut writes of Ibn al~Sarraj in a passage previously quoted? • I 3 Before discussing further the passage quoted by al=Qifti from al-Marzubani (do 994 )j, it is worth noting that the tone of it does not appear to be particularly friendly towards Ibn al~Sarraja ^ The passage seems to belittle his work for it suggests that although he introduced into the Usui certain considerations dram from logicg the content itself simply consists of material drawn from the Kitab which has been r©-arranged,, In additionp there are certain influences from his attention to the Masa'il of al=Akhfash and Kufan grammatical thoughtv and deviations from Basran norms are attributed^ somewhat disparagingly;, to the fact that he was distracted from grammar by the study of music„ The passage suggests that Ibn al=Sarraj introduced into grammar what are called "divisions"' (taqaslm)0 The meaning of this term is not completely clear but it seems to imply that al-Maxzubani holds that Ibn al^Sarraj was influenced by classification procedures used in 7 logico ' The term lafg|B as it is used in this passagep would seem to 29 mean "phraseology"1!, implying that Ibn al^Sarraj introduced into th® Usui ths terminology used by th© logicians in their classification pro- c©dur@s0 Although Ibn al=Sarraj gives considerable attention in the Usui to classifying his material and arranges the work to take this into account9 nevertheless9 he does not express himself in terms which could be said to belong particularly to the terminology of the classification procedures of logic „ The real force of &l=Marzubini0 s remarks about Ibn al~Sarraj ° s approach would appear to be that in logic there are procedures for classification and analysis0 and in th© Ugrol to® there is attention given to classification and analysis whioh was accordingly felt to have come about through the influence of logic„ In a passage quoted earlier Ibn al=Sarraj confesses to having been distracted from grammar by the study of music and logicv and Ibn Abi Usaybi'ah parties ularly mentions that Ibn al~Sarraj studied logic under the philosopher0 — - - 8 al=Farabi0 This ©tudy of logic may well hav© contributed to making Ibn al-Sarraj methodical and systematic in his approach to his work as a grammariano On the evidence from biographical sources it may be inferred that Ibn al=Sarraj"s work on classification and analysis in the Usui was something that had not been undertaken before and essentially represents an innovation on his parta Thisp howeverp is represented in the passage quoted from al=.Qif^i as having come about through the influ~ ence of logic and is not attributed to a desire simply to arrange the UgTal in a systematic and coherent manner which would have been a natural advance for some grammarian to make in writing a grammar0 That this was an innovation on the part of Ibn al=Sarraj is supported by the evident lack of systematic arrangement of material in earlier works like the Kitab and the Muqtadab which has been already mentioned0 At various points in the Usui Ibn al=Sarraj explains the order in which h© is dealing with the various topics to show that they are 30 9 being treated in a systematic manner0 In particular^ at the beginning of the Usui lira al=Sarraj atates that he will present his material in a convenient and well~ord©red fashion and in the clearest possible 10 It would be unfair to treat this statement as simply expressing the sort of conventional claim which an author might make in the preface of a worko Rather0 it should be taken as a wholly justifiable claias perhaps implying in itself that previous works are somewhat defective with regard to arrangement and clarity of expression„ In the Usui many examples can b© found of Ibn al~Sarraj's attention to questions of classification and definition and a start will be made here with his treatment of the nominative cas©0 Before he discusses the various uses of the nominative case Ibn al=°Sarraj sets out what he 11 considers them to b©s ' . • n -9 The main point of interest about the list itself is that Ibn al=Sarraj 51 identifies a particular us© of th© nominative case which he calls the mshabbah b£°l°fa''il fi l-laf% or simply the mushabbah bi^^fa^lo This consists of the subject of kins, and analogous verbs and of the subject of particles which behave like kana and the verb proper and this includes words like the negative particle ma in the Hijazi usageQ Although other grammarians took account of the uses of the nominative case which Ibn al~Sarraj classifies as mushabbah bi^l^fa'ilp the expression itself for this class seems to be particular to Ibn al-=Sarraj0 Of the fiv© uses of the nominative which Ibn al°Sarraj lists8 the Btabt&da' and the khabar will b© considered in the chapter on the regent 13 and need not bo discussed here0 The other thre© uses of tho nomin= ative case broadly cover what would b© called in English the subject of the verbo The first of these thr®© classes is the fa'il of which = 14 Ibn al=Sarraj offers the following definitions it J^jJI Jj* A&gJl 6 «. tS>® zj&®2> .MJj> n*JsA U>3h.ju^ tL>lUi>4 9 1 0 •I This passage consists of a definition of what a fa/il is and an explanation of why the definition is worded as it is0 The first point 32 aafio in th© fiofinitiora io that a meua to bo a faail it mast f©ll®w th© VQ^b uh©Q© QTiabjoet it is b©eausQ0 if th© notra proosdos th© vorbp it io not & fa'il bmt © BubtMa" § this is a point eoHauonly ®ad© clear by th© gsg£S®siens0 second point Bad© in the definition i© that g®% a noun to bo a fe"il it must b© the Elubject of a verb in th® active voiee (fi1! aila&hi bu&iys li~l=fa4il)o By this condition Ibn al~SarrI,3 flistisJkguiish©© b©tw®sn th© fa*il (activ© subject) and the E&f^il &Iladhi l@a yroasg® fa^ilTgfaa (passive subject),, On thl® point it be e©nt= i©n©d that Ibn Y&'ish ©spressly eritieise© definitions of th® fa'il which ©r@ s© w©rd@d as t© differentiate it from th© maf^S, slladhi 3,aa vms@»asaa fa ilufcug J £\ J^li^i J^J, CU^lj, <£^L»^ third peirat which Ibn &l~Sarr&j aakes in his definition of *il is that 1b definiag whether a a@un is a fa'il or not^no distinction im to b® m®d© as to whether the nom is a true fa'il or a©to Tfol® stipulation arises out of Ibn al~Sarr®j0s classification of v©sb@ into what as© true vorbs and what are note What Ibn al<=Sarraj e©ae)id©rai as true v©rb® will b@ dealt with later when discussing th© qroetion of th© division of verbs into tr&nsitiv© and intransitive0 bat it io n©ee©©oary to discuss verbs which are not truQ v©rb@ in fioalflng with th© fa"ilo Iba al=S®rraj's particular classification of this sort of verb is not one which seems to be followed in later works but it is of interest for illustrating problems which the term fa 'il itself presented to the grammarians„ The verbs which are not real 16 verbs are of three types8 Q •1 9 9 c s 1 UJ. if 4k €=4 » S s J1 b 1 3 ^ J^-> 9 The first class of unreal verb is illustrated by examples like C*^*> 9 ki=^ p and _y£f . It would clearly be incor= rect to describe the subject in any of these ©samples aB a fa il9 if 34 due regard is given to the literal sens© of that wordo Indeed^ Ibn al=Sarraj observes that the fa'll in sueh examples is really a mafaulo HowQver0 it would be incorrect to call the subject in these examples the maf*ul alladhi lam yusamma fa*iluhu because this would imply that there is a definable9 though unspecified fa 'ilp when in fact the question of the true fa'il is more one for philosophy or theology than on© for the grammarianso Although it would be fair to call th© fa*!! "unreal" for this reasong there does not seem to be a strong case for classifying 17 th© verbs themselves in the above examples as "unroal511. The second class of unreal verb consists of kana and analogous verbso It was generally accepted by the grammarians that these verbs are not true verbis but resemble verbs in outward form and behaviour and because of this they are called af'al naqigah orp less commonly„ af'-al 'ibaraho Although Ibn al~Sarraj undertakes a classification of verb types to assist in explaining his definition of the fa 'ilp the subject of a verb like kina is not ©trictly referred to by the gram= marians a® a fa"il but rather as the ism kjka,0 Ibn aL=Sarraj himself„ as has been mentionedn classifies it as a muahabbah bi^l-^fa/il not as a true fa'llo Abu Hayyan does point out0 howeverp that the grammarians do loosely refer to the subject and predicate of kana and analogous — 4 -=> 19 verbs as the fa il and the maf *ul|0 Ibn al=Sarraj's third class of unreal verb is rather difficult to define and the discussion of the examples which he gives is centred on points of idiom and rhetoric rather than of grammar proper0 The ' p • w > jr ' an idiomatic way of speakingp and the discussion of the Qur'anic £>2 discussion of the example Us,ls> %X*^^ involves the explanation of ^ p^sA^^s ^~^'j> tjr^P^" involves explaining the force of th® rhetoric of the Qur'anic diction,, The introduction by Ibn al=Sarraj of a classification of the various types of verb into his discussion of the fa'll reflects the 35 more general problem created by the Arabic terminology for the gram• matical subject of a sentence. In English this problem does not really aricie because the single expression "subject" can be used in analysing any typo of sentence. The Arab grammarians called the subject of nominal sentences the mubtada*, but the term fa *il was only just one possible term for the subject of verbal sentencesa The Arabic term w w fa'il will translate literally into English as "doer" or agent or0 if an exact technical expression is wanteds as "active subject"0 The Arab grammarians and, as the Usui shows, Ibn al~Sarraj in particular were always to a greater or lesser degree sensitive to the underlying meaning of the term fa il and did not use it as a comprehensive term for the subject in verbal sentences<> It is clear that the subject of verbal sentences is not always a fa'il in the strict sense of a "doer", as the sentence in the passive 99 . ' ? voice <^>^r^ illustrateso The grammarians considered that such •• • / « < - ' " a sentence implies that someone struck Z&yd, say Amrs 1 ^j *=s><> For the grammarians the term OTZaydn in th© passive sentence is as much the object of th© action of the verb as it is in the active sentence0 Accordingly, the subject of the passive sentence is called the maf*ul alladhi lam yusamma fa'lluhu and this can be translated into English as the "passive subject"0 Because the Arab grammarians felt that there was a real difference between the active and passive subject, Ibn al=Sarraj is careful to word his definition of when a noun is an active subject in such a way as to differentiate it from the passive subjecto The use of the term fa'ilft as has been mentioned, is also unsuitable with regard to its underlying meaning of "doer55 for the subject of kana and analogous verbs, and so the term ism is used as in ism kana, for instanceo Ibn al=Sarraj recognises that the use of the term fa il without qualification for the subject of the verb kana and analogous verbs is unsuitableo Accordingly, he calls it the mushabbah bi°l°fa°il 36 which might be rendered into English aa the "quasi active subject"0 Th© subject of kana and analogous verbs is only one type of quasi active subjeot and a second type is formed by the subject of sentences intro• duced by th© particle ma in the Hijazi us© together with other negative 20 particle® behaving similarly0 In an example like JjJllgwUa W where the negative particle follo**s th® Tamimi usage0 th© sentence consists of a mubtada" and a khabar and th© presence of the negative particle,, which here has no power of governments, does not affect the construction However,, in an example like t@JLJ&===3» U» the negative particle in the Hijazi usage functions like the verb of negation laysan and accordingly the subject of th© sentence is„ in the terminology of Ibn al~Sarraj„ a quasi active subject just like the subject of the verb laysa,, In th© classification of types of verb which Ibn al~Sarraj under= takes in his section on th© fa"11 ha divides verbs into two great classes? those which are true verbs and those which are not% and his treatment of the latter class has been dealt with above in discussing the fa'ilo His treatment of true verbs consists simply of a classifies ation of verbs according to th©ir transitivity and intransitivity and this is a subject which he discusses further in his chapter on the 21 maful bihio The establishment of an exact classification of verbs according to their transitivity and intransitivity is a topic to which Ibn al~Sarraj gives much more attention than is generally given in l later works like the Sharh al-mufagsal of Ibn Ya ishc Dealing in his section on the fa'il with th© further classification of true verbs Ibn 22 $. al~Sarraj writes % 9 37 a • s • t=2 5 » The division of verbs into transitive and intransitive is a very basic one but Ibn al~Sarraj goes further by dividing the former into those which can be said to have a tangible ©ffect on their direct object and those of which this cannot b® saido This distinction is 23 also made briefly by al«=85ubarrad in the Muqtadabo In English to distinguish between the fi"! aL=mu*aththlr and the fi'l ghayr al^fflu'aththir it would be neccessary to talk perhaps of "physical" and ""mental*" verba0 Ibn Ya'ish also distinguishes between the two sorts of transitive verb using the term "ilaj rather than rau*aththir0 Of 24 the transitive verb he writess 58 VJhen Ibn al~Sarraj discusses the maful bihi he again returns to the question of the classification of transitivity and intransitivity 25 and he goes into further details \2Xp l^Lo ^fcT lo J>uP* JL»j)i>l^ .... g> 8c>. ^'jw' s ' °^f@ uX <^i££l J? ^j^J ji>iJt <^i> ... *fl>^ 39 .0 • 0 A) Ibn al-Sarr&j is0 of course0 inaccurate when h© write® at the beginning of the above passage that transitive verbs ILUi iA=» J"because9 a© he mentions in the passage quoted previously9 not all transitive verbs can be said to have an effect on their direct object0 The way in which Ibn al~Sarraj deals with the question of transitivity and intransitivity in verbs is of interest because he considers this to depend on whether or not their respective infinitives aro transitive,, The Basran grammarians held that verbs are derived from their respective infinitives which ar© more basic than the verbs themselves andp accordinglyp Ibn al~Sarraj attributes a verb's power to govern a direct object to the power of its infinitive so to doc Ibn & = 26 Ya ish makes this same point clear when he defines transitivitys <3 40 In a latsr chapter the question of Ibn Ya ish's incorporation of material from th© Usui into his Sharh al-mufagsal will be dealt with 27 t- in detail0 but it is worth noting here that Ibn Ya'ish does seem to be influenced in this passage by his reading of th® Usul0 Just like Ibn al~Sarraj he also makes the incorrect statement that all transitive verbs have an effect on their direct objecto In additionp Ibn Ya'ish also uses the verb laqa as a non»technical term to explain th© technical term taaadda said similarly he uses the id@a of moveaasnt l B (harakah) in explaining transitivity0 However,, Ibn Ya ish s analysis of types of verb is not as thorough as that of Ibn al~Sarraj0 In the preceding part of this chapter Ibn al=-Sarraj0s classific~ ation of the uses of the nominative case and the varieties of verb has been examined and it is also worth considering his classification of the uses of the accusative cas@0 Ibn al=>Sarraj divides th© various uses of the accusative into a class which can be called the mafcul c~ 28 and a class which can be called the mushabbah bi"L=maf 'ulo He draws up a classification of th© mushabbah bi°l°maf"ul in a manner which is very much his own,, although other scholars do deal with various of the considerations which underlie his classification The grammarians as a whole did consider that certain us@© of the accusative case could 4 be classified as mafa°il0 namely th© maf ^! mutlaq0 maful bihlD maful fihip mafa ul lahup and the maf'ul ma'ahuo They also considered that other uses of the accusative resembled the maf 'ul but they did not go as far as formally putting them into a class called ths aushabbah bi°l-Eaaf"ulo The term maf'ul translates into Eaglish as "object*0 and th© term mushabbah bi-l°maf'ul could be translated as "quasi-objecfp just as Ibn al°Sarraj"s term mushabbah bi°l°facjl could be translated as "quasi active subject1"« According to Ibn al=Sarraj the mushabbah bi°l°maf °ul divides up 29 into two classes 8 The first of these two classes can be further divided into three 30 varieties? The first of these three types consists of th® hal and the tamylzc Ibn al-Sarraj does not explain very clearly in the case of the hal why the accusative in outward form may represent what is nominative in meanings, and all he writes in explanation isg » , • 1 1 * B I Ibn Ya'ish makes the same point much more clearly when he explains why - - 32 the accusative of the hal cannot be said to bo a true maf*uls However9 it has to be said that the hal does not neccessarily qualify the subject of the sentence and that the sahib al°hal may be some other terau In the case of Ibn al-Sarraj this objection would appear 42 to b® mat by th© fact that h© states that the olass of mushabbah bi=l^nsfSy. into which the hal fallsnis one in which th© accusative in outward form may be fagX^ ) nominative in meaniago However9 the point of classifying th© hal in this Biann©r would s©em to be to distinguish the hal from the mafaail proper„ rather than to give a u&iversally valid description of it0 Th© second variety of aiushabbah bi~l°maf"ul where th© accusative in outward form is nominative in meaning and th© regent governing it is a verb prop©rP is th© accusative of th© tamyiz0 This d©scription9 however,? does not apply to the us© of th® taaayia in ©numeration and aieasureaent and in the present discussion such usages are specifically 53 •= excludedo In explanation of his classification Ibn al-=Sarraj writes s 0 S saU> U>^' iXLolp ^ILJ^ »iJj^ fc^Jd f 45 Although this analysis of tamyiz as it stands supports Ibn al-S&eraj's way of classifying this particular use of the accusative ease, it is an analysis which can appear over=@Imple when compared with that of later grammarians, Abu IJayyan9 for instance,, writes in the Manha.1 al°aalik that the grammarians divide uses of the tamyiz into 55 <3 This passage provides a mora highly developed analysis of tamyiz eonstructionQ than Ibn al-Sarraj does9 although Abu IJayyan does mention that there are certain scholars who do not accept the tasyiz manqul min al^maf'Sl and some treat the tamyia manqul min al°mudaf as having the meaning of an original fa^il which would accord with Ibn al-Sarraj8 @ analysis of tamyiz constructions of this typ®0 i^en if tamyiz constructions are analysed along the lines laid down by later scholars, the same point may be mado as was made in th® case of the hal„ namely9 that in the case of the mushabbah bi°l"B&f'ul the accusative in outward fossa may be nominative in meaning,, How©v©r9 there is no evidence that Ibn al=>Sarraj wold analyse the tamyiz as other than standing in for an implied fa "ilo The two other types of mushabbah bi"l~maf "ul of the class where the accusative in outward form may be nominative in meaning are the predicate of kana and analogous verbs and th® subject of ima and 37 - analogous paeticl©s<, It is clear why Ibn al=Sarraj does not consider these to represent true mafa^il and there is no need to disouss them ID further here,but they will be mentioned in a later chapter. The second class of mushabbah bi°l°maf Sal consists of only on© item and this is th© accusative used in exception after ilia in positive sentences and as an alternative to the badal construction in negative 39 •= sentences0 Ibn al-Sarraj describes this variety of mushabbah bi°l°maf*ul asg <^pzUJA$ g^ j^s iijdJl «j *uJg> «=» ^ ^X, £>^«^" o ^ Th© meaning of the first part of this description is clearp : £ ^s>&}ejft SQrves to distinguish this type of mushabbah bi-l^maf'ul from all other typeso Ibn al^Sarraj does not suggest that the exceptive accusative adsits of being interpreted as nominative in meaning unlike the other types of mashabbah bl°l°maftulo The second part of the description, £ 9 term y ^" in the nominative until it is expressly excepted from itQ Ibn Ya'ish takes much th© same consideration into account when he explains why the term in the accusative after ilia cannot be treated as a true maf'uls ^ 45 J^J^ Q$ j2J> j JjjaJ^L, ^Ui^Lo ail IXJLs W»l However,, the statement by Ibn al~Sarraj a^^aJ^l^ 9 is only valid if the mustathna rainhu is a term in the nominativeD but the point of this remark may be to show that there is some affinity between this muahabbah bi°°l^aaf'ul end the others where the accusative in outward form say be nominative in meaning,, In what has preceded?the work of Ibn al^Sarraj in classifying and analysing various grammatical usages has bean examined and similar to this in many ways is his attention to defining the parts of spsscho However0 in defining the parts of speech Ibn al-Sarraj takes into account considerations that are not purely grammatical0 but which stem rather from logic0 This is because on© of the developments which cwa to take place in grammatical thought was that philosophy and„ in part~ icularD logic came to exert an influence on the grammarians in their 42 outlook and the ways in which they explaj-aed various matter® „ One particular area in which logic was influential was in the definition of the parts of speQcho ' Whether or not Arabic grammar owes to logic its tripartite division of the parts of speech into noun„ verbs and particle does not matter for the purposes of this present discussionp but what is of relevance is that the grammarians came to take into account what the logicians had done towards defining the parts of speecho The different types of word which occur in speech were not felt to be something based purely on the analysis of the Arabic language„ Al=Mubarrad0 for instance9 writes? ^ In the light of the idea of the universality of the tripartite division of speech it is not unnatural that the graasari&ns should have drawn on logic in discussing the parts of speech and their definition because logic is a subject which claims universal validity and in it too the parts of speech and their definition are discussed. In the Kitab Sibawayh do@s not give a formal definition of the noun but merely gives some examples of nouns g^b>p : ° ^ In the Ktuqtadab al=Mubarrad goes into more detail and offers the foll• owing definition of the nouns ^ -XJ*J>$ M> -J^ is3^^ y^hc^^ 6itf-^>i „ p^" ^ oJ>3^ Cr° ^> %*J=S ^>J> U .f*\ u^3 ^° u}$ In defining a noun as that which can b© made subject to a proposition;, al^Fhibarrad produces a definition which is framed in purely grammatical terms and this is a mod® of definition of common occurence in works of graEBa&To Hot all definitions of the noun are of this order0 Al=Sirafis l a papil of Ibn al=Sarraj5 is quoted by Ibn Ya i@h as giving the following d©finition of the noun which may b© taken as typical of definitions by later grammarians 8 ^° ^^J0 y^/ o This would translate as "a word conveying a meaning w in itself unconnected with a specific tiae 0 Al-Zamakhshari similarly writess JU>&\ ©-V^ hj±>j> %^J^ t^J^ *p (J-^> ^ ^ » and Ibn Ya*ish notes that most grammarians would add the words njL©j ^k^9 o ^ Prom Ibn Ya4i@h's comments on al=Sirafi's definition it emerges that the wording of the definition establishes two differentiae (fafl) by which the noun is distinguished from the particle and the verb respectively§ ^ 47 Ibn al=Sarraj's basic definition of the noun iss ^ -V^cJ^ J* J-> ^C-*^\ -..yX*9 -^J> ^i=fj> Jjfcj lj>J zJLsZ? jr^S JM, J^J> ^ jrf U U*!j> Neither hare nor later in his discussion does Ibn al-Sarraj introduce the idea that a noun is \J^1&J> I^3^> J^s differentiating between the noun and the particle but9 rath©r9 he is only concerned with differentiating between the noun and the verb0 His use of the term J>^S=o is a way of expressing the idea behind the phrase in later definitions «J*s=^ K/1 u *Jr^' jr^- Cr* 9 and this 50 im made clear by his justification of his definitions J Ibn al~Sarraj does mention that the noung unlike the verb?does not indicate a notion in grammarians) to th© generally accepted definition of the noun and he ? explains the word ?jk2^ as if it would be unknown in this sens© to his readers? ^1 rai'^S ^jW^II ^U^i j; j^JJI ^1 iAii ^ j^; ykJJJi life. jO^aij ^Hij The relation of Ibn al=Sarraj0s approach to th© definition of the noun to the ideas of the logicians is not difficult to show0 In th© Kit&b al°alfag al^mruata"malah fi l=aeatiq al=>Farabi defines the a.oun a®« d^j. -%L\^ iJ[ t> Js Jb £J) ^=@-&l d and this sort of definition can be seen a® ultimately stonming from Aristotle who writes 8 &j>^>\&=*J>, ^JH^J gj5 .... t^j) le^J i (j® 0 53 ^i^gajjajp an older contemporary of Ibn al-=Sarrajp is recorded as having a definition of th© noun which has a certain resemblance to the sort which the logician® put forward 8 ^Jk^o P*«@ 54 ?j£o %> C*Uj ^ Jb> j*£ ^p^> J b />>$i=® 0 Although this definition can be said to owe something to th© ideas of logic9 it does not have a really close connection and the presence of the terms ^LJ^O fp^° s and U&^> , tends to move the definition away from the ideas of the logicianso When discussing the definition of the noun in the Id&h fi *ilal al-nahwn aI=Zajjaji (do ca0 949)s who was a pupil of both al=Zajjaj and 49 Ibn al~Sarraj9 mentions that the grammarians and the logicians define it in a different manner although some of the grammarians incline to the logicians8 view,, Al-Z&jj&ji himself frames his own definition to meet the needs of grammar but admits the validity of the logicians" definitions ^ s <3 UJJ> -r^V ^ J^-M. * i>9 r 3 L=?> r lib 3 ur3 ±5 1/ i J* r 8 00 1*0 This passage confirms that by the time of al~Zajjaji some of the grammarians were taking over the logicians" definitions of the noun although the majority appear to have based thoir definitions purely on 0 the needs of grammar0 Although Ibn al-Sarraj s ideas on the definition 50 of the noun are influenced by logic9 yet they are not so profoundly influenced as the sort of definition based on logic which al-Zajjajl quote8 aboveo Howeverp it does appear from the evidenoe available that Ibn al=Sarraj was the first grammarian who can be definitely attested as defining the noun along lines laid down by the logicians0 The definition of the verb is easier to deal with because the grammarians tend to discuss it in less detail, as is the case with the definition of th® particle as wello Howeverp Sibawayh gives more attention to defining the verb than to defining the other two parts of speechg Although Sibawayh°s view on the verb was discussed by the scholars and is important for indicating that he held the general view of the Basrans that the verb is derived from the infinitiv©9 neverth©lessp it has little direct bearing on the way in which th© verb was defined by later scholarSo As typical of later definitions of the verb may be cited that by Ibn Ya'iahs ^ L^^> (u^^9 X. o ^ ^n al°Sarr&j°s definition of the verb largely corresponds with this except thatp as was the cas© with the nounp he does not include the expression e^»£-» «S distinguish the verb from the particle s ^ u\ ijUyi iAiij ^v,;j This definition by Ibn al=Sarraj also links up with the ideas of the 51 logicians5 al~Farabi0 for instance^ writes in definition of tho verb 59 in the Kitab al°alfa%8 qJ,Uj Jfe 3 Jp J^J ® J>^3 ^JLsJ » It is significant that Ibn al-Sarraj considers that a verb conveys both B a notion and a time0 According to Ibn F&ris„ aL=Kisa i had defined a v©rb as 8 ^ iU>j <^p J|=s W , ^ but the way Ibn al=Sarraj does so is completely in accordance with the practice in logic which is based on Aristotle's definition in On interpretation (in the Arabic translation of which the verb is called kalimah0 the usual term of the logicians)% 61 ...•oki J* a^iS ^ ^ to (Uf0J> W^il U*\p c AS was th© case with the nounyIbn aL=Sarraj seems to be the first scholar who can be attested ao having defined th© verb in a work of grammar along th® lines laid down by the logicianso Unlike their definitions of th© verb and th© noun„ th© grasmaarians' definitions of tho particle qq©q to be firmly based on their own ideas and are unrelated to the work of the logicianso Indeed0 in logic itself little attontion was given to parts of speech other than the vesb and noun0 Sibawayh defines the particle, which h© calls ^£>^ ®J*^' «$ 1 tJ^*® ^ ° ^ Although th© standard definition of th© particle was in use by th© tiae of al=Zajjaji9 Ibn al~Sarraj do©m not mention it when discussing th© particle <> In definition of th© partiel© Ibn al-Sarraj writes? ^ f^3 u> 52 Notes to Chapter II 2 Al-Sirafi9 p. 37. 2 Ibn al-Nadim9 p„ 52; al-Sirafi, p„ 39„ _3_ Se<» pp0 10=11 above, £ Al=Qifti9 vol„ iii9 p. 149o jj See p0 13 above« £ For al=Marzubani see Kahhalah, vol0 ii9 pp« 97-80 2 For the logical term "division" see A» AD Luce, Logic (London, 1958)? pp0 31*=2<, _8 Ibn Abi Usaybi'ah, 'Uyun aL-anba's, 2 vols (Cairo9 1882)9 volo ii, p0 136o £ Ibn al-Sarraj9 vol, i, pp9 61~29 174~59 3999 498 = 10 Ibid„9 p„ 60o 1J_ Ibid,9 p0 62o 12, Ibido, p0 92o V5_ See pp0 61—3 below0 14 Ibn al=Sarraj9 vol„ i9 p0 810 1_5. Ibn Ya'ish9 vol, i9 p0 74o 16 Ibn al=Sarraj9 volo i9 pp0 82=3° In L 15 of this passage has been substituted for in the printed texto 17 See also al-Mubarrad9 volo iii9 p0 188c 18 Ibn Ya'ish, vol„ vii9 p„ 89o _19_ Abu Hayyan9 ppc 125-60 20 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol0 i9 pp0 106=13o jM Ibid09 ppo 202=3, 22 Ibid„„ ppc 81=2O 2j[ Al=Mubarrad, vol0 iii9 pc 1880 l 24 Ibn Ya ish9 vol. vii9 p» 62 „ 25_ Ibn al=Sarraj9 vol„ i9 pp.. 202-3° 26 Ibn Ya'ish9 volo i9 pc 124» 2J_ See pp0 166-79 belowo 53 28 Ibn al-Saxraj, volo i, pp» 189, 257o 29_ Ibid., p. 257o JO Ibid., pp. 257-8o J5J[ Ibid., p. 258o J2 Ibn Ya'ish, vol. ii, p. 55« Ibn al~Sarraj, vol. i, pp. 189, 374~5<> See also pp0 65=6 belowo J4 Ibn al~3arra,j, vol. i, p0 268. ^5_ Abu Hayyan, ppa 224-5° j56 Ibido, pp» 223=5° j7_ Tbn al~Sarraj, vol0 i, pp0 276=7 o _58 See ppo 70=1 belowo J9_ See pp0 67=70 be low o 40 Tbn al-Sarraj, volo i9 pp. 257° 342„ 4J_ Ibn Ya'ish, volo ii, p. 77« 42 On the general question of the influence of Greek grammatical thought and logic see Co H. H, Versteegh, Greek elements in Arabic linguistic thinking, Leiden, 1977° 41 Al-Mubarrad, vol» i, p0 3<> 44, Sibawayh, vol. i, pD 2o 45_ Al-Mubarrad, volo i, pn 3° 46 Ibn Ya'ish, volo i, p0 220 42 Ibid., pp0 22=3° 48 Ibido, p0 22c 42 Ibn al=Sarraj, volo ip pD 38° jjO Ibid. In lo 2 of this passage j\ has been substituted for Oj in the printed text, _5J. Ibid., pp. 38-9. %2 Al=Farabi, Kitab al-alfas al-musta'malah fi 1-mantiq (Beirut, 1968), Po 41. _5J5 Al=Farabi, Sharh al=^barah (Beirut, 1960), p. 29° .5J. Ibn Faris, Sahibi fi fiqh al~lughah (Cairo, 1910), p. 51= 54 Jj5, Al-Zajjajip Iflab fi 'ilal al-nahw (Cairo, 1959), P° 56 Sibawayh, vol0 i9 p0 2„ 57_ Itn Ya'ishp vole viip p„ 2C ^8 Ibn al~Sarraj9 volo i9 p<> 41« ^9_ Al-Farabi, Alfag,, ppD 41-2 <, 60 Ibn Faris, p0 52o 61^ Al=Parabip Sharh al~Hbarah0 pD 33- 62 Sibawayhj, volo i9 p0 20 6^ Al~Zajjajl9 Jumal fl l°nahw (Paris, 1957), p. 17. 64 Ibn al=»Sarrajp volo i, p« 43o 55 CHAPTER III REGENTS, THEIR CLASSIFICATION, AUD RELATED THEORY One of the most important of the concepts used by the Arab gram• marians is that of the tamil<, a word which can be rendered into English as "regent"0 In definition of what a regent is Weil writes that it is "to express it in the way of the Arab grammarians a word, which„ by the syntactical influence which it exercises on a word that follows„ causes a grammatical alteration of the last syllable of the latter, i0e„ a change of case or moodo" ^ Although the idea of the regent was basic to the thought of the Arab grammarians from the earliest times onward, nevertheless, systematic discussions of this topic are comparatively rare0 Among the various matters which Ibn al-Sarraj discusses at the beginning of the Usui is the regent and this discussion would appear 2 to constitute one of the earliest systematic treatments of it0 The best known work devoted to the regent is the al-Qahir al-Jurjani (dc 1078) which was the subject of a number of late commentaries,, Prior to this Abu 4Ali al=Farisi had written a work on the regent although it plainly did not have the same success„ 4 In the Ashbah wa-l~na%a/ir of al~Suyuti there is a discussion of various points connected with the regent in which the author draws heavily on quotations culled from earlier works0 In his discussion of the regent in the Usui Ibn al-Sarraj class• ifies the various regents according to whether they are nouns, verbs, or particles and he further subdivides these three classes in the manner shown in the accompanying table„ ^ Amongst the particles he even includes 56 TiUBLE 1 THE DIVISION OP THE PARTS OP SPEECH INTO REGENTS ACCORDING TO IBN AL-SARRAJ A Moving 1 The noun in the mubtada' and khabar construction 2 Nouns with verbal regimen i The active participle ii The assimilated adjective iii Th® infinitive iv Nouns with verbal force (e0go ruwayda) 3 Nouns with the regimen of particles (i0e. the muflaf in the construct) 1 Verbs C Particles 1 Particles governing nouns i Prepositions ii inna and similar particles 2 Particles governing verbs (i0e0 entailing the use of the subjunctive and jussive moods) 3 Particles without regimen (e0g0 interrogative particle a) 57 TABLE 2 THE "HUNDRED REGENTS" ACCORDING TO AL-JURJANI ' A The ^wamil al-lafziyah (98) a The 'awamil al-sama."iyah (91 regents in 13 classes) 1 Prepositions (17) 2 inna and similar particles (6) 3 ma and la functioning like laysa (2) 4 Particles governing the accusative (7) (wa, ilia, vas aya, haya, a^c a) 5 Particles governing the subjunctive (4) 6 Particles governing the jussive (5) 7 Particles governing the jussive used in conditional sentences (9) 8 Expressions entailing tamyiz (4) (numerals 11-99, kam0 kadha, ka'ayyin) 9 Nouns with verbal force (asmi. * al-af'al) (9) c (governing the accusatives- ruwayda, balha0 dunaka, alayka, hayyahal, ha| governing the nominatives- hayhat9 shattan, Bar'an) 10 kana and similar verbs (13) 11 Verbs of appropinquation (4) 12 Verbs of praise and blame (4) 13 Verbs of doubt and certainty (7) b The 'awamil al-qiyasiyah (7 regents) 1 The verb 2 The assimilated adjective 3 The active participle 4 The passive participle 5 The infinitive 6 The first element (mudaf) in the construct 7 The first element (mumayyiz) in the tamyiz construction B The tamilan al°ma*nawiyan (2 regents) 1 Regent of the mubtada* and khabar, i0e<, ibtida * 2 Regent of the imperfect tense, i„e0 its taking the position of a noun without an express substantive regent 58 those which do not function as regents at all. For the purposes of comparison a table has also been drawn up listing the "hundred regents" according to al-Jurjani1s reckoning so that this scholar's approach may - 7 - - be compared with that of Ibn al~Sarraj0 ' The approach of al~Suyuti to the regent in the Ashbah wa-l-naga'ir is completely different to that of Tbn al=Sarraj because the latter aims at providing a clas3ific= ation of the regents while the former aims mainly at setting down various rules as to how the regents function„ The "Awamil al~mi'ah of al-Jurjani is an extremely terse resume of the grammatical regents in Arabic and is so constructed as to yield a total number of one hundred regents„ One of the main points about al-Jurjani's classification is that there are two broad types of regent, the ' amil lafzi and the {amil ma'nawi and these two terms may be trans~ lated as "verbal regent" and "notional regent'",, In explanation of these two terms Weil writess "Two kinds of regentia are distinguished, one which can be recognized externally (lafzi) and one which is only to be supposed logically, but which is not expressed (ma" nawi)„" ^ Al-Jurjani's further classification of the verbal regents into the two classes of sama'i and qiyasi does not find its way into the standard grammars of Arabic If a regent is sama'i it is a lexically definable term such as the preposition bia but if it is qiyaai it represents a class of terms such as the verb whose constituents cannot be exhaustively defined,. One of the main differences between Ibn aL=Sarraj1s treatment of the regent and that of al=Jurjani is that the former makes no reference to notional regents and verbal regents. Later grammarians like al=Zamakh= shari make use of these expressions bub they are ones which seem to post~ date the time of Ibn al~Sarraj and are used neither by Sibawayh in the 10 Kitab nor by al-Mubarrad in the Muqtadabo All regents except two are classified as verbal regents and these two are ibtida,* and the regent governing the imperfect indicative verbQ 59 In the Usui ibtida* is not specifically called a majna0 a form of expression which in itself would prepare the way for the formal division of regents into verbal and notionalo However5 the idea that ibtida' is specifically a matna does appear in the Jumal of al=Zajjaji, a pupil of Ibn al~Sarrajg ^ ^ U»l 1^1 j^llf L^uiS p^^J Ji fA*\ In the commentary on the Jumal by al-Jurjani's contemporary9 Ibn Babshadh (d<, 1077)s ibtida* is discussed using the sort of terms found - - i p in al=Jurjani's classifications 1^=^U^UL^1 Mii>i>. Jj^^i .w 1 u1^ ^ ^^fj s » II Like the Ugul<, the Sharh al~ .jumal of Tbn Babshadh is a work intended for beginners and, accordingly, it seems probable that Ibn al-Sarraj would have referred to notional and verbal regents if this classification had been current in his day for these expressions did become a basic part of grammatical terminology,, 60 If the concept of the notional regent is taken to be one which only developed after the time of al-Mubarrad and Ibn al=Sarraj9 then statements made by Abu Hayyan about views which al-Mubarrad is said to have held nmst have an element of anachronism about them. One view which al~Mubarrad is said to have held about why the mubtada' is in 1 5 the nominative is 5 L!U=i5 Jots> j^J I t>° =^^r ^ ff* J ; and similarly for the khabars «LJ&LUl J«ljgJI u° \ |UM A „ 15 In the Muqtadab al-Mubarrad writes on why the mubtada' is in the nominatives 1^ If al-Mubarrad had been in the habit of using the expression "verbal regent" as a contrast to "notional regent" one would have expected him to have introduced the expression here,, The other notional regent which the grammarians recognised was the regent governing the imperfect indicative„ On this point al=Zamakh= 15 shari writes; .dy^P jrJk^> J*LW gliJ^I ^ ^© — 16 Ibn al-Sarraj's explanation of the same point is; 11 a>' ^ .... *\&'#\ ^iX^. ^/.J^ sjJJ^uU IU©J>li4 jJjLk^. jyr^ : C*Jj> 61 Tlere there is no mention of the idea of a notional repent and the term ma'na itself does not appear and the Bame applies to al-Mubarrad'e 17 treatment of the point in the Mxigtadabo Apart from this Thn al^Sarraj's explanation is very similar to that of the later scholar, al-Zamakhshari, and for this reason it seems probable that the former would have indicated that the regent is notional if that expression had been current in his day0 In discussing the idea of notional and verbal regents reference has been made to ibtida' and the nominal sentence9 and this requires some further consideration„ In defining the noun's power to act as a regent Ibn al-Sarraj makes a tripartite division into the noun acting in the mubtada* and khabar construction, the noun acting as a verb, and 1S the noun acting as a particle„ In the case of the first and the third of these classes the validity of the classification depends on the particular views of Ibn al-=Sarraj to which all grammarians do not subscribe0 On the noun in the first of these three classes, that in IB 19 the mubtada" and khabar construction,) Ibn al<=Sarraj writes? 2 cr-rf. o1 j,W cJJU L> s , J*1 «AS> Si 0 r In this passage Ibn al=Sarraj does not explain exactly how one noun acts as a regent on another in the mubtada* and khabar construction 62 but, rather9 he writes that the mubtada' is put into the nominative by the very act of functioning as a mubtada', which is the concept of ibtida although he does not call it such here? the khabar is put into the nominative by the act of functioning as a predicate. This, however, does not involve one noun acting on anothere A satisfactory explanation of the contention that one noun acts on another in this construction is given when Ibn al~Sarraj gives special attention to the mubtada' at 20 a later point in the Pguls This passage gives an explanation of Ibn al-Sarraj's view that in the mubtada* and khabar construction one noun acts as a regent on another because he states here that the mubtada'„ which is a noun, together with ibtida* act as the regent of the khabar0 If this is taken as the explanation of how one noun acts on another in this construction, this type of noun regent only exists providing that it is accepted that the mubtada' acts as a regent on the khabar„ This view was rejected by scholars like Ibn al-Anbari and Ibn Ya'ish who held that the khabar was put into the nominative by ibtida * alone, acting, to be sure, through the medium of the mubtada'0 " In criticism of the view which Ibn al-Sarraj among others takesgand in defence of his own viewpIbn Ya*ish writes; Ls-*-W> A^Xs>^\ lS J} u>ju^ 1 s 9 & 1 .a r •>'J I i 1 6 H3 c/i oAf ^ j4 b <3 7 _A^==4=»=®*^ This passage from Ibn Ya'ish provides an excellent example of how grammatical thinking could become more complex0 In the Usui Ibn al~Sarraj simply puts forward his view about the nature of the regent determining the case of the khabar and does not feel compelled to justify ita Later grammarians9 however, thought more deeply about the point and were able to offer reasoned critiques of views like that of Tbn al~Sarraj and put forward in their place more subtly formulated viewse As has been mentioned above the existence of the third type of noun regent which Ibn al-Sarraj classifies also depends on the way in which a particular construction is explained„ This type consists of nouns with the governing power of particles and in fact this refers to the construct,, Ibn al-Sarraj states that the construct either indicates possession and is equivalent to the use of the particle li0 or it 64 indicates of what sort a particular thing is and is equivalent to the use of the particle min0 In the course of discussing the latter case Ibn al~Sarraj specifies exactly what the regent is when he explains the relationship of the expressions J"-^5 ^S** and «=»j>=* s J&£s>\ \§>j>&S J^iui/ yl However, this type of noun regent does not exist if the view of certain later scholars on the regent governing the genitive in the construct is followed,, Ibn Ya'ish, for instance, when analysing the expressions j> ^aJAs and %J&£> <^X&> writesf 6*5 » t Ibn al=Sarraj follows the view of Sibawayh in holding that the first element in an idafah construction puts the second into the genitive, and he considers that this construction simply conveys the meaning of 26 — either of the particles 1A or min„ The view taken by Ibn Ya'ish iss 65 however, rather more subtle involving the use of taqdir so that the idafah construction is seen not merely as conveying the meaning of either li or min but the term in the genitive itself owes its grammatical case to these notional particles. Again, this is a case of later grammarians putting forward more complex grammatical explanations„ The second major class of regent specified by Ibn al-Sarraj in the Usui consists of the verb and his treatment of the verb as a regent deserves consideration„ In explanation of the verb's power of government 27 Ibn al-Sarraj writess 3 1 **9 f. to <3 <3> j3L <2> r What is of note about this explanation of the verb's power of government is that Ibn al-Sarraj explains the principle which determines the use of the accusative case, which is a grammatical case particularly to be explained by the governing power of the verb0 When Ibn al-Sarraj details the various uses of the accusative at a later point in the Usui 28 he again refers to what determines the use of this cases C=i> 1 00 r 66 The second class of accusative usage listed in this passage is in fact the accusative of the tamyiz used, in counting and measuring and it is treated by Ibn al-Sarraj as different because it is not an accusative usage dependent on the verb„ In these passages Ibn al-Sarraj sets out the idea that the use of the accusative is generally to be explained by the fact that it is not essential for the formation of semantically complete utterances„ In a sentence like 1^ wjn^ the essential part according to this principle is because this is an expression which in itself is semantically complete„ Similarly in sentences like (k-sa^*^©-* ls>^ and j^j 8^ the use of the accusative to express the tamyiz and the hal respectively is to be explained by the fact that utterances9 while the terms in the accusative serve only to provide added information., On various occasions Ibn al-Sarraj refers to this "formal redundancy" of the accusative by calling it a fafllaJi and this term is also used by later grammarians and is further discussed later 29 in this chaptero Of course,, omitting terms in the accusative in this way is purely an analytical device of the grammarians and they can be considered only as "formally" redundant because they are not redundant in any real sense. The principle of the formal redundancy of accusative terms is based on the fact that a verb and its subject are sufficient in themselves to form meaningful utterances, and Ibn al-Sarraj refers to this by using the expression JL^yJ^ Jljs-sJII BUj3=^*»! o However, it is to be noted that not all uses of the accusative can possibly be considered as 67 formally redundant because in certain constructions the accusative is used to express what is the subject or predicate of the sentence« This point will be given further consideration in discussing the approach of later grammarians to formal redundancy„ When dealing with the various uses of the accusative individually Ibn al=Sarraj specifically refers to the concept of formal redundancy when dealing with the hal and the use of the accusative in exceptive sentences,, The passage relating to the hal is cited later in the chapter when dealing with another point, but it is worth giving some consider-- ation at this point to Ibn al-Sarraj's treatment of the use of the accusative in exceptive sentences because certain aspects are of interest when considering the idea of formal redundancy,, In introducing his discussion of exceptive sentences Ibn al=Sarraj writes? ^ oJsbj) J^i^f ^p^l In this passage Ibn al-Sarraj likens the term in the accusative after ilia to the maf*ul and this implies that it is dependent for its grammatical case on the regimen of the verbo In commenting on the expression ne makes this specifics ci>j» rh* ^ ^ i1* Off Ibn al-Sarraj here draws attention to the principle of the formal redundancy of the accusative by making the point, which in terms of this principle is valid but in practice is meaningless, that were it possible 68 to introduce a term like j> after f>$&^ %^s^ without also introducing the exceptive particle, then the term would have to go into the accusativeo This particular line of argument seem3 to be peculiar to Ibn al-Sarraj,, The later grammarians followed Ibn al-Sarraj in holding that the term in the accusative after ilia owed its case to the regimen of the verb acting through the medium of the exceptive particle„ However, this view only seems to have developed in the course of time0 In the Kitab Sibawayh deals with the question of the regent by quoting the view of al=Khalil that the regent governing the accusative is the discourse (kalam) preceding the particle ilia and there is no mention that it is 32 the verb itself in the preceding discourse which is the regent,, This view is in accord with Siba.wayh's view that the regent acting on the maf'ul ma that was the regent0 However, there were other views on the question of the regent governing the accusative after ilia,, Al-Mubarrad is recorded as having held the view, which is associated with the Kufan school, that the particle ilia itself is the regent on the grounds that it replaces an expression like 1^^=^ I or 1 „ That he held this view is confirmed by the Muqtadabs 54 (^>JJ tHjtf' — ±>\ : tZjJ UJli4 pf^ IJ^J * 1* * Although he holds this view about the regent al-Mubarrad accepts that the accusative after ilia is to be explained by formal redundancys 69 8 4 Tbn al-Sarraj does refer to the idea that ilia can be related to the expression x^^^ ' but he simply uses this as an analogy and does 36 not use it as a formal explanation of the use of the accusatives Si 01 « 8 • 6 «\ •! <3- » Ik * One particular variety of exceptive sentence in which the particle ilia occurs twice followed by two different terms enables Tbn al-Sarraj 37 to confirm the general principle of formal redundancy? 1 & UJ^jg? jy*Jj J^i-> ^^X* • 1 b 00 3 If 9 8 # >• » 40 0 Hi This represents a neat way of proving the principle of formal redundancy and it is perhaps indicative of the attention which Ibn al-Sarraj gives to this question that other grajnmarians do not seem to have put this construction to the same use„ Al-Mubarrad, for instance, simply takes the view that after the double ilia one of the terms is in the nominative due to the regimen of the verb and the other is in the accusative in 70 accordance with the principle accepted "by the grammarians that the term after ilia goes into the accusative unless there is a specific reason why this should not happens ^>8 S 4 0> J s 4 » Ibn al-Sarraj gives particular attention to the idea that the accusative is to he seen as formally redundant but, although this idea was accepted by later grammarians, it is not set out with the same degree of prominence,, However, later scholars did give further consid• eration to this question and coined the term antonym to the term fadlah which, as has been mentioned, is found in _ _ - 39 the Usuio Al-Astarabadhi using these two terms writes: s cJ 9 5 8 The term *umdah covers those uses of the nominative and the accusative such as the mubtada*„ khabar, fa'il, subject of inna0 and the predicate of kana9 which are the basic elements in creating meaningful sentences. The term fadlah covers those uses of the accusative which can be seen as formally redundant and is even used by later authors like al~Astarabadhi and Abu Hayyan to cover uses of the genitive,, ^ In explaining the meaning of the term 'umdah al-Astarabadhi mentions that it covers the subject of inna and the predicate of kana because these uses of the accusative have an affinity with uses of the nominative 71 and cannot be likened to those uses of the accusative which are to be explained by formal redundancy0 In defining the term 'umdah in this way al-Astarabadhi introduces a consideration which is not taken into account by Ibn al=Sarraj because the latter does not make the point clear that not all uses of the accusative can reasonably be explained by formal redundancy,, It has been mentioned that later writers do not seem to give the question of the semantic redundancy of the accusative quite the degree of prominence which it has in the Usui,, Al~Astarabadhi, in fact, introduces the idea when discussing why in arranging a grammar the uses of the nominative case are treated before those of the other grammatical 41 cases, and the same applies to Ibn Ya'ish who writes; j}£ & JJ\ Ip* f LUf0 l^%> fSJt&\ JjU~* U^®J> U^lj^ Ibn Ya'ish does subsequently go into the question of formal redundancy in more detail but this is in fact connected with his discussion of why the fa/il is in the nominative, and in the course of this he explains why the "strong'Vowel dammah is used for the nominative and the "weak" vowel fathah is used for the accusatives ^ &^= •i JsliJI 3 r JS 3 J UUa 1 LJ d II It is possible to relate the view of later grammarians like Ibn al-Sarraj regarding the function of the accusative case to an idea suggested in the Kitab of Sibawayh,, In the Kitab Sibawayh relates many uses of the accusative case to its use with the numerals 11-99 and he refers to this by the stock phrase ^ishrun dirham0 The ideas under• lying Sibawayh's frequent reference to this expression are outside the 43 scope of this present study, ^ but one particular use of the accusative which he likens to that with ^ishrun dirham is treated in a way which can be related to the ideas of the later grammarians about formal redundancy,, However, Sibawayh does not give any definite expression to the idea that the use of the accusative case is in general to be explained by formal redundancy,, The particular usage in question is as follows; ^ 2 ^5 r f9> J 4=5 The gist of Sibawayh's argument here is that the example ^jlj jjj\j> and khabar, and because of this the additional element which amplifies the meaning is put into the accusative0 Here Sibawayh uses the verb • • •* I - «jH^=a*rf • which Ibn al-Sarraj also uses in presenting the principle of formal redundancy. Although this particular instance can be used to show how the ideas of later grammarians on the use of the accusative 73 can be traced back to Sibawayh, nevertheless, there does not appear to be another instance in the Kitab of a similar correspondence„ It would appear that the idea of formal redundancy with regard to the accusative case only properly developed after the time of Sibawayh, Al-Mubarrad does make passing reference in the Muqtadab to this idea 45 but unlike Ibn al-Sarraj he lays no great emphasis on it0 If the principle of formal redundancy explains uses of the accus• ative case there is another, but subordinate^ consideration,, This isp that although the part of a sentence which consists of a verb and its subject is formally complete, nevertheless, it presupposes certain terms which are all put into the accusative,. In describing the circumstances in which the 10 accusativ& e is useto d Ibn al^Sarraj writes; ^ LJ 1 j^iil *AJ3 ^jX> £^>J>\ p-'^Lo^ •I r (underlining mine Although Tbn al-Sarraj particularly uses here the idea of formal redundancy to account for the use of the accusative case, he also makes the point that a formally complete utterance contains a "suggestion" (dalil) of terms in the accusative,, According to this principle with regard to a sentence like "suggestion" of a term in the accusative to come which in this instance is specifically „ Clearly, all transitive verbs when used in sentences involve the "suggestion" of a direct object in the accusative whether or not it is expressly mentioned,, Indeed, when Ibn al-Sarraj defines the intransitive verb he specifically mentions the absence of 74 A 1 such a "suggestion",, Ihn al-Sarraj again introduces the notion of a "suggestion" when he discusses the bal; % ^JS ^ M^> ^ jtf I ^jJl The argument that a verb involves the "suggestion" of a hal is logically sound but is clearly more abstract than saying that a trans• itive verb involves the "suggestion" of a direct object,. The idea that the verb involves the "suggestion" of terms in the accusative can be found in other authors, and al~Suyuti quotes the Sharh al-mufassal of al-Sakhawi (1163-12/) 5) on the resemblance of the bal to the maf'ul bihi and there the same point is mario as is done in the passage above from the Usui; 49 V/hen dealing with the maf'ul ma*ahu?after having dealt with the maf'ul lahufTbn al-Sa.rraj again draws on the idea of the verb involving SO a "suggestion" of terms.in the accusatives " 75 UJ3 «U U^ff J* l£ . ^ ^ Ijg^ J^B U^J> & JM§^J S Ibn Ya'ish introduces this same consideration when he explains why the preposition l^i which is used with the mafcul lahu may be omitted but 51 not the conjunction wa which is used with the maf ul ma'ahu not the conjunction wa which is used with the maf'ul ma'ahu; ' 3 8' W«> ' r 41 In this passage it is worth noting Ibn Ya'ish's remarks •1 0 r1 J^ Although thiR specifically refers to the maf'ul lahu it confirms that in general the capacity of a verb to presuppose certain accusative usages is not affected by their being expressly mentioned cr notD It is clear that a verb can only involve the "suggestion" of certain types of accusative expression and the grammarians particularly t note that the verb does not involve the "suggestion" of a maf'ul ma ahu0 Only a transitive verb can have a "suggestion" of a direct object,. Two other uses of the accusative which the verb presupposes,, and which the grammars specifically mention.are the hal and the maf'ul lahu but 76 other uses could clearly be addedo In works of grammar later than the TTqul the idea that the verb presupposes certain uses of the accusative is not given any particular prominence and only appears incidently, whereas in the Haul Ibn al-Sarraj refers to it in explaining the verb's power of government and in enumerating the uses of the accusative as well as introducing it as appropriate at other points0 Something similar to the later more developed idea of the verb involving a "suggestion" of certain accusative ussiges can be found in the Kitab of Sibawayh when the point whether a sentence like ^ Lid I JX=a=® is 52 like one with an accusative of place is discussed? ' J 9 UJ8 f J? <=9 77 Motes to Chapter III 2 o 1[ Eolo 9 SoVo ' amil (G0 Weil) 55=60. 2 Ibn al^Sarrajs, volo i„ ppD j| See Hajji Khalifan, volo iip p0 1179<> For al-Jurjani see Kahhalah, volo v, p0 310o The Arabic text of the 'Awamil al-mi'ah is contained in an appendix to A0 Locketts Mi'ut Amil and Shurhoo Mi'ut Amil0 Calcutta, 1814„ ^ See Hajji Khalifah9 vol= ii9 p0 1179<> ^ Al~SuyutI9 Ashbah, vol0 i, pp0 241=560 £ This table is based on the material in Ibn al-Sarrajj, volo i, PP» 55="60o 2 This table is based on the text of the "Awa/nil al-mi 'ah contained in the work by Lockett cited in n0 3 above0 8 Sea n. 5 above» 2, Eolo 9 s0Vo 'amil (Gc Weil)o 10 See Ibn Ya'ish, vol0 i0 pp0 83~4s volc vii9 pp0 12-3o 11 Al-Zajjaji, Jjumalj, pD 480 12 Io Mo Rejabp "A critical edition of Sharh al-Jumal li al~Zajjaji by Ibn Babshad" (PhoB dissertations, University of StD Andrews,, Dec0 1975)9 p. 182„ Tor Ibn Babshadh see Kahhalahs vol0 v5 p0 32o 1^ Abu Hayyan, pa 38° 14 Al=Mubarrad, volo iv, p0 126c .1^ Ibn Ya'ish, volo vii„ pa 120 16 Ibn al-Sarrajp volD ii9 p0 151 <> 17 Al-Mubarrad, volo ii9 p0 5« 18 Ibn al-Sarrajj vol0 i9 pp= 55=80 1£ IbidoS p0 55° 20 Ibidoj pp„ 62=3? see also pp» 65 and 279° 21 Ibn al=Anbarip Ingaf, pc 23S Ihn Ya'ish, vol, i9 p» 85o 22 Ibn Ya'ish, volo ip p° 850 £3_ Ibn al-Sarrajj volo i9 pp0 56=7o 24 Ibidoj p0 57» In lo 4 of this passage '•>[ha s been substituted for lil in the printed text. 78 25_ Ibn Ya'ish, vol, ii, pp. 117o 2 26 Sibawayh, vol„ i, p. 209l see also E.I. , a.v. idafah. 27 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. i, p. 58. 28 Ibid.9 p. 189. 22 Ibid., pp. 83 and 102; vol. iit pp. 124, 251, and 252. JO Ibid.9 vol. i, p. 342, 21 Ibid., PP. 342-3. 22 Sibawayh, vol. i, pp. 360 and 369. 22 Ibid., p..150. 2£ Al~Mubarrad, vol. iv, p. 390. 22 Ibid., p. 396. 26 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. i, p. 343o 21 Ibid., p. 345o 28 Al-Mubarradg vol. iv, p. 424o See also Ibn Ya'ish9 vol. ii, pp. 92=3. Al-Astarabadhi, vol. i, p. 70. 40 Ibid.1 Abu Hayyan, p. 130. 41 Ibn Ya'ish9 vol. i9 p. 75» AJ, Ibid. ^3_ See M. G. Carter, "'Twenty dirhams' in the Kitab of Sibawayhi", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35 (1972), PP. 485=97. 44 Sibawayh, vol. i9 p. 207. 4J> Al~Mubarrad, vol. iii9 p0 116? vol. iv, p. 396. 46 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. i9 p. 58? see also p. 189. 47 Ibid., pp. 81-2. Passage quoted p. 36 above. 48 Ibid,,.- p. 258. 49 Al-Suyuti, Ashbahj, vol. ii, p. 190, 20 Ibn al~Sarraj, vol. i, p. 257° 51 Ibn Ya'ish, vol. ii9 p. 53<» 22 Sibawayh, vol. i9 p. 16. 79 CHAPTER IV THE USE OP QIYAS AND TAQPIR One of the most important terms used by the Arab grammarians in their study of grammar is the term qiyas0 As a simple definition of qiyaB, which would translate literally into English as "analogy", it may be said that a language has established rules of phonology, morph= ology, and syntax, and it is the principle of qiyas at work which ensures that in general these ruleB are followed. It is this idea to - - 1 which Ibn al=Anbari refers when he writess A very simple example from morphology of the use of the terra qiyas is found when Ibn al-Sarraj defines the varieties of grammatical anomaly which occurs ^ The grammarians11 understanding of qiyas is in fact often best illustrated in their discussions of situations where they consider that 80 the demands of qiyas are disregarded in actual usage„ Ibn al-Sarrajs for instance,, notes that there are certain aspects of the use of conjunctions to which the normal rules of usage do not applys ^ 8 S 0 .•> <3 15 f Of.-*- IT J or" IS 1^5 J* it •I C0^ w oi 01 it Is J1. J^JP 4J> A I. r In the example ^ e>( ^1 ^ lj> S. £>*>J^ Ibn al=Sarraj holds that there is a rule of usage which should have applied and, if it had been followed,, the construction would have been <£J>J^F& & I p-i! ^K$\s> ^ @>lj>J^ ^ \s> i}-^^ o Although qiyas p as the gram• marians understand it0 may dictate that a usage conform with certain rulesp this does not always happen in practice„ This particular construction is anomalous in the view of the grammarians just as the M verb ^ ' in the passage quoted previously is morphologically 81 anomalous,, However^ there is this difference that the form of this verb cannot be applied to other verbs at wills whereas this construction can be used where neccessary0 Although this construction may oppose what qiyas dictates, it can itself be described as qiyas because it is a construction to be followed or? as the grammarians would say?SLiJjj ^UL* » The grammarians would observe and explain qiyas at work in the Arabic language butpparticularly in the field of syntaxp they could also actively put qiyas to work to determine what was or was not correct, in respect of usages and constructions which5 although unattested in use9 were felt to be consistent with attested usage,, By the operation of qiyas the basic rules of usage derived from the simplest constructions would consistently govern how the language was used in more complex constructions, and this assisted the grammarians in determining what was or was not correct in respect of unattested usages and constructions,, This active use of the principle of qiyas is of particular interest and will be discussed in some details Already by the late 3rd century A0H0 the work of the grammarians was to a large extent to explain9 reworkff and develop the material on the Arabic language contained in the writings of the earliest authorities of whom the most important by a very long way was Sibawayho Ho further basic research seems to have been done by way of consulting reputable informantsv and the only activity that approximated to basic research was the continued study of early written sources such as the Our'an and the material recorded in collections of poetry and proverbs„ which was undertaken with a view to extracting further information on usage„ Ibn al=Sarraj himself makes clear that by his time the study of grammar was essentially derivatives ^ (^ojuj; j^i ^sJUJ ^ 1 «o ^j\ u-ij l 82 Even if grammatical studies were very solidly based on the work of the early scholars,there was scope for the later grammarians to apply qiyas in dealing with usages and constructions which were not covered in the works of the early scholars and on which no information could be found by studying the diction of the Qur'an and early poetry„ On this point-Ibn al-Sarraj makes a remark of general significance when discussing one particular usages &=^JI sgj=^! ^ ~* ^ i ^UjJl Islamic jurisprudence where qiyas (analogy) is applied in situations for which the Qjur'an, sunn ah, and consensus of the scholars (ijma.1) do not provide0 One of the questions discussed by Ibn al-Sarraj in which the application of qiyas is important is.that of word order with the verb kana, Ibn al-Sarraj considers that word order with kana can be related to that which is permissible with the mubtada* and khabar constructions H** <^~* ^ *\ i^ J* 3 The possible permutations of word order with simple sentences 83 are quite easy to grasp but the question of possible word order with kana^when it has more complex predicates^ is rather more involved and Ibn al~Sarraj gives it considerable attention. It is worth noting at this point that the Arab grammarians often deal with questions of word order under the heading of j**~£>\*J\j) ^Lj±Q=^\ which is an expression 7 best translated into English as "inversion'^ The Arabic expression itself envisages terms being put either before or after their normal position in a sentence. According to Ibn al=Sarraj inversion can be carried out when kana has complex predicates in exactly the same way as it is with simple predicatess as long as the integrity of the Q predicate is maintained; JJte^ \"**J I**>J ^ CO W 01 » > in UJ\4> SJ*** o-fj-* <3 <* * w , „ ,^,J |Mk^ ^W&3 ^CUL^ftJsj it 1 In addition to the sort of change of word order envisaged above, Ibn al~Sarraj further states that the subject of kana can be made to precede the verb and at the same time this can also be done to the 9 predicate % 84 1 U^JI ^j^ tJLJLk-Uj ^fcO^J: J-../* ^-f ** ii Although he does not mention the point Ibn al-Sarraj is now discussing changes of structure with reference to a model sentence of the type ^ \£ f |JjLst=*=o whereas previously the model sentence was of the type 4JJya^s. ®jo8 tj®> „ This raises the question of the alter— native ways of constructing the predicate of the model sentence u> ^ « s • , - gJJJsrf==s &p3>\ j o In the Jumal al-Zajjaji notes that one may say S=J> • 1. ., .. II 10 &SH o Although this is a point worth consideration Ibn al-Sarraj himself does not discuss it, but if it is permissible to say \jsM^^s> ^> j> •1 • K \ &J^.' » there would seem to be no reason for disallowing this s £ construction were the predicate «.^>l |JLlis-=*-*a to be changed to ^jtJ • The whole exercise of laying down possible word order with kana where itspredicate is complex is clearly based on the application of qiyas because many of the alternatives are tortuous and could hardly be supported from attested usage0 Even for some of the most simple changes Ibn al-Sarraj has to rely on qiyas as is the case with ^.J ^ \s ^ L© which he treats as analogous to j^) ^ ^ {JJU^j-cj , a completely acceptable construction It is while discussing this point that Ibn al-Sarraj makes the general remark about the scope of qiyas quoted earliers ^ & U lk± LJ»J f^> ^ ' fs£ d^i> 85 The type of change in normal word order with kana which is discussed here appears to have been a particular concern of Ibn al=Sarraj because later grammarians like Ibn Ya'£ish are more interested in examining kana together with analogous verbs to establish which simple 12 changes of word order are permissible with each verb0 However, the only other verb apart from kana which Ibn al~Sarraj discusses in this respect is laysa0 Another example of the application of qiyas by Ibn al=Sarraj is found in his discussion of the use with the verb %anna and analogous verbs of the pronoun which the Basrans generally called the damir al°sha' n or damir al-=qis8ahg ^ It is of interest that Tbn al~Sarraj refers to the Kufan technical term ma.jhul as if there was no corresponding Basran term available to 15 him0 The use here of the word qissah does not seem to have any connection with the technical term damir al-qissah but is used simply as a feminine noun in contrast to the masculine nouns amr and khabar0 Ibn al=Sarraj1s sanctioning of the use of the feminine pronoun in the example ^ b XS^LAJO^1 ig governed solely by the application of qiyas since he concedes that it is an unattested usage0 Of course, 06 in certain constructions a feminine pronoun is normally found as is the case with inna/anna when there is a term following of feminine gender and this is illustrated by the Qur'anic phrase (jp^ & HM1^9 In tracing the basis of Ibn al=Sarraj's reasoning it is possible to treat a sentence like ^ \s in which the nominative follows the pronoun as similar to one like id Ls> %JL*JJ^ in it which the accusative follows the pronoun, because in the latter case there in a view that the feminine pronoun is possible although in this 17 particular instance a slightly different line of argument is useds -a*-yr. i ^ ^ ^ However, this passage occurs before Ibn al-Sarraj turns to the construction ^ \s ) l^L-L-L^ and a usage which the Kufans permit;, and which Ibn al=Sarraj mentions directly after proposing this con• struction, has a more close connection with the application of qiyas here; ^ ^ It is clear why the Kufans permit the use of both the masculine and the feminine pronoun here because the masculine can be seen as repre<= senting the basic usage in the construction while the feminine occurs as a result of a very natural attraction of gender. However, Ibn al-Sarraj's sanctioning of the construction ^\s>^*j l^^LLJ^ is somewhat different from this because he holds that the feminine pronoun 87 owes its gender to the purely notional term qiggah., While dealing with the same matter in the Sharh al-kafiyah al-Astarabadhl also writes that putting the pronoun into the femininep eveja if the following clause does not relate to a term of feminine gender,, is supported by qiyas and is based on the gender of the notional 19 term qi^saho although such a usage is unattested,, Furtherznore9 ©l°Astarabadhl expresses the view that if the clause after the pronoun does in fact relate to something of feminine genderp the pronoun itself is feminine out of regard for the notional term qigsahp although in these circumstances an attraction of gender between the pronoun and 20 the feminine term in the following clause is apposite? 1 The grammarians also took the view which corresponds to this that even where the masculine pronoun relates to a masculine term in the following 21 clause9 it still takes its gender from a notional term like khabar0 This last paragraph makes clear the view of the later grammarians on the gender of the damir al-sha'ri and9 although Ibn al^Sarraj does not put forward this view in such a precise and explicit mannerp it is clear that he held that the gender of the damir al~sha'n is determined by something notional and not with reference to the following clause,, Ibn al=Sarraj does give considerable information on the earlier stages of the discussion of the question of the gender of the damir al-sha'n,, and it may well be that he was the first t00 o0 propose that on the basis of qiyas the construction \5 is permissible„ f An example of the application of qiyas in a very marked way is provided by relative clause predication,, In their grammars both al-Mubarrad and Ibn al-Sarraj give considerable attention to recasting 88 sentences so that they consist of a relative clause which is introduced by the relative pronoun alladhi or the definite article and which is 22 predicated of an element in the original sentence0 By this procedure a simple sentence like ^wj c=a=s> U^" p and this is known as ^oU%> aj^i^l^ ^ L jLJ&^>\ v of which a suitable English translation would be ""relative clause predic= ation"". As a result of the changes in the example given the original verbal sentence becomes a nominal one with a mubtada' and a fa'il sadd masadd al°khabar0 Relative clause predication does not stand out as a subject which requires a great deal of attention but it was one to which early gram• marians in particular applied themselves0 Ibn Ya'ish gives some attention to this topic but he does not examine it in the depth which 23 - - -- Ibn al=Sarraj doesc The later grammarian, al=Astarabadhi9 does, 24 how©v©r0 go into soma detail on relative clause predication0 It sasais to be the case that later grammars give some attention to this subject but, essentially0 it had really been of interest to earlier grammarianss although there remained some residual interest in it. It is evident that an important aspeet of the original interest in relative clause predication was the training of students of grammar and, although Ibn al^Sarraj does not expressly say thiSj, he does repeatedly use the phrase ,,<^Jjp§ ilk) (J*^1 Sibawayh was concerned but it was rather a subject to which later scholars turned. In the Usui al-Masinl is frequently cited on this 26 topic as if he were someone very much connected with its study. One of the simplest forms of verbal sentence is one of the type * - * cA=v &=*zJ§> and by the process of relative clause predication this can be converted to j^ga i> JP^ and " ° As wel3- 89 as sentences like this in the singular, sentences in the dual and plural were also considered and the neccessary changes made which this operation dictateso The grammatical analysis which Ibn al-Sorraj ^ivcn for the changes which are made to the simple sentence J J> can be ti * taken as similar to that given for equivalent changes made to more complicated sentences? s II a 9i 9 10 it r i 3 . <2=a=S>3 «g 9 5 J^JI tj&s, c> *>^«^a^-^ JU©^ ID lU!s> IJOJ CM>i 0 0 . to f II .Uli> OUJJI.- j^iaij, ^j^b 4i->^>\ ijjj; jj •i l» 01 It 01 Although relative clause predication is in essence a theoretical exercise it does have a practical aspect because there is certainly a difference in emphasiB between i However, Ibn al-Sarraj does not consider this point and treats the subject purely as a mechanical exercise0 Al-Astarabadhi does draw 90 attention to this point and explains how the sentence J.A*> tZ±j>j-C£> and joj ^!Ls>j^s> » 00 * «J>y>?. ^> *QJL^> M^==W ^ L^r4 «=p^^ <^~°> l?\ J>J$~i, Lr* c-J* lis? t/J <3^ V^X ^ ^ <0>U ^U-fc^l 3^j^ *J»_^ j>3 il t ->-0 «u> ' Various problems of usage arise in the course of discussion of relative clause predication and these have to be dealt with by the use of grammatical reasoning. One such question which Ibn al~Sarraj discusses is whether it is admissible to say $jlJ» <^ I on the analogy of *ju> $^>l * " * " £y o ... Because a subject like relative clause predication involves to a large extent discussion of constructions which are grammatically possible but which are often rather barbarous, there is considerable 91 scope for the use of grammatical reasoning to prescribe what is permissible since attested usage is of little help0 The reasoning employed can be somewhat involved as is the case with Ibn al-Sarraj's discussion of the validity of the construction Ipj I ^ LJ" teJ I 30 4 u J^l t>i *3!j>Vl L^I^l ;dp ^ o1 When relative clause predication is applied to verbs which govern more than one direct object even the most basic changes raise points of usage0 If the sentence Upj ^ ' ^ j cwiUl cJP-& ' is recast so that the word ^J3' j> has the rest of the sentence predicated of its Ibn al=Sarraj argues that qiyas calls for the intro= duction of a pronoun prefixed by the particle iya. into the resulting 31 sentence rather than framing it in other wayss 92 » M^i> Jus? , p»j > \^Jj s .3 1 : eJkJU ZJLJ^ iJ^j>. ^j, J X^Jjf ji^js When Ibn al~Sarraj discusses relative clause predication with the infinitive^the essentially artificial nature of this whole procedure becomes very clear from the way in which one particular point is discussed and this is very revealing of the methodology of the Arab grammarianso Ibn al-Sarraj permits relative clause predication with the infinitive so that, for instance, \^,j^> \J> become =a»«a=^ <=fj°*& «~A=j>J~& ^ *m ' 9 and J^-^ ^j^" *Jw> can 2 become J^jpH ^J** %jjL^JI , ^ Howeverp Ibn al-Sarraj does not allow relative clause predication with the hal and for this reason he does not allow it with certain infinitives and other expressions which 33 are grammatically analysed as representing the hal construction; Jilt $ oj& IT \'Jy I <^s^ Lr* 9 , s t^J±>\ ^f^f l^j^fP j z^&d>^ J^f 93 to j,^ ^> j> The criterion used to reject relative predication with infinitives in hal constructions is that such usages are basically anomalous and cannot be subject to changes which can validly be applied to regular constructions,, If relative clause predication is possible with infin~ itives there would seem to be no real reason why it should not be admissible when the infinitive is analysed as a hal0 even if those uses of the b^al where the term is indefinite cannot logically be made stbject to thiB procesSo This confirms that the grammatical methodology which Ibn al-Sarraj employs does not take into account whether constructions thrown up by relative clause predication are likely to occur in practice but, rather, whether they are admissible on the basis of considerations dictated by purely formal grammatical analysis. Although the Arab grammarians would explain qiyas at work in the Arabic language and would also actively make use of qiyas0 nevertheless there were constructions and usages which seemed to fall outside the working of qiyaa0 In dealing with such situations the grammarians would employ what is called taqdir and it has, as Weil points out, a strong 34 connection with qiyas, although it is used in a variety of ways0 In spite of the fact that the idea of taqdir is very important in the thought of the Arab grammarians, no attempt was made by them to define the term and the various aspects of its use„ Thus, although it is convenient and legitimate to talk about taqdir as a definable aspect of grammatical methodology, it would be incorrect to say that it was a technical term of the same order as for instance the term *amilo 94 The grammarians make use of the actual word taqdir in expressions like "'J'..~*JsJ implied is0.o"o They do not use the word in the sense of a precisely defined procedure which they would apply in certain situations,, Although it is convenient to talk of "the Arab grammarians' use of taqdir" when discussing their methodology, it must be remembered that while the grammarians certainly had their methodology they contented themselves with simply applying it in practice and they did not feel a need to discuss its techniques in general,, For this reason the expression taqdir is not used as a strictly dofined methodological term and9 indeed, there are many discussions of points in which the word taqdir or its derivatives is not employed but in which the gram= matical reasoning could be classified as taqdir., Many Arabic constructions were treated by the grammarians as being more or less elliptic and by the use of taqdir they could remove this elliptic element through changing the sentence structure and adding explanatory elements, and thereby assisting the process of grammatical analysis,, Describing taqdir Weil writes; "Er Sndert den Wortlaut der Ueberlieferung, indem er eine TJmstellung oder Erganzung vornimmt, und schnell hat er den neuen Text in Einklang mit irgend einer der erlaubten Analogien gebrachto Where taqdir was of great importance was in the analysing of constructions which occur in poetry and the grammarians used it to seek acceptable explanations for usages which seemed to violate the established rules of grammar,, Many such usages could be justified by taqdir although others simply had to be classed as anomalous and defying any grammatical explanation,, An example of this use of taqdir occurs when Ibn al=Sarraj discusses inversion with the verb kana although he does 36 not employ the word taqdir itself or any of its derivatives? 95 IjJ&Jzj.^tes^1 \*>j o^- j» -0 - According to Xbn al-Sarraj a construction like^^s^ ' l>w ^ is admissible if a term like amry hadith0 or qissah is implied after kana which is a device that the Arab grammarians considered analogous to the explicit damir al~sha'n0 In support of this usage Ibn al-Sarraj also cites a verse into which such a notional term must be introduced to allow a grammatically sound analysis. T-Tis approach to this question is rather different from that of Sibawayh in the Kitab, The latter puts forward the idea of a suppressed term with certain usages of karia so as to explain the syntax of a number of verses of poetry including the one cited above, but he does not consider it '.. 96 admissible to form sentences like U» 4^0^ ^ (Js^ on the 39 analogy of these purely poetical usages0 The notion of taqdir can be used in a manner which seems strained even allowing for the methodology of the Arab grajnmarianso An example of thiB occurs in Ibn al-Sarraj's discussion of the question of inversion of an attribute and the term which it qualifies? ^ ©JU^ juvj? f_ tl^juu^j ^> k j£j eJDf ^j? iJU cU%Sy ^5 t>° i^ In this passage Ibn al=Sarraj first takes the view that it is 97 inadmissible to change the construction jJU J^Ls sj-^ to ,Jb U J^>> «JliJ 2ek&\&J£> because this violates tlie rule that an attribute predicated of a term cannot govern anything preceding that term0 The Kufanss however, permit this construction by taking the view that the term J^j) is to be disregarded, but Ibn al=Sarraj considers it incorrect to do this0 Neverthelesss he does procede to permit the construction if the word CJ^} is treated as a badal„ although in doing9so he in effect withdraws his previous contention that the construction is inadmissible and he goes back on the general rule which he laid down governing the positioning of terms grammatically dependent on an attribute„ The concept of taqdir is particularly used in the discussion of constructions in which the speaker's intentions are seen as dictating how precisely he expresses himself., This often involves consideration of differences of expression which have little or no effect on meaningc This is illustrated in the discussion, which Tbn al-Sarraj quotes from al-Mazini9 of the sentence \^>j^ IJ^J ejjl J^S I which9 by the process of relative clause predication, can be changed to ^3 ^^J^JS^A> I OB v» a * •t 0 f^f*^ &^>l **~J <*~*Jl !)>• ^e^ss^ According to a2~Mazini} if in relative clause predication the inseparable pronoun is used attached to the participle this is done on the "implication" of the use of the pronoun object with the verb proper, but if the inseparable pronoun prefixed by the particle ivji is intro• duced later on in the sentence this is done on the "implication" of the position that the substantive for which it stands would have occupied. Another example of the use of taqdir involving a purely notional distinction is found in Ibn al-Sarraj's discussion of the expression LgH^J) £^=**&=i I o From the standpoint of grammatical analysis this construction can be looked upon as either representing the use of the tamyiz or as analogous to the use of the active participle governing the direct-object,, According to Ibn al-Sarraj the analysis adopted has a certain grammatical consequences ^ Here Ibn al-Sarraj draws the rather notional but not inconsistent conclusion that if the accusative in the expression ^r^P lu^^ ^ is used on the "implication" of the tamyiz the expression ^^gj\ u^=^ I 99 is inadmissible, but if the accusative is used on the "implication" of a correspondence with the active participle followed by the direct i object the expression Lf>$JI I \B admissible. 'Ilie approach adopted here seems to be peculiar to Ibn al-Sarraj. 100 Notes to Chapter IY c 1_ Ibn al-Anbarip Luma al=adillah (Stockholm, 1963)9 P° 44.. 2 Ibn al~Sarraj, volo i9 Po 61 „ 2 IbidoS volo ii, p= 3220 4 Ibid*, volo is, p0 37o £ Ibido, p0 101o 6 Ibidop pp0 97-8o J_ For a discussion of inversion see ibido9 vol, ii, pp0 231—65o 8 Ibido, volo i, pp0 100=10 2 Tbidoj, p0 101 o 10 Al=Zajjaji, Jumalc p0 55» 11 Ibn al-Sarrajp volo i9 p0 101„ 12 Ibn Ya'ishp volo vii9 pp» 112=5° _13_ Ibn al=Sarraj9 vol» i9 pp° 102-3° 1£ Ibido9 Po 219° 1£ Ibn Ya'ish, volo iii9 pp° 114=8= 16 Qur'an 22sl60 See also Wright, vol, ii9 p° 299B° 12 Ibn al=Sarrajp volc i9 pc 2180 18 Ibid„9 p, 219o Al=Astarabadhi9 volo ii0 p« 280 20 Ibido 21 See Mo S0 Howell, A Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language,, Introduction and 4 ptsa (Allahabad, 1883=1911)9 pto i9 pp° 551-2o 22 Ibn al-Saxraj, volo iip pp» 231=655 al-Mubarrad, volo iii, pp0 85-132o 2£ Ibn Ya'ish, vol„ iii9 ppD 156=600 24 Al-Astarabadhl, vol0 ii9 pp° 44=53° £§, Ibn al=Sarrao9 vol0 ii, pp0 288, 2899 291 , See also al=Astarabadhi, volo ii, p0 44° 26 Ibn al-Sarrajp vol„ ii, pp0 295* 298, 301, 310, 312, 313= 101 2J_ Ibid., ppe 288-90 28 Al-Astarabadhl, vol„ ii, p. 4% 22 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. ii, p0 289, JO Ibid*, pp0 289=90o rbido9 p* 295o J2 Ibid09 Po 311» H ^ido 34 Veil, Introduction, ppe 25-7° j55_ Ibido, p„ 25» 36 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol» i, pp0 98-9o _3J. Ibn Ya'ish, volc iii, ppe 114-8,, jj8 Sibawayh, vol„ i, pp» 36-7» 73—4» 196-7„ J2 See Howell, pt0 ii, ppc Ibn al-Sarraj, vole ii, p<> 234o In lc 2 of this passage the addition in the printed text after L*—3 of <_J>-^s£l "Li-^-**-". has been omitted0 41 Ibido, pp0 295=6o In lo 6 of this passage IJ>] has been substituted for j»| in the printed text0 42 Ibidc, vol. i, po 272? see also ppe 158=9° See Ibn Ya'ish, volo vi, pa 84« 102 CHAPTER V QJYAS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OP A§L AND FARC One of the effects of what the grammarians saw as qiyas at work in the grammar of Arabic waa that grammatical phenomena wMch can be considered as similar tend to be governed by similar rules0 At its simplest this often states little more than the obvious and9 for example,, is seen in the view of the grammarians that the passive subject is put into the nominative because it resembles the active subject in its function,, or in the view that the active participle resembles the verb in its power of regimen because it is derived from the verbo Although at this level this aspect of qiyas is quite obvious,, it can be extended and is seen by the grammarians to operate in a more involved manner0 An example of this is the view of the grammarians that there is a relationship between the particle inna and the transitive verb due to the fact that both govern the nominative and the accusative <, Although this would appear to be a purely coincidental similarity the grammarians did not treat it as sucho When a resemblance between two grammatical phenomena was observed the grammarians would procede to identify which of the two it was that the other had come to resemble0 They would describe the basic phenomenon as the agl and the other which had come to resemble it as a far'0 This same relationship of agl and far11 was also considered to exist in respect of a single phenomenon if it had both a primary and a secondary aspect,, For instance„ the use of the particle wa as a conjunction proper was seen as its primary use (asl)„ whereas its use with the maf^ul ma'ahu was seen as a secondary use (far*J0 Similarly„ the use of the particle 103 fa as a conjunction waB seen as its primary use, whereas its use with the verb in the subjunctive on the implication of a suppressed particle an was seen as a secondary uss0 When an English translation of the terms agl and far1 is required,it is neccessary to resort to expre SBions like "ground-form" and "by-form" respectively9 although in certain instances the terms can be translated as "primary usage" and "secondary usage1*. In the grammatical writings particularly of later scholars the terms agl^ and far* are frequently employed and for a discussion of the theory behind their use it is neccessary to turn to the Luma* al-adillah of Tbn al-Anbari, ^ In this work he explains that it is qiyas which 1 underlies the relationship between agl and far and9 indeed, his discussion of qiyas deals largely with how it determines the relationship between asl and farc and he gives scant attention to other aspects of - -2 qiyaso This is reflected in the way in which he defines qiyas; In the Luma4 al-adillah much of Ibn al-Anbari1s discussion of qiyas in grammar consists of a very literal application to it of the techniques of qiyas in fiqh in all its intricacies0 However, this falls outside of the scope of this present study because such an approach is largely irrelevant to actual grammatical practice„ The influence of fiqh can of course be seen in the definitions of qiyas quoted above., Inspite of the influence of fiqh, Ibn al-Anbarl's discussion, in its more fundamental aspects, of how qiyas governs the relationship of agl 3 and far*- is worth quoting to explain this relationships 104 i L-iLJ. LJS^^ o>^f o'l <-^>>-s ijs L^JU, ^ 1 The particular example given here to illustrate Ibn al-Anbari's explan• ation of the mechanics of qiyas is a rather simple and obvious one but the exercise shows how the relationship of asjl and far' could be rationalised, although here the influence of qiyas in fiqh is strongo The operation of qiyas is very important where the 'illah involved is what .the grammarians called tashbih and the relationship of asj. and far*- of the verb and the particle inna provides one of the best examples of such a relationship based on tashbih because it is an example to A which the grammarians gave particular attention,, Ibn al=Sarraj observes that inna and analogous particles resemble the verb because they all govern the nominative and the accusative and he considers it significant that these particles end in an indeclinable fathah like the perfect tense of the verb„ Although Sibawayh makes clear the resemblance of these particles to the verb? he does not mention this formal consideration, but this point was picked up by the later gram• marians who also considered significant in this respect the use of - — 6 the nun al-wiqayah with inna and similar particles„ 105 Ibn al-Sarraj deals very briefly with the relationship to the verb of inna and analogous particles; 7 . c-9^i t>-rt li^> iAJi 1>U-* Ibn Ya ish, however, deals with this question much more fullys . J_>y l^>» ' iJjr—^t jiU> f^-y In the passage from the Usui Ibn al-Sarraj states that the verb differs from inna because in the case of the latter the term in the accusative must precede the one in the nominative, as if thereby a distinction is drawn between particle and verbe However, in an earlier passage in the Usui he states more definitely that it is the mark of g differentiation between themc Ibn al=Sarraj does not introduce the terms aajl and far* into the above discussion but Ibn Ya'ish does establish a relationship of agJL and far* between the verb and innaD 106 The grammarians came to hold the view that the far'in comparison to the agl is subject to certain restrictions in its usage and al-Suyuti gathers together a number of examples of this in the A3hbah wa-l-naza^ir; In the case of inna Ibn Ya'ish observes that its inferior status as a far6 is manifest in the fact that with it the term in the accusative must precede the term in the nominative, inasmuch as with the verb the precedency of the term in the nominative over the term in the accusative embodies the a§l_whereas the placing of the accusative in front of the nominative embodies a far*0 Ibn al-Sarraj simply treats the word order with inna as a mark of differentiation but Ibn Ya'ish treats It as the sign of the lower status of the far* with regard to the asl. Although the use of the terms agl. and far4 to describe such a relationship as was felt to exist between the verb and inna is not found in the Kitab of Sibawayh, the use of these terms represents a develop• ment of certain ideas about grammatical relationships to be found in "the Kitab„ Although Ibn al=3arraj does not make the point in a definite manner that inna is inferior in status to the verb, a fact which Ibn Ya'ish attributes to the nature of the relationship of agl and farc, this point 1B made by al=Khalil in the Kitabs J iAJ £>\ ^) J> . . . In considering the relationship between inna and the verb al=Khalil takes the view that with inna the nominative cannot be made 107 to precede the accusative because there are certain restrictions on its use in comparison with the verb and these serve as a means of differentiation between them„ The idea behind this is that when some• thing resembles something else in the way in which it functions, there is a certain force at play which prevents a complete assimilation with regard to their respective rules of use„ and this acts to maintain their separate identity,. In this connection al~Khalil compares the verb layaa with ma al°hi.jazIyaho In the Hijazi use of the negative particle ma it becomes assimilated to the verb of negation9 laysae because it takes its predicate in the accusative caseB However, there are certain restrictions on this use of ma which do not apply to the verb laysa8 among which is the condition that the subject must precede 12 the predicate,. In shorty it may be said that in the passage from the Kitab quoted here may be seen the basis of the later idea that the far* is inferior in status to its agio Although the discussion of inna in the Usui does not give much information on contemporary grammatical theorising about its relation^ ship to the verb9 considerable detail on this topic can be found in the slightly later Idah 'ilal al-nahw of al-5iajjajio This is found in the course of a discussion of the varieties of tillah which occur in Arabic grammar and this is illustrated predominantly through reference to the c particle inna0 ^ Al-Zajjaji classifies the varieties of illah as being three, of which the latter two have particular relevance to the present discussion,, The first variety of gillah is made up of the gilal al-ta^limiyah which relate to the established rules of grammar which a teacher would set forth to his pupils? ^ 9 108 The second variety of sillah arises from the grammarians' explan= 15 ations of points like the relationship of inna to the verbs Jii J1^ w^u^i £b> II .. * fc • 1. It has been mentioned above that Ibn al-Anbari particularly defines qiyas in terms of how it underlies the relationship of asJL and far* and it is of interest that al-Zajjaji should describe as an *illah qiya8iyah the 4illah which he considers to govern what is in fact a relationship of this typep although he does not expressly mention this here „ The third variety of 11 illah takes up as it were where the second variety leaves offs ^ 109 f In itself al-Zajjaji's discussion of this 'illah is an indication of the high stage of development which grammatical theory had reached by the first half of the 10th century» In this passage al-Zajjajl uses the terms aaJL and far' not with reference to the relationship itself of inna to the verb but to the fact that placing the subject before the object in a verbal sentence represents the agl, whereas placing the object before the subject represents a far4<, This point was also made by Ibn Ya'ish in the passage from the Sharh al-mufassal quoted earlier,, Al-Zajjaji indicates that he will answer the questions which the passage quoted above and its continuation raise but unfortunately ho does not in fact do so<, It would have been of some interest to know his precise answer to his own questions \ty> lit c]] iXl*-> *JJ» ^ti . gy> ±X)^>J> However, it seems clear that the answer would have been very similar to that which could be given by consulting the passage quoted from 110 Ibn Ya'ish; that through thi3 is manifest the inferiority of the far' to the agio Before considering further the sort of relationship which can be described as that of agl 8nd far4, it is of value to consider what use Ibn al=Sarraj makes of these two terms occuring together,, In analysing the construction ^>i> dr^-^" 5 which has already been discussed, Ibn ** 17 al-Sarraj uses the terms agl and far*s L_>L^I \J\ fy&U <-^! • ^s Ibn al~Sarraj considers the analysis of the construction \-^3 i_r^-^ as a tamyiz to represent the agl^ whereas the analysis based on an affinity to the construction _iA>j <_a_>LcaJ 1, to which the former con• struction has been assimilated, represents a far1,, This use of the terms agl and far4 does not involve the strict technical meaning discussed in this chapter,, Another instance of the use of the terms asl and far1 is found when Ibn al~Sarraj discusses possible alternative word order for the sentence j> Xs> L»j ^liAaJL,, _AJwS> ° 18 Here a predicate which consists of a single term is seen as more basic 111 than one which consists of a sentence complete in itself„ Although Ibn al-.r!arraj uses the terms aql and far1 in this connection, these terms again are not used in a strict technical sense, Ibn al~Sarraj also uses the terms usul and furua in the course of a discussion of the rather rare use in positive statements of the - J — 19 fa al-sabablyahs '1 °x •* 9 ° i .. . • ' V ^A^1 cS C_£J> c> -i^1 ^M^1 The meaning of the general remark on usul and furu as it applies in this particular instance is that the use of the particle fa purely as a conjunction represents the asJL, whereas its use with the subjunctive represents a farc; and it is better to go beyond the normal use with the 112 — > — fa al-Bababiyoh because the use of the subjunctive clearly marks its function, whereas fa used simply for conjunction does not have an analogous accompanying marker of its purposee In this context the terms agl and far" are used as strict technical terms unlike their use in the two preceding instances cited<> Prom an examination of the occasions on which Ibn al-Sarraj uses the expressions agl and farc it is clear that he makes little use of them in the discussion of relationships which later grammarians would c define in terms of an agl and far 0 Howeverc in his discussion of certain questions he does refer to a point which the grammarians took to be a principle involved in the relationship of agl and far'. It has been mentioned above that the view was taken that a fart is inferior in status to its agl and this inferiority is manifest in certain restrictions on the use of the farc which do not apply to the agio In the Usui there are some examples of this line of thought, although it is not expressly put forward in terms of the relationship °f a§l and farC e When discussing the position of the mai^ul ma'ahu in the sentence - 20 Ibn al-Sarraj writes? . O ^ot») J? ^> Lt> o^-a^11 In the Ashbah wa-l-naga *ir al-Suyuti quotes Ibn tUsfur on the same 115 question in the course of discussing the point that furug are inferior 21 in status to usuls Although Ibn al-Sarraj uses the term aaJL in the passage from the Usui he does not introduce the term far4- to describe the special use of the conjunction wa with the maf'ul ma'ahuo However9 the word aj|l - is used in a way which would lead on to the use of the word far* a as the quotation from Ibn 'Usfur shows,, This scholar uses these expressions to refer to the primary and a secondary function of the conjunction wa0 Ibn al-Sarraj takes the view that the position of the maf*ul ma'ahu in the sentence is very firmly defined because the particle wa is basically used for conjunction and the element which it is used to add onp naturally, follox Although Ibn al~Sarraj gives a practical explanation of why the maf cul ma'ahu should be restricted in the position it may take in the sentence;, ^3 apparent that he does take what is tantamount to the 114 more theoretical view of Ibn 4Usfur but he expresses it in somewhat different terms? The general principle stated here that a usage which is to be seen as an extension of a more basic usage is subject to restrictions which do not apply to the basic usage9 is again taken up by Ibn al-Sarraj when he discusses the use of the fa* al-sababiyah and the subjunctives c \t^S» t-— \Ju>j> *jJaJJ biyr* -o-^ It has been mentioned earlier that the use of the particle fa with the subjunctive is considered by Tbn al-Sarraj to be an extension (far4) of its basic use (asl) as a conjunction and in this context the general remark about such extended usages indicates that the verb following fa must be in the subjunctive because this alone marks the special function of the particleo In the above passage from the Usui the phraseology used in describing usages which are extensions of more basic usages is of interesto The use of the expression | $ h>-*>^^.y) t may be compared with that of the expression X> \-t> o^aj)^ used by Ibn al-Sarraj in connection with the maf'ul ma'ahuo The verbs jjarrafa, tasarrafa,) and their derivatives are commonly used by the grammarians 115 c in discussing the relationship of agl and far p and in the above passage Tbn al=Sarraj uses the verb sarrafa in making the point that a usage which is an extension of a more basic usage has certain restrictions placed on it which do not apply to the basic usage ( o^^a~> ^) )„ Although questions of a si and fax1 are not discussed as such in the Kitab of Sibawayh,, the verb garrafa is used in the sense referred to here because al-Khalil states in a passage quoted earlier when he deals with the point that with inna and analogous particles the nominative J> -9 .w » cannot be made to precede the accusatives «j»y*sa-> «_s>j^*&-> Xs " 2"? ^JLSJS-LM „ J In the passage quoted above from the Usui Ibn al~Sarraj also likens extended usages which have certain restrictions placed on them to the set expressions of proverbs and this is a comparison often 24 made by the grammarians„ By the 10th century the grammarians were discussing relationships °^ Sfii and far* but it is unclear in what precise stages the grammarians developed their ideas on this subject,, As has been mentionedj, the subject is not one which is dealt with in the Kitab although it did develop out of ideas present in that work. In the Usui Ibn al~Sarraj does give some attention to what are relationships of agl^ and far* but he rarely uses these terms themselves„ and al^Mubarrad in the Mugtadab shows no interest at all in this topica It seems likely that at the time of Ibn al-Sarraj relationships of agl and far* were treated as a rather theoretical subject and discussion of it did not intrude to any great extent into general works of grammar,, Indeed, it is from a theoretical work from this period, the Idjh 4 ilal al-nahw of al-Zajjaji, that some idea can be obtained about the stage of development of gram= matical theory in this field as it affects the particle innan 116 Motes to Chapter V 1_ Ibn al-Anbarip Luma*9 pp„ 42-58= 2 IbidOB p0 420 1 Ibido 4_ Al-Suyutlp Iqtlrahp pD 48» £ Ibn al-Sarrajp volo ip pD 278G 6 SibawayhB vol0 iB pD 279§ Ion al-Anbarip Insaf0 p0 82D 2 Ibn al=Sarrajp volc i9 pD 278c 8 Ibn Ya'ishj, volo ip p0 102o £ Ibn al-Sarrajs vol0 i9 Po 113o 10 Al=Suyuti9 Ashbahp vol0 i5 ppc 260=4» J1[ Sibawayhp vol„ ip p» 280o 12; See Wrightp vol0 iip pc 104A§ Ibn Ya'ishp vol i„ pp„ 108=9» c 13. Al=Zajjajip Idjtf^p pp0 64=60 See also E0I0 0 s0v0 illah0 2± Al~Zajjajip jdjfe0 p0 64o 1j> Ibido 16 Ibidop p0 65o 17 Ibn al=Sarraj9 vol i9 p» 2720 See alsoppc 98-9 above0 18 Ibn al-Sarrajo vol ii9 p„ 63 o 19_ Ibidcp pp0 189=90o In 11 o 9=10 of this passage the material in brackets has been supplied from the quotation in al=Baghdadip volQ iiip p0 600„ See also Wright, volQ iip pp» 30=2p esp0 p0 32B0 20 Ibn al=Sarrajp vol i0 p0 256„ In 1Q 4 of this passage i-J^ ^J)^a^-ii has been substituted for OJJJ ,_iJn_>-H in the printed texto _ _ _ _ 2 21 Al=Suyutip Ashbahg volo ip p0 262Q For Ibn 'Usfur see E0I0 0 s0v0 Ibn 'UsfuTo 22 Ibh al-Sarrajp vol3 iip p. 1890 2j See p0 106 aboveo 24 Ibn al-Sarrajs volo i0 p0 116s volc iip p0 349o 117 CHAPTER VI THE TAMYIZ AND THE VERB OF WONDER In the preceding chapters attention has been concentrated on the techniques and procedures of the Arab grammarians but in this chapter a different approach will be followed by way of contrast and an exam• ination will be made of the way in which two specific topics of Arabic grammar are treatedo As it would be impossible to examine every topic dealt with in the grammars?attention will be given in this chapter to the tamyiz and the verb of wonder0 Although in the previous chapters various grammatical topics have been touched on when dealing with the techniques and theory of the grammarians9 neverthelesss by a more detailed examination of specific topics a different perspective on the work of the grammarians can be obtained,, Tamyiz It is curiouB that although there are a number of uses of the accusative which are clearly analogous and which are generally knovn as the tamyiz„ Sibawayh does not have a term to cover such uses of the accusativeB inspite of the fact that he does discuss several of thema Indeed,, in the Kitab there is no unified discussion of usages which — 1 could be seen as involving tamyiz„ Although there is no term for tamyiz in the Kitab, the term mufassir is used in the I4acani l~Qur'an of al^Farra" who was a pupil of Sibawayh"s Kufan contemporary, al-Kisa'io In the Muqaddimah fi 1-nahw of the Basran scholars Khalaf al-Ahmar (do 796), the expression 'LiXJ>\ ^ ^y^' -^'i-" is used for the noun functioning as a tamyiz with the numbers 11=99 and this term is clearly 118 based on the fact that a noun in the singular is here used for what is plural in meaning,, ^ Howaver0 this exproasionp which is limited to on® particular use of th® tamyiz0 was not generally accepted and by tho time of al=Mubarrad th© familiar and more comprehensive expression tamyiz was in us© together with other loss important terms like tabyin and tafsir0 Sibawayh's basic discussion of constructions which would be recognised as being examples of th© tamyiz is actually found in his chapter on the assimilated adjective (sifah mushabbah) and this deserves some explanation,, Sibawayh considered that the assimilated adjectiv© could be treated as similar to the active participle because both could be connected with another noun through annexation or through governing it in the accusative as in the expressions ^jl^>t '^ts>>)\ ' m& t-^Uait t LJL>^ &>\ o 5 NoWp it nae airea,jy been mentioned in a previous chapter that the grammarians considered that the con• struction ^fi1 c^-4-^' could be explained both as a tamyiz construction and as a construction similar to the use of the active participle in expressions like ^\-t>s> ^^UsJ\ „ ^ Thisp therefore9 explains why con= structions which later grammarians considered to involve the tamyiz are discussed by Sibawayh in his chapter on th© assimilated adjective,, It is worth mentioning that when Tbn al-Sarraj deals with the tamyiz in the Usui he adopts a format different from that found in other grammars because his discussion of the tamyiz is split into two separate 7 - parts which do not run consecutively„ One chapter on the tamyla deals with constructions where the regent is a verb or its equivalent and these are the majority of tamyia constructions„ The other chapter deals with the use of the tamyiz in enumeration and measuring,, This division is based on the fact that in the former case the tamyiz is dependent on a formally complete utterance like many other uses of the 3 accusatives, as has been explained in an earlier chapter„ whereas in 119 the latter case the tamyiz is dependent simply on the noun which precedes it. In dealing with tamyiz the later scholars tried to define exactly what it is and al~Zamakhsharip for instance, begins his discussion of 9 it by giving a comprehensive definition of its f 2 *>^\J Al=Mubarradi, on the other hand, defines th© tamylz in a far more cursory my and only illustrates his definition in terms of its use with the numbers 11 -99s CJ, i}Jjs iX) J> ? <^s,^> ^ lU*-^, °\J^>-cS cjj*^*? L?>j> not attempt to provide a real definition of th© tamyiz0 One of the points which needs some attention in discussing the tamyiz is the question of the use of singular Kid plural nouns0 Al=Mubarrad turns to this point after discussing tamyiz constructions of the type ll^s o-LlM a—>1 when he moves on to discuss the related expression •'cS^-U >-3>-f! S>S . tt?^ o"^ Jc IA^J; trUJl J |^i^r^\9.(^-> ^ l-r—• Uli ci^ 120 r ^u^j&JS 4*L^ ci0^ < 1^*-^ or'lJJl oy*^ \ cJ-s^ Aftsr his own discussion of this point Xbn &l~S®rraj quotes from this passage but his own explanation of the occasions on which it is possible to use the plural in the tamyiz is based on using the regent 12 as the criterion? £> aJ ^] ?LL^_c- » .LJUJ^ f^^ '• cJ^- <^_JU^j> C^-^ Here Ibn al^Sarraj lays down somewhat more incisively the principle which is to be followed although he adds the quotation from al-Mubarr&d to provide further detail0 In his suppl©m®ntaEy section on the tamyiz with a verbal regent Ibn al-Sarraj introduces further discussion of this question when he 13 quotes al^tobarrad on a point of grammar in th© Qur^ani 121 J> r ^VJ c-r-^' «J* ^jo^jJ jujvi^jJL «sj_^^J.' ;U ....t> w*1 IJ^J?L Although the question of number with the tamyiz is in essence relatively simple to understands the grammarians still took a lot of trouble to 14 explain it exactly0 Another point which comes up in discussions of the tamyiz is under what circumstances a term in the accusative functioning as a tamyiz may be replaced by the same term,, but in the genitive governed by the prepos• ition minc Sibawayh refers briefly to this usage but does not supply 15 any specific rules? * *« •u '^tjf^ <->' Al=Mubarradp on the other hand0 attempts to provide a precise 16 rule for when the preposition min can be useds , c> ^ %L^*>? L (j-j U *j> «JJj> «. <_)>-> <>* 122 In his section on the use of the tamyiz in measurements Ibn al-Sarraj appears to borrow from this passage but adds an explanation 17 of what precisely is meant? 3 S>j . ^ W^ iJL_^»9 t (j jX^ In the Ugul Ibn al-Sarraj also twice quotes a passage by al-Mub&rrad on the use of mln but it would appear to be derived from a work other than the Muqtadabo This passage does not lay down a rule 18 for the use of min but attempts to explain the reason for its uses C> <1>^y^3 • J>^» d^j? c ^ ^ CJ"3 €">^ W csH*1^. ^ iX)^> >j I ^ L-J i ^ >-> t jU-fv ^^Js ^ ilAs> 0 Lb ,J^> <^/~^ ^£"^1 Z^jr° ^ In the Mufasgal al<=Zamakhsharl makes no reference to the use of min instead of the tamyiz and what Ibn Ya'Ish writes is not particularly 19 usefulo The latter does make the point that min can separate the hal from the tamvis and in doing this he incorporates without attrib~ ution into his own work part of the above passage which Ibn al~Sarraj quotes from al=Mubarrad0 later discussion of the use of minf such as is found in the Manfaaj al-salik of Abu Hayyan^cannot be directly related to what is found in earlier works because, as has been mentioned in an earlier chapter9 the grammarians eventually classified uses of the tamyiz according to how the various constructions could be analysed, 20 and this influenced their discussion of the use of min0 Al=Mubarrad was well-known for his readiness to depart from the grammatical views of Sibawayh and one of the points where he does so is in permitting the placing of th© tamyiz in front of the verb which acts as its regents ^ • * •! : iXJiJJ£ 3 CJ~^? -li^-* rvvl ^^X^^^A^ . J^/^ J~U-N t IJoo 1 Jr^, t UU 124 \ . <_J> Li' cl» LA* In his Naqd kitab Sibawayhj, which is quoted by Ibn Walladj al=l?ubarrad criticises Sibawayh's view for being inconsistent and considers his own view to be supported by qiyas and attested usages 22 In his discussion of tamyiz Ibn al-Saxxaj mentions the view of al=J5ubarrad on this question but h© does not make his own view clear at this point* However,, he rejects this usage later on in the Usui in the chapter on inversion where he bases his view on Sibawayh's - 23 analysis of the nature of the tamyizg : J IS I ij ^} ±>\ . ^ytj^U cJJls? Ibn Yaish takes the same view but expresses himself in a rather more technical manners ^ 125 When dealing with the question of placing the faal at the beginning of the sentence Ibn al~Sarraj writes that th© Basrans treat it like th© taaiyiZo and this would indicate that the general view of the Basrans of this period was that th© tamyiz could be placed at the beginning of 25 the sentence when the regent is a verbo Xbn al^Sarrajj, however9 does not take this view and later scholars like Ibn al=Anbari and Ibn Ya^ish consider the view which he takes to be the true Basran one0 In factp there was always a division of opinion among Basran scholars 27 on this pointo Yerb of wonder The particular approach of the grammarians to the verb of wonder (fi'l al-^ta'ajjub) led them to examine certain theoretical questions which their approach itself entailedo No single grammarian treats the theoretical questions raised by the verb of wonder in an exhaustive manner and there is a varying emphasis in the works of grammar on the different questions0 It is of interest to see how al-Mubarrad and Ibn al~Sarraj deal with this subject and to compare their approach with that of later grammarians0 In dealing with the theoretical aspects of the grammarians' approach to the verb of wonder it is particularly worth remembering that the approach of the Arab scholars was rather different from that which a scholar today might adopto The latter might look at the verb of wonder in a manner similar to Wright whosin explanation of the 126 examples VJ^J ^yaA \~ and -^]r \^>l % writess ^ The first formula literally meanss what has made Zeid excellent? can anything make him more excellent than he is? The seconds make Z„ excellent (if you canB«—yo u cannot make him more excellent than he is)5 or9 more literallys try (your ability at) making excellent upon (hQ Zeido The Arab grammarians did not attempt to interpret an expression such as I^a-J. as having the literal sense of '"What has made Zayd excellent?", but representing9 in fact9 a standard formula for expressing wonder or astonishmento Ratherp the majority of the Basrans followed and expanded the very briefly expressed view of al-Khalil which Sibawayh cites in commenting on the expression j^s. ^^JA L» Although this view was accepted by the majority of the Basrans it is worth noting that there was a minority view held by the Kufan9 al^Parra'p and the Basran, Ibn Durustawayhj, that the term ma used in expressions like »>-^>i U. is, in fact, interrogative and this would appear to be a more reasonable explanation as has been mentioned,, ^ Al-Mubarrad begins his discussion of the verb of wonder by explaining how the example I is to be parsed; The explanation that ma replaces the term shay" was not accepted by those who held that ma must have a clause dependent on it (silah) when used in senses other than its interrogative and conditional senses, but 127 32 al~Mubarrad argues that this view is mistakens That the term ma is to be interpreted as having an understood silah is a view that was held by certain of the Kufans and isfl according to Ibn Ya' ishy the most generally accepted view attributed to al-Akhfash0 AI=Hubarrad does explain this view but he does not specify who held it a> 1 4JLb» JRT^~I. Al=Mubarrad also takes up the question of x-/hy an expression of the form Sju> I L» should convey the idea of wonder and astonish 55 msnts 128 ^Uj, MJJ> Jia-? <-».jr^ ai'^ _iy*^ ^ In this passage aL=Mubarrad makes the point that the verb of wonder is essentially a formulaic expression with a special meaning associated with itc Although Sibawayh does not go into detail on questions of theory connected with the verb of wonder^ the line of argument which al°Dfubarrad employs in the above passage can be found in the Kitab used in other circumstances0 ^ When dealing with the same point Ibn al-Sarraj makes use of an analogy often employed by the grammarians because he likens the verb of wonder to proverbs which9 as set expressions,, have ©a affinity with the formulae used for expressing 37 wonder0 Whan he deals with theory connected with the verb of wonder Ibn al=Sarraj is much more concise than al=Mubarrad and9 although he holds the same viewsg there are differences in the arguments which he usesa In explanation of how the verb of wonder is to be interpreted he writess ^ 129 k\ >> ^! •• c 6** U~ J! S>J U>U- pr-^t In this passage Ibn al=Sarraj introduces several analogies to support the contention that the term ma is indefinite when used with the verb of wonder,, The analogy drawn from the expression \^~~ tJjs-a! is also discussed by al~Mubarrad who goes into more detail. 39 Ibn al=Sarraj by way of analogy also makes use of the expression • and this analogy is also used by Ibn Ya'ish in a slightly different forms 40 In a later passage Ibn Ya xsh also makes us© of the proverb which Ibn 130 al-Sarraj cites, ^ti \1> ^Jf\ „ ,8tTis an evildoer that makes a w dog growle ^ The view of the Arab grammarians on the nature of the verb of wonder has been compared above with that which scholars today would take and a point which Ibn al-Sarraj makes throws particular light on 42 the view of the majority of Arab scholars? • f \ " Ibn al~Sarraj takes the view that a sentence which contains a verb of wonder is a proposition admitting of truth or falsitye However, according to the modern interpretation a sentence like \*->j would be seen as having the outward form of a question and could not admit of truth or falsity0 Even if the meaning of such a sentence is taken into account,, which in English idiom would be "How excellent Zayd is!"„ the sentence is rather an exclamation or an ejaculation and not a proposition,, However, for Ibn al~Sarraj there is no question that a sentence like Ij^-y L= is not a proposition because its underlying meaning is ^ which clearly admits of being true or false0 Ibn Ya&ish takes this same consideration into account when discussing how the verb of wonder formed on the pattern \ n is to be analysedo The view of the majority of grammarians was that the verb of wonder formed on this pattern is not in fact an imperative but simply assumes the outward form of ito ^ Al=Zamakhshari criticises this view as arbitrary and prefers to follow the view of al~Zajjaj that the verb is a true imperative0 Commenting on the sentence ^y•_ f>j>* (\ 1 he writes? 44 131 >x sA u^r c3*' - '-^ oKf7. o W J0 6 Ibn Ya ishp however^ criticises this view on several counts and this includes the consideration that a sentence containing a verb of wonder 45 forms a propositions *• ts ft One of the rules whLch the grammarians lay down in dealing with the verb of wonder is that it can only be formed from verbs with a simple triliteral root and„ accordingly, cannot be formed from quadri~ literals and from augmented forms of the verbo Although both al~Mubarrad and Ibn al-Sarraj set down this rulej, neverthelessp they have to account for expressions like J>\J^ a\Jas>\ U and 9\ Lo ^^j£>-^\t p where the verb of wonder is based on the sense of fourth form vsrbSo Sibawayh does mention briefly that the verb of wonder can be formed from th© fourth form of the verb but he does not elaborate 46 on this0 Later scholars^ however9 did not accept that the verb of 47 wonder could be formed at will from the fourth form of the verbo i _ Neither al=Mubarrad n©r Ibn al=Sarraj satisfactorily account for expressions like the two quoted above0 Ibn al-Sarraj9 for instance,, writes? ^8 cJh-A j£>$> — L » Mis jJJ> \ J^ls J Is 0li 132 Al=Mubarrad expanda on this approach but his whole argument based 49 on analogy is rather weak and not really to the points o ' " k '' ° $ ' i>J> or? ^ ' ^ Cr-t^> : ^U*JI J IS U*\ ^> ' «-» ' •• ' x ' By s i> " ' Here &1-Mubarrad bases his argument on unsatisfactory analogies which 50 are drawn from what are really debatable points of lexieography. Both al=Hubarrad and Ibn al-Sarraj attempt to explain anomalous formation of the verb of wonder but they offer no consistent explanation of this,, Ibn Yacish on the other hand puts forward a rather simple 51 and obvious explanations 133 Although Ibn Ya'ish cites Sibawayh in support of his view9 it seems clear that the latter does permit the verb of wonder to b© formed regularly from the fourth form of the verb and al=Astarabadhi states 2 opscifically that this is the view of Sibawayh0 ^ Although al~Mubarrad9 Ibn al-Sarraj0 and Ibn Ya'Ish admit the possibility of forming the verb of wonder from the fourth form of the verbp a later grammarian like Abu Hayyan also lists examples of the verb of wonder formed anomalously from augmented forms of the verb other than the fourth? o\X>\ oJ^\ u? oLJ-1 U JJJ^ ^ JJJ>? ) V^)i> r i^\y U^f s c^-^' ^ U-S^b Ori^lj? ^.£^1^ JH>I^ J-flij The appearance of such usages in later works may be due to the fact that further study of early poetry had revealed themp or they may represent usages current in the language but which were so anomalous in the eyes of earlier grammarians that they ignored themc Prom time to time in works of Arabic grammar there are discussions of points which are in a broad sense theological in nature and in 134 al-=Mubarrad' a chapter on th© verb of wonder certain such points are discussed in details An examination of his treatment of such questions provides excellent examples of his rather discursive style and his tendency to digress0 The standard Basran explanation of the verb of wonder is capable of producing some theological argument and al-Mubarrad 54 deals with this point? Cr-A : -Ob-*' C-J\j\: Jitt o)» l^J^- wJ^=JL aJ.^iu^ ^jJI a"1^ * dr^' J^-^ : cJ-s^ A>1 - ^ cJ*»-*M* ^^uuLj* c-^oLJI J^Jbt i^-^ ^^J>\9 j — tif>-^ V r^-^, iCsr~J cs"^? > \j Mb . «&-> L_L* Jul ^: J>*-» Although al»Mubarrad does not say so the point which gives rise to the above discussion is in fact one of the Kufan objections to the Basran 55 explanation of the verb of wonder0 Another point which raises difficulties of a theological nature, and which al-Mubarrad discusees^is the apparent use in the Our*an of the verb of wonder with reference to the state of mind of God himself. When discussing the verb of wonder of the pattern -^Jr. c^- 56 al-Mubarrad writes? • '*'.,« " °\ w " h -*-*?*A9 - cS-^1 -^>^* u-^Mv 136 Da——> r y " it 157 Motes to Chapter VI ± Sibawayha vol, iP pp<, 104=80 298=300„ 2 Al~Farravolo i, pp0 79P 225=6o ^ Khalaf al~Ahmaro Maqaddimah fi l-nahw (Bamascus9 1961 )9 p0 58o For Khalaf al~Ahmar see Kahhalah9 vol0 iv9 p0 104o £ See Ibn Ya'ishj, volo ii9 pc 700 5, See arto cited pc 789 n„ 43 above0 §L See pp0 98-9 above0 2 Ibn al~Sarraj9 volD i9 ppe 268-760 375<=82§ see also pp, 1899 374~5<> §. See pp0 6 5=7 3 above o c 2, Ibn Ya ishp volo ii9 pQ 70o 10 Al~Mubarrad0 volo iiip pQ 32o 11. Ibidop p0 34o 12 Ibn al=Sarraj9 volo i9 p0 2690 1J, Ibido, pp0 274=5o 1J, See al~ Astarabadhiv vol„ i„ pp, 216=220 T5_ Sibawayh0 vol0 i0 pc 299o 16 Al-Mubarradj, volo iii9 pQ 35? see also p0 67<> 17 Ibn al-Sarraj5 vol0 i9 ppc 378-9° 18 Ibido0 pp0 273°4P 376=7o 1£ Ibn Ya'ishp volD ii9 p= 73= See also p0 1819 n0 21 (d) below, 20 Abu Hayyan„ pc 2260 See p, 43 above„ 21 Al~Mubarrad9 volo iiin pp= 36=7o 22 Tbidop Po 360 n0 2Q 23 Ibn al-Sarraj9 volo ii9 p° 238D See also Sibawayh9 vol„ i9 p„ 105o 24. Ibn Ya'ishj, volQ ii9 pD 74o 25_ Ibn al-Sarraj, volo i9 p0 261C 26 Ibn al-Anbarip Insaf„ ppc 351=3S Ihn Ya'ish9 volo ii9 pp» 73-4= 22 See Abu Hayyan9 pp0 228=300 28 Wright9 vol0 i9 p0 98C<, 138 29 Sibawayh, volc i, p« 37° JO Abu Hayyan, p„ 370? see also Ibn Ya'ish, vole vii, pc 149° _3J_ AL-Mubarrad, vol0 iv, pc 173o J2 Ibid. 4 Abu Hayyan, p„ 370? Ibn Ya ish, vol„ vii, p<, 149? Ibn al-Sarraj vol„ i, p„ 116O J£ Al~Mubarrad, vol,, iv, p„ 177° J5_ Ibid,,, p0 175» see also p0 177D j6 See Sibawayh, vol„ i, p0 419» 57 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol0 i, pQ 1160 J8 Ibidoj) 115° 1° 10 p0 In of this passage fjf•J has been substituted for in the printed text. _3J2, Al-Mubarradj, volo iv9 pp° 174-5° 40 Ibn Ya'ish, volo vii9 p„ 142, 4J[ Ibido, p0 146o 42 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. ip ppe 114—5« 4J>, See Abu Hayyan, p0 371 ? Ibn Ya'ish, vol. vii, pa 148o ^ Ibn Ya'ish, voln vii0 p„ 147o 4JL Ibido9 p0 H80 46 Sibawayh, vol0 i9 pD 37° 4,2, See Ibn Ya*ish, vol0 vii, pp0 146=7° 48 Ibn al=Sarraj, vol, i, pD 1160 49_ Al-Mubarrad, vol0 iv, pp0 178-80„ ^0 See ibidop editor's notes0 ^1 Ibn Ya'ish, vol, vii, pD 144° ^2 Sibawayh, vol„ i, p„ 37s vol„ ii, pp0 251-2; al-Astarabadhi, vol, ii, p0 308o ^2, Abu Hayyan0 pQ 347° See also Wright, vol, i, p° 99B„ Al-Mubarrad, vol» iv, pp0 176=7° LI 8-10 of this passage are some= what difficult to understand although the general point is quite clear. See Ibn al^Anbari, Insaf8 pD 67 o AL=Mubarrad, vol. iv, pp„ 183=4° 139 CHAPTER VII THE U§UL AND THE KUFAN SCHOOL OF GRAMMAR The Kufana The Usui of Ibn al=Sarraj represents the ©arliest extant Basran source of Information on the Kufan school0 Although the Kufan school was in existence by the time of Sibawayh there is no reference in the Kltab to th® views of Kufan scholars and the next major Basran grammarB the Muqtadab of al~Mubarrad9 only mentions the Kufans by name once0 However^ in the Ugul the grammatical views of the Kufans and their leading scholars,, al~Kisa*i and al-Farra'o ar© frequently mentioned and commented uponD Although the Usui is the earliest Basran source of information on the Kufans9 Kufan views on many questions of grammar c can be obtained from an actual Kuf an sourcep the Ma aai l^Qjur'an of al-Farra 0 However^ this does not detract from the value of the Ugul as an early source for Kufan grammatical thought because it provides much information that cannot be found in the Ma'ani l°Qur'an0 In his Introduction to the Kitab al^insaf Weil observes that the points at issue between the two schools of Basrah and Kufah are portrayed 1 in this work as they appeared to the grammarians of Ton al^Anbari s day0 For this reason the study of much earlier works provides information about the differences between the Basrans and Kufans when the issues were still being debated,, In fact9 the Usui of Ibn al=Sarraj is a product of the period when the first monographs were composed which dealt with th© points at issue between the schools,, and to which the later works of al-'Ukbari and Ibn al-Anbari are almost certainly 140 A indebtedo These first monographs seem to have been completely lost end for this reason the Usui is the only work from the same period which deals with points at issue between the schools,, Howevero the Usui is a work primarily intended for students of grammar at an early stage in their studies and for this reason it does no"fe provide the detailed information on disputes between the Basran'3 and Kufans which specialised treatises would have provided0 Neverthe~ lesSp it is still of value to compare the information about the views of the Kufans which is found in the Usui with that which is to be found in later sourcesc An examination of the material about the Kufans contained in the Usui also permits a check to be made on the accuracy of later sources9 although it must be said that the simple facts concerning the main points where the Kufans differed from the Basrans were too well known for that to be inaccurately recorded,, The principal sources of inform• ation on the Kufan school have been the Kltab al^insaf of Ibn al=Anbari and the Sharh al^mufaqBal of Ibn YalIsh but to a large extent these two works only cover the main questions on which the Kufans had their own viewo However,, the Usui provides information on the views of the > Kufana and their leading scholars, al-Kisa'i and al-Farra 0 on many points which the two former works do not deal with,, It is also worth mentioning in this connection that the Manhaj al°salik of Abu Hayyan is another work which records the views of the Kufans on many points which are not usually mentioned in other *rorksp but it is a very much later work than the Usulo The attitude towards the Kufan school of scholars who lived long after its heyday is well-known from works like the Kitab al-insaf of Ibn al=Anbari in which criticisms of the Kufans and their ideas abound,, In the Iqtirah al-Suyuti gathers a selection of views on the Kufan school which are more or less severely critical but he does begin with 141 a balanced appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the Basrans and 5 Kufans respectively based on the consensus view of the scholars? ? ci ^ • ^^-tr^ Sr»~^-^ t^s^X jlsr-^X, c_j>— J-Ls sj £_p_U^- i_^l_s ^xJ\ *?h»-t=> J^lw ^JJsUs0 •Li^^ ^1 .4> j£ o1 ^^^^JJ/ As this passage shows the Arab grammarians were often critical of usages which the Kufans allowed and in this Ibn al=Sarraj was no exception,, For Ibn al=Sarraj and for all the Basran grammarians the twin foundations on which grammatical studies were based were samac (attested usage) and qiyas (analogy)„ and with regard to these two principles Ibn al=Sarraj criticises usages which the Kufans' allow,. In discussing the use of the damir al°shasn in sentences of the type p l£ j t!!JJJU Ibn al=Sarraj observes that the KufanB put c the participles, which they call the fi l di/lm0 into the accusative if it is placed adjacent to the pronouns ^ j> V-> J^9 *L$J1 »X» Jj) I J>J o^-C-^. OL*-^-*-^* 142 Unfortunately9 Ibn al~Sarraj does not give any reason why the Kufans permit this usage and he abruptly rejects it as inconsistent with qiyas and not founded upon saw' and h® offers no further explanation of thiso Another Kufan usage which Ibn al<=Sarraj rejects for the same reasons is the use of the definite article with the hal in a construction of the type l^i Iy «li».>_^> —a construction which the Kufans 7 parse in a different way than the Basrans dog rr^ cs-^*' \^s>j> /ojiJJh cJsjl^l JL^j On another occasion Ibn al-Sarraj attacks the Kufans for not being able to differentiate between the parts of speech and for not having a proper appreciation of what is common in speech and what is unusual<> This criticism is made after Ibn al=Sarraj has given a Kufan list of prepositions and it is worth quoting the list to show how unfair on Q occasions Basran criticisms of the Kufans could beg 143 Ibn al~Sarraj criticises the Kufans here because the list purports to be one of particle-prepositions (huruf al=khafd) but contains many noun=pr©positions (zuruf) and he implies that th© Kufans do not know the difference between particle and noun<> However,, there is every evidence that the term harf was used in a more general sense than just 9 to mean particle and oould apply as here to a noun or even to a verb0 The strictest of Basran grammarians raay have avoided using the term ftarf loosely for any part of speech but it is not a sign of incompetsnce as a grammarian not to do so0 The second criticism which Ibn al=Sarraj levels against the Kufans on the basis of the above list is that they confuse what is rare and unusual in speech with what is normal and currento Although the list may contain some expressions of infrequent occurrence they are lexically sound and would merit inclusion in any accourat of Arabic prepositions which aims at completeness0 One point at issue between the Kufans and the Basrans was that the former permitted the formation of th® elative from the roots b~y*=d aad s=w=d whereas the latte1C r did not and treated them like all other roots denoting colour0 To justify their view the Kufans would cite evidentiary verses but the Basrans considered that such verses constit~ uted no authority for the usage but merely represented a poetic licence which was not to be followed,, In the Usui Ibn al=Sarra,j mentions one such verse and he relates al=Mubarrad's view both on the verse and on 11 the sort of scholars who use such verses as grammatical evidences 144 ^ ^ 3\s> 3 <^A& g^J\ J^AjjI tt c3 cf Although this particular criticism is not directed against the Kufans by name it is very much in the spirit of the criticisms which the Basrans made of the Kufans^ and the usage in particular which leads to the general criticism of unsound scholarship is one allowed by the Kufanso As has been shown,, in the Usui Ibn al-S&rr&j relates and criticises usages allowed by the Kufans but he does not usually provide detailed information on the issues between the Basrans and Kufans of the type which can be found in the Kitab al-insaf of Ibn al=Anbari0 However,, this is not always the case as is the case with the dispute over whether sentences of the type oL^l-* s^r^ S> ^^*J 2) JJI /'.I lie •i it ~*-E> »> f ^ w 4\ La— Cr* 145 ^ U^-^- Bb» ^-^l L^b> J> From this passage it emerges that al~Kisa*i from among the Kufans supports a usage of the type Ls> Tbn al~Sarraj undertakes to refute the types of usage supported in this passage at a later point in the Ugul in the course of his chapter on ^opM 4_Lia_^JI „ After discussing the alternative constructions j, ^ (JU and IJLS^; ^li-t t-^—— he turns to the construction Jf^^ ? L^it0i^>»i ^ ^ 0i ^ 3 J^> 9 Although Ibn al^Sarraj gives considerable attention to refuting Kufan usages of the type ^Llls zs*^? ioj o "there are various other aspects to this issue but in his actual refutation Ibn al-Sarraj is very thorough 6 ^ Another of the points at issue between the Basrans and Kufans was whether it is permissible to say J-^T^_^ U, iJLLs*-^ ° This is a question discussed by Ibn al=Anbari in the Kitab al~insaf but in his notes Weil is not able to cit® any alternative sources of information 15 - — on this point„ However,, in the Ugul Ibn al<=Sarraj deals with this questions Although Ibn al-Anbari devotes a little more space to this question 147 he in fact adds little to what Ibn al-Sarraj writes but rather expands his subject matter to suit his format in presenting th© Basran=»Kufan controversi©»0 It seems clear that Ibn al=Sarraj did take an interest in devel• oping th© sort of detailed arguments against Kufan views which can be found recorded in the Kitab al~insaf„ although the Usui itself does not give any detail on this. One of the most prominent controversies between the two schools was whether the verb is derived from the infin= itive or vica=versa0 Th© Basrans took the former view and the Kufans the lattero In the Iflah Hlal al°nahw of al^Zajjaji there is a section devoted to this question and he attributes on© of the arguments in — 16 favour of the Basran position to Ibn al=Sarraj 2 ] ^ U* ^ \y\ U t i>^-* It is of interest by way of comparison to cite Tbn al=Anbari's treatment of the same line of argument in defense of the Basran 17 positions 148 In his treatment of the point Ibn al<=Anbari does not mention the name of Ibn al°Sarraj and this illustrates the tendency of later writers to obscure the individual ©ontribution of earlier scholars to grammatical thoughto It is also of interest to note how the later scholar treats the argument. With Ibn al=Sarraj the line of argument is based purely on linguistic considerations but with Ibn al-Anbari it assumes a pseudo= philosophical veneer because he draws on logic to liken the various forms of the infinitive to the genera of the logicians0 The B dadxs As well as making reference to the famous grammatical schools of the Basrans and the Kufanss the Arab writers on grammar also refer from 18 time to time to a group called the Baghdadis0 Prom the evidence available it is clear that if the expression "the Baghdadis" is not to be understood merely as an alternative name for the Kufansp it must refer to a group of scholars closely connected in outlook with the Kufan schoolo Evidence can be brought forward for the view that the expression "the Baghdadis" is no more than an alternative name for the Kufans and this evidence may seem conclusive„ but on further examination the identification of the Baghdadis does not appear to be such a simple mattero In the Muqtadab al«4fubarrad does not mention the Baghdadis at all and,, indeed,, a solitary reference to the Kufans is the only occasion 149 on which he mentions by name a party of grammarians other than the 19 Basranso Ibn Qut&ybahp an exact contemporary of al=Mubarrad9 mentions the Baghdadis four times in the Adab al-katib but the Baghdadis are the only group of grammarians mentioned in this work other than th® Basrans and0 from Ibn Qutaybah's use of the term5 it must be understood 20 as a simple alternative name for the Kufanse Since the leading Kuf an scholars were by residence intimately associated with Baghdad and its intellectual lifep it is not unnatural that thsy should also take their name from that city0 Two of the occasions on which th© Baghdadis are mentioned by Ibn 21 Qutaybah are of particular interests ands .... o-^' o^1 jT..-^ <^^^J\ In the first passag® on© of the leading Kufan scholars9 al=Farra*9 is expressly described as one of the Baghdadis which would mean that thos® Ibn Qutaybah calls the Baghdadis are in fact the Kufans0 In th© second passage th© derivation of the word insan is discussed and certain of the Baghdadis ar© said to oppose the Ba8r&si@c but in the discussion of this point in the Kitab al-Insaf it is the Kufans who oppose the Basran 22 viewo If th© Adab al-katib is a work which supports th© view that the 150 Kufans and the Baghdadis are one and the same group of scholars„ there is information in other works which would lead to a rejection of this viewo In the Usui there are a number of references to the Baghdadis apart from th© much more frequent references to the Kufans and it does appear from this work that some distinction is drawn between the two 23 groups,, A discussion of a number of the occasions on which the Baghdadis are referred to provides a further opportunity to consider th© treatment in the Usui of the views of grammarians outside of the Basran tradition0 On one occasion when Ibn al-=Sarraj mentions the Baghdadis he does identify them with the Kufan school„ The grammarians do not consider sentences in which there is a use of two relative pronouns following each other to be supported by attested usagep although such sentences are constructed as an exercise0 Dealing with this point Tbn 24 al=Sarraj writess ^x^. ^\u>j\ -^4^ In this passage Tbn al=Sarraj mentions "the Baghdadis who follov the Kufans"0 How this is to b© interpreted is not quite clear for either it could refer to a group of Baghdadis who follow the Kufans or it could ssean that the Baghdadis in general follow the Kufans0 On another occasion in the Usui the Kufans and the Baghdadis are 25 mentioned side by sides 151 w : jA) j$ ? p\s> ~t^> : vJ-^3 -*~*-'s - ^* l*» ^ I 1 r, jujli alii 0i —^^>JI ^L^OJL Tho point dealt with here is the grammatical analysis of sentences containing what the grammarians call in al-inukhaffafah which is followed - 26 by lam al^fariqah., At the beginning of the passage thti Kufans and the Baghdadis are grouped together as if they were two distinct parties of grammarians with similar views on tha point under discussion,. The only two scholars mentioned by name are alnKisa'i and al=Farras who are in fact Kufan scholars0 On certain occasions Ibn al^Sarraj does follow the Baghdadis in their viewso When discussing the verb of wonder one of the questions which th© grammarians turn to is the use with it of various auxiliary verbso In the Usui Ibn al-=Sarraj discusses admissible use of certain 27 auxiliary verbs after the verb of wonders Unfortunately^ Ibn al=Sarraj does not give any more information on the usage which he and the Baghdadis permit<, The use of kana alone from among verbs of its type after the verb of wonder is a usage which is 152 generally recognised by the grammarians„ and on this Ibn Ya'ish writes g LL» I-*-) . o ^ U c>--/*i L» « l>) I* -5 J^l £»Uj> . J^U, j^jj, 0tf ^ ^ -U Another example of a Baghdadi view being accepted is seen in a discussion of the vowelling of d>! where Ibn al~Sarraj quotes al-Mubarrad who gives the Baghdad! view which he accepts as being 29 based on qiyasg i> S s On this point Abu Hayyan has some interesting information in the Mianhs.1 al-salikg in commenting on the view of Ibn Malik that after an oath ^ I o wh®n unaccompanied by the particle la0 may be vbwelled both as 30 inna and annan he writes? ) 9 (J.) »1> I uu>J- ^JJ| ^^5^)^131 It should be noted that although this passage from the Manha.1 al°salik expressly deals with KJ\ unaccompanied by the particle lag the same is the case with the passage from the UBUI as the example showsj, even if this is not expressly stated,, When o I was used in 153 oaths and the particle la followed the vowelling inna was accepted without controversy <> Although Abu Hayyan mentions the views of the two leading Kuf an scholars^, he does not mention the Kufans as a group but he gives the view of the Baghdadis as does the Ujyilo Ibn al<=Sarrajff quoting al<4fubarrad0 merely states that the Baghdadis favour the use of anna0 but Abu Hayyan adds that they found the use of inna acceptable0 Although al-Mubarrad favours the Baghdad! view, Ibn al-Sarraj writes earlier in the Ugul that the vowelling Inna is to be used at all times 31 in oathsB and this would agree with what is the best Basran view0 Although al=Kfubarrad accepts the Baghdadi view on this occasion, Ibn al-Sarraj does quote al-Mubarrad being highly critical of the Baghdadi view of the nature and power of government of the exceptive - 32 particle illag \~^*»-> J\9 iA^ U^x_»j U^Li, ^ ^->l tV»U» W t .. >• i V3 . • : iJUjX?. mi.,^ ^it^b & } l( * 154 >L. -\.Z>\j£^ A3 .nil—l>| 0 The view quoted here on the nature of ilia and its power of government is described in later works like the Kitab al-ingaf as a Kufan view held s by al°Farra' in particular0 Al-Mubarrad's attack on this position is based on the fact that it is quite obviously inconsistent^ whereas in the Kitab al°insaf Ibn al-Anbari's attack is rather more formal and 34 theoreticE.lg .^l>V\ SJU^s *-r^ j£ V> UfU ^t? J5" jm ^Sp\ u^J t^-*4* ^l^V1 Kufan influences on the Usui In a previous chapter a passage has been cited from Yaqut in which he quotes al~Marzubani who considers that Ibn al=Sarraj derived the contents of the Usui from the Kitab of Sxbaws.yh,, "although he relied in it on the Masa'il of al-Akhfash and on Kufan ideas and opposed 35 - Basran principles in many matters0oo0" The idea that Ibn al-Sarraj is indebted in the Usui to Kufan grammatical thought is patently untrue because a study of this work leads to no other conclusion than that Tbn al=Sarraj was a scholar firmly within the Basran tradition,, 155 However^ there are indications that Ibn al~Sarraj was not uninfluenced by Kufan grammatical thought„ Whan demonstrative pronouns are used to begin sentences and are followed by a noun a further element may be added and treated as a hal as in Y^Xa sJ»\ iJLa g although the final element may equally •56 „, correctly be put into the nominative„ Ibn al-Sarraj's discission of sentences of this type seems on certain points to be influenced by the Kufans" approach to this topic0 After explaining why it is necceasary to use an accusative of the hal alone in a sentence of the type Si*** tyL^JI 6 -a-2> in which a proper noun follows the demon= 37 strative, Tbn al~Sarraj continues? The particular attention given to the sort of sentences discussed in this passage and the prescribing of the accusative in them seems to stem from th© Kufan approach to sentences introduced by the demonstrative pronoun0 The use of the accusative in the examples in the above passage was called taqrib by the Kufans0 Taqrib is the use of the demonstrative pronoun with the same governing force as kana andsaccording to Tha^labj the use is so called because the demonstrative pronoun is made to 8 "approximate*' to the verb kana0 ^ As taqrib is a purely Kufan concept and was not recognised by the Basransp it is worth quoting a discussion of it by Abu Hayyan although he does not mention the sort of sentence 156 to be explained by tagrib which are mentioned in the above passage from the Usuls J7 i>\ ^; i-i^ : jii> . ^uXji? >i>^vjiii . I-U-D -w> g..,.> 0,-jJl ^> In the passage from the Usui quoted previously the first type of sentence for which Ibn al~Sarraj prescribes the use of the accusative are ones like \jJ~« 8 I and lb cr-*-**^ o->-© in which the subject is a unique entity0 Prom the standpoint of normal Basran grammatical analysis such sentences would not be mentioned for special consideration because the last element could be put into the nominative or accusative at will depending on whether it is treated as a hal or noto The second type of sentence mentioned by Ibn al-Sarraj for which he prescribes the use of the accusative are those introduced by the demonstrative pronoun in which something is affirmed in one partic~ ular instance but is generally applicable to the class into which the thing it is affirmed of fallsp as in the examples L—g-o ^_J%J\ Jjaa and I Q >J5> o Again5 from the standpoint of normal Basran analysis such sentences would not constitute a class needing special consideration0 Ibn ai=Sarraj's special treatment of the above two types of sentence seems to have its basis in the Kufan concept of tagrib as a 157 discussion of the demonstrative pronoun by al-Parra* in the Maeani A A l-Qur3 an showss LKLL~-> tjU-o-s Ij^ 0-^-' uS" jj^, j tj jjJ trf ton* , £ 158 It is clear from the above passage that Ibn al~Sarraj makes use of Kufan grammatical discussion although he does not mention the term tagrib in this connection0 However^ he does mention the concept of irib when discussing the construction 14 Is 55 js^> ta> where the particle ha is followed first by a personal and then by a demonstrative 42 pronoun^ and he also gives an indication of what taqrib iss " it •< Another of the concepts to which the Kufan grammarians make reference to explain certain points of grammar is the notion of aarf or khilafo This explanation is used on various occasions by al-Farra& in the Ma'ani 1-Qur* an and when he introduces the notion of sarf for the first time he writess ^ ;^CULM ^j^-a^, * 0 r. a ^- o , ' * Sip 159 For the Kufans a common explanation based on meaning could be found for certain uses of the accusative and subjunctive and they A A called this factor garf or khilaf<, However9 in such cases the Basrans did hot resort to the abstract idea that it was the meaning which governed the use of the subjunctive or accusative and they produced rather more concrete explanations of what the regent is0 Ibn al-Anbari, for instance, in the Kitab al-insaf firmly rejects the 45 idea of garf in all its applications„ Ibn al~Sarraj makes no reference to the term sarf when discussing 46 the main types of usage which the Kufans explained by this concept„ For instance,, he explains the use of the subjunctive after conjunctions like wa and fa as being due to the action of an understood, but unexpressed 47 particle an and this fully accords with the normal Basran explanation,. However, in discussing conditional sentences Tbn al-Sarraj refers to a particular use of the subjunctive and states that the Kufans call it sarf and he himself goes on to make specific use of the term in explaining AH further similar uae3 of the subjunctive: s> I •. ±XJjS<> „ ixz~X LiL^! ll^U^ 160 cP,f>Jr4 ' ' f -UJ : >JJs^> jA>* vXLi L UU - -UJJl^ 13i X J Li —^J, tili, ^ ^'3Ai ^ 6-> ^ '^ - ' In this passage two similar uses of the subjunctive are introduced, one related to a verb forming part of the protasis of a conditional sentence and the other related to a verb linking up with the apodasis, * " «it Of the first use Ibn al-Sarraj gives two examples, ijUiT ^^-^3 ^| and .MJJ 1 cly—oj s> where both sentences convey rathor the same meaning and the second difers only by lacking the conjunction waa The use of the subjunctive does appear slightly unusual in these sentences and the mood expected instead would be the indicative functioning as a hal„ if the meaning which Ibn al-Sarraj intends were 161 to be conveyed* However9 this usage can be related to another which is mentioned in Arabic grammars,, In his discussion of the subjunctive Wright states that it is employed with the conjunction wa "when the governed verb expresses an act subordinate to, but simultaneous with, the act expressed by the " 49 previous clause0 Among the examples given are some which have a strong resemblance to the present usages $X£>%>\$ oJtjy-Lj jLL-~-»J> and I The other use of the subjunctive which Ibn al~Sarraj mentions 1 * and describes as sarf occurs in sentences like ^ t JL-^ j&>\ ^ *-l?j> ^J,_SLj>^L o This is in fact an attested use of the subjunctive because when the verb in the protasis of a conditional sentence is in the jussive and there follows another verb connected to it by fa or wa9 this second verb can be put into the subjunctive 50 instead of the jussive,, Ibn al=Sarraj "s treatment of this particular topic was of sufficient Interest to al=Astarabadhi for him to quote the passage with certain slight changes when discussing in the Sharh al°kafiyah the possible moods of a verb joined by a conjunction to a 51 conditional sentence,, Although Ibn al=Sarraj adopts the term sarf it would appear that he does so only because it is a convenient term and he does not put forward the Kufan view that sarf is a concept which explains uses of the subjunctive In the passage quoted from the Usui it may well be 162 that Ibn al-Sarraj adopts the term sarf because in this instance he is particularly indebted to a Kufan source. 16? Notes to Chapter VII J[ Al-Mubarradj, vol. ii, pc 155° j? See p0 269 n. 71 above0 j5 Weil9 p0 480 £ Al-'lJkbari, Masa il al~khilaft Aleppo, n0d0 The present writer has been unable to obtain a copy of this work for consultation. J _5_ Al-Suyutiy Igtirah, p0 840 In 1. 12 of this passage >?;'>-* ' has been substituted for the incomprehensible of the_ original. For this change see A0 M„ Salman, Al-Suyuti al-nahwi (Baghdad, 1976), p. 238. jS Ibn al=Sarraj9 vol0 i, p. 219. X Ibid., Po 267o 8 Ibid., pp;' 246-7. £ See Khalaf al=Ahmar, ppc 41-2, 65, 67=8? al-Zajjaji, Jumalfl p<, 53o 10 Ibn Ya'ish, vol. vi9 ppc 93=4s vol. vii9 pp0 146=7* Abu Hayyan, po 376o 11 Ibn al=Sarraj, vol„ i, pp. 122~3o Passage quoted by al=Suyuti, Igtirah, p« 29<> 12 Ibn al-Ssyraj, vol0 i9 pp. 312=-3o tjj Ibidop vol. ii9 pp0 64=5o 14. See also Ibn al=Anbari9 Insaf„ pp0 85=7? al=Astarabadhi, vol» ii, PP° 354^55 Ibn Ya'ish, vol. viii, pp0 66=70? al=Farra% volD i9 pp. 310-1.O 1£ Ibn al-Anbarl, Insaf0 pp0 79=80? Weil, pp. 136-7? Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. ii, p. 244= 16 Al-Zajjaji, Idj&, p. 59o 1J, Ibn al~Anbari, Insaf0 pe 104° 18 See A. Ie Shalabi, Abu 'All al-Farisi (Cairo, 1958), pp. 445=7» 19_ See nB 1 above. 20 Ibn Qutaybah, Adah al=katib (Leiden, 1900), pp. 299, 390, 514s, 637. 21 Ibid., pp. 390, 637. 22 Ibn al=Anbarip Insaf„ pp. 341-2. Ibn al-Sarraj, vol. i, pp. 126, 313, 316, 339, 352, 367, 370, 396s vol. ii„ p. 374o 164 24 IbicLp volo ii9 p<> 374° Passage quoted "by al=Baghdadi9 volo ii, Po 530„ 25_ Tbn al=Sarraj9 volo i9 pD 3160 26 See Wright9 vol0 i9 p„ 283Bs vol0 ii9 p0 81CD 27 Tbn al=Sarraj9 vol. i, pp» 126-7o In 1» 1 of this passage ^-'j has been substituted for in the printed texto c 28 Ibn Ya ish9 volc vii9 pD 150o 29_ Ibn al-Sarraj9 vol, i, pc 3390 JO Abu Hayyan, pD 75= Q Ibn al=Sarraj9 vol» i9 p0 3180 See also al-Zajjaji, Jumal, PP° 70=1} Wright9 volo ii9 p0 175? Howell9 pt„ iii9 pp„ 392, 3980 JI2 Tbn al=Sarraj„ vol, i9 ppc 367=8» J3_ Ibn al-.Anbari9 Insaf0 pp» 118-22? Ibn Ya'ishj, volo ii9 pp» 76=7 o J4_ Ibn al=Anbari, Ingaf, p„ 1210 j5_ See p0 28 above0 J6 Sibawayh, volo i? ppD 256-61? Ibn Ya*ish9 volo ii9 pp, 56=95 Wright, volo ii9 p0 278A„ 37_ Ibn al~Sarraj, vol0 i9 p0 180o L J8 Th& lab0 Majalis Tha*lab, 2 volsc (Cairo9 1948~9)» vol„ ii9 pp» 227=8o 1 J5_9_ Abu Hayyan, pp0 198=9° See also ibid09 Po 53? al=Suyuti9 Ham c al-hawami <, 2 vols0 (Beirut, n0d0), volo ii9 p. 113? Mahdl Makhzumi, Madrasat Kufah (Cairon 1958;, pp„ 320=1» 40 See Sibawayh, vol0 i9 pp0 258-6O5 Tbn Ya'ish, volo ii, po 580 c 41 Al=Farra% vol, i9 p» 12c In this passage the word fi l appears in the sense of the Kufan expression fi*1 da1im which is their term for the participle0 In this passage al=Farra" also refers to the Kufan view that the mubtada* puts the khabar into the nominative and vice-versao J ^2 Ibn al=Sarraj, volo i9 p0 1810 Al=Parra does not mention this use of taqrlb in the passage quoted above but Tha'lab does mention it in his Ma.1alis9 volo i9 p° 54<> 43 Al-Parra's, vol0 i9 pp0 33*=4o See also ibido pp» 2769 292o ^ See Mo Go Carter, "garf et hilaf, contribution a l'histoire de la grammaire arabe", Arabica 20 (1973)» PP° 292-304° Ibn al=Anbari9 Insaf, ppe 108=12„ 229=32o 1G5 46 Urn al-Saxra.i, vol. i, pp. 253-7: vol. ii, pp. 159-61. £7_ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 159. ^8 Ibid., pp. 197-8. 4? Wright, vol. ii, p. 32s j>0 Ibid., pp. 40=1. ^ Al»Astarabadhi, vole ii, p. 261« 166 CHAPTER VIII IBN YACiSH AN]) THE UjgUL OP IBN AL=SARRAJ The Mufasgal of al=Zamakhshari like so many of the concise works of the Arab grammarians calls for a commentary to assist those using it BO as to clear up any problems which the very terseness of the work may create and also to provide valuable and often neccessary additional information on topics which are only briefly mentionedo In the case of the Mufagsal this need was met by many scholars who undertook to write commentaries on it,but the one which has found most favour is that of Abu l-Baqa" Ibn Ya'ish (1158=1245)° 1 Although its publication both in the Middle East and in Europe have led to its wide use in recent times, its long-standing popularity In the mediaeval Islamic world is clear from the constant references to it in the pages of the Ashbah wa°l~nasa 'ir cf al-Suyuti and of the Khizanat al=adab of 4Abd al~Qadir - - 2 al-Baghdadic Although Ibn Ya'ish's commentary is such a famous work it is not one whose quality is indisputable and many who use it would agree with J„ W, Pack's judgment on its author that "his style is verbose and some- times slovenly." If the quality of this work has been called into questionpits claims to originality have also been challenged. When comparing the Sharh al°kafiyah of &1-=ABtarabadhi with the Sharh al-mufassal of Ibn Ya'ish, H. Pleisch writes s "II est plus difficile a comprendre qu'Ibn Ya is. Mais quand on connaitra les sources de A celui=ci5 il est probable qu'il apparaitra comme un diligent copieur, peu original," ^ As a concrete example of this Pleisch refers the reader to a study by G. Troup®au of al=Sirafi"s commentary on the 16? chapter of Sibawayh's Kitab dealing with phonetics. In giving the results of his study of this material Troupeau writess "Ces renseigne- ments nous etaient parvenus, en partie, dans le commentaire tardif d'Ibn Ya'is qui les avait repris a son compte, sans mentionner sa 5 source s....w If the Usui of Ibn al-Sarraj is studied together with the Sharh al^nufaagal of Ibn Ya'ish^it becomes clear that the former work is one of the sources used in writing the latter because Ibn Ya!ish incorporates into his own work a number of passages from the Usui exactly as they stand and does not acknowlsdge the fact. The discussion in this chapter of some of the parallel passages not only serves the purpose of estab=> lishing exactly how Ibn Ya*ish used the Usui but it also gives an opportunity to examine parts of it which a later grammarian found to be of interest and which are often good examples of Ibn al-Sarraj'a thought. In this study of Ibn Ya'ish°s use of the Usui the parallel passages have been presented side by side with^on occasions^additional material preceding or following to make their respective contexts clear, but this extra material has been separated from the adjacent column by a double vertical line. The break between any such additional material and the parallel passeige which it precedes or follows has been shown by sets of dots. Where the parallel passages diverge slightly they have both been underlined with a broken line but where the diver• gence is more substantial they have been underlined with a continuous line. If either of the texts omits material contained in the other the omission has been shown by square=bracketing the consequent gap in the other text, and the additional material has been underlined in accordance with the principle just mentioned. Errors or omissions affecting the sense in the printed text of the Usui have been corrected 168 from th® rolsvant pusisag© in the* Sharh al-mufasBal, Such corr«ctionn or additions have been enclosed in arrow-shaped brackets and are explained in the notes„ One topic where Ibn Ya'Ish has made particular use of the UBUI is the halo Ibn aL=Sarraj begins his discussion of the hal by stating that the hal, together with the tamylz constitute the class of mushabbah bi°l°mafcul whose regent is a true verb. ^ He then explains why the hal is put into the accusative and this consists of showing hou the general theory of accusative usages which he has explained earlier relates to the halo Ibn Ya'ish works this explanatory passage into his treatment of the question why the hal is not a true maf'ul but only resembles it7s t S.-.1 169 or* C 3 .... _S4*j *o1 « i ;v}>il o^^a Juii &L^> .L5l> • Immediately after this passage from the Usui Ibn al-Sarxaj explains uhy the hll is so called and Ibn Ya'ish makes use of this passage at the beginning of his commentary on al=Zamakhsharl's tr@at° sent of tho hile Preceding this Ibn Ya'ish gives his own applanation — 8 of what tho hal isg To this explanation Ibn Ya'ish adds the passage frora the Usui8 9 . 170 ^1 «j* LA J /( J*UJ| ^ Uil After this explanation of the term hal Ibn al~Sarraj goes on to define what sort of description the hal may provide and he states that it may not be an innate quality but only a transient one„ Ibn Ya'ish incorporates this point into his commentary on al-Zamakhshari"s remark that the hal has an affinity to the garf and he himself states more 10 precisely that it is particularly related to the jgarf of timeD In taking over this passage Ibn Ya'ish compresses the examples given in it by making the various hale apply to one subject whereas Ibn al~Sarraj has three different subjects? 11 " * •• • . .i .<» .i J?±> Jill oi> .ah-KrO t „ * 171 .-sL^fe 0^^-® £3^^. ..."^i^. UP-f^J? -tio^f. 'J? Ibn al~Sarraj next turns to the question of the indefilniteness of the hal and he explains that the hal must be indefinite because it simply serves to convey extra information,, whereas if the definite article were prefixed to it,it would become an epithet differentiating the noun it qualifies from something else, Ibn al~Sarraj then goes on to specify in detail the difference between the hal and the adjective and Ibn Ya'ish incorporates a considerable part of this discussion into his own treatment of this point. This occurs in the broader context of his discussion of the verb as the regent governing the accusative 12 of the faalg iisJ> jULsi (iSLnA i ——— Jle> iXi>L>^>5 J^lff ««jVj " I . / . ,j£U>JI U-^i ^j-oU^I .<3_1~ «U...» j> i i' "l " " Or® di> Ls-a^J I jj^a^i.! ^s^-f* ^_>^8> t^jJ <&al--» ^IDL allJLaa-s «l^f^ ^ySi.U ^J^ks 175 i " - it < 6 .J>^JI ^»A>lj> iV^' After completing hia discussion of this question Ibn al-Sarraj turns to the point that the hal may refer both to the subject and the t object of a sentence0 Her© Ibn Ya Ish again draws on the wording of the Usui when he criticises what he considers to be a weakness of expression in al=Zamakhshari'a treatment of the points 15 ,1 M 6^ J^*3» (-S^h »• * *» u 174 Ji3>1 <> Jill 4^J>1 bk... i U iJSJj. <&XWi> ^LV i"^-3 ^m_S> LvO • o o «> «^. i« JJ/Q <£oi^' II .U-.U u^-s- One of the standard questions which the grammarians discuss in dealing with the hal is the ambigtusus sentence |j>_^j^ Z^>\ j U> o Ibn Ya'ish's treatment of this point consists of little more than a repetition of the relevant passage from the Usui? 14 «0 ^V,^!^^ JLij:r^Ui> e V $ \j^\g^, t\S\jJ*Z>\; U^S9t >TD>!^ 175 ft ^ *** M •» u •• Although Ibn Ya ish's debt to the Ugul is particularly noticeable in his treatment of th© hal0 other borrowings of material can be noted as, for instance0 in hie discussion of exceptive sentences,, Ibn al-T-Sarraj starts his chapter on exceptive sentences by discussing the use of the accusative case in positive exceptive sentences when it 1 "3 follows the particle illa0 After this he attempts to define what ilia resembles in its function and when Ibn Ya'Ish explains the nature of exception he incorporates this material from the Usulo First of all Ibn Ya'ish writesg ^ d^:^ > l . ^|J^ <*JLJLJLi»_5> ^U: jxJi . I . . . . ^> J^S^ I On to this passage Ibn Ya'Ish grafts the extract from the Usui 81 ^ .... LR^ V>I -^-41 " ' s jfc Uil *Li1 c> »» 177 -I I -HP Ibn Ya'ish also draws on the Usui for material on the points of issue between the Basrans and Kufans and this is seen in his discussion of the dispute over the regent of the khabar of inna and similar 18 particles; t_-S.5>. & ... e.*"-r*s~^1 2- cm UXJW J* .. ^. ok'u^JU J*.... })Jj>S> J— l» -P^-* . . . 178 ft U.L^I.\j>M J> 1. In drawing on this passage from the Usui Ibn Ya'ish is led to contradict himself by reproducing a passage which contains a view held by certain Basrans which he has previously rejectedo This come3 about because Ibn al°Sarraj amongst others holds the view that the khabar is put into the nominative by the joint action of ibtlda' and 19 the mubtada* and the above passage from the Usui confirms this0 However9 Ibn Ya'ish rejects this view as unsound when he deals with the 179 mubtada* and the Khabar and prefers the view that it is ibtida* alone which is the regentp although acting through the medium of the mubtada'0 ^ The fact that Ibn Ya'ish incorporates material from the Usui into his own work is in itself a somewhat oblique testimony to the place given to Ibn aL=Sarraj's grammatical writings^ although the use made of it by writers like al~Suyuti and 'Abd al-Qadir al=Baghdad!J1 with all due acknowledgement^provides a more open testimony to the worth of the scholarship of Ibn al-Sarraj0 If Ibn Ya'ish had drawn on the Usui to a greater extent than he in fact does,, it would have braen possible to say that he did so simply to save himself work in writing his commentary on the Mufassaln but the fact that his use of the Usui is more selective leads one to assume that he made urn of it because of its intrinsic merits„ HoweverP there ase clearly passages which have been copied simply to suit the ease of the writer and not because they offer particularly fine grammatical analyses or material not readily obtainable elsewhere„ Although extensive reading of the Mufaggal commentary of Ibn Yaish and the Usui specifically with a view to discovering further parallel passages will undoubtably yield further results,, the preceding _ - 21 survey gives an idea of how Tbn Ya'ish is indebted to the Uaulo 180 Notes to Chapter VIII X In addition to th© Cairo edition used in preparing this present study (see pD 25, n0 53 above), there is also Ibn Ya'ish,, Sharh al-^Baifaggalo 2 vols0, edc Go Jahn, Leipzig, 1882~60 2 See al=SuyutI, Ashbaho volc i, ppc 28, 50, 49s 52, 55, 61, 62, 68, 70, 85, 89, 90, 95, 96, 99s vol. ii, pp, 22, 2?, 33, 54, 57, 40, 45c 59, 61, 74§ Maiman, s0v0 Mufassalo sharh Ibn Ya«ish0 2 1 Eolo , SoV0 Ibn Ya'ish (j0 ¥Q Mck)e £ Pleiseh, pp0 41=2, n0 20 ^ Go Tteoupeau, La commentaire d°al~Sirafi BUT le chapitre 565 du Kitab d® Slbawayhin Agabiea (5) 1958n p„ 179» 6 S@® pp0 40=5 aboveo 2 Ibn al=>Sa2ra3p vol0 i, p0 258§ Ibn Ya'ish, volD ii, p0 55» In Ho 9=10 of th® passage from the Usui nJL> Lsl> J_/^iJJ «U_^-^ ! has been substituted for ^JLa^ ,>l£Jl «U^-i^« I and this agrees with th® text of the Mufaggal and with Ibn al-Sarraj0 s usual termin= ology as in th® Uguln volo ip pp0 58, 189, 342, 345° In 1„ 14 of the passage from the Usui ilu*-1^; has been changed to the tl>jj^> of the Mufaggalo 8 Ibn Ya'ish, volo ii, p0 55o % Ibn al-Sarraj, volo i, pc 258§ Ibn Ya'ish, volo ii0 pQ 55o 10 Ibn Ya'ish, vol0 ii, pQ 55„ VI Ibn al-Sarraj, volo i, ppD 25&=9§ Ibn Ya'ish, vol0 ii, pp0 55°6o In 10 7 of th© passage from the Usui the term ,Jju»1 which is absent from th® printed text has been added to make sense of the passag©0 12 Ibn al°Sarraj, volo i, pD 259§ Ibn Ya'ish, volD ii, p0 5?0 In lc 6 of th® passag© from the Usui th© words'4J>-*aJ\ the printed textG 13, Ibn al=Sarraj, vol„ i, pp» 259=60§ Ibn Ya'ish, vol0 ii, p0 560 14, Ibn al~Sarraj, volo i, p0 264§ Ibn Ya'ish, volG ii, pc 560 In 10 5 of the passage from the Usui L?-ai»1 has been substituted for V^XjJS. o 1_5, Ibn al^Sarraj, volo i, ppQ 342~3o 16 Ibn Ya*i®h, volo ii, ppD 75~6Q 17. Ibn al=>Sarraj, vol0 i, p0 3455 Ibn Ya'ish, vol0 ii, p0 760 J8 Ibn al-Sarraj, vol9 i, pp0 278=9? Ibn Ya'ish, volo i, p0 102? T| Ibn al=Sarraj, volo i, p0 63o See also pp0 61=3 above0 4 20 Ibn Ya ish, vol0 i, p0 85o 181 21 For further parallel passages observed in the preparation of this present study sees ti a Ibn aL=Sarraj„ volo ip ppc 67=8 ....a3l ^l^U ... \^J!^M^ . Ibn Ya'isht, volo i9 pD 87 .... / b Ibn al=SarraJp volo i„ pp0 118=9 A ^-^9 ... «LJI ^U^U^>^s Ibn Ya'Ishp volo viiB p0 148 .<^§>J>J>*Q «-LU-o>J-0 c Ibn al-Sarxajp volo i„ pQ 136 . J-^-^i ... Ibn Ya'ishp vol0 viiip pp0 129=50 • * ••• J ^ !a t d Ibn al-Sarraj„ volo i0 ppQ 273=4 . J^l 0 cj •••o -r^-*»-'^'-'> Ibn YaTahj vol„ iip pc 73 .jUl • >o Although Ibn Ya'ish draws material from the Usui without reference to its source,, he does on occasions mention the name of Ibn al=Sarraj when recounting the latter°s view® ©n various matter®,, ©og0 Sharh al°smfas^alp vol0 ip pp0 22„ 129s volo iip p0 54s volo vii0 p0 99« volo viii9 p0 3s volo ixs p0 104<> 182 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Abu Hayyaa Athir al=DinD Manhaj al°aalik0 New Haven9 Connecticut9 1947o Abu Tayyib al=Imghawi0 Maratib al°nahwiyln0 Cairo9 1955° 6 , Adimah(, MD A0 Introduction to the Muqtadab0 see under al=Muba£x ado Al^AstsBabadhlo Sharh al=kafivaho Turkey (Istanbul ?)„ n0d0 Al^Baghdadip *Abd al~Q^dir0 Khizenat al=adab0 4 vols0 Beirut,, n0d0 I&xoyclopaisdia of Islaia0 2nd ©d0 > Al°Parra' o Ma'an! 1=0^* an0 2 volsD published0 Cairo „ 1955= o t t Fleischp Hc Traite de philologie arab©0 1 vol0 published0 Beirut9 1961= Hajji Khalifaho Kashf al°gunun0 2 volsc Turkey,, 1941=3° Howell,, M0 S0 A grammar of the Classical Arabic Language0 Introduction and 4 ptsQ Allahabadp 1883=91» Ibn al=Aribari0 Kitab al=inaaf0 Edited and with an Introduction by G0 y©il0 Lsidenp 1913° o Lrana* al°adillaho Stockholm,, 19^3° Ibn Khayr0 Fahrasah0 Saragossap 1894=5o Ibn al=Nadim0 Fihristo Leipzig,, 18720 Ibn al=Ssxraj0 Usui fl l=nahwo Ed0 A0 Ho al=Fatli0 2 volsc publishsdo Vol, i„ Na;jaf„ 1973» Volo ii° Baghdad„ 1973o Ibn Ya'isho Shaxh al°mufassalQ 10 ptsQ Cairo,, ncd0 Kahhalah0 TJ0 RD MuMam a^mu'allifino 15 pts0 Damascus,, 1957=61» Ehalaf al=Ahmar0 Muqaddimah fi l=nahw0 Damascus0 196lo 185 flaimasip Mo Ac Iqlid aI=khizanaho Lahoreg 1927° Al^Pflubarrado Muqtadaho i„ and with an Introduction by Mc A0 *AdimahD 4 VO1Q0 Cairo0 1965=80 Al=Qifti„ Inbah al=zuwaho 3 ptSo Cairo, 1950=5<> Sibawa3<-ho Eitabo 2 vols0 Bulaq0 1316=7 A.0H0 Al=Sirafio Akhbar al=nahwiyin al=Beujjriyin, Cairo, 1955» Al=Stayuti0 Aahbah wa°l°naga°ir0 4 pts0 Hyderabad,, 1359=61 A0H0 o Iqtiraho Hyderabads 1359 AoH0 Ts-pupoaup Go Lexique°Index du Kitab de Sibawayhl, Paris,, 1976» W©110 Go Introduction to the Kltab al=ingaf0 see under Ibn al=Anbari0 Wright Wo A grammar of the Arabic language„ 3rd ed0 2 vols0 Reprinted Beirut, 1974o Yaquto Mu'.jam al°udaba*0 7 vols0 Leiden and London, 1907=310 Al=Zajjaji0 Idah fl 'ilal al=nabw0 Cairo, 1959° o Jumal fi l-nahwo Paris, 1957° Al=Zamakhshario Mufassal,, see under Ibn Ya'isho Al=Zubaydi<, Tabaqat al~nahwiyinP Cairo, 1954o s J^JJ' UB ^ j^^3 <^kX&-^ 98 -^®>-^I